Senate
4 September 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

CUSTOMS BILL

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

page 4409

CUSTOMS BILL

In Committee (consideration resumed from 29th August, vide page 4293).

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

– I find it necessary to propose a new clause to follow clause 30,which it will be remembered states the extent to which goods shall be subject to the control of the Customs.

As toall goods imported - from the time of importation until delivery for home consumption oruntil exportation to parts beyond the seas, whichever shall first happen.

Then it refers to goods under drawback and to goods subject to any export duty. The definition of Customs control contained in that clause is not sufficiently large, because it applies only to goods imported. “ Goods imported” mean goods intended to be landed and entered for home consumption or dealt with under the drawback clauses and stored. In order to give the full powers which are necessary, it is obvious that there must be a Customs control over all goods imported. It is assumed that there is such control in several of the clauses, for instance, in clauses 179, 182, 183, and 184. Clause 179 says-

Any officer may open packages, and examine, weigh, mark, and seal any goods subject to the control of the Customs,and the expense of the examination, including the cost of removal to the place of examination, shall be borne by the owner.

That implies that there shall be a control of Customs in all those cases where there is a power to open packages. It is quite obvious that the power which is given in other parts of the Bill to search goods, go all over the ship, and seal up whatever may be necessary, could not be exercised unless there was a power to deal with the ship generally. If it was a power to deal with only goods imported, it would be quite ineffective for the purpose of watching the revenue. Therefore, I move -

That the following be inserted as a new clause, to follow clause 30 : - “ All goods on board any ship or boat from parts beyond the seas shall also be subject to the control of the Customs whilst the ship or boat is within the limits of any port in Australia.”

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– This is a much more farreaching proposal than it would appear at first sight, and I should say, subject to correction, that there is no such provision in any Customs Act.

Senator O’Connor:

– Because the mode of drafting of this Bill is different. You would not find these powers in any one section, but you would find them scattered over many sections.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I feel perfectly certain that they are not concentrated into one section. Whetherwe get them filtered down through a number of sections, I cannot say. But itis perfectly apparent that the effect of ‘this new clause, taken in conjunction with clause 179, would be to enable any Customs officer to open all - the goods, or any goods and packages on any oversea ship, whether the cargo was : unbroken or not or whether she intended to land an atom of her cargo at. a particular port of call or not, or whether she was a British ship or a foreign ship, or any other ship. That is in entire conflict with the principles of the Customs Bill. What do we levy duties upon ? We levy them upon goods imported into the Commonwealth and put into consumption. We do not intend to levy duty on the cargo of a ship that simply calls at a port and takes her cargo away again, and what right have we to place a ship under the control of the Customs officers with a view to enabling them under clause 179 to break open her packages, and to explore her cargo, when no portion of it is intended to be landed on our shores? This is a very serious provision indeed.I doubt very much whether it is lawful. Whether it is lawful or unlawful we need not inquire into, but certainly it applies to goods that by no possibility and according to no principle under which duties of Customs are levied can we exercise or have any control over. Clause 30 covers the whole ground so far as duties of Customs are concerned. First “all goods imported “ are subject to the control of the Customs, that is, they may remain in bond or may be delivered out at once after entries are passed and the duties paid. Then” all goods under drawback,” and “all goods subject to any export duty “ are under the control of the Customs. But the object of this new clause is to place under the control of the Customs the cargo on an oversea ship coming from Europe, not one ounce of which may be intended for importation into the Commonwealth.

Senator Charleston:

– I cannot see what the object of it is.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

The power of an officer to board shall extend to staying on board any ship and the collector may station an officer on board any ship.

Then the following clause gives power to search “ every part of any ship and to open any package, locker, or place.” Clause 39 enables security to be required. It gives the Customs the right -

To require and take securities for compliance with this Act, and generally for the protection of the revenue, and pending the giving of the required security in relation to any goods subject to the control of the Customs “to “ refuse to deliver the goods or to pass any entry relating thereto.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– Yes, and I can easily understand that it is absolutely necessary, in order to prevent smuggling. I should prefer to have had a little more time, not merely to consider this provision, but to consult commercial men who have had much more experience in this branch of trade than I have had. So far as I am advised, it is a necessary clause.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia). - When I first read this clause I thought it was surplusage, because this power has already been conferred upon the Customs. I have been somewhat shaken in that view by the speech of Senator Symon, who has contended that the meaning of the phrase “ subject to the control of the Customs” is limited. The word “exportation “ in paragraph (a) of clause 30 refers to goods imported, and not to goods that may be exported from a State. I contend that under that provision all the cargo of a ship in port is under the control of the Customs. Therefore, it appeared to me that the new clause was only a repetition in another way of what we had already pro”vided. However, if it is not abundantly clear in the Bill, it should be made clear. I shall be found voting for the Government to give them the power which they ought unmistakably to possess. Not only goods intended to be landed at a port of call, but also goods intended to be landed at some other port, must, while the ship is within a federal port, be under the control of the Customs. The Customs must have power to examine anything and everything on a ship to see if smuggling is attempted to be carried on. I may tell Senator Charleston that in my opinion the word goods includes stores.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - We use the expression “ under the control of the Customs “ only in reference to goods that are imported - that is, imported whether they, are still on board the ship or whether they are landed and put into bond, or in whatever condition they may be. But owing to the existence of the Commonwealth we are faced with this position, that whereas formerly as a rule goods were brought by oversea ships to their ultimate port of destination and imported and landed it might be there, now it so happens that there is a series of ports of call in the Commonwealth to which these vessels go, it may be voluntarily or it may be under the obligation of a mail contract, but to which ai .any rate they go, remain for a few hours, and then proceed to another port of call, and ultimately to their final destination. That is what creates the difficulty here. If a ship comes here with a cargo of goods for Melbourne, the ship and her goods are, of course, within Customs control, and the cargo is a cargo of goods imported, because they are intended to be landed. But it is a very different thing when a ship arrives at Fremantle with a cargo consigned to Sydney. The goods in Fremantle are not imported, and they are not subject to the control of the Customs in the way which is intended by clauses 39 and 179. Those two clauses become impossible of being brought into effect, and we are using an expression - under the control of the Customs - which has no application to the cargo of a ship, unless where the goods are not imported. That is the difficult position in which we are landed. I press this upon the attention of honorable senators, that they are asked to agree to a clause which will create great confusion, which is utterly inconsistent with the rest of the scheme, and which will use sin expression as to goods not imported that is otherwise confined in its operation to goods imported within the meaning of the Bill. But then, if Senator O’Connor will say definitely’ that this is mainly directed against oversea ships’ stores - that it is to ‘fill a gap in the Bill in relation to ships’ stores - it is a perfectly fair thing to try to get it put in, and to remedy the defect. Those of us who may be against the principle of levying duties on ships’ stores when consumed on the high seas, can take an issue on it if we like, but the proper way in that case is to limit this new clause to ships’ stores, so as to bring it in line with clause 184, and then we know exactly where we are. As to all goods, and all cargo on board a ship arriving in the territorial waters of the Commonwealth we have ample power of inspection, examination, and everything else we like under clauses 179, 180, and so on. The officers can board the ships, no matter what their flag or nationality may be ; they can open packages, examine every part of a ship, fasten down a hatchway and other openings into the hold. In clause 183 the power of sealing is given in these words -

Sealing, marking or otherwise securing any goods.

What do we want this new clause for ? If it is intended to make it perfectly clear that an attempt is being made to seal up ships’ stores with the view of securing, the penalties if the seals be broken on her arrival at the final port of destination, let us consider it when we come to the other new clause. I ask Senator O’Connor whether under clauses 178, 182, and 183, there is not the amplest possible power to do everything that is required to put a stop to smuggling ? Any part of a ship may be examined and inspected, any package may be opened, and any part of a ship may be sealed up. If this new clause is intended, as I think it must have been by the draftsman, to be ancillary to the proposed new clause 184a, then it ought first to be limited to ships’ stores - the expression is used in clauses. 122 and 123- and considered together with clause 184; because if the latter is passed, and Senator O’Connor says he has any doubt as to whether clause 183 would give the power of sealing up ships’ stores - I think it does in most express terms - I have no objection, if the committee affirm the principle of clause 184a, to that being put in as well. If the principle is affirmed that we are going to attempt to punish a man for doing what is a perfectly legal act, then I am quite willing, that the Commonwealth shall have the opportunity of exercising that power in the widest possible fashion ; but I. think, on reference to the clauses I cited, the Minister will see that the officer has ample power of sealing and doing everything else he desires, not only as to ships’ stores, but as to the rest of the cargo so far as may be necessary.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:
Victoria

– It would appear that all the members of the committee are unanimous that power should be given to the Government to have the fullest control over goods coming into a Federal port. Supposing, that a vessel bound from New York to Dunedin puts, into Port Phillip through stress of weather. This new clause would give the Government the necessary power to prevent any goods from being landed from that ship on our shores. Without this power in the Act vessel putting into our port in that way would be practically able to do what she liked..

But with this power in the hands of the Government, it would be impossible to land goods from that ship. Under those circumstances, and after the explanation of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, I shall support the clause.

– Surely the goods are under the control of the Customs if the Customs can seize them and only give them up on their own terms.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I am much obliged to Senator Sargood, but I think he has misapprehended the position. Under the other provisions of this measure we have power with regard tothe boarding of ships and so forth. They are contained in the clauses from 53 onwards. We have been spending days upon this Bill to no purpose if those powers have not been given. My point is that we give certain obligations and impose certain consequences with respect to goods as to which we use the expression “subject to the control of the Customs,” which ought not to apply to goods not imported. We have the power of search, forfeiture, and so forth with respect to all goods, but not as to their being “under the control of the Customs.”

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– May I suggest to the Vice-President of the Executive Council that he should alter the word “goods “ to “ships’ stores.” That, in my opinion, would be a useful alteration. We are shortly to have a vessel going to the Antarctic upon a voyage of discovery. In what position will she be if she comes into one of our ports ? Will her stores be subject to duty or not 1 It also seems to me that this proposal should be read in conjunction with the new clause to follow clause 184.

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– By whom ?

Senator O’CONNOR:

– By the person who enters them for warehousing.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– What is the effect of the existing clause?

Senator O’CONNOR:

-It simply gives an authority to deal with the goods in accordance with the entry, and provides that after 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 goods in accordance with the entry.”

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I must confess that I am rather surprised at the explanation of the clause which has been given by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. Possibly the, committee will recollect that I moved an amendment in clause 37 for the purpose of making it follow the Victorian section. The words, the insertion of which I moved, were to follow the word “entry,” and were as follows : -

And such entry shall betransmitted to the proper officer, and be his warrant for the delivery of the goods mentioned therein.

Senator O’Connor:

– That is provided for in this amendment.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– With all due deference, it is not provided for ; and, as a matter of fact, there is not at present the slightest instruction in the forms used, to deliver up the goods on which duty has been paid. It was to meet that that the Victorian section was passed. The shipping clerk of a firm makes an entry, which is duly signed by the collector ; the entry is then taken back to the landing waiter. But so far as this Bill is concerned, there is no instruction whatever to the landing waiter as to what he is to do with the goods. I may saythat I have consulted with experts, not only in the commercial world, but in the Customs department itself, who say that this instruction to the officer is absolutely needed. Instead of giving instructions to the landing waiter to deliver up the goods, Senator O’Connor’s proposal throws upon the importer the responsibility of removing them, which he would be anxious to do as a matter of course. But the first thing is to throw upon the landing waiter the responsibility of handing them over. I see nothing whatever in the form of the entry to direct a landing waiter to forthwith hand over goods. I want to have the words of the Victorian Act inserted here in order that a merchant, having received from the Customs a duly signed entry form,may be able to go to the landing waiter and say - “ I demand my goods.” There is a distinct direction to the landing waiter to deliver the goods, and there is no such direction in the Bill before us.

Senator Clemons:

– Is it necessary?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I am assured that it is. In place of giving instructions to the landing waiter to deliver the goods, this Bill says to the merchant - “ You must remove your goods as entered, or be subject to a penalty of £50.”

Senator Clemons:

– If he could prove that the landing waiter would not deliver the goods the penalty could not be enforced.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I cannot see the necessity for this amendment at all. As a matter of course the first thing a merchant wants, if he has paid duty, is to get hold of his goods, and the provision that if he does not take his goods in accordance with his entry he shall be fined £50, appears to me to be an absurdity.

New clause agreed to.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted to follow clause 50: - “A. All tea imported as merchandise into the Commonwealth shall be examined by any officer of Customs appointed for the purpose by the collector.”

In moving that as the first of the new clauses I desire to submit, I have no intention of taking up the time of the committee at any length in giving my reasons for their introduction. I think they will commend themselves to honorable senators, and I trust they will be accepted by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. The honorable and learned senator may claim that this is not a Health Bill, but’ if hewill go back to clause 49 of the Bill he will find, under the heading of “ prohibited imports,” these words -

Exhausted tea ‘ and tea adulterated with spurious leaf, or with exhausted leaves, or being unfit for human use or unwholesome.

– I must admit that I cannot understand the attitude that the Government have taken up with reference to this proposed amendment. If it were a question of whether tea of an injurious character should be prohibited from Australia or not, I could understand their position, but that question has already been settled. Clause 49 provides that tea of a deleterious or exhausted nature shall not come into the Commonwealth, and these clauses lay down the process that must be gone through in order to ascertain whether tea proposed to be imported is of the proper kind. Therefore I cannot see any reason whatever why these clauses should not be inserted. The Government have raised no objections, except that the PostmasterGeneral is opposed to the lengthiness of the amendment, and considers that if we legislate in ‘this way in regard to tea, we should insert similar clauses in regard to other goods. Those points, however, do not affect the question in the slightest degree. We must bear in mind that this matter is a very important one to Australia. We are not only the largest tea drinkers in the world, but I have also seen it stated that absolutely the worst tea in the world is imported into Australia.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– And some of the best.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.I have seen it stated in the press that Australia is made the dumping-ground for some of the worst tea manufactured - I will not say grown - in the world.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Russia has the best tea.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I understand that that is the case. This is a question that vitally affects Australia, and, even although we may have to insert two or three additional clauses, I think it is absolutely necessary that we should insist on all tea being absolutely tested before being admitted to the Commonwealth. The Government admit that these provisions will have to be inserted in regulations if they are not introduced in the Bill. I have before expressed my opposition to leaving too much to regulations, and I think that by these clauses we should provide in the Bill the means by which all tea can be tested. Then we shall have an assurance that nothing but healthy tea will be imported into Australia. There is probably no commodity imported which ‘is so likely to be adulterated with deleterious compounds as tea, and as the Government has admitted that similar provisions would have to be inserted in the regulations, I intend to support the amendment.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I thought at first that there was a great deal in the arguments of Minis ters when they pointed out that it was unnecessary to encumber the Bill with a page of printed amendments when three lines of a clause would suffice, but I am inclined to think that the amendment moved by Senator Stewart is necessary in order to protect the Commonwealth from bad tea. It is quite true that those honorable senators who are supporting these new clauses are desirous of inserting in the

Bill what ought to be placed in regulations, but I am inclined to think that there is one clause which Senator Stewart proposes to insert that could hardly be placed in the regulations. That is the one which deals with the question of who is to be the judge of whether tea is exhausted or adulterated. That is a question of fact. As in the three lines, referred to by Ministers, it is solely a question of fact. Thus when the Customs officers tried to forfeit tea as exhausted, the importer might deny it, and they might have to test the question in a court of law. The good to be derived from Senator Stewart’s proposal, is that practically the analytical chemist is to decide the question. Nothing can be done to forfeit the tea for fourteen days, and the importer has the right of making a statement to the Governor in Council of any evidence he likes as against forfeiture, and then practically the Governor in Council and the collector decide the matter. That appears to me to be a very great advantage which we should lose if we did not adopt the amendment.

New clause agreed to.

New clauses 50b (And to chemical analysis), 50c (Tea unfit for food to be forfeited), 50d (Exhausted tea), and 50.b (Interpretation) proposed by Senator Stewart, agreed to.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I move -

That the following be inserted as a, new clause to follow clause 52: - “There shall be publicly exposed at the several ports of Australia, printed lists of all books wherein the copyright shall be subsisting, and as to which the proprietor of such copyright or his agent shall have given notice in writing that such copyright exists, stating in such notice when such copyright expires (also lists of all works or articles which shall have been prohibited by proclamation as being blasphemous, indecent, or obscene).”

– I shall only ask the committee now to agree to the new clause down to the word “expires.”

Amendments (by Senator O’Connor) agreed to -

That the words “the several,” line 3, be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ such.”

That after the word “ Australia,” line 4, the words “ as may be prescribed “ be inserted.

That all the words after the word “ expires “ be omitted.

Senator Sir WILLIAM. ZEAL (Victoria). - If it is left to the Minister to prescribe the ports and he is antagonistic, he will not prescribe any ports. I think Senator Sargood is defeating the very object he has in view.

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

– There is no doubt that if the Minister is to prescribe the places at which the notice is to be given, and he is against the provision, as he appears to be, he will not prescribe any places.

Senator O’Connor:

– Surely my honorable friend does not charge the Minister with such dishonest administration as that - not to carry out the law.

Senator EWING:

– The Minister might honestly believe that the course was not necessary. Parliament, and the country might think the course was necessary, and if he did not choose to prescribe the place then there would be no necessity for him to have the notice. It would be well either for Senator Sargood to persist in the spirit of his amendment and have it inserted in the Bill, or leave it out altogether. I can see no possible good to be derived from moving an amendment and then having it absolutely nullified by a suggestion from the Vice-President of the Executive Council. If Senator Sargood thinks his amendments are right, I hope he will press them, and not be “ hoodledummed “ into the position in which he has been put this afternoon. This is not the first time the same thing has occured. The honorable senator has before now moved amendments which have afterwards been nullified by suggestions from the Minister.

Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia). - I should like to know the reason why the words under discussion should be omitted? It is highly essential that the list of prohibited books or articles should be exhibited.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - In discussing the question with those interested in the book trade it occurred to me that we might very well pass a provision providing for exhibiting a list of prohibited books. Hence I prepared an amendment to that effect. Subsequently it was found that it did not thoroughly cover the ground. Then I prepared another amendment, which I shall move directly. Having gone as far as we can go in the matter under discussion, my desire is to have a similar provision made with regard to prohibited books.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I suggest to Senator Sargood that he should add to the new clause some such words as : “ such ports to be the principal ports.” We ought to provide at which ports the list is to be exhibited. A particular Minister of Customs might insist upon the list being hung up only in Sydney or Melbourne. We in the other States might be desirous that the same care should be taken in regard to our ports also. It would be an absurdity to hang up the lists at all ports, but they should certainly be hung up.at the principal ones.

Senator Sir FRERERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– I am much obliged to the honorable . senator for his suggestion. I move -

That the words “such ports to be the principal ports of Australia “ be added to the new clause.

Amendment agreed to.

New clause, as amended, agreed to.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I desire now to deal with prohibited books. I move -

That the following new clause be inserted to follow clause 52a: - “No works or articles shall be deemed ‘ blasphemous, indecent ‘ or ‘obscene’ under section 49 unless the same- have been so declared by proclamation. Provided that any works or articles not so proclaimed at the time of importation may . be detained by the Collector for a period not exceeding one week, and if so proclaimed within such period such works or articles shall be destroyed by the collector unless within a period of one week from such proclamation the owner shall export the same. There shall be exposed at the principal ports of Australia as may be prescribed printed lists of all books or articles which shall nave been prohibited or proclaimed as being blasphemous, indecent, or obscene. .

The principle is exactly the same as that of the clause we have already adopted in regard to copyright books, namely, that there shall be lists of the “ prohibited “ works. Any books sought to be imported, if they are upon the list, will, of course, be subject to being prohibited at once, and the owner must consent to their being destroyed, or may have an opportunity of re-exporting them.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– We should want a board to decide what books are blasphemous.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The present board is the Minister for Customs.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– The Moderator of the Presbyterian Assembly would do !

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– There are a number of books constantly sold that have been from time to time stopped by the Customs authorities.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– This amendment would .afford a convenient way by means of which certain young people could accumulate a library. They could go down and look at the list and see what books to get. I object to the amendment. It is altogether different from the new clause we have just adopted. There is no reason in the world why a list of copyright books should not be printed and made public so that such works may not be improperly imported. But this is a different thing altogether. We have given power to the Minister to prohibit the importation of “ indecent, obscene, or blasphemous “ articles. Any honorable senator who has had experience of Customs work will bear me out that a number of such books and articles are imported through the Customs, and there must be power for the officers to act upon the spot. If a list is published of the books or articles to be prohibited it would not require very much ingenuity to bring in undesirable works: Importers would get over the difficulty by changing the name or title of a book or article. For what purpose would fi list of blasphemous or indecent books be printed 1 For the dissemination of information with regard to them. As to the articles, it would be impossible, without the most disgusting indecency, to describe some of them. No good purpose is to be achieved by this proposal. . It would tie the hands of the Customs ‘ officers, and would be useless. We must trust that this power will be exercised for the public interest and for the general good, and with a sense of responsibility. The power is one that should be very seldom exercised unless there is ample justification for it. I would ask the honorable senator to consider whether he is not frustrating the exercise of ti proper power by the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD ( Victoria). - I move -

That the following new clause he inserted in the Bill : - “The owner or occupier of any licensed warehouse shall, previously bo the issue of any certificate in respect to goods stored in such warehouse, cause the rate of rent payable for the goods specified therein, and also the Customs quantities of such goods, as furnished by the proper officer of Customs, to be marked on the certificate thereof, and. “o person other than the proper officer of Customs shall erase or alter any such Customs quantities as marked. Penalty : One hundred pounds.”

This is a clause that is taken from the Victorian Act. It was passed as the result of very large forgeries that were committed, and I see that Dr. Wollaston, in his notes, refers to it as being necessary.

Senator O’Connor:

– Where would it be put in the Bill ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– It does not very much matter where it is put. The Minister might be left to decide that.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– As a matter of practice I think that when an honorable senator moves a new clause he should take the responsibility of making a selection as to where it should be placed in the Bill. Otherwise it would be open to an honorable senator to move a list of eight or ten new clauses in a lump, leaving the responsibility of distributing them to the representatives of the Government. I am not going to take a responsibility of that kind. It may make a considerable difference to the meaning of the measure, whether a certain new clause is put in before or after another clause. I suggest to the honorable senator that the amendment ought not to be inserted here, following upon the track of these prohibited articles.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– I shall propose the insertion of these amendments later, to follow clause 254.

New clause withdrawn.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I have a new clause to propose to follow clause 149, which provides that the value of the goods shall be taken to be the fair market value in the principal markets of the country whence they are exported, and provides also for the verification of value and the production of the genuine invoices. Some years ago it was found that importers were in the habit of deducting from the invoice value of the goods the value of the inside packages as distinct from, the outside packages. They were in the. habit of dealing very liberally in their own interests with the value of these inside packages. To take a particular case, where goods were put up in cardboard boxes, the practice was to fix a value upon the boxes,, which was very considerable, and this became such a scandal that the provision I now propose was inserted in the Victorian Act. I move -

That the following new clause be inserted to follow clause 149 : - “For the purpose of calculating ohe amount of ait valorem duty chargeable on any article on importation into Australia, whether by land or sea, when such article has both an inside and outside covering, the value of any inside case, covering, or material used for the picking of such article, shall be added to the value of such article, and such duty shall be payable on. the value of such article and such inside case, covering, or material.”

The effect of the insertion of this clause will be to considerably increase the amount of revenue paid. to the Customs, and at the same time to put an end to a very important fraud. This is one of the matters that the deputation which waited last week on the Minister for Trade and Customs, brought under his notice. The deputation were under the impression that the honorable gentleman entirely agreed that the provision, in addition to protecting the revenue, would protect the honest from the dishonest trader, and put all on the same footing. All the honest traders are in favour of this clause, and strongly recommend it. To take a particular case to illustrate the difficulty, honorable senators will understand that such goods sis shirts for instance,, are imported in more or less expensive cardboard boxes, and it is in connexion with .shirts that the fraud was first perpetrated.

Senator O’Connor:

– -That was because of” the form of the Victorian Act. But under this Bill the value is the value of the goods “ free on board,” and that includes the cost of everything.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The honorable and learned senator will pardon me if I say I think it does not, and that because the word “ goods “ is used it is absolutely necessary to insert this clause. “ Free on board “ does not include the cost of packages, but it is a technical

I term, covering the cost of bringing the goods from the manufacturer down to the port of shipment. The deputation which waited on the Minister were anxious to assist in protecting the Customs revenue and in protecting the honest from the dishonest traders. The difficulty is in connexion with the inside packages, because duty is really not charged upon the outside packages, since there is usually a very heavy loss in connexion with their sale. Packages which cost at home 30s. or 40s. have to be sold here for about 2s. 6d.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I do not think there is any need for this new clause.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I am bringing it before the committee in the interests of the department and in the interest of honest traders, and if the committee does not accept it the difficulty to which I have referred will arise again. The Ministry, of course, must please themselves as to whether they will take advantage of the opinion and strong advice given as the result of past experience. If they do not, all I can say is that the Customs and the honest trader also will suffer.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I quite appreciate the spirit in which the honorable senator has moved this amendment, but I assure him the matter has been carefully considered, and there is really no necessity for it. Clause 149 says -

The value shall be taken to be the fair market value of the goods in the principal markets of the country whence the same were imported, in the usualand ordinary commercial acceptation of the term, and free on board at the port of export in such country, and a further addition of . 10 per cent, on such market value.

Now, “ free on board “ means with every charge paid for all that is necessary to be done to place the goods in the ship’s slings. It includes not only the value of the outside packages, but of the inside boxes. This is a mode of fixing the values which I think is new in these Customs Acts, and at all events, it is quite different from the law in Victoria. Under the Victorian law, there was a right to deduct the value of the outside package, and that is what led to so many frauds. It was necessary, I believe, to pass some other provision to deal with these inside packages. The section in the Victorian Act was as follows : -

For the purpose of calculating the amount of ad valorem duty chargeable upon any article on importation into Victoria, whether by land or sea, when such article has both an inside and an outside covering, the value of any inside case, covering, or material used for packing of such article shall be added to the value of such article, and such duty shall be payable on the value of such article and such inside case, covering, or material.

It became necessary then to provide that, although the outside covering was not to be paid for, the inside covering should be paid for. That was necessary where a distinction was drawn between an inside and an outside covering. But under this Bill we draw no such distinction at all. Here we say that the inside and outside coverings and all that is necessary to have the goods placed on board the ship shall be added to the value, and we take the value of the goods for purposes of duty as “free on board.” We cannot have anything more comprehensive than that. I am afraid that in making a limitation of this kind with regard to the inside packages it will be difficult to say what the effect may be on this expression “ free on board,” which may in this way be inferentially limited. I understand the spirit in which the amendment is moved and in which the importers brought the matter under the notice of the Minister. It is very natural because they have been living under the Victorian law, and dealing with the Victorian administration of that law, and they do not sufficiently realize that this Bill puts the matter upon a different basis altogether,’ and does away with all these difficulties which arose from the distinction drawn between inside and outside packages. Under this expression “ free on board “ everything necessary to set the goods on board the ship is covered. That is the simplest way of dealing with the matter, and the way winch is least open to fraud.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I desire to make a suggestion to the Vice-President of the Executive Council which I think will end the trouble. I quite appreciate the new clause moved by Senator Sargood, and my experience leads me to say that there is a good deal of reason for it. At the same time I think the object could be more easily and more clearly attained by the withdrawal of this amendment and the recommittal of clause 149, with a view to amending it so as to make it read -

The value shall be takento be the fair market value of the goods in the principal markets of the country whence the same were exported, in the usualand ordinary commercial acceptation of the term and free onboard, packages included, at the port of export in such country.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - Although I am not very much surprised at the position taken up by the Minister, I again warn the committee that without this provision the Bill will be largely evaded. In saying so I am giving the committee the benefit, not only of my 50 years’ experience, but of the experience of others engaged in importing. If in the face of that, Ministers who have had really no practical experience, such as we have had, still oppose this proposal, well and good. I can do no more.

Senator WALKER (New South Wales). - It seems to me that Senator Sargood has given good reasons why we should support his proposed new clause. To begin with, he has shown that a similar provision exists in the Victorian Customs Act. They have had experience in Victoria, such as few other States have had, of the consequences of a heavy protective duty, under which some people are continually trying to swindle the Customs. The honorable senator has given us the benefit of his experience in mercantile life. I think we should avail ourselves of it, and support his amendment.

Question - That the new clause proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 11

Noes … … … 16

Majority … … 5

Question so resolved in the negative.

New clause negatived.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The committee will remember that a good deal of discussion took place on clause 150 when it was last before us. It is the clause which defines what is a genuine invoice. It gives rise to a difficulty that was pointed out by Senator Sargood, particularly in regard to goods being bought not from the manufacturer but from the buyer from the manufacturer in another country, and imported from the place of manufacture. Take a case in which the seller lives in London, and the manufacturer in Amsterdam. The goods are really sold in London, and the invoice goes from London, but the goods are supplied from the factory at Amsterdam. It is suggested that there are cases where there may be difficulty in producing the original invoice from the place of manufacture. A deputation of persons interested waited upon the Minister for Trade and Customs, and it is at his suggestion that a modification of this clause has been made to meet the case I have indicated. As they now stand, clauses 149 and 150 must be read together. Clause 149 provides that -

When any duty is imposed according to value -

The value shall be taken to be the fair market value of the goods in the principal markets of the country whence the same were exported in the usual and ordinary commercial acceptation of the term, and free on board at the port of export in such country, and a further addition of 10 per cent, on such market value. . . .

Then “the genuine invoice” is defined in clause 150 as meaning -

The original invoice prepared and issued by the seller in the country whence the goods were exported showing the true description of the goods and the actual money price paid or to be paid for the goods by the purchaser in the country whence the same were exported without any deduction.

Then there is another sub-clause in which very much the same provision is made in regard to goods consigned.” As the Bill stands, under these clauses it is necessary in the case I have mentioned, not only to produce the invoice of the London seller of the goods, but the invoice sent by the manufacturer with the goods to the person with whom the Customs are dealing. No doubt, in many, if not in most cases, there will be an invoice sent with the goods, and it will be highly desirable to obtain it. But there may be cases in which it is not sent, in which there has been no attempt at fraud, and in which the Customs are able to see perfectly well that no fraud is possible. To meet such cases, I move -

That the following new clause he inserted to follow clause 150 ; - 150a. If the original invoice prepared and issued by the seller or consignor in the country whence the goods were exported cannot conveniently be obtained, the collector may permit to be substituted the original invoice prepared and issued by the last seller or consignor and the invoice so substituted shall be deemed the genuine invoice but so that -

) The collector shall first be satisfied that the value shown by the invoice of the last seller or consignor is not loss than the fair market valuein the country of exportascertained according to section 149.

The value shown by such invoice shall, for the purpose of duty, be taken to be the fair market value of the goods in the country of export, ascertained according to section 140.

The effect of the amendment really is that if it is not convenient to produce the original invoice of the manufacturer, and the collector is satisfied that the prices charged in the invoice put before him are not lower than that of the country of manufacture, then he may permit the use of the invoice of the seller. I think this is really going as far as is necessary, and as far as the Custom-house officials can reasonably go in meeting the case which I have indicated. It will put the power in the hands of the collector, in all cases, of deciding whether he will allow this to be done or not. I think it may be taken that the substitution will be allowed wherever there is an honest transaction, and where it is evidently impossible to produce the original invoice which came with the manufactured goods. Therefore, to meet the case which has arisen, and which, in the opinion of the Minister for Trade and Customs and myself, should be met, I propose this new clause.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– There is no doubt that the Commissioner of Customs has endeavoured to meet the views of the deputation which waited upon him last week so far as he has understood the matter ; but I am sorry to say that this proposed new clause does not meet it, and that the greatest fraud will still be possible under clause 150. That clause provides that - “ The genuine invoice “ means(a) the original invoice prepared and issued by the seller in the country whence the goods were exported. . .

Senator O’Connor:

– The difficulty is that the honorable senator wants an entirety different basis of value from that provided in clause 149.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I frankly acknowledge that it is a difficulty. The provision in the State law has never been carried out. The formal declaration which I hold in my hand has been forced upon us. The whole of the trade kicked against it, but either they had to sign or they could not get the goods. All these years the shipping clerks of the various firms have been compelled every time they have gone down almost to sign their name to what they knew to be a lie.

Senator McGregor:

– They ought to be in gaol.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– No ; those who compel them to do so ought to be in gaol. That provision was passed by Parliament without a knowledge of the facts. A large proportion of the goods came in that way, but the mode in which business is being done in the old country, London becoming more and more every year the centre of commercial matters, is different now. If the Government follow out that plan they will continue to compel shipping clerks every time they go down to sign a lie.

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– If we ask for the original invoices we will get fraudulent invoices manufactured in London.

Senator DRAKE:

– That is a different thing altogether, and a matter which the Customs authorities will have to look after; but it is perfectly clear that there must be in the first place a seller’s invoice in the country where the goods were first produced or manufactured.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– If there was, how could we get it 1

Senator DRAKE:

– It could certainly be got, even if the goods had first been sold, and the man who purchased them from the country in which they were made afterwards sold them to the importer in Australia. If he had not the original invoice he would have the. means of getting it. Seeing that Senator Symon is willing to allow clause 149 to stand - and it must stand, because it is the basis upon which the value has been assessed in all the States, and is the natural basis of value - what objection can there be to the Bill going through with the amendment now proposed which provides that where the original invoice from the exporting country cannot conveniently be produced, the importer may produce the invoice which has been referred to frequently, the invoice supplied by the seller in London to the importer here 1 We have first of all the proper natural means of finding out the value provided for, and where there is evidence that that is not forthcoming we can substitute the invoice which honorable senators admit is always obtainable from the person who sells in London.

Senator MCGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator GLASSEY (Queensland). - I entirely agree that if Parliament desires to adopt a new policy in regard to the valuation of goods, it has a perfect right to do so. But in the framing of this Bill, the Minister for Trade and Customs has consulted experts from every part of the Commonwealth, and I think I am correct in supposing that he. would not confine his investigations to the testimony of Customs, officers, but would also take evidence from merchants, and persons engaged in trade in the different States. That being so, we’ may reasonably conclude that- when the Minister recommends the continuation of the present practice, he does so upon information supplied to him by these experts. It oan be no gain to the Customs officers to adhere to the line of policy laid down in this Bill. If they believed it to be necessary to adopt a new policy with a view to obtaining more revenue and greater security for collecting it, they would have made a recommendation to that effect. As this measure is largely the outcome of expert knowledge, gained from every part of the Commonwealth, it would be a serious reflection upon the experts if we departed from the principle laid down in it.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - The discussion has occupied more time than I anticipated, but the importance of the subject warranted my bringing the whole of the facts before the committee. I have pointed out that it is utterly impossible for the honest trader to carry out clause 150. That criticism has been met to some extent by the amendment, and I frankly acknowledge that as far as the honest trader is concerned, the difficulty is to a large extent met. But it does not go far enough. I accept the amendment, but later on I shall endeavour to get clause 150 recommitted with the view of making amendments which will protect the honest trader against the dishonest trader. At present the dishonest trader has an immense advantage.

New clause agreed to.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I move - .

That thef ollowi ng new clause be inserted to follow clause154 : - “The collector may always when he deems, it expedient for the protection of the revenue, and subject to any of the regulations to be made by the Governor-General in that behalf, detain and cause to be properly secured) and may take for the Crown any whole packages or packages or separate or distinct parcel or parcels or the whole of the goods mentioned in any bill of entry, and may when so requested, subject to such regulations, pay to the importer or person entering the same the sum at which such goods packages or parcels are respectively valued for duty in the bill of entry together with 10 per centum thereon, taking a receipt for such sum and addition when so paid. And the goods so taken shall (whether such payment be requested or not) belong to the Crown from the time they are taken as aforesaid, and shall be sold or otherwise dealt with in such manner as may be provided by such regulations in that behalf ; and if the net proceeds of any such sale exceed the amount paid as aforesaid for the goods then the surplus may be applied to the like purposes and in such proportions as penalties and forfeitures are hereinafter directed to be applied. The comptroller may, if he thinks fit, order that any duty paid upon any goods packages or parcels taken for the Crown under the provisions of this section may be returned to the importer or owner thereof.

In clauses 149 and 150 we have dealt with ad valorem duties, and the mode of imposing them. In clause 151 the Bill deals with foreign invoices ; clause 152 deals with the assessment of value; clause 153 deals with punishments for having blank invoices; and clause 154 enables the Minister to determine value insome cases. Now I want to deal with a matter which I believe is the law in more than one of the States. Certainly it is the law in Victoria. That is, that if a merchant declares goods at a certain value the department may, if it thinks fit - it is not compulsory - add 10 per cent to the value and take them over. This will be a most useful check against fraud. I can easily understand that in a comparatively small State where there is a comparatively small market it might be a very dangerous thing for the department to take over goods. On the other hand, so far as Victoria and the larger States are concerned, with such a power in the hands of the department, fraud could to a very large extent be checked. In Victoria it has been used with very great advantage to the department itself, and has frequently nipped in the bud the making of false declarations. I recognise frankly - and I have had a great deal to do with Customs officers for a great many years - the intelligence, honesty, and industry with which they carry out their, at times, by no means pleasant duties, and their anxiety to do the best they can for the Customs, and alsonot to be too rigid in carrying out the law; and if this power of taking over goods with 10 . per cent. on the declared value added is given to the department, I feel sure that we shall place in their hands a very valuable power for stopping fraud. In New Zealand, a similar power has been used in connexion with the land tax. Land can be taken over at the declared value with 10 per cent, added in case of undervaluation. That . power has been advantageously enforced there on several occasions.

Senator Major Gould:

– Advantageously to the man or to the State?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– To the advantage of the State, and also to the advantage of honest declarators of value.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– The principle of the proposed new clause is one which commends itself to my judgment, but I am inclined to ‘think that its provisions are a little too stringent. I think that 10per cent., as here proposed, is rather too high. In anticipation of this proposal, I have framed a new clause, which, I think, will carry out the honorable senator’s view, while, at the same time, it is in accordance with the general scheme of the Bill.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– I am quite content to adopt another form of clause for carrying out the same object.

Proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Newclause to follow clause 154 proposed by Senator O’Connor -

For the protection of the revenue against the under valuation of goods subject to ad valorem duties, and against the entry of goods at lower rates of duty than are properly applicable, any goods entered as of a specified value, or at a certain rate of duty, may at any time before sale to a person, having no knowledge of the entry and subject as may be prescribed, be purchased, by the Customs at their declared value, with an addition of £10 per centum on the amount of such value.
The purchase shall be effected by the seizure of the goods by an officer, and written notice of the seizure given to the owner.
The officer shall remove thegoods to a warehouse or some place of security, and the owner shall thereupon be entitled to the purchase money.
The goods shall become the property of the King immediately on seizure, and shall af terwards be disposed of as may be prescribed, or as the collector may direct.
A refund in whole or in part of any duty paid on the goods may be made by the collector.
This section shall not limit or restrict any other power possessed by the Customs relating to the goods.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD. (Victoria). - I do not quite understand the words in sub-clause(l) - “Any goods entered as of a specified value, or at a certain rate of duty.” Does that mean that if an importer places certain goods within one category, and, the Customs department places them in another, the goods may be seized 1 If the importer places goods in a class to which they would be liable to 10 per cent, duty, and the department places them in a class to which they would be liable to 15 per cent, duty, would they be seized 1 The Government do not mean that, surely.

Senator O’Connor:

– It means in case of undervaluation.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– As far as it concerns goods that are undervalued, let them be seized by all means. But sometimes the department itself does not know whether goods should be in one class or another.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– The object of the proposed new clause is to carry out the well-known principle that where a person has placed a certain value on his property for certain purposes of State and he makes an under valuation, he may be taken at his word, and the Government may acquire the property at that valuation. That is the principle followed in some taxation laws, and it is a fair one. I quite agree with the honorable senator that that ought to be confined to cases where there has been an undervaluation, and I am quite willing to strike out the words “or at a certain rate of duty” so that the clause shall read -

For the protection of the revenue against the undervaluation of goods subject to ad valorem duties any goods entered as of a specified value may at any time before sale, and then the other words will follow on.

New clause amended accordingly.

Senator McGREGOR (South Australia). - I think the Government have been very fair in drafting amendments to meet, the wishes of all the honest traders. I only wish there was a dishonest trader or two here to say what their opinions are. Although I admit that, under many taxation laws in different parts of the world) provisions are made under which the Government may take possession of property on behalf of the Crown, 10 per cent. is generally added; this is an instance which think differs altogether from other taxation laws. The taxation laws that have been referred to are land taxation laws, but when goods are introduced by the importer, whether he be an honest or a dishonest trader, and undervaluation has been stated, if the honest trader escapes the forfeiture of his goods he is very lucky, and if the Government are generous enough through the Customs department to take goods at the valuation of the owner himself, I think 5 per cent. would be quite sufficient to add to that valuation.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Why should we give him any percentage at all ?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I would not. If I thought there was a cumber of honorable senators here so much in favour of the honest trader that they would be prepared to forfeit the goods, I would be prepared to agree with them. I am prepared to move the omission of the words under which the 10 per cent, is proposed to be added so that the goods may be taken at the value stated by the owner, in instances where the Customs department consider that forfeiture is not advisable.

Senator O’Connor:

– I have no objection to that.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator Major Gould:

– Wilfully undervalued his goods.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– Yes, wilfully. That declaration will be made under paragraph (o), which provides that -

The value shall be verified at the time of entry by the production of the genuine invoice, and by a declaration signed by the owner in the presenceof the collector.

I understand that the usage under a law of that kind is that the declaration is a declaration of the true market value of the 1 goods in the country, from which they are exported, and that the Customs officials add 10 per cent, when the entry is made. I do not think that any of us wish to put a person in a different position than he would be under that declaration. Therefore, by adding 10 per cent, we will simply put the goods to the value that they possess for the purposes of duty. I am certain Senator McGregor does not wish to a0 any more than that in his amendment. The whole question is whether this 10 per cent, is already included in the value or is not. I am satisfied with Senator Ewing that the value declared is the market value of the goods at the place of export, and that the addition of 10 per cent, merely brings up the value of the goods to what they would be for dutiable purposes at the time of the making of the declaration. Therefore, I would suggest to Senator McGregor that ‘ the object which we all have in view will be carried out if he withdraws his amendment.

Senator McGREGOR (South Australia). - If the “Vice-President of the Executive Council is satisfied, I have no reason to be dissatisfied, because I am neither advocating the claims of the honest or dishonest trader ; I am only endeavouring to stand up for the public of Australia. I should like to point out to Senator O’Connor that although he may have received advices from the Customs department with respect to this question of 10 per cent., not a word has been said with regard to the “free on board at port.” The declaration according to clause ld:9 only applies to the price that is put down by the manufacturer. I am afraid, therefore, that there are some complications which we do not thoroughly” understand yet. If we take into consideration the gravity of the arguments that have been used by our honorable tombstone friend, Senator Neild, of course it might be so because there are many other things besides tomb stones that might be imported. “When the Customs Regulation Bill is passed the officers in the Customs department are to be guided by that measure and not by contingencies that may arise by reason of wars, famines and pestilences. They have to be guided by the price in the country from which the goods come, plus the reasonable charges that are paid on goods free on board with this 10 per cent, added, so that there is no danger in the direction that Senator Neild seems to fear. This clause is only for the -purpose of protecting the people of Australia against fraud. . If the Government are satisfied, I agree to withdraw the amendment with respect to the 10 per cent., but I do not want the 10 per cent. to be added first of all to bring up the declared value in connexion with the Customs, and 10 per cent, to be added for compulsory purchase by the Government. So long as I have the assurance that that will not take place, I am quite willing to withdraw the amendment.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I think there will be no difficulty in indicating to the committee that we have to be very careful in this matter lest we draw a clause which .may inflict very grevious injustice in certain cases. It is desirable that we should remember what is meant by this addition of 10 per cent. The addition of 10 per cent, to the shipping value is taken all the world over as a fairaverage of the added cost of the goods, represented by freight and insurance ; butthe 10 per cent, is very often immensely exceeded. In common with other honorablesenators no doubt, I have received a. statement from an Australian firm showing the enormous addition to the shipping value of empty bottles by reason of freight and other charges. Empty bottles are largely imported to - Australia, and goods such as Japanese blinds and other articles are subject to ad valorem duties in Victoria and some of the other States at the present time. Ten per cent., however, will not anything like cover the expenses of bringing these goods over. There are many articles on which the expenses of importation range from 50 to 100 per cent. Under this clause, if an importer obtains £1,000 worth of goods in a manufacturing centre, he will have to pay duty on £1,000, plus £100 ; and if he makes an undervaluation he will be liable to have the goods seized. The goods with freight may have cost £1,500, so that if the Government seize the parcel because of a small undervaluation in the shipping price the importer might lose several hundred pounds. I “ am quite with the Government and Senator Sir Frederick Sargood in desiring that the Customs should have power of seizure in a case of wilful .undervaluation ; but we must be sure that the clause is so worded that the seizure can only be put in force when the- undervaluation has been wilful, and must not run the risk of bringing about such a possibility as I have indicated.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - We are in very great danger of overloading the Bill. This clause is altogether unnecessary. At first it was a little bewildering whether it was intended to protect the Customs against the honest or the dishonest trader ; but now I understand it is only applicable to a case of perfect. honesty in making an undervaluation. It is not intended to allow a rogue to escape.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– It is intended for just the opposite - to catch the rogue.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Does my honorable friend propose to allow the rogue to escape simply by the Government purchasing his goods at 10 per cent, on? That would offer a premium to dishonesty.

Senator O’Connor:

-. - No. The last subclause provides that it shall not limit or restrict any other power possessed by the Customs relating to the goods.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am much obliged to my honorable friend for putting that in ; it takes the sting out of the clause, because if an undervaluation is honest, if it is a mere inaccuracy, all the provisions which are requisite are given in clause 152. We have there a provision that if the collector has a doubt as to the accuracy of the declared value of dutiable goods, he may detain the goods. If the owner objects to the value which the collector assesses, he can have that value checked and ascertained by experts, in manner prescribed,- Should the honest owner of the goods still persist that his valuation is correct, and refuse to accept the value so ascertained and pay the duty, the collector may sell the goods. What does the Government want to take up shop, keeping for 1 There is no necessity for it. If the goods are undervalued honestly, there is an opportunity given to have justice done between the merchant and the Crown. If there is a dishonest and wilfully made false declaration of value, all the provisions of the Act come into operation, and his goods are forfeited without a penny to him, aird he is liable to penalties as well. Surely that is everything. What do we want to overload the Bill for, by making the department the purchaser of goods at 10 per cent, on - giving the importer a profit on the actual cost of the goods to him 1 This provision, if it is left in, will be a dead letter. I hope that it will not be introduced. The condition on which these goods may be taken over by the Government in the form of a sale is -

If the goods are entered as of a specified value. It does not say that it is an undervaluation ; that would be an offence. There is a preamble to the clause, which says that all this is for the protection of the revenue against the undervaluation of goods subject to ad valorem duties; but what is the power? Any goods entered at “a specified value,” not at an under-value. Here we are introducing a lot of complications at once. Goods may be in the hands of a person who claims to be a bond fide purchaser, and we may have all sorts of difficulties raised there ; and then you introduce regulations, because the goods have to be “ subject as may be prescribed,” purchased by the Customs at their declared value. You will have the Bill blotted with a clause which will either be a dead letter, or which will be absolutely misleading, or which may work injustice. Senator O’Connor has been good enough to point out that it does not restrict any other powers. What are the other powers ? The power of dealing with the honest trader on the one hand, and the power- of dealing with the dishonest importer on the other. The Bill is entirely complete, and I think Senator Sargood has been led away. He says it is the dishonest trader he wants to get at. If this is how the dishonest traderis to be got at, I prefer the more stringent and drastic provisions which in sub-clause (6) are left untouched by the proposed new clause.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I hope that Senator O’Connor will see his way to accept the suggestion of Senator Sir Josiah Symon. The specified value is not quite evident. It does not necessarily mean an undervaluation. As an old banker, I have known persons to pay 8 per cent, exchange for getting money in London. I have seen drafts on Australia negotiated in London at 8 per cent, for three months. The rates of exchange depend on the money market and on various other circumstances. We want fair play between man and man. I think that hardship will be caused if the clause is passed as it stands.

Senator MCGREGOR (South Australia). - I would point out, in connexion with the honest or the dishonest trader, that the Government might be compelled to sell at a very inopportune time, and/that if they did it might be disastrous to both. But if the Government have power ‘ to seize and hold they might be able to pay a fair value to the unfortunate trader, who through either honest or dishonest motives had been induced to understate the value of his goods. After the declaration of a gentleman with such large experience as Senator Walker, that traders are put to such straits, that they are charged such usury as has been indicated, I think that some consideration should be given, and a clause of this kind -would probably be very beneficial to both the Government and the trader. It could do no possible harm to put it in the Bill.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales).- To the minds of some honorable senators, a person who is not determined to go in for ali sorts of restrictions and harassing provisions is looked upon as a man who is inclined to favour the dishonest trader. Certain honorable senators seem to think it to be their duty to regard everybody who will have to do with the Bill as dishonest. This provision commends itself to Senator McGregor’s mind, because it is aimed at those who attempt to defraud the revenue. When I spoke at an earlier hour, I had not noticed clause 152, which deals with the case of an under-valuation ; but in the face of that provision can honorable senators say that there, is any necessity to insert a new clause of this character ?

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– Ask Senator Sargood.

Senator Major GOULD:

– I do not believe -that Senator Sargood regards it now as being necessary as he thought in the first instance. In clause 152 there is power, where the collector is in doubt as to the accuracy of the valuation, to do certain things ; and there is the further provision that the clause shall not apply where the Minister is of opinion that any evasion has been attempted. A question arises as to what is to happen when there is a bona fide contention as to the value of certain goods, or, in other words, where the honest trader is involved in a difference of opinion with the collector. If the Minis ber is of opinion that an evasion has been attempted the goods are forfeited, and the man who has committed the fraud punished, as he should be. So that there is in the Bill already absolute power to protect the revenue. There is, therefore, no need for this provision which gives the Government power to take possession of the goods at the values specified in the declaration of the importer. If a man is perfectly honest, and the necessity arises for a revaluation the Minister has clause 152 to act under, but if the man be dishonest, why give him this benefit when his goods can be forfeited, and he can thus be punished? The danger comes that the Government may take the goods as of specified value. For what purpose 1 Are they going to make a profit out of the stile of the goods, or suffer a loss upon them ? If there is to be a loss, the dishonest trader will not suffer that loss ; if there is to be a gain the honest trader ought to obtain that gain. The only object of a customs law is to protect th revenue, and to insure the payment of duty by the importer. The Government do not want to take possession of goods and make a profit out of them, nor do they want to take them and involve themselves in a serious loss. For, mark you, where there has been an attempt to evade the law the goods can be sold, and the Government will lose nothing at all. Even in the case of the honest trader, if he will not pay duty as assessed, the goods can be sold in order to pay the Government the duty, and the value of the goods can be refunded to the owner after the duty has been deducted. Consequently, the clause appears to be absolutely unnecessary. If it is used at all, it can only work mischief instead of good. If the trader has put a high value upon the goods, and the Government do not realize that sum they are at a loss ; if they realize more they are taking advantage of the honest trader. If he is a dishonest trader, they are not punishing him. We are told that there is a similar provision in the Victorian law, but I do not think there is in the Victorian Act a section similar to clause 152. If that be so, we can readily understand why there should be some provision of this character, but clause 152 amply protects the revenue in a far better way than it can be protected under such a clause as this. I hope honorable senators will look at the matter from all points of view, and will realize the mischief likely to follow from the adoption of the proposed new clause.

Senator EWING (Western Australia). - I would suggest to Senator O’Connor that if his object is only to acquire goods in the event of an undervaluation it would be well for an amendment to be made inserting the following words at the beginning of the clause : -

In the event of a dispute as to the value of the goods, and for the protection of the revenue.

My object in suggesting that alteration is that the Government ought not to have the power of buying goods unless there is some trouble with regard to the duty. For instance, a man might be introducing a large consignment of goods and the Government for the time being might desire those goods. They could step in under this clause, dispute or no dispute, and seize them. That is not the intention.

Senator Playford:

– Does the honorable and learned senator think the Government would be guilty of a trick of that sort 1

Senator EWING:

– I do not know that the Government would dp a thing of that sort, but in future days a Government might say - “.There is the section - what is the meaning of iti What is it put in for except to enable us to do this thing ? “ If we intend that the Government shall only be able to step in where some irregularity has occurred we should make it clear in the clause. I quite agree with Senator Symon as to the proposed new clause being unnecessary : but if we are to have it let it be made clear what are the circumstances in which it is to be applied. As far as we can we should pass legislation which exactly expresses the intention of the Legislature. lint I cannot see why Senator Sargood has moved the amendment at all. It does not commend itself to me in any form.

Senator WALKER (New South Wales). - Since I last spoke I have found amongst my papers an invoice showing the total cost of importing certain goods from Hamburg. The first cost of the goods in Hamburg was £96 8s. To that sum £92 5s. was added for port charges and other expenses. Therefore the total cost free on board was 70 per cent, over and above the original price of the goods. Ten per cent, only on that would be altogether insufficient. Who would believe that on goods, originally costing £96 8s. in Hamburg the cost, when landed in Australia, would be, as in this case, £318, or say 70 per cent, over the cost free on board.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– The more I consider this proposal the more I dislike it. We have already made provision for what is desired, and I can see no reason for the proposed new clause, which only helps the dishonest man. It is said that if there’ should be any undervaluation in the opinion of the Customs officers, the Government should have power to seize. The moment the goods are seized and placed in the King.’s warehouse the Government will be entering into speculation. The goods may rise or fall in value. The provision is altogether unnecessary and unwise. All we have to do if a man has made an unfair declaration is to seize the goods and sell them, and let the man receive the price minus the duty. Probably, when

Senator O’Connor first read the clause proposed by Senator Sargood, he saw that it did not meet what was required, and set out to prepare an amendment, overlooking the fact that the object is already met by other provisions of the Bill. I earnestly hope that the proposal will be withdrawn.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– There is an old saying to the effect that you cannot have too’ many strings toyour bow; and, as one who has had a good deal to do with the administration of the Customs, I think it is wise to have as many checks against defrauding the revenue as possible. There may be instances of where the Minister cannot say that an importer is honest, while he cannot say that he is dishonest; but he may believe that the importer is getting his goods in at lower than a fair rate. The importer cannot be proceeded against under the criminal provisions of the measure, .but it can beproved to a certain extent that he is introducing goods into the Commonwealth below their value. With this power in his hands the Minister can try a few cases occasionally, taking the goods at their declared value, selling them, and seeing what theresult is.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– He can do that under clause 152.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It is not quite sure that it would be worth the while of the Minister to do it under clause 152. The advantage of this clause is that thedepartment will be able to hold over the heads of importers something which will induce them to declare their goods at a fairrate.

Senator Dobson:

– Under clause 152 the Government can sell, but under this clausethey have to buy.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– We have to buy with the intention of selling. We take the goods under this clause at a certain valuation which we believe to be a low one. We may have some suspicion that certain firms are in the habit of undervaluing, and wetest it by taking possession of the goods and selling them in the market.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I should like to say that Senator Playford will never find himself in the exceedingly difficult position which hesuggests that Senator Sir Frederick Sargood sometimes occupies, because Senator Playford will always be found supporting theGovernment. Seeing that the honorable. senator has been not only Treasurer and head of the Customs department in the model State of the group, but also Agent-General for that State, he has surprised us by failing to appreciate what this new. clause really is. We have in the Bill provisions of the most drastic character. We put it in the power of the collector to assess the values of goods, and if the importer disagrees with that assessment we have the value ascertained by experts, and if he disagrees with the valuation fixed by the experts, the Customs authorities may sell the goods. Where there is proof of the operations of the dishonest trader we have the provisions which enable the goods to be forfeited, and the dishonest trader punished as he ought to be. But what is this proposed clause for ? It is, if honorable senators please, to give power to the Customs authorities to buy the goods of this gentleman, who has put an undervaluation upon them, at his declared value plus ten per cent. I object, in the interests of the revenue and in the interests of all kinds of traders, .to its being put in the power of the collector to buy goods from a man who has brought them in at a declared undervaluation, and whose sole obligation is to pay duty. What do the Customs authorities want with these goods? All the provisions of the Customs Bill are to enable us to get the true duty. Clause 152 enables us to do that. If the collector thinks the goods have been undervalued he will say to the importer - “I want my duty on the genuine value of the goods.” The importer may say, “ I disagree with your valuation,” and the collector then says, “ I will sell the goods and get my duty out of them.” He does so, and hands over the balance to the importer. I say that is quite enough for him. The importer - it may be more or less innocently - imports goods at an undervaluation, but we never can tell that there is not an attempt to evade the Customs by getting goods in at an “undervaluation, and look how this provision may be abused. I do not desire to impute anything to the Customs officials, but it is possible that fish may be made of some and flesh of another, and Customs officials may look with a lenient eye upon one importer who has undervalued his goods and say to him, “ These goods are undervalued, but here is your valuation for them plus 10 per cent.” ; while they may look with another eye upon another importer and. say, “ Your goods will be sold, the duty taken out of the proceeds, and you will get the balance.” That kind of tiling ought not to be possible. I arn sure Senator Sargood suggested this clause from the best possible motives, but I notice that the VicePresident of the Executive Council does not take any responsibility for the amendment, and it is simply putting temptation in front of the officers of the Customs to deal differentially with different importers.

Senator McGREGOR (South Australia). - I am still going to support Senator Sargood, notwithstanding the logical way in which Senator Symon has put his case to ‘ the committee. We must look at the matter in another light. If goods have been seized and sold, and they do not realize the value a trader has placed on them, and the Customs department deduct the duty, I think Senator Symon will himself agree that the importer -would have a very good case against the Customs department, and it is quite probable that -it would cost the Government a good deal more in the future than a seizure of the goods under the amendment proposed by Senator Sargood. Under this amendment the owner of the goods gets the legal amount he is entitled to, and the Government get value in hand, and no case can be raised afterwards. But under clause 152, so ably advocated by Senator Symon, a mistake may occur in which the Government may be involved. I think with Senator Playford that it is a very good thing that the Customs department should have more than one string to its bow..

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - It has been suggested to me that it would be as well to introduce the words, “ And if there be a dispute as to value” after the word “ duty,” so- that the clause would read -

For the protection of the revenue against undervaluation of goods subject to ad valorem duties, and if there be a dispute as to value in any case - and so on. Personally I prefer the clause as it stands, and will not move the suggested amendment. This clause is strongly recommended by the large deputation that waited on the Minister for Trade and Customs, and surety those persons know something about the importation of goods.

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - -There have been only two speeches in favour of the amendment, and both have been made by representatives of the Utopian province. Both have insisted that this clause is designed to get at people who undervalue goods. But Senator Symon has pointed out in the clearest manner that it can have no possible value except to enable the Government of the day to seize goods and make a profit out of them. I suppose we shall have some future Cabinet going round the Commonwealth peddling these goods in the various States. I am going to move the insertion of the words which have already been indicated by Senator Sargood. I move -

That after the word “ duties,” line 2, the words and if there be a dispute as to value” be in serted.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the new clause proposed to be inserted, be so inserted - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … 17

Noes……… 10

Majority … … … 7

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

New clause agreed to.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– I have a new clause which I wish to insert in the Bill. There is provision made in clause 160, under which in the event of a dispute as to duty, the owner of the goods will be compelled to go to the Supreme Court, or instead of that, under clause 256 he may submit the matter in dispute to the sole and final decision of the Minister. Honorable senators will see that there are thus only two alternatives.In the one instance a man must absolutely submit the matter to the Minister for his sole decision, and in the other he must go to the Supreme Court. There are a large number of cases of honest dispute between the Customs and importers which do not justify the excessive expenses of a lawsuit, nor would it be wise that they should be left to the Minister. I therefore propose that there shall be a medium course, and I have circulated an amendment which is a copy, boiled down, of sections 38 to 46 of the Victorian Act, No. 1081. I move -

That the following new clause be. inserted to follow clause 160 : -

If any dispute shall arise as to whether the provisions of this Act have been complied with, the person aggrieved may apply in writing to the Minister stating the grounds of complaint, and thereupon the Governor-General shall depute two or more persons to inquire into and report upon such dispute in the prescribed manner to the Governor-General. Upon such inquiry witnesses may be summoned and examined upon oath.

No person summoned as a witness shall without reasonable cause, or excuse, neglect or refuse to attend upon being tendered reasonable expenses. Penalty : £20.

The Governor-General shall either prosecute the offender or determine such dispute and make an order accordingly, notice whereof shall be given to the parties to such dispute forthwith. Such order shall be of equal force and effect as if the same had been made by any justice or justices having jurisdiction in the matter, and may be enforced accordingly, unless the party against whom such order is made, shall within one week after the receipt of notice thereof give notice in writing to the Minister that he refuses to abide by such order.

This has been found a very valuable provision in the Victorian Act, and I have known many cases, although not of recent years, in which advantage has been taken of it. It has greatly facilitated both the Customs department and importers in settling disputes in a satisfactory manner, without the expense on the one hand of a Supreme Court action, or of the necessity on the other of leaving the matter to the discretion of the Minister. It has been suggested to me that sub-clause (3) should be made final. I think that would be an improvement. Once the importer has elected to take this course, he should not be allowed to go beyond it. My amendment leaves three courses open. Either the matter may be remitted to the Minister for his final decision, or the importer may take the course I propose, which in the large number of cases will be taken, and which will be anal, or if he prefers he may go to the Supreme Court and fight the matter out.

Senator Dobson:

– What is the meaning of the “person aggrieved,” in the third line of sub-clause (1)? Does it refer to the person aggrieved in the dispute with the collector ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I do not hold myself responsible for the drafting of this amendment. I handed in verbatim copies of the clauses in the Victorian Act, and the draf tsman has boiled them down in this way. I think it will be necessary to put in some other words.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– On the 28th of last month, I gave notice of certain amendments dealing with this very question of appeals, and indicated the clause which I desired my new clause should follow. On the next day Senator Sargood gave notice of the amendment he has just moved, without stating where he desired to insert it, and because of that omission he is now practically interfering with my prior right of amendment.

Senator SirFrederick Sargood:

– I will willingly withdraw. I knew nothing of the honorable senator’s amendment.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I do not mean to suggest that the honorable senator wishes to take any advantages ; but it so happens that if this amendment is passed, it will prevent me from having my new clause considered.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - Senator Neild’s new clause would entail a very considerable expense for paid boards. Under the Victorian Act the boards are all honorary boards, and have answered their purpose very well. But if the honorable senator particularly wishes it I have no objection to withdraw my amendment, which I may say has been submitted to the members of the Ministry.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– No doubt the principle of both amendments is the same, but inasmuch as the amendment of Senator Neild goes more into detail, perhaps it will be better if Senator Sargood will withdraw his for the present, and allow the other to be moved later on.

– It is because they call that; we make them pay the duty. Supposethey say - “Rather than be bothered with its troublesome inventory business, we do not desire to call at Fremantle.” They are, however, faced with that condition in their mail contracts. It seems to me that we are offering them an encouragement not to call at intermediate ports. This is looked upon asa possibility in Adelaide. It is considered possible that the mail steamers will pass by that port altogether. I can tell my honorable friends that there is a good deal of feeling on that subject, arising from this and other causes. It is felt that this provision will be an inducement to. the big mail steamers to go direct from Fremantle to Melbourne or to Sydney, without touching at Adelaide at all; and everything we do in this direction is an additional deterrent.

The. imposing, of these penalties will; have exactly the same effect.

Senator Glassey:

– . Is that not an imaginary fear?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I do not know whether it isam imaginary fear but often fears that look so imaginary turn out to be fears in reality . Even if they, do not,, it is these fearsacting; on theminds of the people that make them discontented with changes in public affairs. Ihope we shall abstain from doing what we admit we cannot do honestly; if I mayuse that expression. We cannot compel these ships to pay duty on the stores consumed on the high, seas. We dare not. putsuch arovision in the Bill, because in all probability, if we did, theRoyal assent to it would be postponed, if not withheld.. Butwe do it by saying; that upon the arrival of a vessel at her port of destination with the Customs seals broken- lawfullybroken on the high seas - she is tobe deemed to have committed an offence. It is only in that way that we. can compel these vessels to pay duties which otherwise we should not be able to charge. If we take the words of thisclause - a vessel which is bound, to “any other port withinthe Commonwealth “ - what do they mean? I do not wish to go into details, but does it mean direct to any other port, or does it mean vessels calling at another port of the Commonwealth after having called somewhere else? Take the case of vessels going, from Fremantle to Port Darwin, and calling at Singapore on the way. Suppose a vessel has her stores sealed in Fremantle; and that she arrives at Port Darwin, after having called at Singapore, with her seals broken. Are we to penalize that vessel ? How. are we to deal with, vessels that come from New Zealand and touch at other ports? We cannot deal with them at all. The whole thing will be a fiasco, and it seems to me will cover us with the odium of an admitted injustice, because we shall be carrying out a provision with a view of getting duties which otherwise the goods would not, be liable to. If I can be shown that these dutiesare payable in respect of the stores consumed on the high, seas on board these vessels- over which we have no jurisdiction - then I say “put on any penalty you like.” But it is now admitted that the goods, are. not liable to duties when they are consumed on the high seas ; and if they are not liable to duties they should not be sealed up, andit shouldnot be made the subject of a penalty for a vessel to arrive with her seals broken in consequence of the consumption of goods on the’ high seas, where they may be lawfully consumed. To put a provision of this Sort in. the Bill is a great mistake! It is an interference with trade and an interfere ence with international obligations, which we should always respect. The provision will, in my view’; be a dead letter if it is inserted. The total amount of’ duties in respect of goods consumed on vessels is estimated to be something like £50,000 on £60,000, and the estimate of the amount which we are likely to derive f rom the goods consumed on sea-going vessels is £10,000 or £15,000. The inconvenience, trouble, and expense involved in getting at these’ duties will be enormous, interference with trade will be great, and the inconvenience and expenseto ship-owners will be veryconsiderable indeed. I hope, therefore, that proposals which will have the effects I have indicated will not be persevered in. I enter my emphatic protest against the proposal as a blot on the Customs Bill, as creating a serious possibility - or probability I will say - of very grave inconvenience in connexion with the external relations of this Commonwealth.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I think my honorable and learned friend has put his side of the case with considerable clearness, though some of his arguments have been slightly over-strained. In the first place I think he is wrong in refusing to admit what the committee did the other night, by a considerable majority, when they decided in favour of the principle of taxing these ships’ stores if it can be done.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I thought the committee only defeated Senator Gould’s amendment.

Senator DOBSON:

– There is a clause in the Bill which enables us to put a seal on stores.

Senator Major Gould:

– Not on over-sea ships. This clause is in substitution of the latter part of the provision which was eliminated at the suggestion of the VicePresident of the Executive Council.

Senator DOBSON:

– The clause is in a different form but in the debate; and on the divisions; I think I am right in saying that the committee by their votes and arguments decided by a considerable majority in favour of taxing the stores of these ships, in the same way as the stores consumed within the precincts of the Commonwealth are taxed.

Senator O’Connor:

– We decided that in cases -where a foreign or British ship was clearing for ports beyond the Commonwealth, they should have their stores free.

Senator DOBSON:

- Senator- Sir Josiah Symon assumes in his argument that we cannot tax these goods honestly, and that if we do it at all we shall be doing it by a subterfuge. Now, what we desire to do is to put foreign-going ships on exactly the same level asour own coasters. We say to a foreign ship trading from one port of the Commonwealth to another, and taking on- board passengers and goods - “ We are going to tax you for the goods consumed within our waters if’ the law allows it.” There is nothing dishonorable or unjust in that.

SenatorSir Josiah Symon. - I did not say that it” was dishonorable-.

Senator DOBSON:

– The honorable and learnedsenator pushed his argument too far altogether: We have the right to say to these ships - “ You need not come here unless you like,, but if you come all we desire to do is to put you on even terms with our own ships, and if we can do it we will do it.” The honorable and learned senator says we are doing it by a subterfuge: That is not a fair word to use. We are not going to do it by a subterfuge. Every one knows what’ the intention is. The shipowners know it in- London at- this moment, and are protesting against it. If we can so skilfully and cunningly - if honorable senators opposite like to use that word - frame a clause which will give us freedom of intercourse whilst placing foreign ships on an equality with our own, there is no subterfuge about it:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Josiah Symon. - If- it is “ cunning,” would not the honorable and learned senator call it a subterfuge 1

Senator DOBSON:

– I prefer the word “ skilful.” My honorable and learned friend says that the traders of Adelaide are anxious- about- this proposal. He says that they are afraid that foreign-going vessels will not call at Adelaide. Let me put this point to my honorable and learned friend. One section of the- Constitution- says that after the imposition of ‘uniform duties, intercourse between the States shall be absolutely free. Our shipping friends in Adelaide may say to my honorable and learned friend - “ Why did you not vote for a clause which, would bring about freedom of intercourse by putting foreign-going vessels on the same terms as those upon which we have to trade ? Why should you handicap us and deprive us of that very freedom of intercourse which the Constitution gives to us “ ? The Inter-State vessels and the foreign vessels will all be coasting vessels so far as this measure is concerned, just’ like the vessels coasting between Melbourne and Warrnambool, or Sydney and Newcastle, and will all get their stores on the same terms so far as the payment of duty, is concerned. My honorable and learned friend has said that the breaking of the seals on the high seas will be a matter outside the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, and that the imposition of a penalty for so doing will be illegal. But we do not impose a penalty for breaking the seals outside the limits of the Commonwealth. We seal the goods when a vessel comes into one of our ports, and we say that if that vessel enters another port with her seals open, it is an offence. The vessel need not come to the other port, but if she does so for the purpose of carrying passengers, getting freight, and competing with Australian ships, and arrives with her seals broken, she commits an offence. Is there any probability that vessels will cease to trade with our ports if this provision is in force ? Certainly not. We want to encourage these traders coming here. Let us look at what the practical outcome will be if this clause is carried. As soon as this measure receives the Royal assent I take it that the Minister for Trade and Customs will within a very short time come to an arrangement with the shipowners. He will settle with them fair and reasonable terms, and they will recognise that there is no intent or desire on the part of the Commonwealth to handicap them, but simply to put them on the same terms as our own vessels. Suppose that it is questionable whether we can charge on any goods consumed between one port and another when a vessel is outside the limits of the Commonwealth, there can be no doubt with regard to goods consumed when the vessel is in Sydney or in Hobart, or in any other port. It is quite likely that the Minister for Trade and Customs will arrange with them that no charge shall be made for any goods consumed outside the 3-mile limit. But some of the vessels stay for a night in Sydney, 48 hours in Hobart, perhaps a week in Melbourne and so on. Altogether they consume a considerable quantity of goods within the 3-mile limit and should pay upon those goods.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The honorable and learned senator admits, then, that we cannot charge for goods consumed outside the 3-mile limit 1

Senator DOBSON:

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 September 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1901/19010904_senate_1_4/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 4 September 1901

CUSTOMS BILL

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

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:South Australia

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Charleston:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Keating:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Clemons:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Clemons:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Playford:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Ewing:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Walker:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Glassey:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator CHARLESTON:South Australia

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator O’Connor:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:Victoria

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:Victoria

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator WALKER:New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Clemons:

Senate
4 September 1901

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

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:
Victoria

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

Senator Sir FRERERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria