Senate
20 May 1902
1st Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 12660
PETITIONS
Senator FRASER:
VICTORIA
– I have a petition to present from 28 sugar-cane farmers resident in the district of Cairns, Queensland, praying that the Senate will grant a rebate of the excise duty collected onsugar manufactured and stored anterior to the 9th day of October, 1901. I move -
That the petitionbe received and read.
The PRESIDENT:
– Has the Clerk certified that the petition is in order ?
Senator FRASER:
– No; but I have gone through the petition myself, and have found that it is in order.
The PRESIDENT:
– I wish to intimate to honorable senators that in all cases in which a petition is not certified to by the Clerk, I shall ask the Clerk if it is correct. Would the honorable senator kindly hand the petition in?
Senator FRASER:
– I do not intend to ‘ alter my position with regard to petitions. I am too old and too stubborn to do that. I may say that I have altered the petition in conformity with a telegram received from Cairns. The petition originally contained an informality which I have been authorized by telegram from Cairns to remedy. I have the telegram with me, and can produce it if necessary.
The PRESIDENT:
– The Clerkhas now looked through the petition. I do not say’ that it is not in order, but I would point out, that it asks the Senate to grant a rebate of the excise duty on sugar. How can the Senate grant a rebate? However, I do not intend to rule the petition out of order on that account.
Petition received and read.
Senator FRASER also presented a similar petition, signed by 43 sugar-cane growers in the same district.
Petition received.
page 12660
QUESTION
TARIFF RETURN
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council when the return giving particulars regarding the Tariff, asked for by me some months ago, will be laid on the table?
Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist
– The honorable senator has asked for only one return, so far as I am aware, and that has been laid upon the table, but has not been printed.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– I was not aware that it had been laid upon the table.
page 12660
QUESTION
QUEENSLAND WEATHER BUREAU
Senator HIGGS:
Queensland
– With a view to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, I move -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until two o’clock to-morrow.
Honorable senators will have observed that, owing, it is said, to financial stress, the Queensland Governmenthave decided that. after the 30th June next there shall be no Weather department in that State, and that the services of Mr. Clement Wragge shall be then dispensed with. It would be a great pity if the Weather department of Queensland were abolished, and as the Federal Government have power, under the Constitution, to take over the Meteorological departments of the States, we should do something to prevent the loss now threatened. The Queensland weather bureau, was established on the 1st January, 1887, and since that time Mr. Wragge has organized his department in such a way that he is now in receipt of a very great deal of meteorological data from various parts of Australia and from abroad. The cost of the department in salaries is only £1,500 per annum. This amount is, of course, exclusive of the expense of transmitting telegrams, and Otherwise collecting meteorological data. The expense connected with the meteorological office in London amount to some £15,000 per annum ; and the Weather department of the United States costs even more than that. When the Queensland weather bureau was separated from the Postal department upon the occasion of the Commonwealth Government assuming control of the latter in March of last year, the former was debited with the expense of all the weather telegrams which had hitherto been conveyed free, thereby increasing its cost by some £4,000. I find that the work done by the bureau covers not only Queensland, but British NewGuinea, Kew Caledonia, the South Pacific Islands, the whole of Australia, and New Zealand by a system of intercolonial exchange. Upon the authority of Mr. Wragge, this service bids fair to equal any meteorological and signal service existing in any part of the world. The weather stations in Queensland which are supplied with instruments are classed as follows : - The first order, second order, third order, third order A, and third order B. These stations are supplied with meteorological instruments of great value, such as a standard barometer, barograph, Stevenson’s doublelouvred thermometer screens, hygrometers, maximum and minimum self-registering thermometers, thermograph, solar and terrestrial radiation thermometers, earth thermometers, wind compass, and a rain gauge. Each of the .officers of the Postal and Telegraph department throughout Queensland are expected to supply Mr. Wragge with data concerning the rainfall, the quantity of 36 c clouds, the heat, the humidity of the atmosphere, and so forth. These officers send reports by telegraph and by letter, so that Mr. Wragge is , in a position to supply special forecasts to the whole of the Australian press, as well as a complete digest of all the meteorological information to the Brisbane press in particular. As honorable senators generally are aware, these forecasts appear in all the important daily newspapers throughout the Commonwealth and New Zealand. They are issued at 4 p.m., and appear next morning. Those who have paid any attention to the matter during the past few years must recognise that these forecasts are eagerly read by some hundreds of thousands of people. Mr. Wragge himself does not claim that meteorology is an exact science ; but he does claim that 90 per cent, of his forecasts have proved correct. He further submits that within a very short time meteorology will probably be reduced to an exact science. His forecasts must have proved of the very greatest value to shipping companies and passengers. I remember that during the federal election campaign in Queensland, when Senator Stewart and myself were at Gympie, Mr. Wragge’s warnings regarding the probability of floods occurring saved the mine-owners thousands of pounds, in that it” induced them to put down the flood-gates and thus prevent mines of very ‘ great value from being flooded. Possibly other honorable senators will be able to recall instances in which warnings from the “weather prophet,” as Mr. Wragge is sometimes called in Queensland, have been invaluable. The work performed by that gentleman is not generally known to the public. He issues quite a number of circulars and forms, which honorable senators can peruse at their leisure, as copies have been supplied to them. For example, he issues a circular to commanders of vessels, which is printed in no less than eight different languages. This is called the “ Grand service international,” and consists of a message which is thrown overboard by the captains of vessels, setting forth the names of their ships, the date when such message is thrown overboard, and the position of the vessel to which it relates. Of course, the hope entertained is that these messages will be picked up by the captains of other ships, who are requested to fill in the date upon which such messages are found, the name of their vessels, and their positions, thus enabling Mr. Wragge to obtain information regarding ocean currents. That gentleman tells us that if he had the means he is in a position to prepare a pilot chart for the Southern Ocean, similar to that which is used in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Another form which is issued by Mr. Wragge to the commanders of vessels, relates to observations taken on board, and includes readings of the thermometer, the barometer, the direction and force of the wind, and the latitude and longitude. What I should like to ask’ honorable senators is - “ Are we to abandon the Queensland Weather’ department, which has been built up at such great expense, simply because the State Government finds it necessary to exercise retrenchment? Is Australasia to lose the advantage which she has undoubtedly reaped through the appointment of Mr. Wragge some thirteen years ago, and through the establishment of his department? Are the valuable instruments’ used in the weather stations - instruments which, I believe, cost £3,500 - to be allowed to rust, and is the data which Mr. Wragge has collected throughout a great number of years to be thrown upon the rubbish heap?’ Of course the Minister may tell us that the department is likely to cost too much to warrant the Federal Government assuming control of it at the present juncture. ‘But when he is quoting - as he probably will - the figures relating to the cost of the telegrams which are received by Mr. Wragge, I should like him to say whether that cost represents the real outlay on the part of the Commonwealth, or whether it does not represent merely the sum which would be paid by private individuals if they handed the telegrams over the counter 1
Senator O’Connor:
– That is so.
Senator HIGGS:
– If that be so, I should like to ask the Minister whether the abolition of the weather bureau in Queensland, and the discontinuance of all meteorological telegrams, will result in a single operative being discharged from the Post and Telegraph service 1 Do not the various post and telegraph officers perform this work with great alacrity and. without raising any objection whatever 1 If these telegrams are discontinued, will the Commonwealth save a single penny thereby ? If it will not gain anything in the way of a decrease in the number of civil servants, there can surely be no objection to carrying on the service as usual, especially when it is claimed that the cost of the salaries of those engaged in the meteorological department does not exceed £1,500 per annum. If the Federal Government cannot see its way clear to take over the whole of the department, surely it might go so far as to vote a certain sum by way of subsidy to enable the Queensland Government to continue it ! With a readjustment of charges in connexion with the supply of information I think that those Who derive a benefit from the reports of the weather bureau might pay a, little extra for the information which they receive in addition to the cost of the telegrams which they have to bear.
Senator Dobson:
– Are the Queensland Government willing to pay anything for the upkeep ot the department, and if so, what sum ?
Senator HIGGS:
– I am not in the position to say whether the Queensland Government are willing to contribute anything, but I understand that their great objection to carrying on the department is that the postal authorities are charging some £4,000 annually for Inter-State weather telegrams. 1 certainly believe that inasmuch as the department is of great value to pastoralists, sugar-planters, and horticulturists generally throughout Queensland, the Government of that State would be prepared to meet the Commonwealth Government half way if the latter could not see its way to take over the whole of the department. From what I have seen and heard I am satisfied that the general public throughout Australia would appreciate the continuance of this department. At this stage I should like to say a word regarding Mr. Wragge’s ability.
Senator Glassey:
– I think that is well established.
Senator HIGGS:
– It ought to be, because although there are astronomers and meteorologists in the various States, there is a very great difference between the two sciences. Mr. Wragge does not claim to be an astronomer, but a meteorologist, whose science relates to the atmosphere and its phenomena. But although there are in the various States gentlemen who venture to make forecasts, I think I may say, without in any way disparaging their abilities, that the question generally asked by the public regarding the weather is - “What does Mr. Wragge say?” Everybody consults the daily newspapers to ascertain the nature of his forecasts.
Senator Harney:
– He is usually wrong, but he is not worse than any other weather prophet.
Senator HIGGS:
– The honorable and learned senator is quite mistaken. Mr. Wragge’s forecasts are not usually wrong. Fully 90 per cent, of them prove to be correct. Indeed, there is no reason why they should not be so, inasmuch as they are the result of data which he collects from various stations throughout Australia and the Pacific Islands.
Senator Fraser:
– Quite 90 per cent, of his forecasts are accurate.
Senator HIGGS:
– I am very glad to hear that remark from Senator Fraser, who, unlike Senator Harney. does not treat Parliament as a place where we may indulge in a little recreation. I will give the opinion of the Brisbane press upon this question. I do not believe in the newspapers always, but when I find them going in my direction I am only too pleased to quote them. The Brisbane Telegraph, on the 3rd May, said -
The disappearance of this department will be one of the most unfortunate results of the present disastrous time. The department is equal to, if not better than, anything of its kind in the whole world. It has a collection of instruments whose scientific value is almost incalculable, and whose intrinsic value is scarcely less ; the data which it has collected, and to which it hourly and daily adds, is equally precious, and the staff of trained experts who carry on its work can challenge the world to produce superiors. Is all this splendid concentration of worth suddenly to disappear » Can it be allowed to collapse into a confused heap of useless lumber without a protest ? When the extent of its ramifications, the utter reliability of its results, and the enormous cost of brain and bullion at which it is so efficiently carried on .are all truly realized, it forces a sigh of profound regret to think that there should he even a suggestion of its disbandment and dissipation. But Queensland can do nothing but what she has decided to do. She cannot assume any aid of shabby gentility in the matter. Plainly she cannot’ afford alone to keep up the heavy expense incidental to the continuance of the extensive department in its present handsome establishment. It now rests for all Australia, that is to say, for the Federal Government, to proclaim their intention in the matter.
The same sentiment is expressed by the Brisbane Observer, of the same date, which said -
The intimation that the Chief Weather Bureau as a State concern will cease from the 30th of Jane next will be received with genuine and general regret. For ourselves -we feel that the Observatory will sustain a personal loss by the departure of Mr. Wragge, and the badinage we have freely indulged in with respect to his “general remarks” about the affairs of the 36 c 2 universe has in no way diminished our esteem for him as a man, and our recognition of his attainments as the ablest meteorologist in Australia. Even in the other States, which have their own meteorologists, Mr. Wragge’s weather forecasts have always been given the greatest importance, and this result could not have been attained except by pre-eminent ability. As a prophet has honour, save in his own country, so Mr. Wragge’s departure will probably be more keenly felt outside of Queensland. The loss is the loss of the whole of Australia.
The Premier’ of Queensland has made remarks to the same effect in his letter to the Federal Government. But I do not think I need say anything further, except to express the hope that honorable senators will give us the benefit of their opinions, on the question, however briefly they may speak, in order that the Vice-President of” the Executive Council may form an opinion, of the views of the Senate when he makes his reply.
Senator O’CONNOR:
‘Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist
– It would be impossible, T think, to overestimate the services which the weather department of Queensland has rendered to Australia, and to the science of meteorology,, not only in the actual work which has been done, but in the initiation of a system which, I believe, has in it the beginnings of the reduction of meteorology to something more in the nature of an exact science than anything which has yet been attempted. Credit is given to the Queensland bureau for the value of its work, not only in Australia, but all over the scientific world. Therefore, Senator Higgs will readily understand that it is with the greatest regret that the Federal Government have heard of the intention of the Queensland Government to dispense with the department controlled by Mr. Wragge. But, with every desire on the part of the Government to prevent such a valuable service being lost to Australia, and the results of its work already done dissipated, it is necessary that the Government should make certain inquiries, and take precautionary measures, before rushing into the matter. I should like to remind the Senate of the position in which the matter stands. In Queensland alone, I think, of all the States, the meteorological, or weather department, was an appendage to the Post and Telegraph department. In all the other States the weather department is either a department by itself or is connected with the astronomical department. In New South Wales in ‘Victoria, I think in South Australia and in some of the other States, there are separate departments, most of them containing an astronomical department in connection with a weather department. So that in all the States except Queensland the services in regard to meteorological departments remain precisely as they were. It must be evident that it would be impossible to treat this question in an isolated way - to take over the weather department of Queensland and leave the weather departments of all the other States in the position in which they stand at the present time. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, my honorable and learned friend, the Acting Prime Minister, has already drafted, or is now drafting, a letter to be despatched to the Premiers of the different States, asking them whether it is their desire that the meteorological portion of their astronomical departments should or should not be transferred to the Commonwealth, in order that the Commonwealth may estimate what the cost of such a department would be, the expense of its working, and on what lines the federal measure, which would necessarily have to be introduced, should be drafted to meet the altered circumstances. That is the only step which the Federal Government could have taken, having regard to the existing conditions. They have taken that step, and they have done so with every desire, if possible to meet what they believe to be the wishes of the whole of Australia in regard to the preservation of the work of the Weather Bureau of Queensland. With regard to the maintenance of the existing conditions, I think Senator Higgs will realize that there is no need whatever for the records of work which has already been done to be treated in any careless way or otherwise than they would have been treated if the department remained under the charge of responsible officers. Surely there are other officers in the service in Queensland who will, pending any change which maybe made, see that proper care is taken of all the records and instruments and such matters connected with the department. But in order to facilitate, if possible, the carrying on of the service by the Federal Government, pending some rearrangement, the Government have made inquiries of the Queensland Government, in order to ascertain from what stations Mr. Wragge and his officials require to have their telegrams transmitted, in order to see whether, if possible, some arrangement cannot be made for allowing those telegraphic services to be continued, pending the passing of the Post and Telegraph Bates Bill. Of course that Bill deals in a comprehensive way with the whole matter. I should, therefore, like to assure the honorable senator who has brought this matter up, that although the question is in the stage of inquiry, and although the action of the Federal Government is at present, and must, under the circumstances, be tentative, their action all through is, and will be,prompted by a sincere desire to preserve if possible’ the work of the Queensland Weather Bureau, and continue it for the benefit of Australia.
Senator FRASER:
Victoria
– I am loath to trespass on the time of the Senate, andI do not speak in the least degree on behalf of Mr. Wragge. I speak for the cause that he represents. As a pastoralist, I say that Mr. Wragge’s forecasts are accepted all over Australia as very valuable forecasts, of which 90 per cent. are correct, or nearly so. Of course, meteorology is not an exact science ; but, nevertheless, pastoralists in the Gulf country, in Central Queensland, in Southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and even New Zealand look to Mr. Wragge’s forecasts, and generally findthem reliable. As a pastoralist, I am greatly interested in various parts of this continent, and have watched the forecasts very carefully. I say without fear of contradiction that the vast majority of Mr. Wragge’s forecasts are borne out. As for the others, we do not look at them. They are not forecasts at all in the same sense as are Mr. Wragge’s. I say that without any reflection upon the astronomers.
Senator McGregor:
– How can the honorable senator do that ?
Senator FRASER:
– I do not reflect on the other gentlemen, but I say that in comparison with the forecasts of Mr. Wragge, theirs are “ not in it.”
Senator Playford:
– What about Sir Charles Todd, of South Australia ?
Senator FRASER:
– His forecasts are of no account !
Senator Barrett:
– What about Mr. Baracchi, in Victoria ?
Senator FRASER:
– Mr. Russell and Mr. Baracchi are highly respected astronomers, but they are “ not in it,” in the matter of weather forecasts, with the Queensland meteorologist. If honorable senators look back upon the records for the last ten years and work out the results, the statements I make will be borne out. Furthermore, I will ask honorable senators to watch the forecasts and the weather for the next fortnight, during which time I hope we shall have general rain over New South Wales. Let honorable senators make a note of the forecasts, and see who will be correct or incorrect during that time. I do not ask the Government to take the matter up hastily. I was very pleased to hear the statement of the Vice-President of the Executive Council. His speech gave me satisfaction. But why should we have six weather departments and six astronomers 1 Is there any necessity for it 1 Why should we not have one first-class weather bureau, managed by a first-class man? We can then afford to do the thing properly to the great advantage of the people of Australia. Great economy would result from such a re-arrangement. But if we have an astronomer and expect him to make a forecast such as a meteorologist could make he will fail. I have not risen to find fault with the statement of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, which I was pleased to hear, but with a view of strengthening the position which the Government should take up.
Senator STEWART:
Queensland
– There is one aspect of this question to which I should like to direct the attention- of the Senate. Senator Fraser has told us that the forecasts of Mr. Wragge are welcomed, by the pastoralists, shipping people, and the commercial men generally, and that they are regarded as reliable. I find that while the class of people mentioned are quite willing to take all the information they can get without paying for it, they are the most ready of all to grumble at the cost of government in Australia. I remember when at one time Mr. Wragge practically monopolized the telegraph lines in Queensland ; he was sending between £20,000 and £30,000 worth of messages over the lines every year without any proper record being kept of the work. The Federal Post-office department should hold itself aloof from every one of those services. Payment ought to be demanded for every message. We want to see exactly how the department stands, because we are continually being told that it is a charge upon the people of the Commonwealth. Let us ascertain what services are performed, and take care that these services are paid for. If our telegraphs were in the hands of a private company, every message, no matter what about, would have to be paid for ; and the federal department ought to take up exactly the same position. There would be no difference in the end, because, in any case, the people of Australia have to pay for the cost of these wires ; but, as I said before, we want to know the exact position of the Postal department - whether it is losing money, and if so, how much. Of course, if the department is paying there will be all the more satisfaction ; but any attempt to foist this responsibility on the Federal Government without payment, and a strict record of all business done, must be opposed.
Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales
– Every honorable senator recognises the importance of the subject brought under our notice by Senator Higgs. It is extremely desirable that there should be some form of federal control. It may be desirable to have these forecasts, but there is the important consideration whether we can afford the expense. The first question is whether, at this early stage, the Federal Government, before it knows exactly the financial road it ‘has to travel, should take any responsibility beyond that which is absolutely imperative. Holding the view I do as to the financial outlook, it would, in my opinion, be extremely injudicious for the Federal Parliament to take on am’ more burdens. We have to remember that those who seek to throw this responsibility on the Federation are the very people who charge the Government with extravagance. That may not be a very important reason, but it is one which must be kept in view by the Government.
Senator HIGGS (Queensland), in reply. - I merely wish to refer to the remark of Senator O’Connor that everything is being done in the way of making inquiries. Unless something is done very speedily, Australia may lose the services of Mr. Wragge. I saw an advertisement the other day of the sale of the household effects of Mr. Wragge, and as that gentleman possesses great ability, he can command employment in other parts of the world, in six weeks or two months’ time the Federal Government may be too late ; and I had hoped that, inasmuch as the abolition of the bureau dates from the 30th June, some arrangement might be come to whereby Mr.
Wragge’s services could be retained.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
page 12666
QUESTION
IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT
Senator HIGGS:
asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -
- What language is used in the educational test applied to immigrants under the Immigration Restriction Act ?
- Has any other than the English language been used in such tests ?
- Has Mr. Chamberlain, or any other member of the Imperial Government or staff, expressed a wish that the English language only should be used ?
- Will the Minister in his reply to these questions kindly give a copy of a test actually applied to an immigrant ?
- Have the same words been used as a test in more than one instance ; if so, in how many instances (approximately) ?
Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
- The English language.
- No, except in one case where Italian was used.
- No.
- The test is a passage from an English author or magazine. It would be obviously undesirable to make it public.
- The same passage is used throughout the Commonwealth for a period of a fortnight ; it is then changed, and a new one substituted.
Senator HIGGS:
asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -
- Has the Federal Government assumed full control of immigration to the Commonwealth ?
- Does the Federal Government issue licences to the owners of vessels carrying Pacific Islanders to and from the Commonwealth ?
- If not, why not ?
- Is it true, as reported in the Brisbane Telegraph of 10th May, that the Queensland Governor in Council “ has been pleased to appoint Sidney Mercer Smith, Frank Gooding, Albert Charles Pickering, Archibald Forsyth, and William Anastasias McMurdo to be Government agents on the supernumerary staff of Government agents to accompany vessels licensed to cany Pacific Islanders ; these appointments to take effect from 1st July, 1902”?
- Is it wise to leave an y portion of the administration of the kanaka legislation to a State Government which has shown itself to be averse to such legislation?
- Is the Federal Government keeping a record of the arrivals and departures of kanakas ?
Senator O’CONNOR:
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
- Yes, so far as such control is conferred on the Government by the Immigration Restriction Act
- No.
- The issue of licences isby law under control of the Government of Queensland. Section 19 of the Immigration Restriction Act states that that Act shall not apply to the immigration of Pacific Islands labourers to the State of Queensland under the provisions of the Pacific Islands Labourers Acts, 1880-82.
- I am not aware.
- The Act expressly leaves the administration of State laws as to kanakas untouched.
- Yes.
page 12666
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
In Committee : (Consideration resumed from 16th May, vide page 12660.)
SCHEDULE.
Division I. - Stimulants.
Item 2. - Spirits, viz., spirits and spiritous compounds, n.e.i., when not exceeding the strength of proof, per gallon, 14s. . . .
Amylic alcohol and fusel oil, per gallon 14s. .
Bitter, essences, fluid extracts, sarsaparilla . . per gallon, 3s. 6d…..
Upon which Senator Lt.-Col. Neild had moved -
That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 2by inserting after the figures “ 14s. “ the words “ with an allowance for under proof up to 16.5.”
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia
– I am unable to support the proposed amendment. During the discussion on. Friday I was not in favour of the amendment, and further consideration and examination has left me of the same opinion. The duty of 14s. per gallon on proof spirits is too high, and it would be better for the Commonwealth Treasury if it were a. little lower. But I am unable to see that by making the allowance proposed we should really improve the revenue ; in fact, I do not think that in the long run any difference would be made one way or the other. Senator O’Connor may be right in saying that if we assume the importation of spirits will remain the same there will, in the first instance, be loss of revenue. Whether it be just or unjust, there is no doubt that in declining to make any allowance we charge the duty of 14s. on a certain number of gallons of water. It is clear that for every 1,000 gallons of proof spirit, 165 gallons of water would bear duty if no allowance be made ; assuming, of course, that the importation continues as at present. On the other hand, that would, in all likelihood, be made up by the increased importation of spirits in the form which otherwise would be subject to a 16.5 allowance. It is impossible, so far as figures are available, to tell how the duty will eventually work out ; and, unless some very solid advantage to the revenue is established, it does not seem worth while introducing allowances of the kind -proposed. In only two out of the six federated States was any such allowance made, so that we are not without precedent for charging the full duty. It is said that if allowances are not made, there will be a large importation of spirit, and a great ‘deal of bottling and “ breaking down “ will be done within the Commonwealth, thus affording opportunities for adulteration. But there are laws to provide against such offences, and it appears to rae, from the best investigation I can make, that that result could not be directly attributable to leaving the scale of duties as at present. I have a very clear recollection of a Royal commission that sat some years ago in Victoria to consider the whole question of distillation. Valuable evidence was given by Mi’. Joshua, who admitted that very extensive adulteration was practised by blending imported spirits with inferior local spirits. Processes of that kind are certain to go on, but, however reprehensible they may be, I am unable to see any connexion between them and the suggested allowance. I confess that I am unable to put my finger on any figures which would indicate any alteration in the revenue by making this allowance. No doubt we want the biggest revenue we can get from stimulants and narcotics ; but we shall be able to deal with that question better when we come to the matter of excise, than we should by now making alterations, the result of which may be uncertain. The only danger I see about the high duties is that they may diminish importation, and. therefore diminish revenue ; but we may to some extent, or possibly altogether, be able to countervail that effect when dealing with the excise. In the latter matter we hope to be able to make improvement by removing some anomalies.
Senator Styles:
– And by reducing the excise ?
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– My personal inclination is not in the direction of a reduction, but we shall consider the question when it arises. I hope we shall be able to approximate the excise more to the import duties, so as to fill up any gaps in the revenue which may be apprehended in respect of the import duties themselves. I am unable, as I say, to support the suggested allowance, and that appears to have been the attitude adopted in the House of Representatives. In that Chamber a suggestion v*as made, which I have no doubt has been carried out, that all spirits in bond and on the water were to have the benefit of an allowance. I have not the exact words before me, but I am under the impression that Mr. Reid expressed his satisfaction as far as that concession was concerned, and the actual point which is now being raised was left in abeyance.
Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales
– The speech made by Senator Symon indicates that he sees no danger to the revenue such as that which the VicePresident of the Executive . Council has affirmed as his chief reason for opposing this proposal. If that be so, Senator Symon, while being at absolute variance with the Vice-President of the Executive Council as to the reason, is with him absolutely in- his opposition to the suggested amendment. Since addressing the committee last Friday, I have been placed in possession of considerable information on this subject from persons who have been for many years largely engaged in the trade. My attention has also been directed to a statement made a few years ago by Sir George Turner, when Treasurer in the State Government of Victoria. That statement bears out the contention that I have put forward, and which has not been touched by Senator Symon, as to the interference with the wholesomeness of liquors which is likely to take place under a system of local bottling as against bottling by firms whose reputation is world-wide, and whose ruin would be speedily accomplished if they played any tricks with their own liquors in the way in which other people are likely to do. In 1891-2 the revenue derived from the duty on spirits in Victoria amounted to £806,622. Then the duty was raised by ls. per gallon, and in the following year a fall to £472,805 took place, a decrease of no less than £333,817. This is what Sir George Turner said with reference to the matter -
The depression–
I presume the right honorable gentleman was referring to the general depression existing in Australia. accounted for some falling off of Victorian revenue, but the real reason was the existence of a lower quality local spirit, which took the place of the imported.
The fall of a third of a million in one year was thus attributed by Sir George Turner to the use of inferior local spirit, on account of the higher duty. The duty proposed in this Tariff is higher than any that has ever been imposed on spirits within colonial limits.
Senator De Largie:
– Not as high as the duty in Western Australia.
Senator Lt Col NEILD:
– Western Australia stands apart so very largely owing to local conditions, that it is hardly possible to take the position in that State as an example in a case of this kind, although the honorable senator is correct. I used the term broadly in regard to Inter-State duties, and should have omitted Western Australia from the reference. Under the State Tariffs the duty on spirits in South Australia was 15s. per gallon, less an allowance for under-proof up to 16.5 per cent., leaving the duty at 12s. 6d. In New South Wales it was 14s. per gallon with a similar allowance, reducing the duty on case goods to11s. 8d. per gallon. In New Zealand, where the duty of 16s. per gallon is nominally the highest of all, the same allowance as that which I am now seeking to secure, is made in respect of under-proof spirits, thus reducing the duty to 13s. 4d. per gallon, or 8d. per gallon less than that proposed by the Government. It has already been pointed out that the quality of spirits would be largely affected by the mixing of liquors here, without that warranty for the process which is implied when the mixing is done by the firms who produce the spirits. Does not the very allegation made by Sir George Turner show that instead of gaining a larger income from their proposal the Government stand the risk of losing ? According to Sir George Turner, liquors will be mixed here with the locally-made and inferior article. I am not defaming Australian manufactures - I have no wish to decry them - but I am quoting an authority which I am sure Senator O’Connor will recognise as being about the highest that I could give. We have it that the liquor put into consumption will not be such as substantial firms turn out ; but liquor which will be at the mercy of any one who sees fit to buy spirits in wood and mix them as he pleases and with what he pleases. There are some other phases of this question to which I desire attention. I have here some decisions given by the Minister for Trade and Customs in regard to the charges on spirits bottled in bond. This decision, which is in print, and appears over the signature of the Comptroller General of Customs, provides that spirits that are imported in bulk and bottled, broken down or mixed in bond, are to be treated, not in the manner in which Senator O’Connor desires to deal with spirits imported in bottles, but duty is only to be paid upon the number of proof gallons imported.
Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:
– That may be applied to a single case.
Senator Lt Col NEILD:
.- Yes. The decision is No. 170, and the document from which I am quoting is dated 9th December, 1901.
Senator O’Connor:
– I think the honorable senator stated that the decision applies to spirits which are imported in bulk and bottled in bond?
Senator Lt Col NEILD:
.- That is so. How would the work of reducing spirits, from the strength at which they could not be used by human beings to a merchantable article, be carried out by the majority of those who undertook the breaking-down process here? The water used by them might be the ever-charming Yan Yean, without filtration, or it might be filtered. But no English bottler of any repute uses water taken direct from the service-tap, or even filtered water, in the process. The water which he uses - and it is necessary that he should use water so prepared - is distilled with as much care as is the spirit itself. Not only is it distilled once, but it is commonly distilled a second time in order to insure the purity which is needful to bring liquors to a high quality. Imagine the difference between liquor so prepared and liquor which is mixed in a helter-skelter way by any one. It is all very well to say, as was said last Friday, that this duty will lead to local bottling, and that certain firms are making arrangements for bottling in Australia. What of that? It isnot always the firms with the very largest output that make the best liquor ; it is not always to the advantage of the consumer - and I am studying the consumer - to consider the large manufacturer and the large bottler in preference to the smaller firms, who exercise, perhaps, as great a care or even greater care in the preparation of the article they produce as do the big firms. Why is’ it that certain firms which produce whisky - I name the popular drink of the day - attach the greatest importance to the locality in which their whisky is made 1 Why is it that so much importance is attached to the water ? The spirit itself can he made on a mountain-top as well as alongside a running stream, but it is the peculiar quality of the water that is considered of value in the preparation of high-class liquors. Spirit cannot be mixed with the first water that comes to hand with the same good results as are brought about by careful blending and the use of water of the highest quality. I am trying to secure the sale of liquor that bears upon the very face of the bottle the highest business credentials, instead of exposing the public to the risk of being imposed upon with stuff which was originally good, but which has been manipulated by local bottlers. The difference in quantity between proof whisky and that which is 16-5 under proof is about one-sixth. That is to say that in 600 cases of 16 ‘5 under-proof whisky there is the same amount of spirit as in 500 cases of whisky of proof strength. Therefore, in every 600 cases of whisky of 16-5 under-proof strength, there is 100 cases of water, and what is proposed is that duty should be collected upon the 100 cases of water, as well as upon the 500 cases of spirit of proof strength. This seems to me to be absolutely wrong. Why is it that an entirety different provision is made with regard to wines 1 The Tariff provides that in regard to wines n.e.i., in bottle, the duty shall be 8s. per gallon, and that other wines shall -be subject to a duty of 6s. per gallon. It is further stipulated that where wine contains more than 35 per cent, of proof spirit, an additional 6d. per gallon shall be charged for each one per cent, of proof spirit over 35 per cent, up to, and including, 40 per cent. If wine contains more than 40 per cent, of proof spirit, it is subject to a duty of 14s. per gallon, Therefore, duties ranging from 6s. to 14s. per gallon are levied upon wines according to their strength. Why are we to suppose that there will, be no loss of revenue and that no injury will result from varying duties on wines, and that a frightful cataclysm will follow if a similar system is adopted with regard to the duties on spirits ? The same system of charging should be adopted in both cases. I know of no reason why the consumer of expensive wines should be treated with more tenderness than the man in the street who has to be content with a glass of whisky. Those who can afford to drink only whisky have as much right to be considered as have those who buy wines of a superior class.
Senator Styles:
– Will the honorable senator tell us the number of gallons of spirits imported into Victoria in 1892 and 1893 ?
Senator Lt Col NEILD:
– I have not the figures as to quantity, but only those relating to the duty on the importations. I do not propose to examine Senator O’Connor’s proposition with regard to the loss of revenue that will result from the change proposed, because Senator Symon has effectively answered him on that point. I have given an example of what happens in the case of whisky, and now I desire to direct the attention of the Senate to the effect of the Tariff upon importations of gin. I have been furnished by one of the very oldest and most reliable firms engaged in the liquor trade in Australia with a statement, from which I conclude that Geneva has been imported at very weak strength - a strength very much less than 16 under proof. My informants say -
In the matter of Geneva, if proof strength is insisted upon, it will no longer come out at under proof. This means that there will be a falling-off in this particular line of imports of about 38 per cent.
That is to say, that, where 300 cases were formerly handled - affording work for the different grades of labour employed in connexion with such traffic, such as wharfingers, sailors, carters, storemen, and so forth - only 200 cases will be imported in future. The firm to which I have referred say further : - ^
Many firms are instructing their agents, owing to no allowance being made for under-proof, to ship out bulk spirits at not less strength than 2 to 3 percent, over-proof. This means thatunderproof spirits must have a certain quantity of newer spirit added to them before being shipped, and therefore a premium will bc offered to the use of newer and less matured spirit.
In the States I have already mentioned, where allowances have been made for underproof spirit, there are practically no prosecutions for the sale of deleterious liquors, and it is not found necessary to employ a small army of inspectors to discover wickedness, such as is commonly bi-ought before the courts in Victoria. The prosecutions for spirit adulteration in Victoria, where no
Allowance was made for under-proof spirit, averaged seven and a half per week.
Senator Playford:
– Possibly there ought to be more prosecutions in New South Wales, and the difference in the returns may be due to a less rigorous administration of the law.
Senator Lt Col NEILD:
.- We might vary the results of any statistics in the world if we considered what might be discovered, but I can only take the public records. I know that a small army of inspectors is employed in Victoria to look after those who adulterate liquor, and that from 500 to 1,000 prosecutions have been instituted every year. I do not mean to say, that because in New South Wales and in South Australia prosecutions do not take plac*e to such an1 extent as in Victoria, there is no manipulation of liquor in those States. It is scarcely reasonable to suppose that the police and officers of the Government in one State are very zealous in the execution of their duty whilst in others they are equally remiss. I am sure that Senator Playford, who filled the position of Premier amd Treasurer in South Australia for many years, and who, in that capacity, had charge of ‘these matters, will not allege that the system of inspection in the “ model “ State, as it is sometimes called, is of such a’ poor character that people simply vend bad liquors and nobody discovers the fact. Surely he will see that when I quote the experience of three States - one of which does not belong to the Commonwealth - I am not attempting to draw conclusions disparaging to one State more than another, but simply desire to state facts which are patent to anyone who chooses to investigate. I have in my hand a statement, signed by every one of the leading Sydney firms which deal in liquors, approving of the amendment that I have submitted, and doing so in the interest of the general public. Their statement wholly combats the position that any loss of revenue will result from the adoption of the amendment. Indeed, they contend that it will have quite a contrary effect. The author of the letter, who is a Melbourne man, and occupies an official position in connexion with the trade - he is chairman of some local mercantile body - says -
I am requested by telegram from the undermentioned Sydney merchants to intimate to you their entire acquiescence, and express the hope that, from a revenue point of view, if from no other, yOU will see your way to give our combined efforts your influential advocacy, &c.
The firms mentioned have had a very large experience in the trade, and are, therefore, fully qualified to express a reliable opinion.
Senator O’Connor:
– I suppose that they are all firms who import a good deal of bottled spirits.
Senator Lt Col NEILD:
– Probably, but they also import bulk spirits. They are not merely wine and spirit merchants, but leading firms of general importers. In connexion with the question of adulteration, I wish to read an extract having reference to the excise duty. I find, from the report of the Victorian Revenue Commission, which sat in 1S94-5, that -
The representative of the Licensed Victuallers Association and also some licensed victuallers tendered evidence upon this very point. They stated that the price of a bottle of Hennessy’s brandy to the publican was 6s. 4d., that in retailing, the bottle contained thirteen glasses, which at 6d. each, produced 6s. 6d. The publican often had to supply ice, soda water, &c, and the result was consequently a loss.
Of course there would thus be a loss if the publican supplied the liquor that is represented. But what happens ? The report states -
The retailing of a superior glass of whisky, and other spirits also, gave no profit whatever to the publican, who was therefore often driven to supplying inferior liquor.
If that be the experience under the duty which formerly operated in Victoria, and under which there was.no rebate for underproof spirits, I hold that it will equally be the case throughout the Commonwealth. Owing to the high rate of duty imposed, publicans will be driven to tamper with the liquor which they sell. Senator McGregor. - Did the commission believe that ?
Senator Lt Col NEILD:
.- -What is the use of asking such a question 1 How can I tell what a commission believed seven years ago 1 The report continues -
We gather from the evidence that the high duties has fostered corruption in the trade, and led to much business immorality. Although we have no direct evidence, we firmly believe, and, indeed, the records of the Excise department show, that inferior spirit is constantly sold under the cover of good brands. The blending of colonial spirit with imported we believe to be general, and we further believe that the blend is sold as imported spirit. One witness told us that he had endeavoured in vain to find out where the large amount of colonial spirit produced was vended.
That report fits the statement made by the Treasurer with remarkable accuracy. It goes to show that in charging unduly high rates of duty we produce trade immorality, and more or less poison the public. I ask theVice-President of the Executive Council, who is going to receive the vote of the leader of the Opposition upon this occasion, whether he cannot see that the amendment is one which will not affect the revenue? But even if the revenue were affected, I would point out that this Tariff will yield £500,000 more than the Treasurer requires. Itis estimated that it will return £8,500,000, and the statement has been officially made that £8,000,000 will be sufficient, so that even if it did result in an annual loss of £50,000, that amount would represent only 10 per cent. of the unnecessary surplus. But according to Senators Symon and Sargood, as well as the most experienced persons engaged in the trade in New South Wales and Victoria, there will be no loss, and consequently we might well agree to make 14s. per gallon, which is a high rate of duty, applicable in a reasonable and fair manner to spirits which are imported already blended under authority and not under a trick.
Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist
– The honorable senator quoted a decision of the Minister for Trade and Customs with the air of a discoverer, as if it had any bearing whatever upon the argument which he has addressed to the Senate. I think I shall be able to show in a very few moments that that decision has nothing whatever to do with the question before us.What is the decision? It is that with regard to spirits which are imported in bulk and which are allowed to be bottled in bond under Customs regulations, the amount of duty which has to be paid is upon the quantity of spirits in the bottles. That is to say, those persons who import spirits in bulk are not charged more than the duty operative upon spirits in bulk, because of the fact that they bottle in bond. Why should they be charged more?
Senator Charleston:
– Why should the importer of spirits in bottle be charged more ?
Senator O’CONNOR:
– I think that Senator Charleston has allowed his attention to wander unconsciously from the point which I was putting to the Senate. I was dealing with Senator Neild’s illustration, which shows clearly that all that has happened is that spirits which are imported in bulk are charged the duty imposed upon spirits in bulk, and nothing more, although they are allowed to be bottled in bond. Senator Neild also related a pathetic story about apublican and iced soda-water. All the comment which I have to make upon that story is that the. excuses which some people invent for putting a small amount of whisky into a glass are really marvellous. But that has nothing whatever to do with this question. Let me ask the committee to come back to the position which we have to decide. In the first place; Senator Neild has denied that any loss of revenue will result from the adoption of his amendment. But he has not shown the least reason in support of that denial.
Senator Lt Col Neild:
– I only accepted Senator Symon’s argument.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– I said there would be no loss and no gain.
Senator O’CONNOR:
– Senator Neild now refers to his leader in support of the proposition whichhe has submitted. It is very convenient, but rather illogical, for the honorable senator -whom I may describe as the “ chief of staff” to the Opposition leader - to select his leader’s opinion for one purpose, and give it the “ go-by “ for another. That is the only comment which I have to offer upon his authority. When this matter was previously under discussion, I quoted some statistics supplied to me by the Customs authorities, which conclusively prove that the adoption of this amendment will result in a loss of something like £50,000 annually. I have had those figures elaborated and more fully explained, and I wish to call attention to them. Before doing so, however, I should like to deal with the argument used by Senator Harney upon Friday last. He pointed out that if all those persons who introduced bottled or case spirits were to adopt the system of bottling locally, there would be no loss of revenue, because the whole of the spirits imported would be brought in in bulk. Of course the honorable and learned senator is quite right if that would be the course of trade, but when we are dealing with a question of this kind, we must look at it from the point of view of what is likely to take place. We are dealing with a matter of practical business, and we must collect our revenue on principles which are applicable to business. It is absurd to suppose that the importers who mow import spirits in case are going to alter their methods completely because of this alteration in the duty. That would not be so. I would point out from the statistics which actually bear upon the matter how the revenue will really be affected ; because spirits form one of the most fruitful and permanent sources of revenue, and it is of the utmost importance that we should get as much revenue as we reasonably can from this source. I find that there are only two States which, in their statistics, separate case spirits from bulk spirits. In the statistics of Victoria and South Australia that is done, but in all the other States there is simply a record kept of the quantity of spirits imported, including both bulk and case. It would be useless to take the example of South Australia, however, because in that State there is an allowance made for the 16-5 under proof, which the honorable senator claims here. Therefore to get at the amount of actual imports of case spirits the statistics of Victoria are the best example. I find, taking the figures for 1899 and 1900, that the- matter stands as follows :- Of bottled brandy, in 1899 there were imported 4-1,580 gallons, and in 1900, 39,27S gallons; of gin, unsweetened, 111,617 gallons in 1899, and 116,790 gallons in- 1900; of whisky, in 1899, 149,559 gallons, and in 1900 almost the same quantity, namely, 149,938 gallons. As far as bulk spirit is concerned, I find that in 1899 the brandy imported in bulk amounted to 44,812 gallons, and in 1900, 46,989 gallons; whisky, in 1899, 314,610 gallons, in 1900, 344,233 gallons. Gin is not imported in bulk, but in case. These figures give us the following totals: - During 1899, bottled spirits, 302,756 ; in 1900, bottled spirits, 306,006 gallons were imported : whilst bulk spirits in 1899 totalled 359,422, and in 1900, 391,322 gallons. I have taken these two years because they apparently follow each other pretty well in the amount of spirits imported, showing that the quantities may be taken as fairly normal, and I think it is a fair thing to take the average importations in’ those years. Doing so we shall find that the importation of case spirits in Victoria was 45 per cent, of the total. Mr. Lockyer, who is one of the most experienced and one of the ablest Customs officials, and who, Senator Neild will agree with me, is a gentleman of very large experience of New South Wales and the other States, has estimated that the spirit* imported for the whole Commonwealth, in case and bulk, amount to 2,440,000 gallons. As I have shown, the Victorian imports for 1S99 and 1900 show the case spirits to be 45 per cent, of the whole. On that basis the Australian importations will be as follow : - Case spirits would be 1,09S,000 gallons, and bulk spirits 1,342,000 gallons, making a total of 2,440,000 gallons. But of course certain reductions have to be made from that total, because there is no doubt that the wider market of the Commonwealth will induce the firms doing a large business here to establish branches for bottling to a greater extent than previously. I mentioned on the last occasion that two of the large whisky firms - those of Burke and Walker - were making arrangements for establishing bottling businesses within the Commonwealth, and there is no doubt that other firms will do the same. It is equally true, I think, that many of the firms will not do so. Some of the well-known and well-established firms, importing brandy, hollands, and gin, will probably rely upon the higher price which their commodities command. Therefore, it is right to make a deduction on that account. I therefore make a deduction of 50 per cent.; that is to say, for the purposes of this calculation it may be estimated thai the bottling trade will reduce the bottled spirits imported by one-half. In other words, instead of 1,098,000 gallons of case spirits or bottled spirits being imported, only 549,000 gallons will be imported. I think any business man will readily admit that it is a reasonable estimate to make that when this Tariff gets into full swing half the present importations in bottle will be imported in bulk. On that basis 549,000 gallons will come in at about 16’5 under proof. The average is 15 under proof. That spirit will pay lis. lid. per gallon instead of 14s. per gallon ; the amount of loss to the revenue which that means is in exact figures £57,1S7 per annum. It is very easy to say in an airy way that what is proposed means no loss. It is easy for Senator Symon to say that it means neither loss nor gain. But honorable senators cannot get over figures such as those I have quoted, founded upon statistics which are open to inspection. It is clear that in this way we are dealing with a very serious matter of revenue, and it is not because a statement is made by honorable senators opposite, without any ground whatever for making it, that there will be no loss, that the Senate should request the alteration proposed. I make a statement, under the responsibility of information that comes from the department, and which has been collected by experienced officers ‘whose only object is to give correct information to the committee, and we cannot get rid of the statement I have made in any light way. If the alteration proposed means a loss of anything like the amount I have mentioned, what right have we to enforce the practice of two of the States out of the six upon the whole Commonwealth on account of some imaginary benefit that it is assumed will be derived first of all in the quality of the spirits imported, and, secondly, in preserving the interests of the consumer ri Those are the two grounds which Senator Neild put. No doubt the quality of the spirits has to be considered, but the question of the revenue is also a very important matter to consider from the point of view of. the whole Commonwealth. There is no ground for supposing that in the four States of Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia - not to mention New Zealand - there is any larger prevalence of adulteration of spirits than in New South Wales and South Australia, where this allowance has been made. My honorable friend has referred to prosecutions. But they prove nothing. In the first place, as the honorable senator is well aware, in New South Wales there is an exceedingly defective adulteration law. It is very difficult, indeed, as I know from my experience in the courts there, to prove a case of adulteration. I do not now remember the exact provision of the statute dealing with adulteration, but I know it is very defective as compared with the law existing in some of the other States. In addition to that, if- the honorable senator will analyze the prosecutions he refers to in Victoria, he will find that the bulk of them were prosecutions not against bottlers, but against publicans for adulterating with water the liquor in their possession - not liquor necessarily bottled in Victoria, but which may have been bottled anywhere. Futhermore, in a large proportion of the cases it will be found the charges were of adulterating gin and hollands, which are not bottled here. My .honorable friends who live in this State will bear me out in this statement. The statistics from which Senator Neild has sought to show some kind of substantiality for his statements are absolutely worthless for the purposes of a comparison of this kind. It is clear that there will be a very serious loss of revenue from the alteration proposed. That loss I have estimated at £57,000. If the revenue will suffer to that extent, or to anything like that degree, there is absolutely no justification for enforcing upon the whole of Australia a practice which has prevailed in two of the States. The honorable senator has referred to some information given to him by gentlemen engaged in the wine and spirit trade in Sydney. As far as I know, the names of the gentlemen appended to the document he quoted are of the most respectable character. I have no doubt that they are admirable in every way in the carrying on of their business, but I say in regard to that letter, as we are bound to say in regard to many communications which are received . on both sides pf the chamber, that this Tariff .directly affects men’s interests and men’s pockets. When we receive letters with regard to the effect of a Tariff on a particular business, surely it is against human nature to suppose that the writers will not be inclined to take the rosiest view possible of the revenue or anything else, seeing that their own interests are involved ? When a Tariff which most materially affects the profits of certain firms is being discussed, it is right that representations should “be made ; but we ought to remember that these representations are based on direct pecuniary interests, and ought to be taken with all circumspection, care, and caution. If the Senate is really desirous of having a reasonable amount of revenue collected, the suggestions of Senator Neild will not be listened to.
Senator STYLES:
Victoria
- Senator O’Connor has told us what takes place in Victoria with reference to supervision, and I think the facts were well known to every senator, with, perhaps, the solitary exception of Senator Neild. That honorable senator told us that he had not time to look over the papers, but he read a lot of letters, carefully withholding the names of the writers, although the letters were no doubt introduced with the object of influencing votes.
Senator Pulsford:
– Senators ought to be influenced by facts, and not by names.
Senator STYLES:
– Names have some influence, I apprehend, on the opposition side of. the chamber at all events. It is quite within the truth to say that there is as much, or perhaps a little more, supervision exercised in Victoria as in any other State in connexion with all food and drink. We have a Board of Public Health, with possibly the best man in Australia at the head of it, in the person of Dr. Gresswell. As a member of that board, I am able to say that Dr. Gresswell and his officers are thoroughly up to their business, and do not allow any food or drink to be sold which is not fit for human consumption. Then, as showing the estimation in which the alertness of the Victorian Customs officers is held, I can point to the fact that the Federal Government chose Dr. Wollaston as Comptroller, presumably on account of that gentleman’s superior attainments. I asked Senator Neild to give the number of gallons of spirits /imported during the two years on which he lays such stress. The honorable senator, however, quoted Sir George Turner as saying that the spirits imported in 1893 were valued at about a third of a million pounds less than those imported in 1892. The quotation went on to show” that Sir George Turner stated that in order to supply the shortage recourse was had to Australian, and, therefore, inferior spirits. To begin with, I do not know that the Australian spirit is inferior. If I recollect aright, one of the Victorian distilleries occupies a high position in the English market, and its brandy was recommended for use in the British army.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– That is brandy ; we refer to potato spirit.
Senator STYLES:
– -Potatoes are not used to make spirits here. ,
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– I know that potatoes are used.
Senator STYLES:
– In Victoria ?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– I shall tell the honorable senator more later on..
Senator STYLES:
– Potatoes may, perhaps, be used in South Australia for this purpose. I have here, however, quite as high an authority as even Sir George Turner. According to the Statistical Register, it would appear that Senator Neild either gives figures he does not understand, or does not afford senators the advantage of the whole of the context. As a matter of fact, the spirits, duty paid, consumed in Victoria’ in 1892 were 249,006 .gallons. In 1893, when, according to Senator Neild, there was such an enormous quantity of
Victorian spirits blended with imported spirit in order to make up the shortage, the consumption was only 20ft’,270 gallons, or- “44,736 gallons less than in the previous year. If the whole of Senator Neild’s figures are as valuable as those he gave in this connexion they are not worth much. I ventured to interject that the falling-off in imported spirits was owing to the great depression ; and it would appear from the figures I have quoted that the colonial spirits did not make up the shortage. If the shortage had been made up in that way it would, in my opinion, have been a good thing.. It would be advisable for Senator Neild to take a little more time before he submits alleged facts to the Chamber. A great’ number of the prosecutions do not ,arise because of the sale of inferior spirits, bub mainly because spirits, which may .be equally sound, are sold in the bottles of other distillers.
Senator Lt Col NEILD:
.- I should not have risen, had Senator Styles accurately gauged what I said. That honorable senator built up a hypothesis of his own, and, with a splendid morality and magnificent self-assurance, destroyed the little airy emanation of his inner consciousness. Senator Styles says that my figures are wrong because they relate to the amount of duty paid, while his relate to the number of gallons. But we want to know the exact value of each gallon in order to see whether there is a difference. Senator Styles not only imagined that he was demolishing Sir George Turner’s figures, but failed to get hold of the right years. He compared 1892 with 1893, apparently unaware of the fact that the financial years run from the middle of one year to the middle of the next ; and he gave figures which are not at all in concert with those of Sir George Turner.
Senator Styles:
– That improves my position considerably.
Senator Lt Col NEILD:
– I doubt whether, after all, it is worth while Senator Styles demolishing the figures of a gentleman whom he must recognise as his leader. I made the quotation from Sir George Turner in perfectly good faith, and it ill-becomes any member of the Senate to charge me with misrepresentation. Senator Styles conveyed the idea that I contended that the’ whole of the falling-off in the duties, as represented by one-third of a million of money, was due to the consumption of local spirits, and he introduced the words, “ Australian and, therefore, inferior.” These were not the words of Sir George Turner, who said that the falling-off was partially due to the depression. I never in my life heard such a hearty attempt on the part of enthusiastic believers in protection to revile their own chief ; and under the circumstances I do not think it necessary to say more. Senator Styles is not attacking me, but Sir George Turner, and that gentleman is capable of taking care of himself. Senator O’Connor contended that there is no connexion between allowing spirits to be “broken down” and bottled in bond, and then cleared on payment of duty on the spirit only, and passing through the Customs imported liquors prepared in exactly the same method. Senator O’Connor is not a business man, and I can quite understand that he does not see the difference. Business men, however, see the distinction very plainly, and it does not follow that it does not exist simply because it is not appreciated by Senator O’Connor.
Question put. The committee divided.
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales
– Under this item, amylic alcohol and fusel oil are liable to duty at the rate of lis. per gallon. I have received a letter from a Melbourne manufacturing firm pointing out that fusel oil is the raw material used in the manufacture of acetate of amyl, which they produce. They enclose acopy of a letter on the subject which was sent some time ago to the Minister for Trade and Customs, and I shall read some extracts from it, as it explains the position : -
Fusel oil, which is produced from potato starch, is imported by us to manufacture acetate of amyl, an article in demand here as a deodorant, and a solvent for varnish making, for dissolving celluloid in connexion with photography, for making lacquers, for plate ware, and various other purposes. Fusel oil is not dutiable in any part of theworld, nor was it so here until included in the new Tariff. Acetate of amyl, the finished product, being imported free, and consequently selling at5s. per gallon, it ispatent that we cannot compete with the foreign manufacturer when charged a duty of 14s. per gallon on our raw material.
This letter having been sent to the Minister, Ipresume that the Government have considered the matter, and that the VicePresident of the Executive’ Council will have some information to give us on the subject. It seems to be in the last degree improper to require the local manufacturer to pay a heavy duty on his raw material when the manufactured article is allowed to come in free. There is no corresponding item of excise. If the article ought to be taxed, certainly it should not be subject to a duty of 14s. per gallon if imported, and allowed to go free if made locally. I propose to move that amylic alcohol and fusel oil be placed on the list of exemptions, but I should like to have some explanation from Senator O’Connor as to the reason for this duty.
Senator O’CONNOR:
– As any one will see, the reason for this duty is that fusel oil is a deleterious substance, and the same duty is imposed on it as that levied on pure spirits. Why should an article of this kind be admitted at a lower duty than that imposed,on the pure spirit itself? It seems to me that the boot is on the other foot, and that Senator Pulsford himself must give some explanation of why he desires that this article should be free.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I do not think that my honorable and learned friend appreciates the position. I do not know what is the magnitude of the matter involved, but the position- taken up by Senator Pulsford is exactly that which I should have expected Senator O’Connor toadopt ; that when a certain article is being manufactured within the Commonwealth, , we do not usually tax up to the hilt the raw material which comes into the Commonwealth for the purpose of being used in the manufacture, while at the same time we admit the manufactured article free. Whatever view we may take of this or of any other Tariff, certainly, I think, we shall all agree that, if we are compelled to have a Tariff which permits duties that either directly or in their incidence are protective, we should take care that the duty on the raw material bears some proper proportion to the duty on the manufactured article. If the raw material is taxed there should be a corresponding tax - and possibly a higher one in proportion - upon the manufactured article. It must be so. Therefore my honorable friend Senator Pulsford is stating merely what I have always thought to be a sound protectionist doctrine, a doctrine in relation to the contrast between raw material and manufactured articles under this Tariff, to which we must have some regard in adopting our policy of fairness and generosity in dealing with these things. Therefore Senator Pulsford says to the Government - “ You are imposing a duty of 14s. a gallon on fusel oil, which is not in the same category as these spirits, and you are admitting free of duty the manufactured article, acetate of amyl, which is necessary as a disinfectant and for other purposes.” That, certainly, is a very grave anomaly. Senator Pulsford says that he prefers to deal with the matter by imposing a duty on acetate of amyl. No doubt he has made himself acquainted with the duties of the Tariff; but, so far as I can see, acetate of amyl does not appear in it. If he desires to deal with the question - and if he does I shall support him - he will deal with it best by seeking to reduce the duty on fusel oil, so that the position of the raw material of this manufactured article may bear some proportion to it, instead of the duty being not only prohibitory, but such as to render it impossible for the local manufacturer to compete with the imported article.
Senator EWING:
Western Australia
– I think that a mistake has been made in looking upon fusel oil in only one light. No doubt, as the Vice-President of the Executive Council says, it is a very bad substance to drink, but he forgets that it is the raw material used in the manufacture of acetate of amy], which is employed to a large extent in the making of varnish. The Government propose to impose a duty of 14b. per gallon on the raw material, and thus practically to prohibit the local manufacture of acetate of amyl. It seems to be an extraordinary position for the Government to take up.
Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I should have moved straight out that fusel oil be placed on the list of exemptions, as the raw material employed by a manufacturer here, had I not thought that possibly the Vice-President of the Executive Council would have information to give to the committee showing that, for sound reasons, it was undesirable that an article which might be used for injurious purposes should be available free of duty. In order to give the honorable and learned gentleman an opportunity of further explaining the matter, I move -
That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 2 by omitting the words, “ amylic alcohol and fusel oil, per gallon, 14s.” I am not anxious to press my proposal if the Vice-President can show reasons why fusel oil should not be admitted free under the circumstances.
Senator Sir RICHARD BAKER:
South Australia
– I once took part in a debate extending over two days on a question relating to the difference between ethylic alcohol and amylic alcohol. Fusel oil is a deleterious article, composed of a variety of substances, forming the refuse from the distillation of any spirit. Ethylic spirit, that is, alcohol which is derived from grapes, gives a far less proportion of fusel oil than is obtained from the distillation of potato spirit. In fusel oil there is a considerable proportion of amylicalcohol, and that amylic alcohol can be separated from it. A great deal of fusel oil is made in the potato spirit distilleries in the neighbourhood of Mount Gambier, and as the number of distilleries increase in Australia the necessity for importing this article will be reduced correspondingly. Fusel oil is made in large quantities in Germany, where a great quantity of potato spirit is distilled. As I have said, amylic alcohol, which is required to make acetate of amyl, is obtained from fusel oil, but whether we should tax fusel oil and impose a corresponding duty on the other product, or whether we should allow both to come in free of duty, is a matter of very small importance. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Senator Pulsford, it is an anomaly to tax fusel oil and at the same time to admit the manufactured article free. I do not know what is the amount of duty involved, but I should think that it would be very small.
Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I should be glad if the Vice-President of the Executive Council would make a statement upon the subject. The Government cannot wish to take up a position of antagonism towards any manufacturing industry.
Senator O’Connor:
– Is the honorable senator here to support the manufacturing industry ?
Senator PULSFORD:
– We want fair play all round, and any industry that appeals to honorable senators on this side of the chamber will receive fair play.
Senator O’Connor:
– But why select this little industry for fair play ?
Senator PULSFORD:
– I am willing to withdraw the motion if the committee think that fusel oil is so deleterious that it should not be admitted free. When we are dealing with drugs, however, I shall propose a corresponding duty on acetate of amyl, and further on, when the excise duties are under consideration, I shall propose an excise duty upon fusel oil.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).I move -
That the House of Representativesbe requested to amend item 2 by inserting the words “ ginger wine” after the word “ sarsaparilla. “
This will have the effect of removing ginger wine from the classfication of spirits, under which it is now subject to a duty of 14s. per gallon, and of fixing the duty at 3s. 6d. per gallon in cases where it does not contain more than 25 per cent. of proof spirit. The duty in New South Wales has been 3s. 6d. per gallon, or 7s. per dozen. The value of the wine itself is only about 7s. per gallon, and the increase of the duty by1s. 9d. per bottle will make the price of the article absolutely prohibitive. There cannot be any justification for imposing such a high duty upon a cordial such as ginger wine, as is levied upon proof spirit. I do not drink cordials myself, but I have every sympathy with those who do, and as ginger wine is like sarsaparilla, used as a cordial, it should be treated in the same way.
Senator O’CONNOR:
– I have no statistics relating to the importation of ginger wine, but I understand that whilst it is not imported into Victoria, it has been introduced into New South Wales, and some other States. Ginger wine is made, generally speaking, from very bad spirits, which are mixed with ginger essence and some other flavouring materials, and there seems to be no reason why it should be specially included in this list. It is very largely made in Victoria, and in some of the other States, and it may be made anywhere. In addition to that, ginger is very largely grown in Queensland, and in other parts of Australia. I do not know that ginger enters very largely into the production of ginger wine, but at the same time there is no reason why any special consideration should be shown for this particular cordial.
Senator MLLLEN(New South Wales).If the argument of the Vice-President of the Executive Council means anything it is that ginger wine should be suppressed, but this schedule is not the instrument by which that object should be carried out. The VicePresident of the Executive Council has affirmed that the object of the Government has been to adhere as rigidly as possible to protectionist principles consistently with due regard for revenue requirements, but I defy the honorable senator to say that this object is accomplished by levying a duty of 14s. per gallon upon ginger wine. There have been some importations into New South Wales under the 3s. 6d. duty, but the evidence I have shows conclusively that there can be no importations if ginger wine is to be subject to a duty of 14s! per gallon. I will read extracts from two letters which have been received from firms who have hitherto imported ginger wine into Sydney. Messrs. Scott, Henderson, and Co. say -
When it became known that 14s. duty would be demanded we cabled stopping all shipments, and as you know the importation of the article is now absolutely impossible.
Messrs. Learmonth, Dickenson, and Co. say-
Our price in bond has been1 2s. per case of two gallons, or with vs. duty, 20s. per case duty paid, equal to1s. 8d. per bottle. We need hardly point out that, with the further duty of 21s. per case or1s. 9d. per bottle, shipments remain in bond, and must ultimately return from whence they came.
In other words, the value of the article is so small as to prevent them from releasing it from bond, and the heavy duty will have the effect of killing revenue.
Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania
– I think that a mistake has been made in charging a duty of 14s. per gallon upon ginger wine. It does not contain such a high percentage of spirits as Vermouth, which is subject to a duty of only 8s. per gallon. If the present high duty is retained, no revenue can be derived. The whole of the importations of ginger wine are in the hands of one or two firms, because the taste of the public is limited to one or two brands.
Senator O’CONNOR:
– This matter is not worth while debating. I believe that more revenue will be derived from a 3s. 6d. duty than from the present high rate, and, as ginger wine does not contain more than about 25 per cent. of alcohol, it may be fairly classed as a cordial.
Motion agreed to.
Item 3-
Wine, fermented, viz.: -
Sparkling, per gallon, 12s.
N.e.i. (including medicinal or medicated, and Vermouth) -
In bottle, per gallon, 8s.
Other, per gallon.6s.
Containing more than 35 per cent. of proof spirit, for each 1 per cent. of proof spirit over 35 per cent., up to and including 40 per cent., additional, per gallon, 6d.
Containing more than 40 per cent. of proof spirit, per gallon, l4s.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia
– I should like the VicePresident of the Executive Council to give us some information as to the principles upon which the differentiation has been made with regard to the spirit contents of wines, and upon which the graduated scale of duties has been determined. It is provided that the limit of alcoholic strength under which wine may be imported at a fixed duty of 6s. shall be 35 per cent. From that point up to 40 per cent. an additional duty of 6d. is to be levied for each 1 per cent. of proof spirit. That means an additional duty of 2s. 6d. per gallon - which is very heavy and might be, to some extent, prohibitive - upon wines containing 40 per cent. of proof spirit. Our object is to obtain as much revenue as we can from wines, and from that point of view I think that the duties are too high; In England the limit is 42 per cent., and when this duty was under discussion in another place the Minister for Trade and Customs said that the department had experienced great difficulty in fixing a limit. There is a debatable margin between 40 and 42 per cent., because in England wines up to 42 per cent. in strength are admitted at a fixed duty. Upon all wines containing more than 40 per cent. of proof spirit, it is proposed to charge the same duty as is levied upon spirits, namely, 14s. per gallon. I admit that this can only apply to the heavier and better class of wines, such as ports and sherries, but even then it is a very heavy duty. I think a smaller duty would yield more revenue, but I do not wish to move in the matter until I have heard what the Vice-President of the Executive Council has to say.
Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist
– The honorable senator will remember that when we were discussing the Distillation Bill, a good deal of debate took place as to the percentage of spirit that should be allowed in the fortification of Australian wines, and it was decided that in wines which were fortified under the supervision , of the Customs authorities, the use of more than 35 per cent. of proof spirit should not be permitted. In addition to that, under section 76 of the Distillation Act, it is made a punishable offence to sell any Australian wine containing more than 35 per cent. of proof spirit. Honorable senators will recollect that in all the States in which the wine industry is established 35 per cent. is the maximum quantity of spirit which is allowed to be added to Australian wines. Under these circumstances, it appears very reasonable that imported wines which contain more than 35 per cent. of spirit should be treated from a different stand-point. I do not know that the provision will affect very many wines, though it will certainly affect port, sherry, madeira, and heavy wines of that class. I understand that port’ usually contains more than 35 per cent. of proof spirit. This duty affects the strongest class of wines imported, and I think that those wines may fairly bear - because of the larger proportion of spirit which they contain. - a heavier rate of duty than would otherwise be imposed. That is the principle upon which the Government have acted in deciding upon this duty. It seems to me that, as far as possible, we ought to discourage the importation of wines containing a larger percentage of proof spirit than 35 per cent. Of course we cannot altogether prevent their importation. They are articles of luxury which will come in, but if people will import them they should be asked to pay ahigher duty upon them than is levied’ upon wines of lower strength. I may mention that the experience of the Customhouse for six months shows that wines containing over 40 per cent. of spirit are practically not imported. In other words, imported wines contain less than that percentage. It is upon wines containing between 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. of spirit that this duty will operate.
Senator STEWART:
Queensland
– I desire to direct attention to the duty of 12s. per gallon upon sparkling wines. That amount represents 2s. per bottle. If honorable senators will turn to spirits, they will find that the duty upon them is 2s. 4d. per bottle. A man can buy a bottle of whisky for about 5s., but he has to pay from 1 2s. to 15s. for a bottle of champagne. The duty in the case of the poor man’s whisky represents 45 per cent., whilst upon the rich man’s champagne it is equivalent to only 20 per cent. I do not see why this disproportion should exist. I believe in taxing luxuries more heavily than necessaries. I therefore move -
That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 3 by omitting the figures “.12” and inserting in lieu thereof the figures “15.”
I may mention that in South Australia the rate formerly operative was 15s. per gallon, whilst in Canada it is 13s. 9d. per gallon and 30 per cent.
Senator O’CONNOR:
– I must oppose this amendment, because it appears to me that a duty of 12s. will produce the maximum amount of revenue. The general experience of the States is that it is impossible to continue increasing the rate of duty upon any article and at the same time to collect more revenue. A certain point is reached at which the duty becomes prohibitive. Of course, champagne is a very tempting subject for the imposition of a duty, and in more than one State the experiment has been tried of largely increasing the tax upon it with a view to securing more revenue. But wherever it has been attempted it has been found that the higher the duty imposed the less is the amount of revenue collected under it. Under the operation of an unduly high duty it is not worth while to import champagne. Thus it is not imported at all, or else the people drink compounds which are home-made.
Motion negatived.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I am thoroughly satisfied with the explanation given by the VicePresidentof the Executive Council in regard to the other matter to which Icalled attention. I was not aware at the moment that, under the Distillation Act, 35 per cent. was the maximum amount of spirit allowed to be put into Australian wines.
Item agreed to.
Item 4 (Opium) agreed to.
South Australia -- The remark which I made concerning spirits is equally applicable to this item. No one can doubt that we should seek to obtain as large a revenue as possible from an article of this description. To my mind, however, the interests of the revenue will be better served if we allow this duty to stand until we come to deal with the question of excise. At the same time I should like to know why it is that unmanufactured tobacco generally bears a duty of 3s. 3d. per lb., whilst "unmanufactured, but entered to be locally manufactured into tobacco, cigars, or cigarettes - to be paid at the time of removal to the factory " - is taxed to the extent of1s. fid. per lb. ? Is there any use to which the unmanufactured leaf is put other than that of manufacturing tobacco, and, if so, is it such a use as would justify us in imposing the full duty of 3s. 3d. per lb., as though it were the manufactured article? So far as I am aware, there is no unmanufactured leaf imported save for the purpose of being converted into manufactured tobacco. Therefore, there is no reason why we should insert in this Tariff two lines of goods bearing different rates of duty. In my judgment it would be well to provide that all unmanufactured imported leaf should be dutiable at1s. 6d. per lb. {: #debate-4-s12 .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS:
Queensland -- This is a fitting opportunity for me to complain that certain honorable senators give this Chamber very little notice of the alterations which they desire to propose. I think that honorable senators who meet in caucus-- {: #debate-4-s13 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I will ask the honorable senator not to make any remarks upon that subject, because they are quite irrelevant to the question before the Chair. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Then I would present this view to the Senate. Certain honorable senators-- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I cannot hear any remarks upon that subject, because they are irrelevant. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Upon what subject ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Upon any subject other than the item immediately before the Chair. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- The item immediately before the Chair bears upon this question. I have not been given a fair opportunity of knowing what certain honorable senators intend to propose. I submit that common courtesy should suggest to those desirous of altering the Tariff, that they should give the Senate some notice of their intentions. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Will the honorable senator please proceed to the discussion of the item *1* {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- I submit that I am perfectly in order in making these observations. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Am I not to be allowed to move any proposal that I choose *1* {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- But there is nothing to prevent **Senator Higgs** from commenting upon it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I think I was justified in allowing **Senator Higgs** to suggest that certain notice might be given. But I would point out that no honorable senator is obliged to give notice of his intentions. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- To my mind, honorable senators -are entitled to receive due notice of any proposals which it is intended to submit. I hope that no further consideration will be given to **Senator Symons*** suggestion, because we have not had a fair chance of replying to the arguments which he has adduced. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I must ask the honorable senator to persist no further in remarks of that nature. I want him to confine his attention to the question before the Chair, which is " that item 5 stand as printed." {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- On a point of order, I submit that the Chairman has given a certain ruling. In the face of that ruling can **Senator Higgs** persist in the course which the Chairman has condemned? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- No ; and I do not propose to allow him to do so. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- I do not know why the Chairman has ruled me out of order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I have already stated that I could not fairly prevent **Senator Higgs** from making a suggestion which, if .acted upon, would have the effect of giving him further information. But having made that suggestion - although it was permitted to be made only by courtesy - I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- Upon the point of order, I cannot understand why- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -I have given my ruling, and I cannot hear anything further upon the matter. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- I ask the Senate to give no further consideration to **Senator Symons'** suggestion because it has been sprung upon us suddenly. {: #debate-4-s14 .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'CONNOR:
Protectionist -- **Senator Symon** has asked me why unmanufactured tobacco is put at 3s. 3d?, where imported in the ordinary way, and at ls. 6d. where entered to be locally manufactured into tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes. The reason for the difference is to protect the revenue. In Queensland that practice has been followed with very good results. I do not know that it has been followed in the other States. In Queensland the practice has been to charge the rate of duty upon leaf which is not entered to be manufactured at the same rate as the manufactured tobacco. The reason is, that if we did not make a charge of that kind there is a danger of the leaf being imported, and after it has paid duty, it is very difficult to follow it. There is a danger of. its being used in manufacture, and thereby entering into competition with other tobacco which is manufactured here ; whereas if, as is the case in this Tariff, it is put at a rate df duty lower when entered for manufacture than when it is entered not for manufacture, it can be traced. It has to be entered under certain requirements, and from the time it comes in until it is manufactured tobacco the authorities know all about it. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Is there any other purpose than the protection of. the revenue *1* {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'CONNOR: -- Not that I am aware of. Tobacco imported for the purposes of making sheep-wash, under departmental by-laws, is dealt with otherwise. **Senator Sir JOSIAH** SYMON (South Australia).- It appears that this difference is like a registration duty, for the purpose of having a kind of record of what becomes of the tobacco. It would seem to be scarcely necessary to make the distinction, but I shall move no motion, because it makes no difference to those who use the tobacco for manufacturing, and the arrangement is a convenient one. {: #debate-4-s15 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- I move - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 5 by inserting after the word "tobacco" the words - " until made a Commonwealth Government monopoly." I might explain that notice has been given by another honorable senator with regard to this subject. His motion has occupied *ti* place upon the business-paper for a considerable time j but he has not had an opportunity of having it discussed. I presumed that he would give notice of an amendment upon the Tariff to the same effect; but, as he has not done so, I have brought the matter foward. During the election in Western Australia I advocated a State monopoly of tobacco whenever I spoke, so that in moving this motion I am simply carrying out an election pledge. If **Senator Pearce** feels hurt at my action, I reply that, as far as my election pledges are concerned, I have just as much right to take action in the matter as he has. I venture to say that I advocated a State monopoly in tobacco half-a-dozen times for every once he mentioned it. Had he given notice of a motion upon the Tariff, J. should cheerfully have seconded any proposition of the kind coming from him. The motion is one that both sides of the Chamber can support consistently, irrespective of fiscal differences. Both parties believe in placing duties upon tobacco. Indeed, there are duties upon tobacco in every free-trade country as well as in protectionist countries. The position is that the manufacture of tobacco must either be a Government monopoly or a private concern ; in which latter case we know very well that ultimately the business gets into the hands of a few, and becomes a private monopoly. Therefore, we have first of all to say whether the trade shall be a monopoly in the hands of a few private capitalists, or a monopoly in the hands of the State. In making this proposal I am not springing a surprise upon the committee, or entering into the region of experimental legislation, because legislation making the manufacture of tobacco a State monopoly has existed for many generations in other countries. We have the examples of France, Italy, Austria, Roumania, and other countries in Europe before us. {: #debate-4-s16 .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator PLAYFORD: -- And they make a very vile tobacco. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I think my honorable friend is wrong there. I do not pose as an authority on the taste of tobacco, not being a smoker myself. In my opinion all tobacco is vile. But as far as the opinions of smokers go, it has often been said that the French working man smokes a much better cigar than does any other working man in the world. But whether he smokes good or bad tobacco does not affect the question as far as I am concerned. I hold that if private firms can make a good class of tobacco, a Government can do the same. There is nothing which private capitalists can do for the people which the Government cannot do as well, or better. That being the case, if it can be shown that the Governments of the countries I have mentioned have succeeded in deriving a very large amount of revenue from the manufacture of tobacco, that is a consideration which we cannot afford to overlook. We certainly require all the revenue which we can get from a trade of this kind. Tobacco cannot be looked upon as even a luxury. It is more of a poison than any thing else. It is, at any rate, a fair subject from which to raise revenue. That being so, I trust that the committee will see its way to agree to the proposition I have made for the establishment of a State monopoly as soon as possible. I do not propose to fix any date. If we affirm that it is desirable to make tobacco ' manufacturing a State monopoly, the date at which that shall commence should be a subject for future consideration. Some time ago the State of Victoria appointed a select committee to report upon this subject. I find that that report was very favorable to a State monopoly in tobacco. The gentlemen composing the committee represented both parties in the State, so that it cannot be said that theirs was a one-sided report. They were **Mr. Graham, Mr. Graves, Mr. Higgins, Sir John** Mclntyre, **Mr. Prendergast, Mr. Scott,** and **Mr. Outtrim.** The conclusions at which they arrived were favorable to a State monopoly. They said - The State monopoly in France has existed since the year 1021 until the present day. The latest information shows that .-Cla, 032, 195 was produced from the sale of tobacco. After pointing out that it provides an enormous revenue, the report says of a Government monopoly that it is - >The only method of obtaining a proper, health y, and unadulterated article. The countries of the continent which have had the courage to establish a monopoly of tobacco, draw large revenues, and have no wish to renounce the system. The report goes on to say that in Italy the State monopoly during the year 1890-1891 yielded a clear profit to the State of £5,705,990. The monopoly has existed since June, 1S62, and has proved to be one of the best sources of revenue possessed by the Government. In Hungary the tobacco monopoly was established in 1860. The evidence shows that the class of tobacco has been improved, while the cost of manufacture has been less than under private management. The net profit derived during 1891 was £2,700,000. The State monopoly in Roumania was established in 1868. From a population of 5,500,000, the State secures a net revenue of £1,500,000. The committee reported that amongst the advantages likely to be derived from the establishment of a State monopoly are the following : - Increased revenue, better quality of tobacco, encouragement to Victorian farmers to grow tobacco, and increased employment to the people. A large number of witnesses were examined by the committee, amongst whom were manufacturers in Melbourne and farmers who had grown leaf. The result led the committee to report in a direction favorable to the establishment of tobacco manufacturing as a State monopoly. Other countries have shown that a State tobacco monopoly can be made a success ; and surely it can be made equally successful in a highly intelligent community like that of the Commonwealth ? The smaller States are crying out for as much revenue as possible, and as tobacco presents a fair subject for taxation, I hope the committee will agree to the amendment. **Senator EWING** (Western Australia).Quite independently of the desirableness or otherwise of establishing a State monopoly, the question arises whether we have the power to bind future acts of the Federal Parliament. {: .speaker-KLW} ##### Senator Glassey: -- The motion does not bind future acts of the Parliament. {: #debate-4-s17 .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator EWING: -- **-Senator Glassey** does not see my point. It is proposed to fix the duty at, say,' '7s., and the motion is that that duty shall continue until the establishment of a State monopoly. {: .speaker-K7R} ##### Senator Styles: -- Until the Tariff is revised. {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator EWING: -- If we seek to prevent future Parliaments from altering the duty, we shall be exceeding our jurisdiction. A great deal might be said in favour of the amendment, but at the same time I cannot but regard it as almost unconstitutional. We should be seeking in this session to bind Parliament for an an unspecified length of time, but still for a period, during which successive Parliaments have the right to legislate on the point. {: #debate-4-s18 .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales -- It was remarked by a man of considerable wisdom that there is a time for everything, and **Senator Pearce,** who lias had a motion dealing with this subject on the businesspaper for several months, deserves the thanks of the Senate for refraining from submitting his proposal, more than does **Senator De** Largie for now moving in the matter. It would not be wise for us to spend any further time in this discussion, seeing that a proposal of the kind could only be dealt with on its merits after a very lengthy debate. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'CONNOR: -- We are here simply to deal with the Tariff on a financial basis ; and altogether apart from the merits of the question of a State monopoly in. tobacco. This is hardly the time or place to call on the Senate to affirm so important a principle. State monopolies have existed in other countries, some with success, and some with results quite the reverse. We have had some experience of the establishment of Government businesses in Australia, with our railways and other services of the kind. But Lb is an important consideration whether, under any circumstances, there should be a State monopoly in tobacco. Good reasons might or might not be shown in favour of the amendment, but, however that may be, nothing could be done under the affirmation of this principle without the passing of an Act of Parliament, which would have to repeal the present duties. **Senator De** Largie puts his motion in a form which does not bind - and, of course, cannot bind - any future Parliament. But is the motion of any value on the face of the Tariff? It is merely an abstract affirmation of opinion. {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator Ewing: -- As **Senator De** Largie puts the motion it attempts to bind Parliament as to the amount of the duty. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'CONNOR: -- I think **Senator Ewing** recognises the principle that members in this session cannot bind members in another session, no matter what the form of the motion may be. I can quite understand that if Parliament enacts a law on the faith of which money is expended in business, and the position of parties is changed, there is a moral obligation on Parliament not to destroy what it has done. That, however, is only a moral obligation-; and we cannot take away the supreme right of Parliament to deal with every subject it pleases, utterly irrespective of what previous Parliaments have done. {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator Ewing: -- That is what I said. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'CONNOR: -- Then we are agreed on that point. The motion is a mere affirmation of an abstract principle, and to persist with it will place honorable senators in a difficulty. For instance, I should certainly vote against the motion, and I dare say that other honorable senators, who may have a perfectly open mind on the question, would also be obliged to vote against it. The question is brought before the Senate with all the risk of an adverse expression of opinion, and really can achieve no purpose. I would suggest to **Senator De** Largie that, while he has done his duty in bringing the matter forward, he may now see that no good end can be gained by persisting with it, and that he should withdraw it. **Senator HIGGS** (Queensland). - I have the same complaint about SenatorDe Largie's motion that I have in regard to others. Had notice been given of the motion I should have taken the trouble to collect a few facts in order to support it. Honorable senators may deprecate a long discussion, but it must be recognised that, when no notice is given, motions are not likely to get proper consideration, and wrong decisions may be come to. I do not for one moment accuse **Senator De** Largie of wishing to take a mean advantage or exercise any party bias in submitting his proposal. My opinion is that **Senator De** Largie has come to the conclusion that hecould get no other opportunity of submitting a proposal of the kind. Every hour that was set apart for private members' business has been monopolized by the Government, and though **Senator Pulsford** may talk about there being a time for everything, I ask what other opportunity has there been for **Senator De** Largie to submit his proposal ? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Did **Senator Higgs** not say that where no notice had been given he would call on the Senate not to further consider motions? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- But the Senate did not agree with me, and I must fall in with the views of the majority. Although it may be impossible to bind future Parliaments, the Senate would, if the motion were adopted, place on record the opinion of the majority that the tobacco business should be a State monopoly. {: .speaker-JXO} ##### Senator Drake: -- The motion does not make that affirmation. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- Then **Senator Drake** cannot have much objection to the motion. In my opinion the motion would affirm the principle. {: .speaker-JXO} ##### Senator Drake: -- This is waste of time. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- **Senator Drake** complains of a waste of time, but I understand that certain honorable senators have determined to alter this Tariff as much as possible. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I must ask **Senator Higgs** not to refer to that matter again. Let us deal with each item as we come to it. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- When the Tariff came before us I offered to accept it as a fair compromise, but, when other honorable senators have determined to alter the Tariff as much as possible, why should I keep silent? Why should not every senator express his opinion on every item and every motion ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- When we come to them, certainly. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- I was drawn off the track by an interjection from **Senator** Drake. Throughout the world we see the formation of trusts and combines. The tobacco business, although now distributed amongst a number of firms throughout Australia, will undoubtedly be combined before very long. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- It is being combined now in Australia. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- So I understand; and before many years we shall have a tobacco trust here. There "is a tobacco combine in the old country, and also in the United States ; and it is in the power of such organizations to *levy* toll on consumers. I am not a smoker myself, but while some consider tobacco to be a luxury, I should say, judging from the number of people who use it, that it ought to be considered a necessity, and, as such, supplied at the cheapest possible rate. I agree with **Senator De** Largie's view that, under a State monopoly, the Commonwealth would derive revenue, and consumers would get good tobacco at a cheaper rate than that which they have now to pay manufacturers, individually Or combined. I further believe that growers of tobacco throughout the Commonwealth would get higher prices if the business were made a State monopoly. I believe, too, that the operatives in the Commonwealth factories would receive better wages and work under better conditions than they do at the present time in the employment of private firms or companies. **Senator O'Connor** referred to the railways in a way which suggested that he had not made up his mind whether they were paying, and whether it was wise that the State should own and control them. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- I have no doubt whatever about that. What I meant to convey was that the railways constitute an immense business, and that they require to be very carefully managed in order to pay. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- The employe's of Stateowned monopolies are certainly far better off than are those who work for private firms, but they give the State the full benefit of their services. The men employed on the New South Wales Government tramways are far better treated, while at the same time the public are better served, than is the case in connexion with the Brisbane tramways, which are owned by a private company. The same thing would occur in the case of a State-owned tobacco factory. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- On a point of order, **Mr. Chairman,** I wish to take your ruling whether it is within the compass of this Bill for an honorable senator to discuss the merits or demerits of a proposed Government monopoly in the manufacture of tobacco. J admit that the honorable senator would be perfectly in order if he merely suggested that a time should be fixed up to which this duty should prevail, but he is proceeding to show the merits of a State monopoly. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- And anticipating a motion on the notice-paper. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- To that extent he is doing so. I draw your attention, **Mr. Chairman,** to the title - "An Act relating to duties of customs." I cannot see that the question of whether or not a Government monopoly should be established in connexion with any particular article can be brought within the purview of this measure. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- I submit that the honorable senator is perfectly in order. I take it that, in order to carry the amendment, it is incumbent upon the honorable senator to show that the period fixed in it is one of some reality. For instance, if the honorable senator chose some utterly fantastic and nonsensical period as the time from which the imposition of these duties should take place, he could not expect the committee to agree with him : but, on the other hand, if he thinks that the establishment of this particular State monopoly is within reason, it is within his power to show that, by pointing to practical grounds on which the amendment should be carried. Of course it is always for you, **Mr. Chairman,** to say to what extent an honorable senator may go into details. For example, I do not suppose that you would allow any extended debate on details in regard to the way in which this particular business should be carried on. But it seems to me that when the honorable senator points out, as he was doing, in a general way, the practicability of his scheme, he is perfectly in order. As to the second ground, surely that can have no application to the amendment *1* It is true that there is a rule which provides, if my recollection serves me rightly, that a motion cannot be anticipated., But, if its discussion could not be anticipated in the committee stage of a Bill, we should be' driven to this absurd conclusion : A Bill might be before Parliament in which it was absolutely essential to insert an amendment involving some principle, but because some one had put a notice on the business-paper dealing with that subject, the amendment, could not be moved. The suggestion is absurd. On the ground of relevancy, as well as the ground last stated, 1 submit that **Senator Higgs** is perfectly in order. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- One becomes astounded at such a proposition being put as that which has just been made in connexion with this point of order. **Senator O'Connor** has overlooked the fact that the motion in no way raises the principle of whether a Government monopoly in the manufacture of tobacco should be established j it in no way raises the advantages or disadvantages of a,Government monopoly. It simply fixes a time limit, just as a time limit has been fixed from another point of view in Division VIa., in connexion with the duty on iron. I submit 'that it would be an outrage upon the procedure of Parliament and a spoliation of the time of Parliament, if on this motion we were to debate the whole question which will have to be debated before a Government monopoly in the manufacture of tobacco can be estabblished. It does not arise now, although **Senator De** Largie would be perfectly within his rights in choosing to say that these duties shall prevail until this time next year, so that there may be another session of this Parliament, during which the question can be raised and dealt with ; but, as the motion stands, it is surely utterly irrelevant to discuss the merits or demerits of any proposition to establish a Government monopoly in the manufacture of tobacco. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- What? Not even in a general way ? {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- Certainly. One might just as well say that these duties are to prevail until the Greek kalends, and then enter into a debate as to what that meant. I do not know what becomes of **Senator O'Connor's** constant appeal to honorable senators to leave the Tariff untouched, because of the necessity of dealing with it in good time. We shall be here until Doomsday if on a motion such as this we are to discuss the whole question involved in a proposition which is to come into force at the end of the period named. That is the point of view from which I ask you, **Mr. Chairman,** to consider this point of order, although I do not object personally to **Senator Higgs** making these statements. It seems to me that **Senator Millen** is perfectly right. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator De Largie: -- I submit that **Senator Higgs** is quite in order. Division "VIa. provides that certain duties shall be imposed at some period quite as indefinite as that contained in my proposition. Therefore, the honorable senator in discussing the matter as he has done is, in my opinion, perfectly in order. If my motion is out of order, then Division VIa. must be omitted from the Bill. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- The motion is in order. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator De Largie: -- Then there is nothing in the point of order. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- On the point of order, I should like to say that it is all very well for some honorable senators to consider that it is a spoliation of time to discuss a proposition with which they do not agree. I am surprised that honorable senators who have been in politics so long should take such a view. In politics, there is generally a magnanimity which permits "the other fellow " to have his say, and if the motion is in older I submit that I am perfectly entitled to show by whatever means I can that a State monopoly of the manufacture of tobacco is advisable. If, in doing so, I have to refer to the success of Government monopolies in other industries, I should be allowed to do so. The success of Government monopolies in other directions is very good evidence that there is every prospect of success attending a Government monopoly in the manufacture of tobacco. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The point of order is raised on two grounds. I will deal first of all with the question whether honorable senators are to be permitted to discuss the merits of a State monopoly in tobacco. I think that, as the motion is regarded as a limitation of the item, to some extent general references may be made - and that was what I understood **Senator Higgs** was doing- to the success or otherwise of a government monopoly in tobacco. Honorable senators are at liberty to give reasons why these duties should be limited to such an event. Those references, however, must be only of a general character. I certainly cannot permit a detailed discussion on the merits of a Government monopoly in tobacco. As to the second point - that the motion is in anticipation of a notice of motion already appearing on the business-paper - I do not think that that is sound. I consider that the motion, submitted to the Chair by way of request, is relevant, and does not conflict with the notice on the businesspaper. But I would ask **Senator Higgs** to confine his remarks to the motion immediately before the Chair, and to refrain from making any detailed reference to the merits of a State monopoly in tobacco. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- As I wish to save time, I do not propose, **Mr. Chairman,** in any way to test your ruling. All that I desire to say is that I do not agree with your decision. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable senator has no right to make that statement. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- I have not very much more to say. I trust that honorable senators, if they are earnest in their objections to the formation of trusts and combines, will vote for the proposal. Although it will not bind future Parliaments, it will affirm the principle that the State should establish a monopoly in the manufacture and sale of tobacco, and will, to some extent, be a guide to those who may come after us. The result of the Government monopoly of the drink traffic in Russia has been to make the people of that country sober almost in a day, and I submit that if the Federal Government took over the business of tobacco manufacture and sale at an early date they would undoubtedly exercise a very great influence for the better. {: #debate-4-s19 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia -- I am in entire sympathy with the principle of this motion, but I think I have fair ground for complaint, because no intimation was given to me that it was to be brought forward and that I have been kept in the dark. The subject is one in which I have taken a great deal of interest, and upon which I am thoroughly posted up. Moreover, I have a notice of motion dealing with the subject on:the businesspaper. This question was introduced into the House of Representatives in a manner somewhat similar to that now adopted. What was the result *1* A number of honorable members stated that they were in sympathy with the proposal, but could not see their way to affirm the principle in connexion with the Tariff. I should not think of bringing forward a proposal unless I saw some chance of securing its adoption', or proper consideration, and I consider that the cause of State monopoly is being injured by the present course of proceeding. Those who advocate the affirmation of the principle of State monopoly in connexion with the Tariff may be very well charged with a waste of time, when the whole country is waiting for the Bill to be passed. I should much prefer to see the whole question thrashed, out, when it can' be discussed apart from every other consideration and dealt with entirely upon its merits. The motion does not even affirm the desirability of State ownership. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has promised that the Senate shall have an early opportunity of discussing my motion. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- Not any particular question, but private business generally. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- I take that as a pledge that the honorable senator will, if possible, give the Senate an early opportunity of discussing the subject. If this motion is pressed to a division I shall vote for it. **Senator Sir JOSIAH** SYMON (South Australia). - I desire to make it perfectly clear that the fact that no notice was given of the motion is not inducing me to vote against it. I think **Senator De** Largie was quite within his rights. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- He did not hold a caucus meeting. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON: -- The honorable senator who has just interjected does hold caucus meetings, and does not reveal what takes place. I do not oppose the motion on the ground that, no notice was given regarding it, but because it would establish no principle, and because it would be inadvisable for us to discuss the question of a State monopoly of tobacco in connexion with this item. I agree with **Senator O'Connor,** that we are dealing with the duties that are to be imposed, until Parliament alters them, and that it is not for us to pass them subject to the adoption of some principle at a future time. This motion affirms no principle, and the object of **Senator De** Largie would not be attained, even though he succeeded in limiting the operation of these duties until such time as the manufacture of tobacco is made a Commonwealth monopoly. I shall vote against the motion for the same reason that I shall oppose Division VIa., namely, because it assumes a prophetic ending of duties that should be subject to no limitation whatever. {: #debate-4-s20 .speaker-KO8} ##### Senator HARNEY:
Western Australia -- I am at a loss to know how this discussion is at all relevant to the item. The -question is what duties should be imposed upon tobacco, and that can be dealt with in two ways, either by the reduction or increase of the duty, or by fixing the time at which the reduction or increase shall take effect. We are now being seriously asked to vote for a motion which mentions a certain event as fixing a time limit for the duty. We are required to consider why this event, the establishment of a State" monopoly, should take place. This involves the discussion of monopolies generally, and might reasonably lead to an inquiry into the question when monopolies started. We might even find ourselves landed in a disquisition on Grecian history. Without expressing any opinion one way or the other, or stating my views with reference to the establishment of a State monopoly of tobacco, I shall vote against the motion, which has about as much connexion with the item as has the cut of a man's coat to the place he walks in. **Senator DE** LARGIE (Western Australia). - I am sorry to again hear the old excuses about the time being inopportune, and the discussion a waste of time, but, whether the time is opportune or otherwise, I shall persevere with my proposal. I shall not leave the matter to be dealt with by means of an academic discussion in connexion with a bald motion that will not bind the Government to anything. I pledged myself to the electors to do all in my power to bring about a State monopoly of tobacco, and, as this is the first opportunity that has presented itself for discussing the question, I have availed myself of it. If honorable senators do not believe in the principle, they should be frank and open in their opposition. To merely say that the present time is inopportune is to burke the question. I intend to press the motion to adivision so that the electors may see who are in favour of the -principle, and who are against it. By establishing a State monopoly in tobacco we should not only confer a great benefit upon the consumers by insuring to them a better article, but we should also improve the condition of the workers engaged in the industry. If we are able to affirm the principle that it will bo good for the Commonwealth to have the manufacture and sale of tobacco solely in its "own hands, I shall be quite satisfied. We have -passed democratic legislation of which we may very well be proud, and by agreeing to my proposal we shall very greatly improve our excellent record. A very large number of the electors .are State socialists, who dig much deeper than do those who merely entertain free-trade or protectionist views. I hold that State socialism goes to the very bed-rock of this question. The Governments of France and Italy annually derive a very large amount of revenue from their tobacco monopolies. For example, the former receives £15,000,000 from that source. I strongly advise honorable senators, who have not read the report of the select committee appointed by the Victorian Government to inquire into the question of making tobacco a State monopoly, to carefully peruse that document. I can promise that if they do so, the)' will obtain much useful information, which has been carefully collected by men who have made a special study of the question. Amongst other things, the commissioners prove very clearly that if the tobacco trade had been made a State monopoly the small State of Victoria would have derived a clear profit of at least £250,000 per annum from it. It can well be imagined that the Commonwealth would secure a much larger profit. The commissioners also state that the climate of Victoria is very well suited for the cultivation of tobacco. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I do not wish any confusion to arise in reference to this matter. I will endeavour, as far as possible, to define the exact limits to which, according to my view, an honorable senator is justified in going. The motion is relevant and seeks to limit the operation of the proposed duty by a certain event. In order-to show that the operation of the duty in question should be thus limited, **Senator De** Largie is justified in urging that in particular instances the State monopoly of tobacco has resulted in the collection of a very large revenue. He is justified in saying that the experiment has proved successful in this country or in that ; but he is not justified in declaring that for climatic reasons the principle should be adopted in Victoria. Neither can he discuss the question from the aspect of State socialism, or as a means whereby workmen's wages may be increased. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I have no intention to unnecessarily occupy time, but I should like to point out that in those countries where the tobacco trade has been made a State monopoly, it has been proved conclusively that the trade will yield a large amount of revenue. What other countries have done I hold that we can also accomplish. In Prance there is a story told as to why the French people nationalized the industry. It is related that Napoleon the Great attended a ball, where there was a lady who was very stylishly dressed, and whose costume was very much bejewelled. He made inquiries, and ascertained that she was the wife of a tobacco manufacturer in the locality. From the lavish manner in which she was attired he concluded that the industry in which her husband was engaged must be a very profitable one. He therefore published a decree that in future not only the manufacture of tobacco but its sale should be solely in the hands of the State. From that day to the present time the French people have never wavered in their allegiance to that policy. I think every one will agree that we are justified in imposing a very heavy duty upon this article. It is generally conceded that tobacco is more detrimental to health than is anything else. It is not by any means a necessary, and it works more harm to the constitution than it does good. At the present time we arc not sure how much revenue will be derived from it. We may impose a very heavy duty upon tobacco, but a great deal of that duty may find its way into the pockets of the manufacturer. We know that the employes in the trade are not very well paid. That being so, everything justifies the proposition which I have submitted. It is a proposition which will insure to the workman a proper wage, and to the State the maximum amount of revenue. **Senator HIGGS** (Queensland). - I wish to add that **Senator De** Largie's suggestion points out a better way of raising revenue from tobacco than that proposed by the Government. I would strongly urge that strict attention should be paid to the proposal, because when certain senators have finished with this Tariff - judging by the manner in which they have already treated it - there will be very little revenue coming into the Commonwealth Treasury. If the proposals of the Government are to be reduced, it stands to reason that the revenue must be diminished. I can well believe that before this item is disposed of an amendment will be proposed to reduce the existing duty, and if that amendment be carried the revenue will be considerably reduced. But what I am anxious for is that the Senate shall suggest to another place a better means of collecting revenue upon tobacco than that at present proposed, whilst at the same time giving effect to the protective policy of the Government to encourage Australian industry. I have taken an opportunity to refer to the report of the Victorian select committee which investigated this matter, and I find that the proposal to make tobacco a State monopoly is supported by very strong evidence - evidence which honorable senators should consider well before they cast a vote. For example, evidence is given by **Mr. George** A. Carter, a cigar-maker by trade, and also a manufacturer. He was asked by the commission - What effect would a State monopoly have upon the trade here? His reply was - I have worked it out; a factory could produce 25,000,000 of cigars, one class to be sold at 2d., one at 3d. , and one at6d. Those could certainly be put upon the market, and the Government would dictate the prices which they were to be sold at. I find that to manufacture those cigars there would be 600 people employed ; 396 cigarmakers, making hand and mould work, would receive wages to the extent of £45,000 a year : there would be 105 strippers, journeymen, and boys, receiving £6,375; 40 sorters and packers, receiving £3,750 ; 28 box-makers and trimmers, receiving £1,456 ; 22 pressmen and boys, receiving £1,352 ; general manager, clerks, and shipping clerks, 17, receiving £2,890 ; making a total wage bill of £60,823. The total expenditure to produce 25,000,000 cigars would be £130,877 9s. The income on that number of cigars would be £250,000. There would be a surplus amount of tobacco after the cigars were made that would be worth £3,381 18s. 10d.; leaving a net profit of £122,504 9s.10d. This is the net income which would be yielded to Victoria from cigars alone. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- But the witness has not deductedthe duty that the State would derive under present conditions. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- I do not see the application of that particular point. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The State is getting a certain amount in duty upon the cigars which are consumed, and that should be deducted from what **Mr. Carter** calls " profit." {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- I am showing by the evidence of a man of considerable experience in the trade that if the tobacco industry were made a State monopoly in Victoria a certain amount of tobacco would be issued to the public, and that, upon the probable consumption - which I suppose he has estimated - there would be a net profit of £122,504. I imagine that the public in the other five States of the Commonwealth are just as keen upon tobacco as are the people .of Victoria. By a rough calculation Ave can safely reckon that the Commonwealth would derive a net profit of £600,000 from this ' monopoly. There is no doubt that in Queensland, if a State monopoly existed, the Government, owing to the nature of the country, could produce tobacco very much more successfully than in these southern climates. The witness gave three reasons why the State should take over the tobacco industry. I will not deal with the two first reasons, because they concern the rate of wages to be paid to the employes and the advantages to the consumer. I will only refer to his third reason, which to some extent is a repetition of what I have already said - that the Government would receive in direct revenue about £120,000 a year, and an indirect revenue from the £60,000 of wages which would be brought into circulation owing to the State monopoly. The witness wishes it to be understood that he is dealing with the cigar industry only - a very important point. **Senator De** Largie has mentioned the State monopoly of tobacco in France. A witness named Frederick Horatio Bruford, at that time a Customs officer in Victoria, was also examined by the committee, and in his evidence he gives this information : - The monopoly in tobacco has its merits, even taking the point of view of the quality of the product. With very high duties the Government monopoly is the only method of obtaining a proper, healthy, and unadulterated article. This is beyond doubt. In the discussion in the German Parliament in 1877 and 1878, upon the tobacco tax, the Vice-President Of that great body, M. de Stauffenberg, said - "We smokers know that we smoke, but we are far from knowing what we smoke. The employment of substitutes for tobacco is now practised on such a large scale that one could devote a whole botanical lesson to the description of the vegetables which elbow one another in our tobacco and cigars, from beet-root leaves to cherry leaves. What, then, will our tobacco be like undera surtax of 55 and 75 francs ?" The same witness also says - >The countries of the continent which have had the courage to establish a monopoly of tobacco draw large revenues, and have no wish to renounce the system. In Italy the monopoly was for a long time farmed out .to a company, which paid dues to the State proportionate to the quantity sold, and also .gave a portion to the charities. In 18(58, the.first year of .this system, the State-received £2, 740,000, of which £2, u75, 760 was 'from the dues, and £00,080, the value of the part given to charities. In 1-876 the State received £3,480,000, of which £3,160,000 was from dues, £200,000 to charities, and £80,000 for over taxes. Since 1883 the State has exercised a direct monopoly, and draws £7,560,000 gross (Budget of 1589-90). The monopoly of tobacco has existed in Austria since 1870 under the farming-out system. Now it is managed directly by the State, and it was introduced in Hungary in 1851. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy is, of all countries, that in which the growth and manufacture of tobacco have attained the largest totals. The business of the monopoly comprises the native culture, which is carried on under the authority of a permit, the sale of indigenous and foreign leaf, and the sale of the finished product. It is much like the French system, except that, in Hungary, at any rate, the regie interferes directly in the cultivation to improve it. There is one regie for Austria, and another for Hungary. In 1851 the gross receipts of the monopoly for the whole Empire was £3,000,000, of whicli only £1,600,000 was net revenue. In 1874 the united gross total of the Austrian and Hungarian monopolies was £8,600,000, of which £4,S00,000 was net revenue. The expenses had increased 130 p6r cent, since 1851, whilst the net product had more than trebled. In the Budget of 1889 the gross proceeds of the monopoly was estimated at £S,150,000 in Austria. The charge of collection was estimated at £2,990,780 ; the net proceeds at £5,150,000. In the same year, 1889, the gross proceeds of the monopoly in Hungary is written at £4,600,000 in round numbers. Honorable senators will, I am sure, recognise, although they may think that **Senator De** Largie's proposal savours of an academic character, that we have throughout the world many examples of State tobacco monopolies which are of great benefit to the people who have adopted them. In the initial stages of this Commonwealth I see no reason whatever why honorable senators who are of opinion that the State should have a monopoly in tobacco manufacture should not place their views upon record. If honorable senators object .to interfering with the duty proposed by the Tariff they surely will see that the addition suggested by **Senator De** Largie does not interfere with the proposed duty. It is only a direction to future Ministers and to those senators who will occupy our places in future that at least our opinion is that the manufacture of tobacco throughout the Commonwealth should be in the hands of the Government. I am very glad that **Senator De** Largie has given us an opportunity of discussing the proposal. I am satisfied from what has taken place that, from an educational view, what he has done will be of :great benefit. The discussion of it now will be far mora effective than if he had waited for the matter to be discussed at some time when honorable senators were in a generous moodand anxious to allow it to be debated. I hope thecommittee will notadopt the view expressed by some honorable senators, that they do not see their way to vote for the amendment, although they agree with it in principle. If they believe in it I hope they will cast their votes in its favour. Those honorable senators who object to combines, trusts, and syndicates as objectionable from the point of view of the common interests of the public should see strong reasons in favour of making tobacco a State monopoly. Such an arrangement would enable us to raise a large amount of revenue and would give the consumers of tobacco every satisfaction in regard to the commodity they consume. Question put. The committee divided. AYES: 10 NOES: 16 Majority ... ... 6 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. **Senator Sir JOSIAH** SYMON (South Australia). - I move - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 5 by inserting after the words " *ad valorem,"* line 12, the words " and on and after 1st July, 1902, 7s." The duty on cigars originally proposed was 5s. 6d. per lb. and 15 per cent. *ad valorem,* which in another place in November last was altered to 6s. 3d. per lb. and 15 percent. *ad valorem.* This is the only remaining composite duty on the Tariff, and the best thing we can do is to eliminate it. As I entered into particulars on this point during the secon-dreading debate, I shall now only briefly restate the position. This duty, like many others, presents several aspects for our consideration, on whichever side of the chamber we may sit. One aspect is revenue, the second is the element of protection where it exists, and the third is the financial position of the smaller States. I agree with **Senator De** Largie that tobacco, like stimulants, is a legitimate subject of taxation to the fullest possible extent. It must be remembered, however, that if we impose a duty which amounts to prohibition, we do not diminish the consumption of an article which **Senator De** Largie has, perhaps rightly, said is used to excess; we merely remove the chance of revenue by shifting its production from beyond the seas to our own territory, and, under, the Excise Bill before us, much smaller duties are imposed upon locally manufactured tobacco. I do not deal with that aspect of the question now, but when we reach the excise proposals I shall endeavour, with the help of other honorable senators, to secure a larger duty onthe local product. At present we have to deal simply with the import duty, and I contend that a fixed duty of 7s. per lb. will give us a very handsome revenue without diminishing the element of protection, if protection is sought to be given. The existing protection will not be diminished, but we shall endeavour to approximate the excise to the import duty ; but I hope that then it will be minimized as much as possible. The duty I propose is that which prevails in Tasmania, and is1s. more than the Victorian duty. The duties on cigars were, in New South Wales, 6s. ; in Victoria, 6s. ; in Queensland, 6s. ; in South Australia, 6s. 3d. ; in Tasmania, 7s. ; and in Western Australia, 6s. per lb. I think that every honorable senator will be perfectly satisfied that my proposal is not only fair, but represents an outside limit ; and, if the motion be adopted, there ought to be a much larger revenue than would otherwise be collected, seeing that it is not pretended that the duty will be prohibitive. On a certain class of cigars a duty of 6s. 3d. per lb., plus 15 percent. *ad valorem,* gives a little more than a fixed duty of 7s. ; but on the lowest and intermediate classes the fixed duty results in more revenue than the present duty. It seems to me that the element of protection does not really enter just at present. Under my proposal, we shall not diminish but increase the revenue, and we shall not interfere with the protection that obtains in all the States, except Tasmania, where, I believe, there are no cigar factories. From a revenue point of view, therefore, the proposed change will be advantageous, and, in eliminating the *ad valorem* duty of 15 per cent., we get rid of an objectionable addition to a fixed duty. A composite duty involves a great deal of trouble at the Custom-house, and there are, besides, objections which were lengthily debated in the House of Representatives. I have no desire, in connexion with commodities of this kind, to consider the question of cheapness to the consumer. We all feel, as we should in regard to champagne and other articles of the kind, that the question of cheapness ought not to influence us so long as we so arrange the duty that the price shall not be prohibitive of consumption. I should not hesitate to propose a fixed duty of 7s. per lb., even if it were shown that it would slightly increase the cost to the consumer; but as to a certain class of cigars, the price will not be increased any more than it would be by the imposition of a duty of 6s. 3d. per lb. and 15 per cent, *ad valorem.* The element of protection to the local industry does not trouble me very much, though I am going to give it consideration, as I hope other honorable senators will. We heard from the report read by **Senator Higgs,** and it is generally understood, that large profits are made by manufacturers of tobacco, but I think honorable senators will see that my proposal leaves' them a substantial margin. I shall summarize the figures which I placed before the Senate during the second-reading debate, showing the amount of protection, especially in comparison with the labour cost of production. That estimate was based on the original proposal of 5s. 6d. per lb., and 15 per cent. *ad valorem,* which equalled 16 *h* per cent, *ad valorem* on the average price. Honorable senators will bear in mind that they have to add ls. 6d. per lb. in considering the figures which I am about to lay before them. A duty of 5s. '6d. per lb. on the type of cigars which are usually retailed at 3d. each, or five for ls., and which have a weight of 12£ lbs. per 1,000, represents £3 8s. 9d., and this, together with the *ad valorem,* percentage of 9s. 10d., gives a total duty of £3 18s. 7d. On the locallymade cigar, the duty on the leaf and the excise amounts to *£1* 17s. 6d., or if made entirely of colonial leaf, to only 18s. 9d. That is equivalent to protection,, if the cigars be made wholly of imported leaf, of *£2* ls. Id. In regard to the local leaf effect is given to considerations such as the desire to encourage the natural pro'duction of the soil ; and if the cigars be made entirely of the local article the protection represents £-2 19s. lOd. The estimated amount of money spent on skilled labour to produce these cigars is £1 10s. per 1,000, and on unskilled 7s. 6d., or a total of £1 17 s. 6d. This means that in order to provide wages amounting to £1 17s. 6d., the Commonwealth loses £2 ls. Id. on cigars made from imported leaf, and £2 19s. lOd. on cigars made from local leaf. Therefore, the manufacturer, over and above paying all his wages, has an advantage of between 3s. and 4.s. in regard to the article " manufactured from the imported leaf, and of £1 2s. 4d. in regard to the article made from the local product. If ls. 6d. be added to the duty of 5s. 6d., and the *ad valorem* duty of 15 per cent, put aside, we have to add to the cost 18s. 8d., as compared with the *ad valorem* tax of 9s. lOd. On this class of cigars, therefore, my proposal will give more revenue than if the duty be left at 6s. 3d. per lb., plus 15 per cent.' *ad valorem.* On the next class of cigars, which are sold at 4d. each, and weigh 15£ lbs. per thousand, the duty of 5s. 6d. per lb. returns £4 5s. 3d., and the *ad valorem* £1 2s. 6d., or a total of £5 7s. 9d. Opposed to that, the duty on the imported leaf used in the manufacture of locally-made cigars is £1 3s. 3d., and the excise £1 3s. 3d., making a total of £2 6s. 6d. This gives a difference on 1,000 cigars, in favour of the local manufacturer, of £3 ls. 3d., which I think every one will agree is a rather handsome protection. If on the other hand we increase the duty of 5s. 6d. by ls. 6d., we have to add 22s. 9d. to the £4 5s. 3d., and the result is exactly 3d. more than the duty would come to at 16^. per cent, on the intermediate charges and so forth, on which the calculation is usually based. I have to admit that on the third class of cigars the. *ad valorem* duty, plus the fixed duty of 5s.. 6d., comes to a little more than the proposed duty of 7s., though the difference between the import and the excise duties leaves a protection of £3 19s. Id. per 1,000 cigars in favour of the manufacturer. Thatis a very handsome fortune for any one, and when we come to deal with the question of excise we may very fairly take the fact into- consideration, with a view to securing that at least some portion of the amount goes into the coffers of the State. I have not gone into details, as I dealt with them before, so far as the protectionist aspect is concerned. Of course, that is not seriously affected at the present stage, and this margin will allow us something to go upon later on. All that I point out at present is that the fixed duty of 7s. per lb. will not be prohibitory ; that from it we shall obtain ls. per lb. more than was obtained from the duty which existed in Victoria, and in most of the other States, while it will be the same as that which existed in Tasmania prior to this Tariff. Without adding anything to what was put fully the other day in connexion with the discussion on the beer duties, I hope this will mean a great benefit to the smaller States. It will certainly be a' benefit to those in which there are no tobacco factories, but which are consumers of tobacco, and should have the benefit of every duty; and, if there is any import duty in respect of any particular class of cigars, except those made of the imported leaf, they should have the highest excise available. This motion will, if carried, place the .duty on a proper footing so far as they are concerned, and when we come to deal with excise, we shall be better able, to estimate how they will be affected by it. These are the reasons which I offer honorable senators for the alteration which I propose. I have selected the highest duty in any of the federated States as that which should be placed on cigars. I have done so because it is only fair that the largest amount of revenue possible should be received, so long as we keep outside the possibility of prohibition, when, of course, all our import duties would go to the wall. **Senator HIGGS** (Queensland). - I took objection this afternoon to the way in which amendments were sprung upon the committee. I take a similar objection now. Tariff is to take two or three important items, such as boots and hats- **Senator Sir Josiah** Symon. - Why **Mr. Reid?** {: #debate-4-s21 .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- Because the honorable senator and **Mr. G.** H. Reid are probably in frequent consultation over the Tariff. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- That statement is totally without foundation. But if it were not, I should be proud of the fact all the same. {: #debate-4-s22 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: **- Senator Millen** has, I think, rather forgotten his usual good taste in making a remark which, if it means anything, conveys a' reflection upon me. He said - " Because the honorable senator has a roving commission to state anything he likes under the sun." {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- I may set that matter at rest at once. I made the statement, and meant it to apply to **Senator Higgs,** who appears to be bent upon discussing everything he can. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- **Senator Symon** is the leader of a party, and his action is the more significant owing to that fact. The man who carries his swag through the country has been quoted by members of the free-trade party as one who will have to bear a very heavy burden of taxation owing to this Tariff, and I would ask if the honorable senator is moved by any consideration for swagmen and shearers and others who will have to buy cheap cigars, if they purchase any *1* {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- They have better sense than to buy cheap cigars ; they buy a bit of good tobacco instead. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- Who do buy the cheap cigars ? The people who are in receipt of large incomes *1* {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir Josiah Symon: -- They generally smoke a pipe. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- We can plainly see how much consideration the honorable senator has for the poorer classes, when we find him willing to relieve those who buy 6d. cigars, and to increase the burdens of those who buy cigars of a lower grade. I wish honorable senators to understand the reasons which influenced the Government to place upon the schedule the duties now under discussion. I have here a copy of a letter from the cigarmakers of Australia, addressed to the Commissioner for Trade and Customs, which reads as follows : - Trades Hall, Carlton, 18th October, 1901. **Sir,-** The committee appointed by the cigarmakers of the Commonwealth are desirous of bringing under your notice the position they will be placed in if your Tariff proposals are not amended, and for that purpose respectfully submit the following :- For the year 1899, 208,293 lbs. of foreign manufactured cigars were imported into New South Wales, and only 0,256 lbs. of cigars manufactured in that State. For the year 1899, 127,5301fcs. of. foreign manufactured cigars were imported into Victoria, and 84,407 lbs, of cigars manufactured in that State. In dealing with the above figures we wish to respectfully draw your attention to this fact : - That whereas in New South Wales, until very recently, the Tariff was nearly the same as proposed, the industry had become almost a negligible quantity, and the market was supplied by the black and yellow labour of Manila, India, and China, and the sweated and prison labour of the European Continent. But in the State of Victoria where, after many years of hard work, we have obtained something like "fair terms," we have produced 84,407 lbs. of cigars; and had the Federal Tariff not completely paralyzed the trade, we should have been on the way to supply all the demands of the smoking public by locally-made cigars, and so maintain upon a fair basis our Australian industry. We wish further to draw your attention to the, fact, that since the Federal Tariff came into operation, the whole of the workers in our industry in South Australia, amounting to 70, -hoye been thrown out of work ; and the manufacturers of New South Wales have informed their employes, that unless an alteration is made they will reluctantly have to close their factories, which for some time have been working under the same Tariff as Victoria with every prospect of success, so much so, that a larger firm, who had hitherto imported the chief lines of cigars in New South Wales, established a manufactory in the hope of a fair Federal Tariff enabling them to supply locally what they hod hitherto manufactured abroad, and they have informed their employes that they 'will be obliged to close their factory and resume importing to New South Wales, which State manufactured last year 50,168 lbs. cigars. In reference to Victoria, there a,re, roughly speaking, 50 manufacturers, a majority of whom will be obliged to close down eventually should the proposed Tariff be accepted. In view of the above fact, the committee respectfully request yon to take into your serious consideration this contention : - Would it not* be far more conducive to the progress of Federated Australia if the Tariff was framed so that Australian manufacturers could successfully compete with all outside production, irrespective of colour ? And as we are fully convinced of your determination to strive for a white Australia, not only in name, but in very deed, we are further convinced that unless 3'ou take steps to prevent the product of coloured and sweated and foreign labour coming into unfair competition with local labour, all your efforts will be in vain; but if, on the other hand, you so protect the local industry by permitting the raw material to be imported with very small Customs duty and excise, you would soon have what Australia most urgently requires, an accession of sober and qualified workers that would not only be producers in their particular trade*, but would, with their families,be consumers of the products of all other producers, and as such would immeasurably augment your revenue. the main contention whichwe most earnestly desire to impress upon you is our true position as workers ina white Australia. We have read with the greatest interest the Prime Minister's speech in Maitland, in which he affirmed his determination to protect Australian industries, and, therefore, have supported the Barton Government in all its efforts in that direction. You, sir, in your opening remarks, brightened our hopes when you said - "No destruction of industry," and that your policy was particularly to avoid the unnecessary destruction of existing industries whose magnitude and suitability rendered them worthy of fiscal protection. From a workman's point of view, it is needless to say that we are thoroughly in accord with you, sir, seeing that you have not deviated from the " Barton declaration " at Maitland. We sincerely believe that your Government will not do anything intentionally that will be the cause of privation and misery to the wives and children who are absolutely dependent upon the continuation of the cigar-making industry in Australia. In support of this, our contention, we respectfully Submit for your perusal and information the following statement : -
Protectionist -- I shall deal with this matter, first of all, from a revenue pointof view. From that stand-point, I do not think there is a great deal of difference between the sum which would be derived underthe honorable and learned senator's proposaL and that which would be obtained from the operation of the Tariff in its present form. But the difference is in favour of the Government, because, according to a calculation which I have had made, founded upon an estimate of the cigars imported, I find that the yield of a 7s. duty will bs something like £2,730 less than that of the duty proposed by the Government. Of course, that is an important consideration. I take 364,000 lbs. as the weight of the cigars imported. That, at 7s. per lb., will produce £127,400. The return from the Government's proposal would be £130,130. The difference between the two is £2,730. But my objection to the honorable and learned senator's proposal rests rather on an objection to the incidence of the duty than to the amount that it will yield. Over and over again I have heard honorable senators opposite enunciate the principle that above all things taxation should be as far as possible fairly adjusted. The principle I have always heard advocated by them is that the backs that are able to bear it should carry the heaviest portion of the taxation: It is on that principle that we have throughout this Tar-iff: *ad valorem* duties, which are amongst the most admired methods of my honorable friends for raising revenue. What is the principle of an *ad valorem* duty? It is that low-priced goods shall pay little and that high-priced goods shall pay much. There is only one way in which that principle can be applied to the importation of cigars, and that is by having not only a specific duty but an *ad valorem* duty as well. What is the effect of this specific duty and *ad valorem* duty ? ,1 cannot do better than read to the Senate a list which I have prepared, showing how it will operate in the case of different priced cigars. But before I do that, let me say that I think it will be recognised that the great bulk- of importations that will be affected will be the importations of low-priced cigars - that is, cigars generally known as threepenny cigars, and imported at various prices. But the higher-priced Havana or other.expensive cigar, running in price from sixpence to a shilling and beyond that, is not likely to be affected whatever duty is put on, because the person who wishes to smoke an expensive cigar will smoke it, whatever it costs. In fact, the taste of the tobacco very often seems to be appreciated according to the price paid for the cigar. The following is the list to which I have referred : -
Western Australia -- If *ad valorem* duties are such fine things as **Senator O'Connor** would have us believe, it is a pity the Government have not applied them more extensively inthe Tariff under consideration. All the arguments the honorable senator used in reference to cigars apply with equal effect to almost the whole of the items which are subject to specific duties. In the Tariff we deal with spirits, tobacco, cigarettes, tinned meat, and all kinds of commodities. **Senator O'Connor** pleaded with us to let the man who wanted to smoke a bad cigar have it cheap ; but he did not say he would let the working man in the back blocks of Australia have his tinned meat cheap. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- I rise to order. I submit that **Senator Ewing** is not in order in making a comparison between an *ad valorem* duty on tinned beef and an *ad valorem* duty on cigars. You, **Mr. Chairman,** have very properly been keeping the discussion within reasonable limits. If we are to have comparisons of this sort I do not know when we shall end the discussion. {: .speaker-K7V} ##### Senator Sir J osiah Symon: -- Surely it is perfectly in order for an honorable senator to argue that if an *ad valorem* duty be insisted upon in reference to one line it should be insisted on in reference to others. It was understood that honorable senators could refer to any item for the purpose of argument. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I indicated at the outset that I could not object to reasonable reference by way of illustration to other items of the Tariff; but such references must be within reason. {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator EWING: -- **Senator O'Connor** asks us to accept the Government proposal because of its fairness ; and says that its inherent fairness lies in the fact that it is *ad valorem* - that it relieves the man who buys the poorer class of goods and places the burden on the man who buys the higher class. Why is that principle not applied to tinned meats, jam, and a hundred and one other articles? If it is a good principle to apply to cigars, it is a good principle to apply to every duty in the Tariff. From my point of view there were two rational aspects of the question presented in the speech of **Senator Higgs.** It was pointed out by that honorable senator that there will not be enough protection to prevent operatives from being thrown out of employment if this alteration is made. It is said that it will subject the operatives in this industry to the unfair competition of Belgium, and its cheap labour. The honorable senator has become an advocate of a manufacturing ring which has lately been formed, as the Government contemplated would be the case, as the result of the imposition of these duties. They have combined in this trade in order to keep down wages. The States Tobacco Company is another of those instances of sweating institutions to which **Senator Barrett** has referred so ably in the past. SenatorHiggs made the statement that in Belgium the workers receive from 5s. to 12s. per 1,000 for the manufacture of these cigars ; but in Adelaide they are receiving only from 5s. to 10s. per 1,000. Thus the phantom of the unfair competition of the Belgian article is dissipated at once. Under the protectionist condition of South Australia, lower wages are being paid there for the manufacture of cigars than are paid in Belgium. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Politiciansof theSenator Symon type are responsible for that. {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator EWING: -- I did not know that **Senator Symon** , is a cigar manufacturer. The people who propose protection so as to enable manufacturers to form rings, and thus sweat their employes, are responsible for the position. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator De Largie: -- Yet honorable senators of the Opposition propose a higher duty than that proposed by the Government. {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator EWING: -- **Senator O'Connor** has shown that we are really proposing a reduction of the duties. **Senator Higgs** read a long letter, signed by **Mr. Kirwan, president** of the Cigar Manufacturers' Industrial Union of Australia, in favour of the highest protection that could be obtained for the industry. They have a high degree of protection now but **Mr. Kirwan** tells us in a letter, and also in the course of an interview published in the *South Australian Advertiser,* that the cigar manufacturers of that city are employing almost exclusively girl labour. These are the people whom **Senator Higgs** is championing : people who, according to **Mr. Kirwan,** employ girls at a wage varying from 6d. to ls. per day. The honorable senator has become the champion of the arch-sweaters of Australia. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- That is not true. {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator EWING: -- The honorable senator is a member of a labour organization, and I am citing his own prophet. {: .speaker-K1O} ##### Senator Barrett: -- What about the position of Victoria? {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator EWING: -- The only thing that keeps the protected manufacturers of Victoria in order is the whip of the law, which compels them to pay a fair wage. As soon as we protect a man in a trade like this he will sweat his employes down to the lowest level. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- So will the calico Jimmy. {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator EWING: -- I am speaking about the protectionist manufacturer, whom the honorable senator is prepared to assist in order to enable him to pay high wages. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- But there is a Judas in every twelve. {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator EWING: -- I am referring, not to one Judas, but to a ring. By means of this protection, which shields them from fair and reasonable competition, they have been able to form a ring to control the whole trade, and they are sweating their labour, and making the public pay a high price for their goods. There are so many in the ring that their names fill the third of a column of the *South* *Australian* *Advertiser,* and among the list are the names of a great number of Victorian manufacturers. The point I wish to press is that these people are paying, not better wages, as **Senator Higgs** urged, but lower wages than are paid in any other industry in Australia. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- The)' are as much importers as they are manufacturers. {: .speaker-JYQ} ##### Senator EWING: -- They' are the greatest sweaters in Australia, and the honorable senator is their champion. Surely we should assist people who will deal decently with their employed, and not enable this, condition of sweating to continue. I submit that it is manifest that this organization is not moral enough to give to its employes the benefit of any further protection that we ]hav give to them. They will not give Id. more to their employes than they can avoid. Consequently, by increasing the protection, we are only putting so much more into the pockets of a ring. {: #debate-4-s27 .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales -- I desire to draw the attention of the committee to a few simple facts which will clear away a great deal of matter which has been laid before us which tends only to obscure the true issue. Tobacco, as every one knows, is the main smoking material of the mass of the people. Cigars are smoked only by well-to-do people, and surely the very principle that **Senator O'Connor** has urged the committee to observe is recognised up to the hilt in the enormous difference between 3s. 3d. per lb. on ordinary smoking material and the duty of 7s. per lb. proposed by **Senator Symon** to be imposed on cigars. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- All cigars are not of the same value. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD: -- Exactly, and all tobacco is not of the same value. Surely the principle of taxing the expensive article more highly than the cheap one is recognised in this proposal more than in any other part of the Tariff? It is useless to haggle about a question of 3d. or Gd. per lb. upon cigars when we have this enormous difference staring us in the face, which settles conclusively the point in regard to the extra charge on the expensive article. With regard to revenue, I should like to point out that the Government, who by their mouth-piece in the Senate are professing to be the strong guardians of our revenue, are not after all acting as they profess to do. In the original Government estimate for a normal year they anticipate that in New South Wales the duty on cigars under their Tariff will bring in a revenue of £44,800 ; but in 1900 no less than £62,800 was collected on cigars under the State Tariff. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- Does the honorable senator refer to the financial year 1900 ? {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD: -- No" ; to the calendar year. The Government proposed duties, according to this estimate, will . bring in about £18,000 less than did the- duty under the State Tariff. That does not look as if they were eager to secure revenue. The essential objection to this composite duty is that it is a grave interference with the ordinary and long-established conditions under which the trade in cigars has been carried on. I have a letter on the subject from a firm, and I will read a few words from it, because- it will give **Senator O'Connor** a good opportunity to laugh- and jeer. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- I admit that the honorable senator does not give me many opportunities to laugh. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD: -- A firm, having an establishment both in Melbourne and in Sydney, writes as follows : - >We would not trouble you in the matter, but it is a very serious one to us, and threatens the extinction of a branch of our trade honorably curried on both here and in Sydney for over 40 years. It may be nothing to **Senator O'Connor** to destroy the trade of a firm of importers, but surely honorable senators who are imbued with some, idea of fair play as between man and man, will bear in mind a letter couched in words such as those. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- The honorable senator should apply that principle to the manufacturer and his employes {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD: -- I will. Only this afternoon I proposed something on behalf of a manufacturer, which had been neglected by the Government. Cigars are worth a very large sum per pound, and the quantity that represents £1,000 .is not very extensive. The rule is always to sell in bond. A merchant holding a stock of cigars sells them in bond, and the buyer who takes, say, a parcel of £500 or £1,000 worth, clears £50, £20, or £30 worth at a time, just as his orders come in. He does not want to pay at once, it may be £1,000 or more, in duty upon cigars which may have to remain unsold, perhaps, for twelve months. Where cigars are sold subject to *ad valorem* duty, the seller is obliged to disclose not only the cost of the articles, but the sources from which he obtained them. If there is anything that ought to be a man's private property, it is the secrets of his business, the cost of his materials, and the names of the persons from whom he buys his goods. It is because the trader has to disclose these facts that great objection is taken to the *ad valorem* principle in the present case. The question of protection does not enter into the consideration of - these duties, but it will be necessary to deal with that matter when we discuss the excise duties. **Senator HIGGS** (Queensland). - I cannot allow some of the observations made by **Senator Ewing** to pass without comment. That honorable and learned senator stated, as a reason why honorable senators should support **Senator Symon's** proposition, that in South Australia the cigar trade workers are being sweated. I have previously pointed out that although very high protective duties may enable us to succeed in manufacturing certain classes of goods in Australia, wealth may still be very unequally distributed. The wages paid to cigar-workers in South Australia may be very low, but it must be remembered that there is no minimum wage law in operation there. Unless special legislation is passed, providing for wages boards or something of a similar kind, as in Victoria, low wages are almost sure to prevail. I might remind **Senator Ewing** that the cigars which are imported here are made by operatives who are sweated to a much greater extent than are any of our own. I have a return showing how cigars are made in Germany. I know that our free-trade friends will probably point to the fact that these low wages prevail in a protectionist country ; but the wages are low in Germany because the strong arm of the law does not protect the sweated labourer. The system of cigar manufacture in Germany is described as follows : - >A "Flor de Naves" Regalia Reina Fina, ora bouquet shape, for making which the Wages Board rate is 3s. Od. per .100, is produced in Hamburg on the "house- work" system, at the following prices and. under the following conditions : - > >The manufacturer gives the house-worker a certain quantity of leaf tobacco, from which to make a certain number of cigars. > >The house-worker has to prepare and strip the tobacco, and, in point of fact, has to complete the whole process of making the cigars, except sorting. He has also to cart the leaf from, and the finished cigars to, his employer's factory, and has to provide for his men tools of trade. For all this he receives 13s. per 1,000. Of this he pays his men 10s. for the making only, the balance, viz. , 3s. , having to cover all other work *(i.e.,* stripping, liquoring, setting up, and casing) and his profits. He also has to find sureties for the value of tobacco in his care, and to pay fire insurance. > >In the case of the same cigar made in the country districts : - The manufacturer builds br rents a small factory in a thickly-populated provincial town, engages a smart foreman at 25s. petweek (house, gas, and fire free), and between 25 arid 30 cigar makers, male and female, at 6s. 6d. per 1,000 if in the north, or 6s. if in the south of Germany. This will bring the cost of making, the above cigar ready for sale to 9s. 3d. per .1,000, iis against 1.3s. shown above, or, say, 27s. 6d. per 1,000 less than the Victorian rate. One factory alone - Englehardt and Biormann of Bremen, - has over 50 of these small factories throughout Germany, making cigars at from 20 marks *[i.e.,* 20s.) per 1,000 upwards I have . also translations of advertisements which have appeared in the *Hamburger Echo.* One of these reads - >Cigarmaker wanted, hand - work', without moulds, 16s. Od. per 1,000. Another one reads - >Cigarmaker wanted, hand - work, without moulds, 13s. 6d. per 1,000. Another one applies for a leaf booker and stripper for half a day, half-week, at 5s. per 1,000, or with a full day, full week, lis, per 1,000, and there are many other advertisements of a similar character. If **Senator Ewing** desires that there shall be a better rate of wages paid in the tobacco trade in South Australia he must recognise that his aim cannot be secured by allowing the free importation of cigars made by the sweated workers of the continent. {: .speaker-KO8} ##### Senator Harney: -- The honorable and learned senator says that they are paid the same rates as are the operatives in South Australia. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- Surely it is not contended that the operatives in South( Australia are paid rates as low as those which prevail in Germany, China, or India. If the honorable and learned senator wishes to see high wages paid, he should assist in maintaining high duties, so that the local workers may be protected against the product of sweated labour. That is the way to go about the business. Upon the other hand, if we allow these cheap manufactured goods to be admitted free we shall still further reduce the wage,; of the local operatives, because a number will be thrown out of employment in certain factories, and they will attempt to find work by competing with those in the surviving factories at a lower rate of pay. {: #debate-4-s28 .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales -- Certain figures have been given to-night in regard to the effect of the duties at present operating, and that which would result from the adoption of the amendment. I think there is a good deal of truth in the statement of- the Vice-President of the Executive Council that a. specific- duty will hit the consumers of cheap cigars more heavily than it will the consumers of the higher class of cigars. In this connexion. I desire to give a few figures which can be readily grasped. I find that a very large quantity of Manila cigars which are manufactured for 30s.,. and which weigh about 12 lbs. per 1,000, are imported. A specific duty of fis. 3d. a lb. upon these cigars is equivalent to £3 15& per 1,000; the *ad valorem* of 15 per cent, represents an additional 4s. 9d. per 1,000, thus making a total duty of £3 19s. 9d. upon an article which costs only 30s. That is a duty equal, to 264 per cent. {: .speaker-KSQ} ##### Senator Matheson: -- That is upon the cheap cigars. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Lt Col NEILD: -- Yes. The amendment submitted represents a duty, not of 264 per cent., but of 280 per cent. **Senator Symon!s** proposal, therefore, is to increase the rate of taxation upon cheap cigars. I hold that 7s. per lb. is too high a duty to levy, and if it were not for complicating the matter, I should certainly exercise my right to move in favour of the imposition of a duty of 6s. 6d. per lb., which would represent, upon that particular class of cigars, exactly the same percentage as does the Government proposal, namely, 264 per cent. Let me take another class of cigars which costs 40s. per 1,000 to manufacture, and which weighs about 15 lbs. The Government propose to levy a duty of 6s. 3d. per lb. upon .these cigars, or £4 13s. 9d. and an *ad valorem-* duty of 15 per cent., or 6s. 6d. per 1,000, making a total of £5 0s. 3d., which represents 250 per cent. A tax of 6s. 6d. per lb., would yield identically the same revenue. But the proposal before the committee is to raise the duty byl24 percent., thus making.it 262J percent. Consequently the object of the amendment submitted in respect of these two lines of cheap, cigars is to increase .the duty from 264 per cent, to 280 per cent, in one case, and from 250 per cent, to 262r in the other. I have shown chat, upon these two classes of cigars, a duty of 6s. 6d. per lb. would yield the same amount of revenue as will the Government proposal. Upon that account, I should like to move that the duty be 6s. 6d. per lb. {: .speaker-KO8} ##### Senator Harney: -- The honorable senator will have no supporters. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Lt Col NEILD: -- I am very well assured of that. But that consideration will not deter me from doing that which I believe to be right. If I did move such an amendment I should certainly call for a division, and gibbet those who did not choose to vote with me. The objection which I have to the amendment is that it seeks to raise the percentage of duty upon cigars of a lower value. There is, however, another aspect of this question. I object to the composite duties proposed by the Government. The only country in which a composite duty is charged upon cigars is the United States, where it has resulted in the destruction of the revenue. In view of the plaintive manner in which the VicePresident of the Executive Council pleads for revenue, I think we should hardly be doing him justice if we voted for a proposal which, according to the only precedent we have, would destroy that revenue which is so clear to his political heart. It litis been urged that a specific duty is not so fair as an *ad valorem* duty ; in other words, that the inferior class of goods relatively pays the higher duty. This is quite true. But, on the other hand, there are amongst honorable senators upon this side of the chamber those who strongly object to *ad valorem* duties when they can be avoided. As a matter of business and political experience, I entertain the strongest objection to such duties where they can be avoided, for the reason that any system of *ad valorem* which can be devised opens the door to fraud in more ways than one. Thus, a man who is willing to prostitute himself and his business to fraud enjoys an overwhelming advantage over the honest trader. For that reason, if for no other, I should vote against *ad valorem* duties on all occasions when anything like a fair specific duty could be proposed. There is another point in connexion with cigars, and that is that it is impossible for any expert to- value them correctly. There is no expert in any part of the Commonwealth who can accurately value a cigar unless he has some previous knowledge as to the origin of the article to guide him. It is quite possible to ship Havanna cigars through a Chinese port, and the fact that they are not the best class of Havannas may not be made known upon the packages. {: .speaker-JYD} ##### Senator O'Connor: -- But the importers have to declare the value. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Lt Col NEILD: -- My objection is that an importer who fraudulently declares the value of a package of cigars cannot be found out. That is the whole point. I have seen cigar manufacturers in a large way of business playing the trick of testing one another's knowledge by putting cigars on the table and challenging each other to declare the value of the specimens produced. The lists of Havanna cigars only give the leading shapes and prices. But most dealers import goods that are not to be found upon regular trade lists. I state, on the authority of one of the most experienced importers in Australia, that it is impossible for any one to discover the real value of these cigars. For that reason, in addition to those I have already mentioned, it is quite clear that an *ad valorem* duty on cigars is most undesirable, because it is impossible for the Customs officials to take the value of a declaration made by importers. I am not imputing to the importers of cigars an undue tendency towards fraud, because we know that people who ha veany thing to do with advalormduties stretch their consciences, and that they find them to be of a remarkably elastic character. In this respect, I do not suppose that the importing industry is any more moral or more strict than the manufacturing industy. I do not suppose that one industry is worse than another. Men are men, no matter what business they are engaged in. The proposal of **Senator Symon** would raise the duty on low-class cigars unduly according to my view, while it would lower the duty on high-class cigars. The only reason that could induce me 'to vote for the motion, as I shall do, is that it proposes to do away with two objections, namely, composite duties, of which this is the only one left in the Tariff ; and that it proposes to eliminate an *ad valorem* duty, which I hope, I have succeeded in convincing those who have listened to me is in this respect a duty in regard to which it would be possible and probable that fraud would be perpetrated in connexion with Customs valuations. Question put. The committee divided. AYES: 16 NOES: 0 Majority ... ... 4 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported. Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 May 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020520_senate_1_10/>.