View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
14 August 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- TELEPHONE : PIPER’S RI VER,
EXCISE ON BEER BILL
PRIVATE BUSINESS
- Neild) -
CUSTOMS BILL
- Second Reading
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
CUSTOMS BILL

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

page 3671

QUESTION

TELEPHONE : PIPER’S RI VER,

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– I beg to ask the Postmaster-General the following questions, which he was not in a position to answer on Friday.

The reasons for the recent discontinuance of the Launceston to Pipers River telephone service.
When such service is likely to be restored.

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– The answers are as follow : -

The reasons for the discontinuance of theLaun- ceston to Piper’s River telephone service were the insufficiency of the business, the gross earnings having amounted toonly£6 for the year 1900, and the fact that in order to maintain the service an expenditure of £80 was required for repairs to the line.
The service will be restored when there is a probability of a remunerative business, or when those interested are prepared to guarantee an adequate revenue.

page 3671

EXCISE ON BEER BILL

Bill received from House of Representa tives, and (on motion by Senator O’Connor) read a first time.

page 3671

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Resolved (on motion by Senator Lt.-Col.

Neild) -

That unless otherwise ordered private orders of the day take precedence of private notices of motion on alternate Fridays.

page 3671

CUSTOMS BILL

Second Reading

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time. I think that every honorable senator, no matter what are his views as to the principle on which customs duties should be levied, is of opinion that it is of the utmost importance to the Commonwealth that all reasonable means should be taken for the securing of the due collectionof therevenue, and for protecting the honest trader, in his dealings with the Customs-house, against the persons who - although there arenot many of them - in all the States continually endeavour to gain advantage over their honest fellow traders by frauds through the Customs-house. This is a measurewhich, I think it will be admitted, does nothing more than carry out in a legitimate way the principles of the Acts in force in the different States. I would ask the special consideration of the Senate to the necessity for passing it into lawatthe earliest possible date. It is one of those machinery measures which are absolutely essential to the carrying on of the business of the Commonwealth, and its need is very special, because until it becomes law it will be impossible for the Government to introduce the Tariff, which the whole ; of Australia is so anxiously waiting for. The Government are fully alive to the necessity of placing the Tariff before thecountry at the earliest possible date, and so soon as this Bill, the Excise Bill, and probably the Distillation Bill, become law steps will be taken for bringing the Tariff under the consideration of Parliament. No doubt some clauses of this Bill may produce debate. The great bulk of them ought to produce no debate, because they are simply repetitions in different form of enactments which are in force in the different States, and which have been in force in the United Kingdom for a great many years. But some of the clauses may lead to some debate, and as there must be a measure of this kind, as it is one which I think the Senate will agree to on its general principles, I would suggest that wherever possible the discussion of particular clauses should be reserved for committee. We all recognise that we must, as far’ as possible, discuss these measures in a businesslike way in committee, and spend no more time than is absolutely necessary for seeing that legislation leaves this Chamber in proper form. This Bill is in substance the same as the Acts which are in force in all the States, and is really founded on the legislation of the United Kingdom as consolidated in the Customs Act of 1876. Those who havehad anything to do with customs legislation or with the working of the Custom-house, are aware that it is necessary in all customs laws to give very stringent powers to the officers of customs, and to deal with customs offences in an exceptional way. It is necessary to deal with the legal procedure regarding Customs in an exceptional way, and this necessity has been recognised in all the different systems of Customs derived from the United Kingdom. In the Bill the provisions of all these different measures are carried out in the manner I have indicated ; but as to the form of the measure, it will be recognised that there has been a very desirable departure from the stereotyped form of ordinary Acts of Parliament. The most devoted personal labour of -my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Customs, has been given to this measure, and throughout every line of it we can recognise the hand of one who is, perhaps, the leading parliamentary draftsman of Australia. As a: piece of draftsmanship, the Bill is a model of conciseness and clearness, and, although we cannot identify all the particular sections of other Acts as they appear, the Bill, although it is terse, embodies in substance the legislation in existence in the States Customs Acts, and in the Customs Act of the United Kingdom. In order to make the explanation of the Bill clearer as I go on, I would like to call attention to some of the methods which the Minister for Trade and Customs has used in order to very much shorten the ordinary phraseology of Acts of Parliament. For instance, it will be noticed that at the end of some of the clauses - take, for instance, clause 19 - -there is a laconic statement, “ Penalty, £20.” Those words are by clause 5 stated to mean that that is the maximum penalty for the commission of an offence against the provisions of the Bill.

Senator Pulsford:

– The honorable senator will notice that the words are also governed by clause 229, which says the minimum shall be one-twentieth.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I am referring simply to the penalty provisions in a general way. A minimum penalty is also referred to in a later clause, and I am now only giving an illustration of the concise way in which the Bill is drafted. There is not only an advantage in the way of conciseness, but persons .who read the measure are enabled to see, without any circumlocution or the reading of unnecessary words, that if any of the provisions are disregarded, a penalty of £20 attaches to such disregard. It is desirable that the Bill on the face of it should be in such a form that not only persons skilled in reading Acts of Parliament may be able to understand it, but that the thousands of persons engaged in mercantile business, who will have to work under the Act, may be able to understand what their rights and liabilities are, and what are the rights of the Customs authorities. If there ever was a measure that “he who runs may read,” it is the Bill I am now introducing to the Senate. There are other examples, which I need not refer to now, of the terse way in which the Bill is drawn ; honorable senators will see that for themselves as we go along. It is not my intention to go through the clauses in any detail, but it is necessary to explain, in a general way, what the system of the Bill is. In the first place, the object is to insure the collection of all duties that are to -be levied through the Customs. To carry out that object it is necessary that the Custom-house authorities should have control of all goods which come into the ports of Australia, and have control in such a way that they’ may be always able to satisfy themselves as to whether there are dutiable goods on board a ship, and to insure that these goods, when they have once been landed, are not put into consumption or removed unless on payment of duty, or on the giving of some security for that payment. In the first place, it is provided that ships which bring goods to Australia shall be allowed to land those goods only at certain proclaimed ports, because it is necessary that officers of Customs should be on hand whenever a ship is ready to unload. In those proclaimed Customs ports, there should be certain places where ships may be brought to and boarded before they actually come to discharge cargo, and that is- provided for by power being given to proclaim those places; and it is also necessary that certain wharfs and landing places should be proclaimed : if the goods are put ashore and stored, that they should be stored in warehouses under the control of the Customs authorities ; and that if they are taken away, either by water or by land, they should be transferred in vehicles, boats, or lighters over which the Customs have control. The Bill makes provision for effecting all these objects by proclaiming landing places and giving powers to officers to insist on goods being landed at those places, by licensing warehouses of different kinds, and also licensing vehicles and vessels in which goods maybe transferred or transhipped. In addition to the special power fixing places at which goods are to be landed, there is power to proclaim the days and hours of work, so that goods may be landed only at certain times, in order that Customs officers may always be on hand to see that the revenue is not defrauded. These being the preparatory provisions, very large powers are next given to the Customs officers to enable them to see what goods are on board a ship, and to have complete control of all dealings with imported goods. The officers have full powers of sealing up goods if they think that course ought to be taken. They can search the ship and examine packages and goods in every possible way, in order to see that the provisions of the Bill are properly carried out. In addition, they rely on the report of the master of the ship himself, on whom they areentitled tocall to produce documents showing the dealings of the owner with the goods the subject of examination. As honorable senators are no doubt aware, the method by which an owner of goods deals with them in the Custom-house is by a system of entries. Goods may be entered for home consumption, or warehousing, or for export and transhipment, and care is taken throughout the Bill in a variety of ways to insure that a full check exists on all the dealings of the owner with his goods. I have spoken of licensed warehouses ; and I need not speak of the importance of these in dealing with goods in bond. Goods placed in those warehouses may not be required to go at once into home consumption, but may be kept there for a variety of purposes ; and while they are under the control of the Customs they cannot be allowed to betaken out without payment of duty, unless under certain exceptional circumstances. I would like to call attention to clause 74, which deals with warehousing.’ This clause provides for different classes of warehouses, amongst those being general warehouses, for warehousing goods generally ; private warehouses, to be used only for warehousing goods the property of the licensee; machinery warehouses, for warehousing machinery and similar heavy or bulky goods ; and manufacturing warehouses, for warehousing goods- for use in such warehouse in any manufactory, trade, or process, and for carrying on in such warehouse any manufacture, trade, or process which the Minister may by Gazette notice declare that it is desirable to encourage.

There is a provision of that sort in the Victorian Act, and, I believe; also in some of the Acts of the other States. It is a great advantage when the operations of manufacturing are not hampered or embarrassed. It is desirable that a manufacturer should be able in certain cases to place his imported raw material in bond, and, instead of paying the duty when it goes in, pay it after the product has been manufactured, when, on consideration of all the circumstances, the duty is as prescribed by regulation, the prescription of duty being provided for under section 84. When the goods are munufactured,each class of manufacture will be dealt with, not in regard to individual cases, but on general rules and regulations, which will laydown the duty which is to be charged on the imported portion of the manufactured goods. These regulations will be laid before Parlia-, ment in the ordinary way, so that there will be afforded an opportunity for criticism on the amount of duty fixed in regard to any class of manufactured goods. There are a number of regulations regarding warehouses, and insurances for the prevention of fraud, which are common to all these Customs Acts, and which I need not deal with now. There is a series of clauses dealing with the export of goods. I do not think we need trouble much about that matter at present, but it is necessary in any Bill of this kind to provide precautions for the export of goods in case there should be at any time duties of export levied. In addition to that, in order to insure that proper control of goods which is necessary to prevent smuggling, it is essential that there should be arrangements for the overhauling of ships, certificates of clearance, and so on. The only articles prohibited from export will be found mentioned in clause 107, which puts it within the power of the Government to proclaim that “arms, explosives, and military and naval stores “ shall not be exported. Of course that is a power which is dormant until it is brought into force by proclamation. It may at some time be necessary to issue a proclamation, and in that case these particular goods will be prohibited from exportation. Now I come to a matter which may give rise to some discussion, and I think it is due to the Senate that there should be some detailed explanation from me in regard to it. I refer to the question of ships’ stores, which is involved in clauses122 to 124. The term “ ships’ stores,” as honorable senators are no doubt aware, has a technical meaning in dealing with Customs. I find in a good authority on this question - a book used extensively by the Customs authorities in Great Britain, and which is prepared by the solicitor for Customs there - that it is laid . down that -

The word ‘ ‘ stores “ is a term which has a technical meaning in Customs phraseology. It relates to vessels- going on or coming from a foreign voyage, and. means articles of food or consumption on board such vessels.

– It does arise under this Bill because it is specially provided for in clause 217. I only wanted to -say that, so far as my opinion is concerned, there is no need for the Bill to provide for it at all. What does any ordinary Treasurer in any of the States or in Great Britain do ? He brings down his Tariff and he imposes the duties.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honorable and learned senator think that arises under this Bill ?

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– I thinkso because we have a provision in the Bill, clause 217, which says -

No proceeding, whether against an officer or otherwise, 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.

The Minister in introducing the Bill stated that the object of that was to give protection between the time the Tariff was introduced, and the time when it was carried into law. It is apropos of that, and absolutely relevant, that I want to say just this : In my opinion there is no necessity for any law upon the subject. The custom of Great Britain and of every one of the States has been that the -Treasurer has brought down his Tariff and imposed the duties. It has been an act of high-handed authority, but it has become a species of convention of the Constitution for the prevention of fraud, and has become as much understood law, almost as if it were included in an Act of Parliament.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The prevention of loss of revenue, not of fraud.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– I call it fraud, because defrauding the revenue is as much fraud as defrauding an individual ; although as one honorable senator has said, there are some curious conventions of conscience on that subject. I prefer to call it fraud, but I will not quibble about terms, and I shall say that that principle and rule is simply to prevent loss of revenue, and it has been added to the Constitution to such an extent that Judges have adjourned cases in view of the matter being before the Legislature.

Senator Ewing:

– Some have not.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER.It is becoming a part, may I. put it in that way, more and more of one of the institutions of the Constitution without which the Constitution cannot be carried out. The rule that will apply to Great Britain and to any of the States will apply equally to the Commonwealth. In any case it is an act of authority, illegal, if honorable senators please, but having a sort of blessed legality which is sanctified by the necessity. What different position are we in to that of the States 1

Senator Clemons:

– The Tariff cannot be uniform, because there will be the existing Tariffs in the States to consider.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator Dobson:

– What ! with seven Tariffs?

Senator Charleston:

– Providing the Tariff is uniform.

– Not even if they brought small-pox?

Senator PULSFORD:

- Senator McGregor has the habit of introducing matters which are quite extraneous and do not enlighten us, but may serve to throw a speaker off the track. What I wish to suggest to honorable senators is that there is a way out of the difficulty by the adoption of which we may avoid any constitutional difficulty, and may avoid doing anything that may call for criticism from foreign powers ; and which will at the same time be just and fair to the vessels engaged in the Inter-State trade. . I shall inquire when we get into committee whether we cannot introduce a clause which will allow oversea steamers taking passengers, say, from Fremantle or Sydney, or any intermediate port, to be charged by regulation - which may be so much per head - a sum calculated to cover the amount which, on the average, passengers would contribute to the revenue by the consumption of dutiable goods. By a simple clause or regulation like that equal justice might be done all round, and the whole of this great and portentous difficulty overcome. The Bill is really a terrible one in the matter of penalties and punishments. A man may be heavily punished because he may have made in an entry some error which is considered , to be misleading. There is a clause in the Bill which very carefully states that nobody shall be allowed to get off with a nominal fine. Many of the clauses end with penalties of £20, £50, or £100, and another clause informs us that this means “not exceeding” such and such an amount. _ There is a clause towards the end of the Bill which says that in no case sholl any fine be reduced to a minimum of less than one-twentieth. So that if a clause imposes a penalty of £100, and if in the opinion of the court the offence is of a purely nominal character, and would be fairly punished by a fine of a shilling, the court would only be allowed to fine the offender £5, and- nothing less. Senator Gould referred to the clause relating to the prohibition of the importation of oleomargerine. That is a remarkable provision, which lands us in a peculiar position. Oleomargarine is forbidden to be imported, and by another clause a ship .bringing a few pounds weight of that commodity may be absolutely forfeited. Such a ship might be sold, and might be bought by somebody who might put a full cargo of oleomargerine on ° board and send her away uo any port in the world. To a result such as that does this Bill, as it stands, bring us ! Then I observe that with a view of giving Customs officers all possible power, and to make everything as drastic as possible, the term “ officer” is defined in the interpretation clause to mean- -

All persons employed in the service of the Customs.

Therefore, it follows that any employes, however menial or however ordinary may be their occupations, are able to arrest a ship, or arrest a person, or do many other serious things. Now, persons employed in the service of the Customs include females. This clause therefore actually gives power to a female searcher to arrest a ship, or an individual, and to do various other things. There are other clauses in the Bill which enable any person to be called upon-to assist any officer, and powers of the most rash and extraordinary character are given in various directions. If we had any feeling at all for the lights that should exist in a democratic community, we should not hesitate to reduce those powers very considerably. It must not be forgotten that to a very considerable extent the clauses of the Bill have been in use hitherto in the State Acts, but let us not forget at the same tune that there is a very wide difference between one State and the whole Commonwealth. A regulation which might be permissible in one State, might become very improper when sought to be brought into play over the whole Commonwealth ; and for very obvious reasons. At the present time there is some sort of control at the head quarters of a Custom-house in a State, over the most remote officers. But when the Commonwealth arrangements are complete and we have a uniform Tariff, the whole of the Custom-house officers throughout Australia must be managed by the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs. It will not be very easy for him in all cases to do justice. It will not be very easy for him to go on the track of officers who may wilfully do things which are wrong. As to regulations, a regulation under the interpretation clause carries the same effect as anything in the Bill itself. I venture to say that the evil of legislation by regulations has increased, is increasing, and ought to be dimished. That is a general statement which we all might recognise. In regard to these regulations under the Customs Bill it will be incumbent upon us all to remember that after the measure is passed it will be competent for the Government to agree to regulations of a very drastic and serious character, and that there is very little power in any court to undo anything that may be done under the guise of regulations. Then, I would ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council a question in regard to these regulations. The new Tariff will take a long while to debate and to get into order. I would therefore suggest to the honorable and learned gentleman that he should give an undertaking that the regulations which are to be provided by the Customs department shall be laid before Parliament coincident with the introduction of the Tariff, or if not coincident, then almost immediately afterwards, so that the regulations and the Tariff may be discussed at the same time.

Senator O’Connor:

– I am not going to give any undertaking of any kind whatever.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I am as much indebted to the honorable and learned gentleman for that reply as if he had said he would grant my request. His reply is an instruction to the Senate as to the position it should assume with regard tothis Bill, and is some enlightenment to the Senate in regard to its duty as to the very drastic powers which the Government ask Parliament to bestow upon them. I do not desire to debate the general subject any further. As I have said, it is mainly a matter for committee. Therefore I reserve any further criticisms I may have to offer for that subsequent stage.

However, it is within the knowledge of every honorable senator here that the present clauses from 213 to 218 have been inserted in this Bill as a substitution for what was originally known to every one as “clause 257,” and an attempt was made in the Bill as originally introduced to impose a Commonwealth Tariff simultaneously in all the States.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable and learned senator must see that according to the standing orders he ought not to refer to debates in another place.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I submit of course to your ruling, sir, in regard to that, but I point out that clauses 217 and 218 while extremely necessary, and in my opinion desirable and praiseworthy, leave it open to honorable senators to consider the possibility of extending them further. I might fairly point out, without I think being ruled out of order, that this Senate would have welcomed any attempt to bring about the imposition of uniform duties so as to secure Inter-State free-trade.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think any such measure would not be in order as an amendment. The honorable senator will allow me to point out that this Bill does not attempt to do anything whatever with respect to the imposition of customs duties. It deals only with the method of their collection.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I quite recognise that this clause does not deal with the imposition of duties, but it would have been extremely desirable if an attempt had been made to settle the questions to which I have referred, and I think that if such an attempt had been made in this Bill it might have succeeded. Surely I shall be in order in pointing out how this Bill might be amended in a direction which would be of more importance to the Commonwealth than probably any other matter winch we could consider at present. By providing for the imposition of uniform duties so as to secure Inter-State free-trade at once. You, sir, will not rule me out of order if I suggest that such a thing might have been done in the Bill, and I shall be allowed to point out that in my opinion it is a blemish on this Bill that such a provision was not made in it. The Vice-President of the Executive Council knows my opinions on the subject of free-trade and protection, and yet as a whole-hearted free-trader I tell him that I should have welcomed in this Bill -

If the honorable and learned senator is going to shut my mouth–

Senator O’Connor:

– I am going to take a point of order. I ask whether the honorable and learned senator is in order in discussing a question as to whether certain provisions might have been made, and ought to have been made, in this Bill for the imposition of uniform duties.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think the honorable and learned senator’s remarks are relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. If they were, any subject matter might be debated concerning any Bill : because a senator might get up and say - “ I think this amendment ought to have been inserted in the Bill,” and then go on to argue as to whether these clauses were proper clauses or not. So that we might have the whole question of free-trade and protection discussed under this Bill; we might have the question of Inter-State free-trade discussed under it ; and we might have 50 other questions discussed under it with which the subject-matter of this Bill has nothing at all to do. I point out to honorable senators generally that this is a machinery Bill. So far as I can understand, no questions of policy arc embodied in the Bill, and we ought not on every possible occasion to discuss and re-discuss matters which have already been disposed of or will come on for discussion by-and-by.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I respectfully submit that any suggestions I may make with regard to amendments coming within the scope of this Bill are in order, and if I suggest, as I am endeavouring to do, that this Bill might have been, within its scope’, amended so as to provide for the imposition of uniform duties–

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think this Bill could have been amended to provide for Inter-State free-trade.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I submit that clause 217, whatever else it may do, recognises the collection of duty, and as this collection of duties provided for under clause 217 is a collection that, in the opinion of many of us, is doubtful in its operation, I believe that I shall be in order in discussing that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Certainly.

Senator CLEMONS:

– If you, sir, give me that latitude, surely I may point out that we should know whether the duty to be collected under the clause is the duty to be imposed by the

Commonwealth Tariff, or the duty upon particular articles now collected under the existing State Tariffs. Clause 217 provides for the method of collecting duties, and surely I shall be in -order in asking what duties are to be collected.

Senator O’CONNOR (New South Wales - Vice-President of the Executive Council). - I do not intend to make any answer to the observations which have been made by different senators, not out of any disrespect to them, but because I wish to reserve what I have to say until later on in committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

page 3695

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Resolved (on motion by Senator O’Connor) -

That Senator Dobson do take the Chair of Committees of the whole Senate for this day, and until the expiration of the leave of absence granted to Senator Best, Chairman of Committees.

page 3695

CUSTOMS BILL

In Committee:

Clause 4 postponed.

Every wharf-owner shall provide to the satisfaction of the collector suitable office accommodation on his wharf for the exclusive use of the officer employed at the wharf. Penalty : £20.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– By clause 15 the GovernorGeneral is given the power of proclaiming wharfs, and clause 19 says that the wharfowner shall provide suitable office accommodation. That is all right, but there is no provision made for the due custody of the goods, and on the suggestion of parties interested, I move -

That after the word “wharf” the following words be inserted : - “Also such shed accommodation for the protection of goods as the Minister may, in writing, declare to be requisite.”

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– -I do not think the amendment is necessary. It may be left to the Minister not to authorize the use of wharfs unless there is this accommodation. It is not likely that the Minister will give a licence to land goods at a particular wharf unless there are proper sheds.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– It is just because that has been done that this amendment is necessary.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– That may have been a fault in administration. It seems rather hard to not only require shed accommodation, but to attach a penalty of £20 for not providing it. The amendment might impose a very heavy burden on wharf-owners, because it would leave it open to the Customs authorities to insist on shed accommodation being placed on every wharf. It ought to be left to the Minister to grant a licence, which would not be granted unless he was satisfied there was proper accommodation.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I am afraid that Senator O’Connor does not understand the difficulties in regard to the landing of goods. I refer more particularly to Melbourne, because I believe that in Sydney in the future, the wharfs will all belong to the Government. As a matter of fact, very heavy pillages have occurred on the wharfs in Melbourne, simply because there is no shed accommodation. The Chamber of Commerce has time and again approached the Government to have this state of affairs altered, and it is in consequence of the experience of the last 25 years that the amendment is submitted. The amendment seems to be so reasonable that I am astonished at the Minister opposing it.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).The amendment moved by Senator Sir Frederick Sargood can do no harm. In fact, I think it is required.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put.

Ayes … … … 12

Noes … … … 9

Majority …. …. 3

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– This is the first clause imposing a penalty. While the penalty in this case is not one of the highest, it will be distinctly considerable for the offence in question, if it can be deemed an offence. I move -

That the word “ twenty “ be omitted, with a view to the substitution of “ten.”

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I hope the committee will not assent to this amendment. It is recognised that the observance of these provisions should be enforced by some kind of penalty which people will feel when it is imposed. The officer employed on the wharf is the person who has to control and inspect everything that goes on in regard to customs matters. Surely there should be a serious penalty imposed where proper accommodation is not provided. The minimum penalty for any offence is to be one-twentieth of the penalty mentioned in the clause. The minimum in this case will be £1 . Surely it may be left to the Minister to discriminate as to what fine is merited by the offence. The case may be merely one of omission, where a small fine willbe sufficient, but it may be a serious offence where a man is setting the authorities at defiance and preventing the Act being carried into operation.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - The Vice-President of the Executive Council admits that the offence may be a very small one, and yet for such an offence nothing less than the minimum fine of 20s. could be imposed.

Senator O’Connor:

– A wharf -owner ought to be able to pay 20s.

Senator PULSFORD:

– It is not a question of being able to pay, but of whether a fine ought to be imposed.

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

– This clause has already been amended to provide that a wharf -owner is to provide, not only accommodation for the officer, but shed accommodation for the goods if the Minister so directs. The amendment already carried may necessitate the wharf-owner in some cases going to the expense of thousands of pounds. If £20 was a sufficient penalty before the carrying of the amendment it ought now to be £40 at least.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 -

Carriages and lighters may be licensed for the carriage of goods subject to the control of the Customs upon payment of such fees, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– An amendment is required in this clause. The word “ boats “ ought to be inserted after the word “ carriages.” The word “boats” is in all the sections of the Victorian Act, and has always been there. I move -

That after the word “carriages” (line 1) the word “ boats” be inserted.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:
Victoria

– If Senator Sir Frederick Sargood looks at the interpretation clause he will see that the word “ carriage “ includes “ vehicles and conveyances of all kinds.” Surely that is wide enough.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– The clause says “ carriages and lighters”’ may be licensed. I think Sir Frederick Sargood is right in urging that “ boats “ should also be licensed.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– A lighter is a boat of some kind.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– But it is a species, whilst the word boat is generic. A boat might include a lighter, but the word lighter does not necessarily include a boat. The amendment is an improvement

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– On thinking the matter over, I do not think there would be any harm in the amendment. Perhaps an improvement may be effected by means of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 (Licensed railway carriages).

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - What does this clause mean? Does it mean that the Railways Commissioner will have to take out a licence for each carriage and give security? Is that the case now ? If the commissioner has to take out a licence for each carriage it will, seeing that there are thousands of carriages, be a troublesome matter.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– The commissioner need not take out a licence for each carriage, but can give security for the whole.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– It is not done at present.

Senator O’Connor:

– It is very necessary that there should be some provision of the sort.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23 -

The licence forany carriage or lighter may be revoked by the collector if the licensee shall be guilty of any fraud or misconduct, or shall fail to comply with this Act.

Amendment (by Senator Sir Frederick Sargood) agreed to -

That after “ carriage” the word “boat” be inserted.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– Who is to be the judge of whether the licensee has been guilty of fraud or misconduct, so that his licence may be revoked ?

Senator O’Connor:

– The comptroller.

Senator PULSFORD:

– The clause does not say so. It says, “ the licence may be revoked by the collector.” Is the collector to be the judge?

Senator O’Connor:

– Undoubtedly. How are we going to send all over Australia to find the comptroller or the Minister. The thing must be done on the spot.’

Senator PULSFORD:

– It might be a matter which could be brought before the local police authorities. It seems to me rather severe to put it in the hands of the Collector of Customs, when we come to consider the broad interpretation put upon the term “collector” in the interpretation clause.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I would ask the Minister if the revocability of the licence dealt with in this clause applies to licences granted under clause 21?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– Clause 21 does not provide for the granting of a licence, but for a guarantee or security being given. No licence at all is taken out for railway carriages. Under that clause the vehicle or carriage in which the goods are carried may be considered as a licensed vehicle for the purposes of the Act, and the honorable and learned senator will see that the provisions of clause 23 cannot apply to that case, as we could not revoke a licence under clause 21, because no licence is given under that clause. With regard to the observations of Senator Pulsford, surely the honorable senator must see that the question of whether a licence is to be revoked or not for misconduct must be dealt with at once and on the spot. Otherwise some misconduct might take place actually in the presence of an officer, and nothing could bedone. If any dispute arises between the collector, or whoever may act in this respect in his behalf, the owner of the vehicle or lighter may, under clause 256, appeal to the Minister. The officers who will have to discharge these responsible duties will be men in whom we can trust, and if we take away from them the power to act upon the moment we destroy their efficiency very largely.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I think that if Senator O’Connor would look at the interpretation of the word “ collector “ he would be disposed to agree with Senator Pulsford that it would not be desirable to include every person covered by that interpretation in the power given underthisclause. I believe that the person who it was really intended should have the power is the Collector of Customs for the State. What Senator Pulsford desires would be met by the insertion, after the word “collector,” of the words “ of Customs for the State.” I suggest that that amendment should be made in the clause.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– We would have to delegate the power in the case of out ports.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That may be so ; but I am certain the person intended to be referred to by the word “ collector “ here is the Collector of Customs for the State, and that it is not intended to have the wide meaning given to “ collector “ in the interpretation clause.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– Perhaps I can best answer the honorable and learned senator by an illustration. Supposing that at Cooktown a person in charge of a lighter is guilty of some flagrant misconduct obviously disentitling him to a licence; if Senator Pulsford’s suggestion is adopted, we shall have to wait until the whole matter comes before the Collector of Customs at Brisbane, and in the meantime he will remain in possession as of a licensed lighter and can use it as such. It should be obvious that there must be a power given to deal with such matters on the spot. It is certain that in the bulk of cases there will be ah officer holding an important position, locally at all events, on the spot, and certainly one who may be intrusted with this duty. I think it will be better to leave the clause as it stands.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - Senator O’Connor will admit that the further away from head-quarters a small port may be, the greater will be the opportunity for the action of prejudice and personal feeling, and it is desirable that in a matter like this, and where we are dealing with a huge territory, there should be some check on that sort of thing. Possibly I would be satisfied if there was some appeal to the Minister or to the collector. I admit the force of what Senator O’Connor has said about the delay at a place like Cooktown, but I think the honorable and learned senator must see the justice of the observation I make.

Senator Major GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

– The difficulty might be got over if we gave this power of revocation to the comptroller or collector of Customs. The comptroller would then be in a position to delegate his power to any particular officer at these various out ports. We might provide by the clause that the licence for any carriage or lighter might be revoked by the comptroller or collector of Customs if the licensee is guilty of any fraud or misconduct;

Senator O’Connor:

– The misconduct might happen in the presence of an officer who had not the delegated power. The officer actually in charge should have the power.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I suggest that it might be well to say that the power should be in the hands of the Collector of Customs, or, in his absence, the local sub-collector of Customs. There is a sub-collector in every port.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– I understand that an amendment has been suggested by Senator Clemons to introduce after the word “collector” the words “ of Customs for . the State “ and Senator Gould has suggested that the words should be “ comptroller or collector “ with a view of getting the benefit of the power of delegation. I think that the Minister might accept that suggestion. There is no doubt that the power is absolutely essential, and it is a power that must be exercised at the moment. Unless there is this power of delegation, we might have misconductor fraud committed by the licensee of one of these carriages, boats, or lighters, and we would not be able to deal with it at the moment.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I point out that the suggested amendment is not necessary. The word “ collector “ includes the comptroller and any collector of Customs for the State, and any principle officer of Customs doing duty at the time and place, and any officer doing duty in the matter in relation to which the expression is used. I take it that the collector under the clause is the person absolutely in charge at the time the fraud or misconduct takes place, and as a general rule it will be some principal officer who will be in charge. Unless this power is given for the immediate revocation of a licence, misconduct may take place on the part of a licensee at some port remote from the head office, and we ought not to run the risk of smuggling taking place, or of any of the evils against which all this machinery is directed. The Collector of Customs would see that proper officers were appointed to carry out these duties. It really comes back to this, that action cannot be taken on the spot. I do not think it would be sufficient to delegate the power to every officer, because there is a limitation in clauses 9 and 10.

Senator Major Gould:

– Give him power to revoke the licence, and let him delegate that power.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– That is a very roundabout way of doing it, and it would be very much better to leave it to be determined by the officer in charge of the place. I am sorry that I cannot fall in with the view of the honorable senator.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - My chief objection to the use of the word “ collector “ is that it is defined by the interpretation clause. It includes any person doing duty in the matter in relation to which the expression is used. That is the only part which I, and, I believe, others object to.

Senator O’Connor:

– -There is an amendment which I aim willing to consent to.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The amendment I wish to propose, unless Senator O’Connor’s is better, is to use the words “ comptroller or the collector of Customs of the State.” I do not know whether that is his amendment.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I am willing to consent to substitute the word “comptroller” for the word “ collector,” and having made that amendment I do not think it is necessary to have any other words, because the comptroller can delegate to the collector of the State. There is no doubt that in the ordinary working of the department a general delegation will be given to some principal officer in each place. During the adjournment for dinner, I found that there would be no harm in the amendment, and perhaps it may facilitate the carrying on of the department. I move -

That the word “collector” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “comptroller.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 -

No person shall use any unlicensed carriage or lighter for the conveyance of goods subject to the control of the Customs.

Penalty : £20.

Amendment (by Senator Sir Frederick Sargood) agreed to -

That the word “boat” be inserted after the word “ carriage.”

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I desire to ask Senator O’Connor whether he can justify the heavy penalty of £20 for what evidently is only a small offence at the best ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I do not think that any one who knows anything about Customs business will say it is a small offence. The only control we have over the carriage of goods is that they are to be taken in carriages, boats, or lighters that are licensed. If a person is allowed to take away goods on the chance of having to pay a small penalty if detected, he may make it a very lucrative business. Any one who knows the working of Customs Acts will admit that it is a very serious matter, and £20 is not excessive for a maximum penalty.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– It is not the individual but the carriage or the lighter that is licensed. Supposing that a man’s licensed vehicle gets out of order and he has to use another vehicle for the purpose of carrying goods on a special occasion, then £20 is a severe penalty to impose. If it applied to the case of an unlicensed person carrying goods it would be a different thing.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– It is the carriage that is licensed, and any one can see whether it is licensed. That aids the officials in their work of seeing that the Act is carried out. If any person may use an unlicensed carriage it is obvious that we at once open the door to a great deal of illicit dealing, and unless we make the penalty a large one it may be worth a person’s while to take the risk.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - On a previous clause Senator O’Connor referred to something which might happen at Cooktown. We have many far-distant out ports where the number of licensed carriages, boats, or lighters must be very limited. On the sudden arrival of a steamer it is quite possible that there may be a scarcity of such vehicles or boats.

Senator O’Connor:

– A man can pay 5s., and get a licence.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I think the penalty isreally excessive. I should be satisfied if it were reduced to £10.

Senator O’Connor:

– I cannot consent to an amendment ; £20 is the maximum, and it may be reduced to £1.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 -

Declarations under this Act may be made before the Minister or any collector or any justice and also before any person authorized in that behalf by the Minister or comptroller.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– For some reason or other the comptroller is left out. Surely, if the Minister can take a declaration, the comptroller may do so.

Senator Playford:

– The comptroller can authorize any person to do what he cannot do himself.

Amendment (by Senator Sir Frederick Sargood) agreed to -

That the word “ comptroller “ be inserted after the word “Minister,” line 2.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - Does the word “ person “ in the clause mean any person, or an officer ?

Senator O’Connor:

– A person would be an officer.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The next clause refers to an officer. The Minister is not an officer, nor is a justice of the peace. It means that the Minister or a justice of the peace, or a person other than an officer, may take these declarations ; but I imagine that the comptroller would never authorize any one but an officer to do so. I move -

That the word “person “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ officer.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 (State inspection laws).

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– I wish to know from Senator

O’Connor what will be the effect of this clause when the Tariff Bill is passed? Will not all these State Acts be repealed at the time when the Tariff Bill is passed? It seems strange to have a State Act dealing with customs duties when it is really superseded by the federal law.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– This clause refers to what are called Inspection Acts ; for instance, to a State Act dealing with the prohibition of infected cattle or infected fruit. All Inspection Acts give the power to examine goods before they are landed. It is intended that the Customs officials may aid the State in carrying out the work.

Clause agreed to.

– The department may not be able to have its officers on the spot. Possibly there may be no lumpers ready to unload the ship, and the merchants may not be prepared to take delivery of their goods: Surely we are not, as a deliberative body, going to leave it to the ship-owner or master to decide upon what days the Customs officers shall superintend the unloading. Section 46 of the New South Wales Act provides that -

Except as hereinafter provided no goods -

With exceptions which I need not read - shall be unshipped or landed from any ship without the authority of the collector on Sundaysor the holidays defined by section 7 of this Act, or oil Saturdays after the hour of noon, or on any day beyond the appointed hours. Nor shall any goods be unshipped or landed unless in the’ presence or with the authority of the proper officerof the Customs.

There are exceptions in the case of- live animals, fresh meat,, coin, or bullion. Then section 47 of the Queensland Act is as follows : -

No goods except live animals, fresh meat, fresh sheep, fresh fruit, coin,, and bullion shall be unshipped or landed or put on shore from any ship arriving from, parts beyond the seas at any port or place where an officer of Customs- is stationed except on days not being Sundays or holidays within the legal hours, that is to. say between eight in the morning and.four in the afternoon’ from the 1st day of October to the 31st of March, and between nine in- the morning and four in the afternoon from the 1st day of April to the 30th day of September in each year, excepting on Saturdays and on every Saturday in each year from eight o’clock in the morning until twelve o’clock at noon unless special authority be given by the collector or principal officer, and then only upon depositing the overtime pay due to the officer attending.

Then I have an authority from outside. The Indian Customs Act contains the following section : -

Except with the written permission of the Customs collector, no goods, other than passengers’ baggage, shall in any Customs port be discharged from any vessel or be shipped or waterborne to be shipped -

On any Sunday or on any holiday or day on which the discharge or shipping of cargo, as the case may be, is proprohibited, by the chief Customs authority ;

On any day, except between such hours as such authority from time to time appoints by notification in the official Gazette.

I have not got the Ceylon Customs Act to refer to, but section 32 of the South Australian Customs Act is oh this point identical with the provisions I have read, and under it no goods, except live stock and articles afterwards provided for, can be unshipped from any ship arriving at any port from beyond the seas except on days which are not Sundays or holidays, and within the legal hours. I need not read the provision. The penalty under the South Australian Act is not exceeding £50, and not less than £10.

Senator Charleston:

– The South Australian Act says that certain goods may be landed.

Senator DRAKE:

– So does every other Act. This clause says “as prescribed,” and no doubt the same exception will be made in all the other Acts with regard to live stock, fresh meat, fruits, vegetables, and other articles of a perishable nature, and coin and bullion.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).A great deal of difficulty has . been made about points that I have not raised. I have not suggested any . amendment to provide that ships should be loaded or unloaded on Sundays or holidays. What I have suggested is that, for the convenience and advantage of the public, persons might be permitted to discharge goods at any hour of the day or night upon a working day. There would be no diffi culty, because the Custom-house would have officers there in any case. The question might arise of the employment of an extra man, but I can see no difficulty in the matter.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - There is no doubt that there are pro visionsin the Acts towhichthePostm asterGeneral has referred with regard to the discharging of ships, but we do not find that there are any restrictions with regard to the loading of ships, and the clause in this Bill deals with both subjects. Though it may be perfectly true that, when the Senate ultimately comes to deal with this matter, we may make no amendment, when we have an assurance from Senator Macfarlane that he desires to submit an amendment for the consideration of the Senate, the honorable and learned senator in charge of the Bill might agree to the postponement of the clause-. Senator Macfarlane has not at any time attempted to block the transaction of public business, and I see no real reason why the clause should not be postponed. The honorable senator has, to a certain extent, indicated the nature of his amendment, but he has not had an opportunity of putting it directly before the committee. It is a fair thing to agree to his suggestion that the clause should be postponed, and I believe that it would facilitate business if that were done.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I trust the Minister will not agree to postpone the clause, because it is not the form of words that we are dealing with at all. Since Senator Macfarlane has given us the spirit of the amendment which he proposes to suggest, I think we can take a vote upon the clause now, which will show whether the Senate ‘is willing to accept the spirit of his proposal or not. I am in a position to say that I would not agree to any such amendment as the honorable senator has suggested, no matter how it was worded. I am in accord with the spirit of the clause as it stands.

Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia). - It is a very unfair way of dealing with honorable senators to take a vote on the postponement of the clause as indicating whether we are in favour of Senator Macfarlane’s proposal or not. So far as I understand the honorable senator, I cannot say that I would support the amendment he suggests, but I will support a proposal for the postponement of the clause, under the circumstances in which we find ourselves just now. I think that in refusing the postponement the leader of the Senate isnot treating honorable senators with that courtesy with which we all thought he would treat them.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– I have to consider not only the convenience of honorable senators, but the public time. We have already devoted a great deal of time to this discussion, and I do not object to that ; but now I am asked to postpone this clause for the purpose of enabling Senator Macfarlane to formulate an amendment which he has already clearly indicated, and to which I believe the majority of the committee are absolutely opposed. What is the use, after all this discussion, of postponing the clause in order to enable the honorable senator to formulate something which will carry out the views he has expressed when we know that, as soon as the matter comes on again, we shall have the whole of this discussion repeated ? However anxious I may be to concede a personal request by an honorable senator, I have the public to consider, and I have to consider the necessity of getting on with the business. I ask the committee to help me to carry on the business with the most reasonable expedition, and to come to a division if necessary upon this clause.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to accede to the request to postpone the clause because I believe he will save time by so doing. I do not think it at all probable that any amendment will be proposed in the clause that J can vote for. But I know that this particular clause, with other clauses, is at present being considered by the Chamber of Commerce in Sydney. I believe that in a day or two a memorial will come down from the Chamber of Commerce in Sydney, and the Minister will save time by agreeing to the postponement of the clause. We have undoubtedly spent a lot of time already that might have been saved if the clause had been postponed earlier.

Senator O’Connor:

– Can the honorable senator point out what amendment the Sydney Chamber of Commerce is likely to suggest ?

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - I can say that theChamber of Commerce in Sydney have this Bill under consideration, and one of the members told me that their suggestions would be submitted by the end of the current week. That is one of the reasons why I was anxious to see the committee stage of the Bill only taken.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I would have been prepared with my amendment, but I did not understand that the committee stage of the Bill would be taken to-day. I am disposed to formally move that the clause be postponed.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– If the honorable senator has an amendment to propose I will undertake to recommit the Bill. That will come to precisely the same thing.

Senator Macfarlane:

– I accept the honorable and learned senator’s promise.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34-

Goods imported through the Post-office shall be subject to the control of the Customs equally with goods otherwise imported.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I shall be glad if Senator O’Connor will explain the method in which these duties will be collected.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I take it that it will be prescribed by regulation ; I presume that the officials of the Post-office and the Customs being under the same Government, will make anarrangement by which theinspection in the Postoffice is carried on so that it will be sufficient. They both have to exercise control over these goods, and I take it that an arrangement will be made for working together.

Senator Major Gould:

– How is it done now inVictoria? .

Senator O’CONNOR:

– It is done, but at the moment I am unable to explain the method.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– At the present time in several States goods which come through the Post-office are not subject to customs entries. The addressee receives the goods at the Post-office by paying the customs duty without having to pass a customs entry. At the Post-office in Tasmania, and, I believe, at the Post-office in South Australia it ispossible to receive dutiable goods by applying there and paying the amount of duty, which is there and then assessed. That, I take . it, is the practice which we want to obtain in the Commonwealth. I believe that we discussed this question on a clause of the Post and Telegraph Bill.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I am now in a position to explain the method. In the Post-office there is a Custom-house official, and in regard to small things on which the duty is not very large it is paid, and thereupon the goods are handed over, tout “if the goods are so valuable as to require a Customs entryto be passed it has to be passed atthe Customhouse in the ordinary way, and the goods . are then allowed to go through. It is at the option of . theofficer tosay whether it is sufficiently important to have an entry passed or whether it is a small thing, which may be ‘handed over on payment ofthe duty. There is really no difficulty experienced in practice. I understand that the method is very much thesame in all the States. Senator Clemons suggests that it can be amplified, but I do not see in what direction it can be done. One of the merits of this Bill is that itsclauses do not contain anything more than is essentia], but they do contain everything which is essential.I do not see how this clause can be amended with any -advantage.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - Would Senator O’Connor object toeliminate the words “ equally with goods otherwise imported,” ‘because clause ‘35 provides that entry may be made for all goods subject to the control of the Customs.

Senator O’Connor:

– -They may be made through the Post-office as well.

Senator PULSFORD:

– After the explanation which Senator O’Connor has given we might be satisfiedwith clause 34 without the last five words. I move -

That the clause be amended by the omission of the words “ equally with -goods otherwise imported.”

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- In his remarks Senator O’Connor has admitted so far as he knows that when the goods are of comparative small value the practice is not to require a customs entry. In Tasmania no entry is required. It is a very desirable procedure to adoptin the Commonwealth, and it is so desirable that Senator O’Connor has indicated that he recognises it as apractice. If he can put in some wordswhich can . make it certain that goods of small value may be received through the Post-office without passing an entry I shall be quite satisfied.

Senator Drake:

– What would “-small “ mean?

Senator CLEMONS:

– If Senator O’Connor will agree to allow goods up to the value of £5 to go through the Post-office without compelling the addressee to pass an entry hewill be consulting the convenience of a very large number of persons. Butif the clause stands as it is it may be in the power of some collector ofCustoms to insist uponan entry being passed for every article however small, so long as it is dutiableandcomes through the Post-office, and thatof course will distinctlyinterfere with the convenienceof the general public.

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:
Victoria

– The statement of Senator O’Connor is only a partial explanationof the procedure in the Postal department in this State. There is an officer of Customs attached to thePost-office. To every parcel which comes from London to Victoria through the Post-office is attached a declaration by the sender as to the value of the’ goods, and the parcel is stamped. As soon as it arrives in Melbournea notice is sentby the Post-office to the addressee, and he is notified that he must either pass an entry or send in his invoice and get the entry . attended to by the postal authorities. On the receipt of that notice theaddressee either sends back to the Post-office word that he has not received an invoice,and cannot state the value ofthe goods, or elects to have them valued by theCustoms officer. Within24 hoursthe parcel is delivered to him if he paystheduty whichthatofficer declaresisdue. This practice has been working here for years, and no difficulty has been experienced. The entry is passed by the Custom-house officer, and the recipient of the parcel has no trouble.

SenatorDRAKE (Postmaster-General - Queensland). - The practice in Queensland has been exactly that which has been described by Senator Sir WilliamZeal. When a parcel appears to contain dutiable goods a notification is sent to the addressee. He goes down to the Post-office, and if necessary he can pass an entry or he can produce aninvoice to show the value ofthe goods, or if he has not an invoice he can. tell the Customs officer to open the parcel and value the goods. If it is a small matter he puts a value on the parcel, and the addressee pays the customs duty according to the value and receives the -article.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I would really like to know from Senator Pulsford what reason hehas formoving an amendment of this sort ?

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). -MyObject is to simplify the clause and to facilitate and increase the convenience of the public. The Customs authorities cannot require the observance of all the entries and so on that are required when cargo is landed ; certainly it wouldfacilitate the arrival of small packages. I do not see any objections to the amendment.

Senator O’Connor:

– Is not this a matter of daily practice ? Inall the States it is carried on under a similar law, and why in terfere with it ?

SenatorPULSFORD.- The honorable and learned senator has. shown that there is not quite thesame control over the goods that go through the Post-office, inasmuch as he admits that an entry is not required. If an entry is not required why should the clause be made so strong as it is?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– To my knowledge for 30 years this practice has been carried out without the slightest difficulty. Itdoes notsaythat all. the formsof entryare to be gone through, but that these goods shall be under the control of the Customs equally with other goods. Wedo not want the control to be either less or more than it is on other goods. If it would meet the views of honorable senators we might put in the words “ as prescribed,” but it would make no difference. The detail of carrying out this control is simplicity itself .It is a matter of everyday occurrence. No entries are needed. A printedform is simply sent to the addressee, with a notification, . and if he does not care to go up to the Post-office, he can ask the Customs officer to value the article, and thereupon he receives a note that the duty is so much, and he pays the duty. It is much more simple than ‘having to pass an entry through the Customs.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– I think Senator Sir Frederick Sargood has totally misunderstood the point. I am afraid that the insertion of the words “ as prescribed “ would made confusion worse confounded. I do not know where the department would be if we put in the words. The only effect of clause 34 is to declare that goods imported through the Post-office shall really be under the operation of clause 30, which defines the kind of goods which are subject to the control of the Customs. Unless we put in clause 34, it might be held thatgoodscomingthrough the Post-office were not underthecontrol of the Customs, by virtue of clause 30.Clause 34 carries the provision no further than that. It is simply an interpretation clause defining that these goods shall, with others, be within the meaning of goodsasindicatedinclause30.Thepointwhich SenatorPulsford isdirecting ‘attention to is that while it may be true that in Victoria and other States the Post-office authorities are very kind to the recipients of letters containingdutiable articles, and donot insist inevery case upona customs entry being passed, under the provisions of this Bill the might insist upon a customs entry being passed.I. do not know whether the custom which exists in ‘thisState prevails in other States. I know that in the case of small articles, they do not passcustoms entries inSou th Australia, . but that is a mere practice in the Post-office. In the Post and Telegraph Bill we passed a provision that postal articles or envelopes containing or supposedto contain dutiable goods shall be dealt with in the prescribed manner.. If this be left to regulation, there is possisibility of conflicting regulations in the Customs department ; but I fancy Senator Pulsf ord’s desire is to prevent the possibility of entries being requircd forgoods of the value of not more than . £5, and I. suggest that an amendment would more properly be made in clause 35.

Amendment negatived.

Clause -agreed to.

Clause 35 -

Entries may be made and passed for all goods subject to the control of the Customs.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I move -

That, after the word “Customs,” the following words be inserted : “except for goods imported through the Post-office, and not exceeding the sum of £5 in value.”

My intention is to avoid the formality and expense . of making entries in the case of small articles coming through the Postoffice. I can see no danger- to the Customs in the amendment, which will be an added con venience to the public.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The amendment would result in decreasing very largely the convenience which now obtains in dealing with dutiable goods through the Post-office. At present there is no difficulty, but if the amendment were passed, whenever goods over £5-in value came through the Post an entry would have to be made, seeing that the limit must have some binding effect on the officials. The discretion now exercised would be taken away.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - The amendment makes it certain that in no case whatever where the goods are under £5 in value, shall an entry be necessary. It would still be optional but not compulsory for an officer to insist on an entry for goods over the value of £5.

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

– It would be very little more trouble to pass an entry than to prove that goods were under £5 in value. A declaration of some kind would have to be made, and the only difference that I see lies, perhaps, in the payment of a small fee of 2s. 6d. for making an entry. That difficulty might, however, be met by providing that in the case of small imports through the Post no fee should be charged.

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster - General · Queensland · Protectionist

– If the amendment be passed, the person receiving an article through the Post-office would be bound to accept the valuation of the Customs officer. How could the value be proved, seeing that passing an entry would be prevented 1

Senator Clemons:

– The value could be proved without passing an entry.

Senator DRAKE:

– An entry is simply a declaration that a person is the owner of certain goods, and that these goods are of a certain value. The amendment interferes with the practice that has gone on for years without occasioning the slightest difficulty, and leaves the addressee no means of disproving the value fixed by the Customs officer.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

-Whenever dutiable articles come through the post, or in any other way, attempts are often made to pass them under value ; and if the value be challenged it is the duty of the receiver to make a declaration, or in other words, to pass an entry. The fact remains that everywhere eke except in Tasmania this business through the Post-office has been done in an agreeable manner, without any difficulty, and we ought to leave the clause, as more convenient for the public and a protection against the Customs authorities being cheated.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 37 -

Entries shall be passed by the collector signing the entry, and on the passing of the entry the goods shall be deemed to be entered ; and any entry so passed shall be warrant for dealing with the goodsin accordance with the entry, and the goods shall forthwith be dealt with accordingly. Penalty, £100.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I should be glad if the Minister will explain who is to pay the penalty of £100. It appears to me that if the collector does not do certain things he may find himself liable for that amount, although the whole scope of the Bill is to make “ the other fellow “ pay.

Senator O’Connor:

– Whoever violates the clause is liable to the penalty.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– It is rather difficult to see who is to pay the penalty. Does that clause apply to the collector if he does not sign the entry ?

Senator Drake:

– No ; it is the person who does not deal with the goods “accord- ingly”.

Senator Major GOULD:

– I presume it would be quite sufficient if it were stated that the man who committed an offence in contravention of clause 37, should thereupon be fined £100, unless he proved he had not done anything in contravention of the clause. But as he would not know what he was charged with, he would be in a great difficulty.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The penalty has been inserted there by mistake.’

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– The entries in question have to be passed by the collector, and then following upon that comes the delivery of the goods. But instead of providing to that effect the clause goes on to say that the goods “shall forthwith be dealt with accordingly,” whatever that means. I have copied from one of the existing Acts the form of my amendment, which conforms to the practice in all the States, and really carries out what is wanted. I move -

That the following words be omitted : - “ And the goods shall forthwith be dealt with accordingly.

Senator O’Connor:

– I accept the honorable senator’s amendment, which really carries out the object of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Sir Frederick Sargood) proposed -

That the following words be inserted after the word “entry” (line 5): - “and such entry shall be transmitted to the proper officer and be his warrant for the delivery of the goods mentioned therein.”

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– I do not think that it is necessary to add these words to the clause. The clause is sufficient as it is with the amendment that has already been made.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– The entry says nothing about delivery.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– But why impose an obligation of that kind by statute, when in the discharge of ordinary duties entries will be sent to the proper officer ? There is no need for these additional words. Knowing the draftsman of this Bill as I do, these are words which I should imagine he would prefer to have eliminated. The clause as it stands embraces all that is necessary.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I am rather inclined to doubt Senator Sir J osiah Symon’s statement. The form of entry does not contain any instruction to deliver. It is merely an indication that the value of such goods is so and so. The words of my amendment are taken from the Victorian Customs Act, and have been in. operation for many years. They properly and correctly describe the processes of dealing with goods. I think they should be inserted merely to show that the entries should be passed.

Senator Playford:

– There is a warrant for dealing with that.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The warrant does not say that they are to be delivered. “What harm can there be in inserting this amendment? However, if the Minister thinks the words unnecessary I shall not press the amendment.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– It appears to me that the amendment is really unnecessary, because the - warrant for dealing with the goods is in the clause already ; so that what Senator Sir Frederick Sargood desires to secure, in his amendment will be really carried out.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– T think also that the entry always describes the goods as entered for home consumption or for export!, and that is what is meant by the goods being “ dealt with accordingly.”

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 (Passengers luggage).

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - Does this clause apply to the personal goods of passengers? [ presume that they would not have to pay duty in any case. Suppose a passenger brought jewellery as part of his personal belongings, would duty have to be paid upon it?

Senator O’CONNOR:

– This clause refers to duty upon the personal baggage of passengers. Of course what a person is wearing or has with him as personal belongings would not be included. What would be included would be goods brought by a passenger in his luggage, such as jewellery or boxes of cigars upon which duty would have to be paid. It only means that dutiable goods carried by a passenger in his personal luggage will not, because they are so included, be exempt from duty.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - Suppose that there was amongst a passenger’s luggage some wearing apparel that had not been worn, would duty have to be paid upon that ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– Certainly.

Senator PULSFORD:

– It is well that the public should know that.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 45 -

Whenever any such Customs security is put in suit by the collector the production thereof without further proof shall entitle the collector to judgment for their stated liability against the persons appearing to have executed the same unless the defendants shall prove compliance with the condition or that the security was not executed by them.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– An amendment will be necessary at the end of this clause. There are two other sets of circumstances than those mentioned in which the defendant would be entitled to a verdict - that is where the bond has been released or where satisfaction has been entered. I move -

That after the word “ condition “ (line 7) the following words be inserted: - “or release or satisfaction.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to -

Clause 46 -

In order to the due importation of goods : - (1) The ship may be boarded. (2) The cargo shall be reported. (3) The goods shall be entered unshipped, landed, and examined.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Although I approve of this Bill as a whole I should like it to be grammatical. The words of the first sentence -

In order to the due importation of goods, really mean nothing. I suppose that what is intended to be conveyed is “ for the purpose of the due importation of goods.” As the clause stands it seems to me to be very crude legislation. I appeal to any honorable senator who is competent to construe an ordinary English sentence to say what these words mean as they stand. I could understand it if it said “ in order to secure the due importation of goods.” I suggest that the representatibes of the Government should make Ali e clause grammatical -before we ‘go any further.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– This clause is simply a general indication of the powers that are given more specifically afforwards. Xt indicates in a very ‘few words what may be done. A ship may be boarded, the cargo is to be reported, the goods are to be entered and shipped. Senator demons’ criticism is on grammatical .grounds. He objects to the phrase - in order to the due importation of goods.

Does not the honorable and learned senator understand the meaning of those words ?

Senator Clemons:

– I certainly do not understand them without reference to the context.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– Then the honorable and learned senator must be the only member of the Senate who does not understand them. The provisions of this Bill are such as can be read by any one who understands English in the ordinary “wa/v - not perhaps with the niceties and elegancies of precision, but the English language as it is understood by business people. I cannot conceive of any person who understands English misunderstanding the meaning of these words. A large number of words might have been used to convey the meaning, but it is quite clear already what the meaning is, and I do .not think the committee should be troubled seriously with this kind of criticism.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - The honorable and learned -senator’s reply to my criticism is very instructive, but if he wishes to tell me that these Avoids represent decent draftsmanship, I. differ from him. Probably the words that ought to have been used are “ for the purpose of the due importation of goods.” The clause might be materially improved by the substitution of some such words.

Senator EWING (Western Australia).It does not seem to me that the words complained of by Senator Clemons are intelligible as they stand. If one looks at the context, and is ingenious and draws all sorts of conclusions, he can satisfy himself as to what is meant. But that ‘Should not be left to ‘the imagination of the individual.

Senator O’Connor:

– Does the honorable and learned senator think it -worth while to move an amendment on the point 1 I would rather consent to an amendment than waste time over the matter.

Amendment (by Senator Clemons) proposed -

That the words “in order to” (line 1) be omitted, with a view to Ohe .substitution of the words, “for the purpose of.”-

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

. I do not like the idea of hacking the clause about in this way. Senator Clemons is not clear in his own mind. His amendment is to -strike out the words “in-order to “ and to insert the words “for the purpose of,” but he does not see that the -word “securing” will be just as necessary in o.ne case :as in the other. The real point of his grammatical objection is that that word is not in. I contend that the proposed substitution is no improvement. There ,are a number .of things which have to take place in a certain order. I like the expression as it stands.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - In sub-clause (3) the word “ landed “ is not ‘required, because the word “unshipped” is quite sufficient.

Senator O’Connor:

– Suppose that the goods are unshipped into a lighter or a boat? ‘ .

Senator PULSFORD:

– It constantly happens that goods are unshipped into a lighter for the purpose of being -put on to.another vessel to be conveyed to some port. For instance, goods coming by the San Francisco steamers are dealt with in Sydney for all Australia. Lots of them are not landed at all. There is no necessity for them to be landed so long as they are put overboard direct into the vessel which is to convey them to another port or into a lighter which is to convey them to the vessel which is to take them to that port. The use of the word “landed” in sub-clause (3) would compel goods to be put on the wharf when there was no necessity for doing so, and ‘would cause a great deal of expense. I think Senator O’Connor will see that the provision for the purpose of the Customs is quite as strong -without the word “landed.” I move -

That sub-clause (3) be amended by the omission of the word “ landed.”

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I hope that the committee -will not accept the amendment, because the word is required to cover a distinct class’ of cases. The goods are entered and unshipped. That means taken’ out of the ship. If they are put into a lighter they are not landed.; they are put over the side of the ship. If the goods are put from a ship on to a wharf, it may be that the taking of them out of the ship is landing them, but they may be unshipped and put into a lighter and taken a considerable distance and landed at another wharf or direct into another ship. Theywould be unshipped, landed, and examined. No penalty is imposed by the clause. It only indicates the steps which are to be taken. The word “landed” is quite as necessary as the word “ unshipped.”

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I cannot agree with Senator O’Connor in his definition of the word “ landed,” because there arrive in certain ports of the Commonwealth goods which are intended for other ports.In a very large number of cases there is no necessity for landing such goods. It is quite sufficient that these goods are removed either direct from over the ship’s side into the vessel which is to take them direct to the next port, or removed from a vessel, into a lighter for the purpose of being put on another vessel lying at a wharf. This clause covers both dutiable goods and free goods. We knowthat dutiable goods must be landed in some place where they may be dealt with. The objection to the clause is that it compels goods on which there is no duty to be landed, and to be charged with wharfage, and perhaps landing expenses andcartages, which might mean no small expense and increase the cost of the goods to the owner, without in any way adding to the security ofthe Customs revenue.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - In view of the provision in clause 70, I think the word “ landed “ is unnecessary in this clause. Clause 70 shows that so soon as goods are unshipped they must be either landed or transhipped into the vessel by which they are going to another port. If they are going to be entered for home consumption they havetobe ultimately landed under that clause. I do not think clause 46 necessitates the landing at all, and the word “ landed “ might be very well omitted.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I do not think there is any necessity for the word “landed” and I am willing to consent to its omission.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Pulsford) agreed to -

That the words “maybe” be inserted after the word “ and” in sub-clause (3).

Clause, as amended, agreed , to.

Clause 47 -

Noprohibited imports shall be imported. Penalty, £100.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– This clause would seem to come better after clause 49, which defines what goods shall not be imported. The amount of the penalties is a matter which we could better understand when we have acquainted ourselves with what is the objectaimed at. But I do not know, if Senator O’Connor desires to keep the clause where it is, that we need object to its position very strongly, but clearly it is not inserted in its right place. If we pass the penalty of £100 as it stands, thenwe shall deal with the question of prohibited imports, with the knowledge that wehave placed a heavy penalty on the importation of prohibited imports, and it will necessarily have some weight with us in deciding whatarticles shall be made subject to such a heavy penalty. Under another provision Of the Bill a man who brought in a few pounds of oleomargarine would be subject to a minimum penalty of £5 or to a maximum penalty of £100 under this clause. In view of the fact that by consenting to the large figures of £1’00 we know that we shall be influencing the debate on the clauses which follow, I am willing to allow this clause to pass as it stands.

Agreed to.

Clause 48 -

No goods may be imported in any ship which has not been lawfully registeredin the country to which she belongs or which has not her certificate of registry on board unless the absence of the certificate is satisfactorily accounted for. Penalty, £100.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– I am informed that in cases where they have not a certificate of registry they have what is called a pass issued by the proper authorities. I move -

That after the word “ board “ the words “ or pass issued by the prqner authorities” be inserted.

That, again, is a copy of the provision of the existing law.

Senator O’Connor:

– What does it mean exactly ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The pass is issued in lieu of the certificate. Occasionally there is a difficulty. On account of a ship leaving suddenly, or from some reason or other they have not got the certificate ready, but in these cases they get a pass issued by the same authority as issued the certificate.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– Perhaps Senator Sargood will explain who is the proper authority to grant the pass 1

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– -I do not know who issues the certificate of registry at home.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– That is issued under the Merchant Shipping Act. I know of no provision in that Act for granting a pass ; I do not know that Senator O’Connor does. The usual provision is that which is contained in this clause, and the safest thing to do is to pass it as it is drafted so far as this point is concerned. Senator Sir Frederick Sargood will see that the concluding words provide a safety valve. If there is a pass, it will be accepted as sufficient, but the danger is that, if we put in the words he has suggested, it will give an alternative to the master of the ship to produce something which may be a pass purporting to be issued by what are called the proper authorities, and for which there is no provision in the Merchant Shipping Act, and it might be a foreign ship.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– There is a provision in the Customs Act. I shall ask for the clause to be recommitted if necessary.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– Supposing a man had a pass, it could be produced and would be a satisfactory accounting for the absence of a certificate. But the certificate or the pass might by some mischance get destroyed after the vessel sailed, and when the captain reached this port, he would be in this fix that he could not land any of his goods. He might explain how the certificate got destroyed. It is far more satisfactory to allow the clause to stand as it is, and to leave it to the Customs authorities to be satisfied that the absence ofthe certificate was satisfactorily accounted for.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 49 -

The following are prohibited imports : -

Any work which is, or appears to be, an infringement of any copyright existing in any part of the King’s dominions, and of the existence of which copyright written notice shall have been given to the Minister by or on behalf of the proprietor.
False money and counterfeit sterling, and any coin or money not being of the proper standard in weight or fineness.
Blasphemous, indecent, or obscene works or articles.
Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by prison labour, or which have been made within or in connexion with any prison, gaol, or penitentiary.
Exhausted tea, and tea adulterated with spurious leaf or with exhausted leaves, or being unfit for human use, or unwholesome.
Oleomargarine, butterine, or any similar substitute for butter.
All goods, the importation of which may be prohibited by proclamation.
All goods having thereon or therewith any false suggestions of any warranty, guarantee or concern in the production or quality thereof by any persons, public officials, Government, or country.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– The majority of the imports prohibited by this clause are already prohibited by legislation in the States. I do not propose to take exception to the sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) ; but we ought to consider sub-clauses (f) and ((g). In the first place, I take exception to sub-clause (f), which deals with oleomargarine and butterine, because these articles, I am told, are being produced in the States at the present time.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– In New South Wales.

Senator Major GOULD:

– I am told they are also manufactured in “Victoria.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– No; their manufacture is absolutely prohibited by the Victorian Act.

Senator Major GOULD:

Progress- reported;

Senate adjourned at. 10:10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 August 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1901/19010814_senate_1_3/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate14 August 1901

QUESTION

TELEPHONE : PIPER’S RI VER,

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE:Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

EXCISE ON BEER BILL

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Neild) -

CUSTOMS BILL

Second Reading

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Protectionist

Senator Pulsford:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Josiah SYMON:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Lt Col Neild:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:South Australia

Senator Drake:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Glassey:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator SirJohn Downer:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:Victoria

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Sir John Downer:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:South Australia

Senator Dobson:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator Ewing:

Senator Clemons:

Senate
14 August 1901

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Protectionist

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania