Senate
18 September 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- METHYLATION OF SPIRITS
PAPERS
TASMANIAN CABLE RATES BILL
SPIRITS BILL
- Second Reading
EXCISE TARIFF BILL
- Second Reading

The President took the chair at 3 p.m. and read prayers.

page 4691

QUESTION

METHYLATION OF SPIRITS

Senator DRAKE:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, if he can give the Senate any information as to the quantity of spirits methylated in Victoria in each year since 1899?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– The following statement shows the quantity of spirits, including naphtha, which was methylated in Victoria in those years: -

page 4692

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers: -

Report giving the history of the Defence Department from the date of its transfer to the Commonwealth to 30th June, 1906.

Ordered to be printed.

Provisional regulations under the Pacific Island Labourers Act relating to proceedings for obtaining orders for deportation, Statutory Rules, 1906, No. 71.

Amended distillation regulations, Nos. 48, 69, 70, Statutory Rules, 1906, No. 54.

Amended Customs Regulations, No. 151A, as to vessels trading within the limits of a State, No. 103 [d) as to re-impprtation of goods, No. 101 as to sale of coffee, No.17 (d) as to overtime rates. Statutory Rules, 1906, Nos. 55, 56, 57, 68.

Provisional Defence Regulations : Military Financial and Allowance Regulations, paragraph 42 amended, barrack damages ; paragraph 08, repairs to saddlery. Statutory Rules, 1906, Nos. 73 and 75.

Military Regulations, paragraph 281, line I amended; additions to paragraph 164, appointment of military staff clerks. Statutory Rules, 1906, Nos. 74 and 76.

Amended Public Service regulations 102, 104, 149. Statutory Rules, 1906, No. 72.

The . Clerk laid upon the table the following paper : -

Return to an Order of the Senate dated 26th July, as to the expenses of transfer of State officers.

page 4692

TASMANIAN CABLE RATES BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Keating) read a first time.

page 4692

SPIRITS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14th September (vide page 4657), on motion by Senator playford-

That the Dill be now read a second time.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [3.8]. - The Senate is not by any means confined to the report of the Tariff Commission in dealing with the question of the spirit duties, for some years ago the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee - to consider, amongst other things, whether, on grounds of public health, it is desirable that certain classes of spirits, British and foreign, should be kept in bond for a definite period before they are allowed to pass into consumption, and to inquire into the system of blending British and foreign spirits in or out of bond, and into the propriety of applying the Sale of Food and Drugs Act and the Merchandise Marks Act to the case. of British and foreign spirits and mixtures of British and foreign spirits, and also into the sale of ether as an intoxicant.

It will be seen by honorable senators that the scope of the inquiry was very, extensive. In its report, the Select Committee says -

Your Committee are instructed to limit their inquiries, in regard to the bonding and blending of spirits, to their effect on public health.

The duty of the Select Committee was also, amongst other things, to ascertain when the sale of the articles was deleterious. It consisted of wellknown men possessing very great skill and ability. Besides the Chairman, Sir Lyon Playfair, it included ten members. It took evidence in 1890 and 1891. During the course of the investigation, it became necessary to obtain evidence from well-known chemists as to the effect of spirits, and also to . take a large body of evidence as to how far it would be justified in recommending any change which might tend to harass or interfere with trade. At a later stage, I shall allude to the report, and I shallbe able to show by extracts that there was a general conclusion arrived at to the effect that it was very undesirable and unnecessary to impose any time restriction upon the bonding of any spirits, whether distilled by patent still or by pot still. It was shown by the evidence that itwas unnecessary in that country to take any of the precautions which are proposed to be taken in this Bill. I take it that the object of the Government in requiring the maturing of spirits in, bond for a period of at least two years is to meet the requirements of the public from the health point of view, and not to harass or interfere with trade generally. In his speech on Friday, Senator Pulsford stated that, from the revenue stand-point, the proposed change is very important, and that, although a deficiency of , £80,000 or £90,000, as estimated by the Government, might result during the first year, yet the loss would gradually increase until it amounted to £200,000 or £300,000 a year. I desire to reiterate that statement. I am quite sure that honorable senators do not want to be reminded of the fact that the expenditure of the Commonwealth is increasing year by year, that there are many additional services which have yet to be taken over, and that when the transfer is made we shall be confronted, at a veryearly date, with the alternative of either materially reducing expenditure or materially increasing taxation. It would be utterly useless for the Commonwealth to take over those services unless it intended to deal with them efficiently. The difference between the Excise duty and the Customs duty is so great that there can be no question but that the revenue would suffer materially, especially if, as Mr. Joshua anticipates, his firm should distil 2,000,000 gallons of grain spirit in each year, and thus overtake the present consumption of imported whisky. We are all perfectly willing, I take it, to give fair and reasonable assistance to the distillers in the community, but not to such an extent that it would practically wipe out the revenue from the Customs, and leave the Commonwealth de- pendent solely upon the revenue from Excise duty. As honorable senators are aware, there is a difference of 3s. or 4s. a gallon between the Customs duty and the Excise duty ; and while the Government propose to give this great advantage to the local distillers, it is markedly given in favour of grain distillation in lieu of distillation from molasses.

Trade and Customs in Sydney, and I suppose in Melbourne also, by the wine and spirit merchants. Sir William Lyne was so much impressed with the representations of these men, whose business it is to know what good spirits are, that he promised that steps would be taken to overcome the difficulties they had pointed out. To their verv great astonishment and disappointment they found that the only way in which the Minister proposed to overcome those difficulties was merely to delay the evil day for a little while. .

Provided that this section shall not, until the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and eight, apply to Gin, Geneva, Holland, Schnapps, or Liqueurs.

There must be some reason for this proviso. The quantity of these spirits imported is small’ in comparison with the quantity of other spirits imported. From a return I have I find that during the past year the revenue derived from importations of gin, Geneva, Hollands, schnapps, and liqueurs was only 18 per cent.; as against 61 per cent, represented by importations of whisky. If, as is contended by wine and spirit merchants, it is unnecessary, from a health point of view, to mature these spirits in wood, and they will become deteriorated in appearance and, possibly, in quality if thev are so matured, as a matter of fairness and common justice, I believe the Senate will be prepared to make some amendment in the Bill. The Minister, in dealing with this subject, produced two samples of gin in order to satisfy honorable senators that the maturing of gin in wood had no effect upon the spirit so far as its colour is concerned.

Patent spirits made in this country, and an unknown quantity of foreign spirits of the same kind, is distilled bv rectifiers to remove the small percentage of fusel oil and byproducts which they contain, in order that the purified spirit may be converted into gin and other beverages. The basis of these is nearly pure alcohol, to which is added approximate flavouring materials.

Again, they say -

Patent spirits distilled in London are chiefly sold to rectifiers, and contain only minute quantities of by-products, and this is true as regards foreign spirits of a like kind which approach still more nearly to pure diluted alcohol. With regard to spirits of that chemical purity, there is no improvement, but rather a deterioration, by being kept in bond for the purpose of ageing.

Unfortunately, I have not had time to go through the whole of the evidence taken by the Committee. Their investigation extended over a period of from fourteen to sixteen days, during which they examined a large number of witnesses at very great length. I take this from the evidence given by Sir Algernon West, Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue -

Is it not a fact that the spirits for making gin remain in bond only about one month ? - They vary. For instance, I have samples here where the length of time is thirteen days, eighty-four days, twelve months, tWo months, three months, and so on. I take it that it is the convenience of the market that is considered only.

In a communication which you sent to me, I see you mentioned the time as from one month to four years, according to the demands of trade? - Yes, I believe it is the demands of trade that govern it. I do not say that old gin is not considered rather finer than the other, but I do not believe it is really more wholesome.

What is the effect of the silent spirit used in blending upon the character of the whisky? - I should say that the patent still spirit is the purer spirit, and therefore it would have the effect of purification.

That shows how valuable it is when used for blending with grain spirit. The witness was asked again, at question 136 -

Does patent still spirit not improve by keeping as well as pot still spirit? - I do not think they improve by keeping long. It may be a fancy taste.

It is more the flavour that is improved, you think? - It is more the flavour.

But you do not consider they are more wholesome ? - No.

Patent still spirits you say are almost absolutely pure? - Very nearly so. I think you would have an opportunity of seeing how nearly if you would be good enough to come to our laboratory at Somerset House. They are practically pure.

But pot still spirits are not? - No.

So that mixing patent still spirits with pot still spirits will produce a more wholesome spirit? - Yes, I am supposing, of course, that the whisky is newly made, and in that case if rectified spirit was mixed with it so far it would go to purify it.

Your Committee, with the consent of the Treasury, deemed it to be advisable to ask two of the highest authorities in dietetics, Dr. Pavy, F.R.S., and Dr. Lauder Bruton, F.R.S., to consider the whole evidence existing in this country, and abroad, in order to give their professional opinions for the guidance of the Committee. Their opinions coincide with those of the public, that old mellowed spirits are less irritating to the stomach than newly-distilled spirits. It is possible, as Dr. Lauder Bruton suggests, that some new bodies hitherto unrecognised by chemical analysis may explain the fact that old spirits are more wholesome than new, but on this point we are in the region of conjecture, and not of established truth. Our present knowledge is insufficient to justify your Committee in recommending that all pot-still whiskies should be kept in bond for a definite period of time until the byproducts contained in them become mellowed by age, for it is only in pot-still whiskies that they occur in marked quantity, while their retention in bond would give an unfair advantage to the patent-still whisky made in Ireland and Scotland, as well as the chemically purer spirits made in England or imported abroad.

It is perhaps rather a shock to honorable senators to learn that a great deal of the whisky imported from Scotland and Ireland is patent-still whisky.

Both the medical men referred to hold the opinion that old spirits were more wholesome than new, though they did not think that there was sufficient justification for inflicting this hardship upon the distillers of pot-still whiskies. It is true that Canada has passed an Act to compel compulsory bonding of whisky for two years, but ,your Committee do not consider that it would be desirable to follow this example.

Then the Committee says -

The conclusion of your Committee is that, as the public show a marked preference for old spirits, which the trade find more profitable, and as the practice has arisen of blending whiskies with patent spirit, to fit them for earlier consumption, it is not desirable to pass any compulsory law in regard to age, especially as the general feeling of the trade is that such an obligation would harass commerce, and be an unfair burden on particular classes of spirits.

I think that that evidence may be taken as a satisfactory answer to the question whether we should insist upon keeping all spirits in bond for a definite period. Again, the Committee says -

Our general conclusion from the evidence submitted to us is, that compulsory bonding of all spirits for a certain period is unnecessary, and would harass trade.

There are many other passages in the Committee’s report indicating that what is now proposed would harass trade, and that there is every incentive on the part of the seller of whisky - and I presume that the same would apply to the seller of brandy - to produce a good article for the purpose of sale. I venture to say that no evidence whatever has been given before the Commonwealth Tariff Commission that counterbalances the evidence given before the English Committee. It is not as though the Committee reported without making full, complete, and ample investigation. It had certain duties to perform, and undoubtedly pursued its investigations conscientiously. It came to the conclusion that it was wrong to insist on maturity in bond, because it would harass trade, that there was no necessity to compel people who were producing pot-stilled whiskies to mature their spirits in bond, and that they themselves might be trusted to see that their whiskies were mellowed by age before being placed on the market. In any case, if this Bill be passed with clause 12 in it, ample protection will be provided for the general consumer. Under that clause, if an officer of the Commonwealth certifies that amy spirit subject to the control of the Customs is of” Bad or inferior quality, and unsuitable for ‘human consumption, the Minister may order that the spirits shall not be delivered until they have been methylated, or, in “the case of imported spirits, permit their re-exportation or distillation in Australia. While I recognise the desirableness of maturity in the case of grain and grape spirits, I contend that, so far as concerns other spirits, what is proposed is absolutely unnecessary, would’ be unfair, would harass trade, and would treat importers improperly and unreasonably. Allusion has also been made to rum or molasses spirit. Some honorable senators are probably under the impression that it is necessary that rum should attain a certain age before it goes into’ consumption. But if rum is distilled at a low percentage of alcohol, it becomes an unsaleable production. I believe the technical term used in the trade is that it “ stinks,” and is unfit for use. When it is distilled at a high rate it becomes saleable.

This is distilled at a very high strength, and therefore does not gain any benefit from being stored in wood for a period. From cable communication received from the largest shipper of Demerara rum to this market, the chamber gather that this shipper “ cannot give the required guarantee.” This is in answer to a cable asking “ whether rum can be supplied two years old in wood.” This means that after 1st March, 1907, Demerara rum will be prohibited from coming to this market, and as the revenue derived from this source in the Commonwealth is over ^185,000 per annum, it is a question of serious moment.

Reverting, again, to the question of Geneva, these authorities point out -

The Minister of Customs has acknowledged that these spirits must be treated separately, but has only provided a temporary relief. As from cabled information the Chamber understand that these lines cannot be stored in wood. These lines are also distilled at a very high strength, and therefore do not materially benefit; in fact, they would become discolored and thus unmerchantable.

I have a copy of a cablegram sent to Messrs. Thomas Lowndes and Company, London, together with their answer. This firm is the shipper of the well-known “ Lowndes “ Demerara rum, and the London export agents for Messrs. Blankenheym and Notlets’ “ Key “ Geneva. The cable is dated 31st August, 1906 -

Can you supply rum Geneva, two years old in wood. Telegraph quotations.

Answer received 1st September, 1906 -

Cannot give the required guarantee.

Then, with regard to whiskies, I have a copy of .a cablegram sent by Ferguson and Company to their Glasgow house. The date of it is the 23rd August -

Glasgow Customs voucher necessary certify every future shipment spirits two years old.

Another cablegram was sent on the 27 th August -

We cabled you on the 23rd inst., and are without your reply. Wire at once. It is important. Youngest whisky in blend determines the age.

Again, on the’ 29th August, the following cablegram was sent : -

Telegraph immediately can you supply Customs vouchers from this date.

The reply received on the 31st August was -

Customs refuse vouchers.

Do your utmost to obtain immediate reversal of regulation with regard .to gin schnapps being two years in wood. All experts declare keeping does not improve, involves discoloration, change of flavour, and general deterioration. This can be proved by affidavit. If passed by Representatives, try to get it rejected by Senate.

I think that a cablegram of that character ought to carry a considerable amount of weight with regard to this question.

Senator BEST:
Victoria

.- In approaching this question, the Senate is, I think, fortunate in having had the advantage of the investigation conducted by the Tariff Commission, and conducted with a. conscientiousness and a care which are highly commendable. So far as I have been able to judge, the evidence is of a valuable character, and will largely assist honorable senators to come to what I hope will be a just determination. When we find that there is a conjunction of free-traders and protectionists for the purpose of making a joint recommendation to the Parliament, I do not think that, we can attach too much importance to that extraordinary fact. I was almost under the impression that it was impossible for free-traders and protectionists to come to an agreement on a fiscal subject, but, in this case, after a full and lengthy investigation the representative free-traders and protectionists on the Commission’ found that so serious a wrong was being done to the distilling industry, that they were irresistibly driven to make a recommendation for its rectification. I anticipated that the Senate would attach so much importance to the recommendation as to follow the example of another place, and to practically accept it with little or no discussion.

Senator Pulsford:

-Is the honorable senator justified in saying that, after listening to Senator Clemons?

Senator BEST:

– I am prepared to abide by Senator Clemons’ signature to the report. I feel quite satisfied that he will not go behind his signature.

Senator Pulsford:

– It was not appended at the same time as the others.

Senator BEST:

– I do not care when the signature of Senator Clemons was appended to the report. I know that it was appended, and that it covers the conclusions and recommendations to which I am going to refer. Under those circumstances, I do attach very great weight to the recommendations, and I think that the Senate should hesitate before attempting to treat them lightly. I cannot, however, shut my eyes to the fact that on the other side there seems, at least, to be a disposition to depart from the recommendations ; indeed, an anxiety on the part of some honorable friends to increase the Excise duties with but one object, and that is to continue the destruction of the distilling industry. I recognise that while Senator Clemons did not indicate his intention to depart from his signature, yet his unconscious bias led him to deal with a certain phase of the question in a way which left it open to some of the newspapers to say that the major portion of his speech consisted of an attack upon Messrs. Joshua Brothers, and I hope to show that some of his statements are very conclusively answered by the evidence and the findings. I shall endeavour not to travel outside that limitation. I regret that I have no Hansard report of the speeches made on the other side; but the reports in the press, necessarily condensed, will, to some extent, answer my purpose. In one part of his speech. Senator Clemons said that the distilling industry “ was fairly and safely established now,” and later on he said that - without one jot or tittle of protection the local distillery industry could hold its own against that of any part of the world.

I admit that I am a little startled by his statements when I take up the second report of the Commission, and find on page 42 the following findings: -

That since the passing of the Commonwealth Tariff there has been a total cessation of whisky distillation in Victoria, resulting in the closing of three large and important ‘ distilleries, in which capital to the amount of £230,000 has been invested, and in throwing a number of hands out of employment.
That the distillers of spirit in Australia are, in competing with imported spirit, at a great disadvantage in the following respects : -

The Commission go on to set out the disadvantages under which local distillers are placed. The first finding is an extraordinary verification of what appeared in the press when the Tariff was before the Parliament. Perhaps honorable senators will remember an interesting case in which a man named Fox sought to recover the sum of £110 for conducting an agitation and writing a pamphlet. It was stated by the defendants that his remuneration for the agitation was to be the sum of fifty guineas; but, .apparently, they, did not assess his services at the same value as he did. The object of the importers who employed him was, of course, to secure the highest Excise- duty, and the lowest import duty. During the case, there came out some correspondence which I shall quote from the Age of the 15th November, 1902. In the course of a letter addressed to, I think, Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox says -

It concerns me very seriously to find such a poor, and, I regret to say, humiliating, value put upon services as I conceive faithfully rendered, and embodying the use of special knowledge secured by me when holding a position of responsibility. . . . The agitation has been successful beyond our best hopes, so that distilleries are irretrievably crippled, and every one knows it. Surely results so patent and affecting importing interests so favorably from one end of Australia to another - interests represented by spirit imports of close on 000,000 annually - will be considered as meriting more than a beggarly pittance in favour of one whose labours and special qualifications were given freely and unstintedly.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Is he not the man who buttonholed honorable senators?

Senator BEST:

– That, of course, was part of the purpose for which he was employed. It seems strange that, although protectionist representatives freely asserted at the time what was going on, theinformation was scouted by gentlemen on the other side. But now here, on the part of protectionists and free-traders alike on the Tariff Commission, we have an absolute and complete confirmation. Senator Clemons then went on to say that the highest quality of whisky came from malt, but that, from the point of view of wholesomeness, rectified spirit was as good as any. Molasses spirit, which, is the spirit to which considerable attention has been paid, is rectified to1 a degree of something like 67 or 68 overproof, when it becomes a neutral spirit or spirits of wine. If it can be proved* that this neutral spirit 1 is equal to grain spirit, then the report of the Tariff Commission may be thrown into the waste-paper basket as absolutely useless. This contention was advanced by several honorable senators, and emphasized by Senator Drake; and, as I say, if it can be shown that molasses spirit, which can be produced at a price ranging from 6d. to, say, is. per gallon., is equal to, and answers the purposes of, grain spirit, which costs 3s 6d. or 4s. per gallon, and, in particular, that it can be used for the making of whisky, the report of the Tariff Commission is so much waste paper. Senator Drake, after quoting from the evidence of the Tariff Commission, with a view to showing that silent spirit is quite wholesome whether made from grain or molasses, went on to say that the object of the Bill was to shut out from Victoria spirits distilled from molasses in New South Wales and Queensland, in order to restore the distilling industry in Victoria, and, practically, to kill, or very much depress, that industry so far as the two northern States are concerned. I desire to assure Senator Drake that, so far as I have read the evidence and the report, neither bears such a construction. The proposals of the Tariff Commission are intended to encourage the production of molasses spirit, which has its own, and a great, sphere of utility. Senator Drake seems to narrowly think that all that is necessary is to obtain molasses spirit, and add a little flavouring when, hey, presto ! there was the whisky of commerce. The honorable senator never made a greater mistake in all his life; because^ as a matter of fact, no one would purchase such a whisky. That spirit, though it may be wholesome, is not whisky, and certainly should not be sold as whisky ; and I say that the evidence and the report of the Commission clearly prove that Senator Drake is altogether wrong in his view. It is desirable to encourage the distillation of the .spirit to which Senator Drake referred ; and nothing contained in the report of the Tariff’ Commission is intended to injure that industry in the slightest degree. The particular industry which the Tariff Commission suggests should be encouraged is the distillation of grain spirit; and this is a different class of industry altogether - the two have no connexion. I omitted to. mention, in reference to the addition of flavouring referred to bv Senator Drake, that Mr. Wilkinson, the analyst, expresses the opinion that flavouring essences are more injurious than alcohol itself. That opinion was expressed in the course of his evidence, and may be found referred to on page 16 of No. 2 report. I repeat that there is nothing in the report of the Tariff Commission to suggest injury to this industry in New South Wales and Queensland - an industry on the prosperity of which those States may be congratulated. At the same time, I desire to show that the Tariff Commission has most wisely differentiated and made it absolutely clear that it is the production of grain spirit they are anxious to encourage. Conclusion No. 2 of the Tariff Commission is as follows : -

That one cause of the stoppage of the Victorian whisky distilleries has been the relative increase of Excise duties and consequent reduced protection by 3s. per gallon on malt whisky, and is. per gallon on blended whisky. Another factor has been the increased production of n.e.i. spirit in New South Wales and Queensland, much of which has been transferred to Victoria.

Conclusion No. 6 is: -

That the increased Excise on Victorian whisky has prevented it from competing successfully with cheap and inferior spirit.

But conclusion No. 9 is the important one to which I desire to call attention -

That, in order to equalize the conditions of competition in the struggle between the better qualities of Australian spirit and inferior imported spirit, it is necessary that there should be a substantial difference between the Customs duty on the imported article and the Excise duty on the local article ; that, at the same time there should be relative equality of opportunity and competition among Australian products and that cheaply produced spirits should not be allowed to supersede superior high-class spirits.

It will be seen that the Tariff Commission had this matter specially under their consideration, and Senator Clemons and the other members recommended that cheaply produced spirits should not be allowed to supersede superior high-class spirits, but - that cheaply produced spirits should pay a higher Excise duty than more expensive spirits : that spirits produced from molasses at gd. and is. per gallon should not be allowed to kill out the distillation of whisky from barley malt, which costs from 3s. 6d. to 4s. per gallon ; and that the consumption of cheap and inferior spirits should not be encouraged at the expense and sacrifice of spirits of higher grade, quality, and price.

We may add that if you desire it we will gladly show you our books in confirmation, or for that matter we would be prepared to make a statutory declaration as to the correctness of the figures supplied.

– I shall deal with all the balances later on. I quote again from the statement -

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The quantity was coming down.

Senator BEST:

– Of course, as Joshua Brothers found it less useful to them. The statement continues -

Senator Drake will see that I have to account for balances at the end of 1903 of 82,127 gallons, 1904 of 28,726 gallons, and of 1905 of 3,364 gallons. The total of these three balances is 114,217 gallons, and I quote again from theletter -

Balances ‘03, ‘04, and ‘05 … 111,217 gallons. Sold as brandy in 3 years … 65,817 gallons. Balance on band, unsold … 48,400 gallons;

– Let us deal with the question - what is whisky ? Messrs. John Jamieson and Sons, Limited, of Dublin, who have been established more than 100 years, and are distillers of the most famous of all Irish whiskies, advertise their whisky as being made “ from the finest malt and corn.” The D.C.L. (Distillers Company Limited, of Edinburgh), who have distilleries in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cameron Bridge. Kirkliston, Alloa, Menstrie, Knockdhu, Dublin, &c, and are the largest distillers and whisky merchants .in the world, having a general output of 10,000,000 gallons, say, through their general manager,- Mr. Wallace -

The patent still has been in use- in Scotland for 60 or 70 years. Of the D.C.L. output only about 5 per cent, is made in pot stills. They use maize, rye, oats, and malt, and all or any of these were used in both kinds of still. They use maize in pot stills, and malt in patent stills, and vice versa. The patent still for making all malt whisky has been in use ever since its invention. It was a far more delicate appliance than the other, and with it you could retain or reject as much or as little of the impurities as was desired. Thirty-three per cent, was the average use of malt in the production of Irish whisky in Ireland by pot still. The maximum was 50 per cent.

Mr. James Barr, managing director for Dunville and Company, the famous Belfast distillers, stated before the House of Commons Commission of 1890-1 that -

Their manufacture was about 2,500,000 gallons per annum. They used both pot and patent stills. They used both malted and unmalted grain. But they did not as a rule make any pure malt whisky, and they had never sold any.

Mr. L. Malone, managing director of the Dublin Distillers Company, in his evidence before the same Commission, said -

They could turn out three and a half million gallons in a year. They used malt, barley, wheat, oats, and rye ; generally from two-fifths to one-half of malt. The demand for pure malt whisky grew less and less every year.

Mr. W. H. Persse, managing director of H. S. Persse Limited, Galway, said in his evidence in the case tried in England last year -

His family had carried on the business for ninety years. They used malt, wheat, oats, and rye in pot stills only.

Mr. James Talbot Power, chairman of Sir John Power and Company Limited, of Dublin, stated that -

Their distillery had been in existence for 114 years. The materials they used were malt, barley, oats, and rye.

Senator BEST:

– That would be the inevitable result of the rejection of the proposal of the Commission. I cannot too strongly impress upon the Senate that molasses spirit distillation and grain spirit distillation are two different industries, and that in respect of each industry there is a great opportunity for development. From the industrial stand-point, the molasses spirit industry has enormous prospects. The distillation- of spirit from grain and wine brandy offers such a wide field for operations that it ought to be encouraged. The value of the spirits imported in 1905 was £950,000, representing 2,560,813 proof ‘ gallons. Therefore, I say that the case made out on behalf of the industry must have been irresistible to have secured the conjunction of free-trade and protectionist members of the Tariff Commission.

Senator Drake:

– May I quote two passages from Mr. Saul Joshua’s evidence -

Public prejudice being in favour of pot-still whisky, it is so advertised, but you can work the patent still so as to get all the advantages of the pot still.

Beet and molasses spirit - if they did come in - are excellent spirits, and would not hurt anybody.

Senator Givens:

– Not the same protection as the other.

Senator TRENWITH:

– The distillers of molasses spirit are being given a protection of 25. per gallon. With a protection of only is. per gallon they were able to enormously expand their trade.

Senator Drake:

– -The honorable senator is speaking of rum now. He is continually jumping backwards and forwards.

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator Playford:

– New South Waleswas represented on the Commission by twomembers.

Senator Col NEILD:

– Very likely, but I am not such an inordinate New South

– I explained how that occurred in my second-reading speech. The Government could not make public the recommendations as to duties.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.

Senator Col NEILD:

– A small happening since the adjournment for dinnerhas proved the usefulness that very often attaches to adjournments. They afford opportunities for little explanations that tend to curtail debate. I am happy in having received some very valuable information from the Minister in charge of the Bill on a point which I proposed to discuss. My. mind being now at ease on the matter, it is not necessary for me to occupy the time of the Senate any longer. I have to thank the Minister for the information accorded to me, which has rendered any continuation of my remarks unnecessary.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

ClauseI agreed to.

Progress reported.

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That the Committee have leave to sit again after the Excise Tariff Bill is disposed of.

page 4719

EXCISE TARIFF BILL

Second Reading

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– -I moveThat the Bill be now read a second time. In submitting this motion, I wish to explain why I have adopted the course which has been pursued on this occasion. Honorable senators understand that the Excise TariffBill is really the more important of the two Bills now before the Senate. It provides for the Excise duties, whilst the Spirits Bill is merely a machinery Bill, and depends to a certain extent on the form in which this Bill is passed as to the provisions which it shall contain. I propose now to go on with the second reading of the Bill, to take it into Committee, and to get honorable senators to assist me in passing it through Committee as quickly as possible. It is not necessary to discuss it at length, because I dealt with the whole of the proposed duties in moving the second reading of the Spirits Bill. Honorable senators have done the same, as they have recognised that the two Bills are so intimately connected that it was more convenient to discuss them together. I wish to indicate two alterations which I intend to propose in the schedule, but before I do so I may answer a question which was raised by Senator Pulsford on the second reading of the Spirits Bill. The honorable senator asked how it ‘was that “ spirits, n.e.i. “ were not to be kept in wood for two’ years and matured. I point out that these spirits might be used for purposes other than human consumption, but if they are used for human consumption, then, in common with all other spirits used for that purpose, they must be matured in wood for two years under clause n of the Spirits Bill, which reads -

Spirits distilled in Australia shall not be delivered from the control of the Customs for human consumption unless they have been matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than two years.

With regard to spirits used for fortifying Australian wine, honorable senators will find that, under the existing ‘Excise Act, spirits used “ for fortifying Australian wine or for making vinegar” have an Excise duty of is. per gallon imposed upon them. It is proposed that that duty shall, in accordance with the recommendation of the Tariff Commission, “be reduced to 6d. per gallon. We ha<ve in this Bill provided for a duty of 6d. per proof gallon on -

Spirits for fortifying Australian wine subject to regulations. leaving out the words “ and for making vinegar” as used in the existing Excise Act. We think that it is better to follow the wording of the corresponding item in the schedule to the existing Act. It is, therefore, mv intention, in Committee, to propose the amendment of the schedule by inserting after the word “wine,” in item n, “or for making, vinegar.” Our attention has been called to the fact that we have made no provision for the manufacture of scents and toilet preparations. The manufacturers of these preparations, as honorable senators can imagine, desire that spirits used for such purposes shall be free. At present the import duty on perfume spirits is 25s. per liquid gallon, and .manufacturers of toilet preparations, if spirits were free, would have the whole of that amount as a protection for their manufactures. The Excise duty on rectified spirits is 13s. per proof gallon, which, at 60 overproof, the strength at which they are used for the manufacture of toilet preparations, is equal to 21s. per liquid gallon. So that the duty we propose of 10s. per liquid gallon will give a margin of 15s. per liquid gallon.

Senator Best:

– The Minister has omitted to note that 10 per cent, must be allowed for evaporation, which brings the duty up to 23s. 7d.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Very probably. I have given the figures supplied to me by the Customs Department. We think that 10s. per liquid gallon will be a fair duty, and I therefore propose in Committee to move that this item be added to the schedule -

Spirits for the manufacture from Australian products exclusively of scent and toilet preparations, subject to regulations, per proof gallon, ros.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Does the honorable senator propose to deal with the variations between items 3 and 5 ? Item 3 provides for a duty of 12s. per proof gallon on blended spirits distilled partly from grape wine and partly from grain, whilst item 5 provides for a duty of only us. per proof gallon on blended whisky distilled partly from barley and malt, and partly from other grain.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– In the first place we provide for a duty of 10s. per proof gallon on brandy distilled’ wholly from grape wine. Then we propose a duty of ns. on blended wine brandy; then a duty of 12s. on blended spirits, distilled partly from grape wine, and partly from grain.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– The amount in the case of blended whisky is only us.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Precisely ; and blended wine brandy pays us. also. The recommendation of the Tariff Commission is in that form.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

means of losing revenue has not been adopted.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I am not doing anything of the sort, but trying to take care of the revenue. I am pointing out what members of the Commission were prepared to do as to the amount of protection. The position could be met either by reducing the Customs duty or by raising the Excise duty, but, as regards the protection, either means would bring about the same result. To reduce the import duty clearly means to lower the revenue, but to raise the” Excise duty means to protect the revenue, and, at the same time, to put the amount of protection given to the industry on those more moderate lines which commended themselves to the Commission. When we are in Committee I shall, with every confidence, suggest that the various items should be increased by, I will say, an all-round rate of is. per gallon, and, perhaps, in one or two cases, by is. 6d. per gallon.

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

– A loss of revenue to the extent of from ^60,000 to £80,000 a year - the estimate made -by the Government - is certainly not a matter to be lightly regarded. It would fall particularly heavily upon Queensland and Tasmania - probably the States least able to afford it - for this reason, that they, to a greater extent than the others, take Australian-made goods in place of imported goods which they purchased prior to Federation. That is seen in the InterState trade returns. It is shown by the extent to which people in Queensland, and also in Tasmania, I think, obtain their supplies through, and from, Victoria. I contend that any change in the Tariff that would increase the production of the local article as against the imported article would fall more heavily on those two States than on any others, and, by a coincidence, these are the two States, which, perhaps, are least able to afford any loss of revenue at the present time. Through you, sir, I wish to say to Senator Higgs, who made a chaffing remark the other day, that I am not talking in the interest of any particular distillery. I have the ordinary literature which has been supplied to every honorable senator, including a typewritten letter from a firm in Brisbane with regard to the duty on rum, which has not been touched upon yet. The particular subject I wish to draw attention to - the differentiation in the case of rectified or silent spirit, as against Queensland - was not suggested to me by any human being. I simply read the report of the Commission in order to find out what was the object of the proposal of the Government. I was then struck by the fact that the Bill would do an injury to the industry of distilling, as it exists in Queensland, and that caused me to bring the matter before the Senate on a previous occasion. In reading the _report, I was struck first of all by the consideration that, whereas this is recommended to us as a Bill to aid distilling in the Commonwealth, it appears from appendix B that from 1899 and 1905 inclusive, the production of spirits in the several States has more than doubled. In 1899, the quantity produced was 737,200 gallons ; in 1900, it was 743, 703 gallons; while in 1905, it was I’5o6)339 gallons. Here is an industry which has doubled its output under the present Tariff, and that is the one which we are told is to be legislated for. What have been the other results with regard to the operation of the Tariff? On turning to page 15 of the report, I find this statement -

After the ‘Commonwealth Tariff came into operation the small amount of protection given by that Tariff to locally-produced spirits was sufficient to exclude the German spirit, and little by little the trade has been drifting into the hands of the local producers.

That shows that from the protectionist point of view, the Tariff has been successful in excluding German spirit, and placing the trade more and more in the hands of local producers.

Senator Playford:

– That is, in the hands of those who were distilling from sugar, and a very good thing it was too.

Senator DRAKE:

– I shall deal with that point directly. On page 12 of the report, I find this paragraph -

All the witnesses were agreed that there has been under the Commonwealth Tariff a fair increase in the production of spirit from grapewine in Victoria, South Australia, and New South Wales, and a great stimulus to the manufacture of spirit from molasses in New South Wales and Queensland.

So that from the point of view of the production of grape wine in Victoria, South Australia, and New South Wales, there has been an increase under the operation of the Tariff, again showing that it has had a beneficent protective operation with regard to those States as well as Queensland and Victoria. It is perfectly clear, therefore, from the report that what has taken place is that the production of spirit has more than doubled, and, to a very great extent, the increased production of spirit has come from New South Wales and Queensland. On page 14 of the report, the Commission say -

From a return prepared for the Commission, showing the Inter-State transfers of spirit of Australian origin during a number of years, the following figures relating to Victoria are extracted ; the values given are those stated in the Inter-State certificates : -

Transfers Transfers

State. Year, from other to other

States States into. from.

£ £

Victoria … … 1899 899 i9,707

Victoria … … 190211,50527,746

Victoria … … 1903 14,341 22,779

Senator Playford:

– We do not say soSenator DRAKE. - That is exactly the point. Howeverthe facts may be twisted, my contention is that if distillers are allowed to use silent spirit, we should not discriminate as to the materials from which the silent spirit is made, because it is perfectly ‘ clear, from the evidence of experts, that it does- not matter whether it is distilled from grape wine malt, or molasses. ThereforeI say- that if we allow one we should allow the other. I have a little evidence to which I should like to refer on the question of the wholesomeness of molasses spirit. At page 8 of the digest of the evidence given before the Tariff Commission, honorable senators will find this evidence on the subject from Mr. Joshua himself

Messrs. Joshua ‘Brothers use both the patent still and the pot still. The patent still is slightly cheaper than the pot still. Public prejudice being in favour of pot still whisky it is so advertised, but you can work the patent still so as to get all the advantages of the pot still.

Again -

Mr Joshua does not believe that a gallon of potato spirit comes to this country. Beet and molasses spirit - if they did come in - are excellent spirits, and would not hurt anybody.

Then, at page10, there is some evidence extracted from Mr. Preston, distiller, of Abbotsford, Melbourne, who is one of the witnesses who said that he discontinued the use of molasses spirit, and it appears to me that the reason is here given -

He has not made molasses spirit lately, because he cannot possibly compete with Queensland, where the material is on the ground, and there is no freight nor cartage to pay.

I have already referred to the evidence he gave that with regard to molasses spirit he could not possibly compete with Queensland, where the material was on the ground, and there is no freight nor cartage t-> be paid. For the production of this particular kind of spirit, the southern States cannot compete with northern New South Wales and Queensland, for the reasons which I have indicated, and any suggestion that molasses spirit is bad, is rebutted bv the evidence of experts who have said that there is no inferiority in spirits made from molasses. I. object to the alteration of the recommendation of the Tariff Commission, which the Government have proposed in the schedule to this Bill. According to the recommendation of the Commission, item 3 of the schedule was worded in this way -

Blended spirits distilled partly from grape wine and partly from grain or other materials.

According to the Government proposal that item reads -

Blended spirits distilled partly from grape wine and partly from grain. and here is the important point - and containing not less than 25 per cent, of pure grape wine spirit (which has been separately distilled by a pot still or similar process at a strength not exceeding 40 per cent, over proof), the whole being matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than two years, and certified by an officer to be spirit so blended and matured, per proof gallon, 12s.

That allows 75 per cent, of the blended spirits to be rectified or silent spirit.

Senator McGregor:

– Then the public will know that.

Senator DRAKE:

– How will thev know it?

Senator McGregor:

– Because it will be branded in that way.

Senator DRAKE:

– The honorable senator does not see the point. Seventy-five per cent, of this blended spirit may be silent spirit. The Tariff Commission in their recommendation, instead of using the words “and partly -from grain,” use the words “and partly from grain or other material,” so that any kind of silent spirit might be used to make up 75 per cent, of the blended spirits referred to in item 3 of the schedule. As the item stands, 75. per cent, of the blended spirit may -be a spirit distilled from any low-class, damaged grain, rice, or anything else. It might be produced from any sort of grain, and all the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that spirit distilled from grain is indistinguishable from spirit distilled from molasses. In making the alteration to which 1 have referred, the Government have distinctly differentiated to the disadvantage of a raw material produced in Northern New South Wales and Queensland. Exactly the same remark applies to item 5. The item reads -

Blended whisky distilled from barley malt and partly from other grain, containing not less than 25 per cent, of pure barley malt spirit (which has been separately distilled by a pot still or similar process at a strength not exceeding 45 per cent, overproof), the whole being matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than two years, and certified by an officer to be whisky so blended and matured, per proof gallon, us.

Again, it is perfectly clear that the blended whisky referred to in item 5 is to contain 25 per cent, of spirit distilled from barley malt by a particular process, but with regard to the other 75’ per cent, it may be a spirit distilled from any material and in any way. There is only the limitation that it must be from grain, and there is here again a clear discrimination, with regard to the 75 per cent, of blended spirit, against the spirit which is the product of molasses, and which has been so largely manufactured in northern New South Wales and Queensland within the last few years. I shall ask the Senate to consider that matter very carefully, and, in justice to the industry carried on in those States, to alter the schedule to the form in which the items I have referred to appear in the recommendations of the Tariff Commission. I hope that in discussing the matter we shall not deal with any false issues. I am not raising any question of comparison between this silent spirit and spirit distilled at a low strength from grape wine, malt, or barley. I say, however, that all the evidence is to the effect that silent spirit made from one material is indistinguishable from silent spirit made from another, and there should, therefore, be no discrimination.

Senator McGregor:

– That is the opinion we held.

Senator DRAKE:

– Then I hope that honorable senators who are members of the Tariff Commission will assist me to have the alterationI have suggested made. If silent spirit is to be used at all, I say that the distillers should be allowed to use it whether it is made from the one material or from the other. All arguments used with respect to the cost of production are entirely by the way. It is absurd to suppose that we are going to have a protective system graded according to the difficulty of producing an article from certain raw materials. Some one might attempt to distil spirit from some material even less productive than grain, and he might then claim that he should get special protection on account of the advantages enjoyed by distillers carrying on their operations in a State producing in abundance a raw material from which spirits could be much more easily and cheaply produced. The fact that molasses spirit can be cheaply produced does not in anyway indicate that it is inferior. It is as wholesome as silent spirit produced from other materials, and it is the good fortune of Queensland and northern New South Wales that they should have in abundance the raw material from which spirit can be so advantageousily produced.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

ClauseI agreed to.

Clause 2 -

In lieu of the duties of Excise imposed by the Excise Tariff 1902 on spirits, duties of Excise shall, from the seventeenth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and six, be imposed on spirits in accordance with the Schedule.

Provided that spirits distilled wholly from grape wine and spirits, n.e.i., which were on the seventeenth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and six, in the spirit store of any distillery or in any Customs warehouse, may, until the first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and seven, be delivered at the rates of duly specified in the Excise Tariff

002-

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria.

.- In view of the fact that a large additional measure of protection is to be conceded to those engaged in the distilling industry, I do not suppose there will be much objec tion to the request I have had circulated. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to add to the clause the following proviso - “ Provided further, That if the distillers - (a) do not, after the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act, pay their employes a fair and reasonable rate of wages per week of forty-eight hours ; or

employ more than a due proportion of boys to men engaged in the industry.

The Governor-General may in pursuance of a joint address by the Senate and House of Representatives impose an additional Excise duty of one shilling per gallon on each of the items mentioned in the Schedule.”

– If the Constitution would allow the Senate to dis criminate, it would be easy, I think, to distinguish between one distiller and the others.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [9.20]. - No doubt Senator Findley is very anxious to see that if the manufacturers in any industry get a measure of protection, a fair amount of that protection shall be given to their employes. I think that we are all in accord with the honorable senator on that point. Whether free-traders or protectionists we do not care to give a special advantage to a manufacturer unless he is willing to grant a fair proportion of the advantage to his. employes. But the honorable senator must see that no matter how he may exercise his ingenuity, he cannot, by a process such as he has suggested, determine what would be the proper rate of- wages to pay to the men, or what would be a due proportion of boys to men engaged in an industry. If that is desired, it will be necessary to adopt, as in Victoria, a system of Wages Boards, or as in other States, an Arbitration Court. If each House of the Parliament were called upon .to consider whether distillers were paying their employes a fair and reasonable ‘rate pf wages .per week oft forty-eight hours, it would open up an interminable debate. Although the Minister would be responsible for introducing the joint address, it would be open to discussion by every member of each House.

Senator Findley:

– Surely we would not take any longer than a Wages Board.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- A Wages Board comprises only a few persons who hear the evidence and determine the matter, but Parliament would have no opportunity to hear evidence, and consider it as judicially as a Wages Board or Arbitration Court could do. Again, who would have to determine when a manufacturer was employing more than a due proportion of boys to men engaged in the industry? Would seventy-five men in one House and thirty-six men in the other House have to sit down and consider whether there should be one b’oy to every two or five men engaged in the industry ? Surely the honorable senator will see what a field for5 discussion his proposal would create. From a speech by a Victorian manufacturer, he quoted a recommendation that the State Government should take the responsibility of educating the boys in the various trades, and that when they had been educated up to a certain standard the boys should pass over to private employment. Surely the honorable senator can see that that would cast upon the State Government a burden which is not reasonable.

Senator Findley:

– I condemned the proposal.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

– I am veryglad to hear that statement. It should be remembered that while in some industries there is a large number of apprentices, in certain industries there are not enough, and, instead of having expert tradesmen by-and-by, we shall have a few men who have been fairly trained, and a large number of men who will possess only a smattering of knowledge of their craft. I would put it to my honorable friends who support a system under which I believe one boy to every five men is supposed to be employed, that it would be just as well to consider the question of allowing a great many more boys to be trained as their forefathers were. The amendment, if adopted, would be detrimental, not only to individuals, but to the community generally. In its present form, it would be absolutely impracticable. I think that it had better be withdrawn.

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

– If Senator Findley is satisfied with the dictum of the Minister of Defence, no doubt he will pursue his request for an amendment no further, but I would suggest to him that it should be pressed, at any rate, to the extent of getting a ruling as to whether it is unconstitutional. The only reason which the Minister has given for holding that view is that it is contrary to section 55 of the Constitution, which says -

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Read on.

Senator DRAKE:

Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only, but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.

Senator Playford:

– The request does not deal with duties of Excise only.

Senator DRAKE:

– That section was inserted in the Constitution in order to prevent “tacking.” The request deals undoubtedly with a matter of taxation. Clause 2 of the Bill does not deal with taxation, but relates to a matter of taxation, because it provides that brandy which has been in bond for a year may be cleared without paying the additional duties. The object of section 55 was to prevent a Government from bringing forward; as a taxation measure, a Bill which the Senate could not amend, and smuggling into it a provision which otherwise it could amend. But I am not prepared to admit that in a Bill imposing taxation we cannot insert any provisions we like in connexion with that taxation. For instance, suppose that Senator Findley were to leave out the introductory part of his amendment - that is -the affirmation of a principle - and to merely propose that -

The Governor-General may, in pursuance of a joint address by the Senate and House of Representatives, impose an additional Excise duty of is. per gallon on each of the items mentioned in the schedule - would it not relate to a matter of pure taxation? The introductory part of the amendment is merely the condition upon which the honorable senator says that the additional duty may be imposed. But it is clear that if only the second part were enacted, and he considered that proper wages were not being paid in an industry, he could come down here and submit a motion for a joint address to the GovernorGeneral on the subject. That would clearly be the better way to proceed, because it would be free from the objections so strongly urged to the request. As the proposal stands, it may be the affirmation of a principle, but, on account of its vagueness, it is nothing more. There is also the great objection, which I endeavoured to point out by way of interjection, that the distillers might be scattered all over the States, and if one committed a breach of the provision the Excise duty would have to be raised by is. all over Australia, and those who were observing what were deemed to be fair and reasonable conditions would thus be penalized. I have not seen legislation like this before, but, no doubt, the Excise duty would have to be raised on account of a jointaddress. I am not prepared to assent to the dictum of the Minister of Defence that the proposed amendment is unconstitutional, as repugnant to section 55 of the Constitution ; but a’ tax Bill must deal with a matter of taxation only. - if it relates to Customs taxation, it must not introduce Excise taxation, and vice versa.

Senator Styles:

– Does the honorable senator mean that only the words beginning “ The Governor-General “ should be left?

Senator DRAKE:

– It is clear to me. that if only those words be left, it could not be urged that the proposal is contrary to section 55 of the Constitution, because it relates directly to the matter of the imposition of taxation by means of an Excise duty. The other words simply vaguely state the grounds on which both Houses might be asked to agree to a joint address.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Cases are then quoted from the House of Lords, where there is a similar restriction; and, clearly, the object is to prevent what is known as “tacking.”

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– It appears to me that the proposed amendment is unconstitutional, would be unworkable, and would lead to a great deal of trouble. I think it ought to be withdrawn. 1 understand the very object of protection to be to provide work at fair wages for the workmen engaged in the protected industries. Every one desires that where protection is afforded to an industry the workmen engaged in it shall get their fair share of the advantage afforded. But we cannot drag a question of wages into this Bill. Senator Drake made a very cunning proposal to strike out all the reason given for the proposed amendment, and leave in only the last part of it. It appears to me that in doing that we should be violating the ordinary practice in dealing with Customs and Excise taxation. We are all aware that when Customs and Excise duties are to be imposed, no one knows anything about them until they are submitted to Parliament.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– No one is supposed to know anything about them.

Senator Givens:

– That is more correct.

Senator DOBSON:

– I believe that in most instances no one does know, and certainly Ministers will not properly exercise their responsibility if any knowledge with respect to the duties to be imposed is allowed to leak out. But under a provision of this sort every one would know. If it were found that some distiller in a small way was not paying his men sufficient wages, every one would know that a proposal would be made to bring this provision into force for raising the Excise duties. One distiller would inform another, and we should have those who deal in liquor buying up all the spirits they could lay their hands- on, in anticipation of the increase in the duties. It is not possible to suppose that, because low wages are paid by distillers in two or three corners of the Commonwealth, the Excise duties shall be raised against distillers throughout the Commonwealth. The provision is absolutely unworkable, and let me point out to Senator Findley that I think it is also quite unnecessary. There is not throughout the evidence given to the Tariff Commission a single suggestion that distillers in Australia are not paving fair wages. In Victoria Wages Boards can be appointed to deal with the wages to be paid in this industry.

Senator de Largie:

– What about Tasmania ?

Senator DOBSON:

– In two of the other States Arbitration Acts have been passed, and the Arbitration Courts in those States can decide what are fair wages in the industry. I point out to Senator de Largie, who reminds me that we have no Arbitration Court or Wages Board in Tasmania, that a little dispute between a distiller and his workmen in New South Wales would lead to the fixing of wages in the industry bv an Arbitration Court, and if thev were fixed at a rate considerably higher than the wages paid in the industry in Tasmania it would then be seen that fair wages were riot being paid in the latter State. But in such an event would any Government or Parliament dare to put this provision into force? It would be impossible to work it, and I believe that the Minister of Defence is quite right in saying that the proposed amendment is unconstitutional.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– It is quite wonderful to notice the unanimity amongst honorable senators who do not belong to the Labour Party when any provision is introduced for the protection of workmen. They are prepared to defeat the provision suggested by a sidewind, and quite apart from its merits. The honorable senator who has raised the constitutional objection to the request is the member of the Government who leads the Senate at the present time, and he has altogether forgotten that the Government, of which he is a member, has introduced a similar provision in a similar Bill dealt with in another place. In the Bill introduced in connexion with the imposition of certain duties of Customs on harvesters there is a provision that the manufacturers must sell their machines under certain conditions at a certain price. If Senator Findley’s proposal is unconstitutional, then undoubtedly the Government, of , which Senator Playford isa member, have been guilty of submitting a similarly unconstitutional proposal. But the unconstitutional act committed in connexion with the Bill imposing duties on harvesters is committed on behalf of men of property, who can afford to purchase harvesters, whilst Senator Findley’s socalled unconstitutional provision is designed to benefit the unfortunate workers in an industry. It is therefore to get no sympathy from a Government kept in power by the Labour Party. I say that the members of the Labour Party will very soon get tired of supporting a Government which has no sympathy with the workers, and that is prepared by a side-wind to defeat a provision intended to secure to the workers the proportion of the protection proposed to which they are justly entitled. I feel indignant that every attempt made to ameliorate the conditions of the workers should be opposed on technical grounds, where it is not opposed straight out.

Senator Gray:

– Yet the honorable senator sticks to the Government through thick and thin, whilst we oppose them.

Senator GIVENS:

Senator GIVENS:

The CHAIRMAN:

– No; no point of order has been submitted.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I wish the Minister to be good enough to explain the difference between two dates mentioned in the Spirits Bill and in the Bill now before us. In clause 11 of the Spirits Bill, we have the proviso that - this section shall not come into operation till the 1st day of January, One thousand . nine hundred and eight.

In this Bill, we have it provided that spirits distilled wholly from grape wine, and spirits, n.e.i. - which were on the 17th day of August, One thousand nine hundred and six, in the spirit store of any distillery or in any Customs warehouse until the 1st day of March, 1907, be delivered at the rates of duty specified in the Excise Tariff 1902

Will the Minister be good enough to explain the relation between those dates ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– The information supplied to me is that we have not a sufficient quantity of spirit now in course of manufacture to supply requirements, and that, therefore, we propose to allow spirits in bond to be delivered, and to give importers a longer time for the delivery.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Are those spirits supposed to be deleterious?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– -No.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Then what is the reason for causing them to be kept in bond for any time?

Senator Findley:

– Is not my request before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes. If Senator Pulsford wishes to move a request prior to Senator Findley’s, it will be necessary for that honorable senator to withdraw his request.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I simply desire to have an explanation from the Minister in regard to the point I have raised. The matter of date is very “important. A certain date is fixed for dealing with imported spirits, and another date for dealing with Australian-made spirits. There does not seem to be that fair adjustment which might have been made.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence) £10.11]. - We can deal with thematter mentioned by Senator Pulsford when we return to the Spirits Bill. Under the existing law. spirits already imported can go into consumption’ without let or hindrance. We do not propose to prevent them going into consumption until a certain date has expired.”

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– I desire to raise a point of order. The Minister of Defence has pointed out that under section 55 of the Constitution, Senator Findley’s request would be inoperative, even if it were inserted in the Bill. The section provides that laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and that any other provision shall be of no effect. I therefore urge that we are absolutely precluded from inserting in this Bill anyother provision, than relates to the imposition of taxation. What Senator Findley proposes does not deal with duties of Excise in any way whatever. Another objection to the request is that it is not within the title or scope of the Bill. The Bill is entitled-

A Bill for an Act to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1902.

In that Act there is not a single word about the matters dealt with in Senator Findley’s request. The Bill deals wholly with duties of Excise, and does not relate in any particular to conditions! of labour, wages, or the employment of boys. On the ground that the request is unconstitutional, and also that it is in conflict with our Standing Orders, I urge that it is out of Order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It has been frequently held both by the President and by the Chairman of Committees that it is not the duty of the Chair to decide a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution. In one case the President ruled -

As a general rule it is not proper for the President or the ‘Chairman of Committees to give a ruling on the interpretation of the Constitution, but where a ruling is absolutely necessary in order to carry on the business, it ought to be given. Such a case arose in the case of Senator Saunders. His right to vote was challenged, and the business of the Senate could not proceed until the question was settled.

Whether the amendment proposed to be requested is constitutional or not is a question which the Committee is just as well able to decide as is the Chairman. The second ground on which the point of order is taken is that the amendment is not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to impose certain duties, and the object of the amendment is to add a proviso that the duties shall only be imposed under certain conditions. Therefore, I rule that it is in order.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– I propose to dissent from the ruling, and I will place my dissent in writing

In the Senate.

The Chairman or Committees. - I beg to report that when in Committee on the Excise Tariff Bill Senator Findley moved that the House of Representatives be re- quested to add the following words’ to clause 2 -

Provided further, That if the distillers -

do not, after the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act, pay their employes a fair and reasonable rate of wages per week of fortyeight hours; or (i) employ more than a due proportion of boys to men engaged in the industry.

The Governor-General may in pursuance of a joint address by the Senate and House of Representatives impose an additional Excise duty of one shilling per gallon on each of the items mentioned in the Schedule.

Senator Gould took the ground that the proposed amendment was unconstitutional, and he quoted section 55 of the Constitution, which says: -

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect. Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise shall deal with one subject of taxation only ; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.

Senator Gould also based his point of order on the ground that the proposed amendment was not relevant to the subjectmatter of the Bill. On the first ground I ruled, in accordance with a ruling which has been frequently given in the Committee and the Senate, that it is not the duty of the Chair to decide whether an amendment is constitutional or not, as it is just as able as the Chair to decide that point. On the ground of relevancy, I ruled that the proposed amendment was in order. The subjectmatter of the Bill is the imposition of certain duties, and the amendment proposes that such duties shall only be imposed provided that certain conditions are attached thereto. Senator Gould has dissented from the ruling in these terms -

I dissent from the ruling of the Chairman that the amendment proposed by Senator Findley in the Excise Tariff Bill is within the scope and the object of the Bill, and that it is not within the Chairman’s province to determine questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

The PRESIDENT:

– The latter part of the ruling has been laid down here halfadozen times, and it has been assented to by the Senate over and over again.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Of course, sir, I am prepared to accept your statement on that point; but, still, I would point out that our powers are clearly laid down in the Constitution. It would seem that it is entirely beyond the province of the Senate to enact such’ a provision, because section 55 says-

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

I submit that it is not so much a matter of interpreting a difficult provision in the Constitution-

The PRESIDENT:

– It is only a matter of degree as to whether it is a difficult or an easy question to decide. I should think that this is quite easy ; but, still, that is not the point. The honorable senator can hardly lay it down that it is the duty of the President to decide an easy question, and not to decide a difficult one.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a Bill were introduced which clearly went beyond the powers of the Senate under the Constitution. Could we reasonably expect that measure to be proceeded with?

Senator Playford:

– Who is to decide that?

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– I should think it would be for the President to say whether it was within our constitutional right to deal with the Bill, and, if not, to rule that it could not be proceeded with. However, sir, as you seem to be opposed to me with regard to that point, I do not propose to labour it. It is distinctly provided in standing order 194 -

Any amendment may be made to any part of a Bill, provided the same be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate. [ submit, sir, that the proposed amendment is clearly not relevant to the subjectmatter of the Bill. This is a Bill to amend the Excise Tariff Act of 1902. The only matter it deals with really is the amount of taxation which is to be raised by means of Excise duties on various spirits which are distilled within the Commonwealth, and the only departure from absolutely fixing the particular sum is contained in clause 2, which says -

In lieu of the duties of Excise imposed by the Excise Tariff 1902 on spirits, duties of Excise shall, from the seventeenth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and six, be imposed on spirits in accordance with the Schedule.

Provided that spirits distilled wholly from grape wine and spirits, n.e.i., which were on the seventeenth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and six, in the spirit store of any distillery or in any Customs warehouse, may, until the first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and seven, be delivered at the rates of duty specified in the Excise Tariff 1902.

When I turn to the Excise Tariff Act of 1902 I find that it contains no provision dealing with the rates of wages which have to be paid to individuals, or the conditions under which :labour has to be performed. Therefore, I submit that the proposed amendment is absolutely beyond the scope of the Bill, and cannot be dealt with by the Committee without an instruction from the Senate. Even then I very much doubt whether it would be in order to submit such a request.

The PRESIDENT:

– Ever since we have been a Senate, the rule has been laid down by myself, and adopted by the Senate, that the President or the Chairman of Committees is not the proper tribunal to decide on the interpretation of the Constitution. I cannot see how it can possibly be laid down that on an occasion when a matter is stated to be so clear and distinct, that there can be no difficulty whatever in arriving at a’ conclusion, the President is to give a ruling, but that he is not to be called on to give a ruling when there is some difficulty. I am not going to give from the Chair any opinion on the point raised. The Committee is quite able to decide it, and it seems to me, as has been stated, to be perfectly clear; but what that clearness is, I shall not further say. The other question is as to whether the amendment it is proposed to request is relevant to the subjectmatter of the Bill. In his dissent from the ruling.. Senator Gould says -

I dissent from the ruling of the Chairman that the amendment proposed by Senator Findley in the Excise Tariff Bill is within the scope and object of the Bill.

Senator Drake:

– Senator Millen would not have gone away if he had known that the Excise Tariff Bill was to be considered in Committee.

Senator McGregor:

– Will honorable senators promise to be good to-morrow?

Senator MACFARLANE:

– We will promise not to unduly delay the passing of the measure to-morrow. If the Minister will consent to adjourn now, I think it will lead to more progress being made.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [10.41]. - If the Minister is disinclined to adjourn at the present time, he might consent to report progress after we have dealt with the clauses of the Bill, and before we deal with the schedule. Speaking personally, I am not aware of any arrangement having been made with the honorable senator. In saying so, I think I am voicing the opinions of honorable senators on this side generally. Senator Millen will be able to speak for himself on the subject to-morrow. It would be very much, better if the Minister, instead of himself nominating some one to represent the Opposition, would permit honorable senators in opposition to suggest one of their number who should be authorized to speak for them. However, I think the Minister might agree to report progress after we have dealt with the clauses of the Bill, and leave the consideration of the schedule until to-morrow.

Senator Playford:

– What are we to doro morrow ?

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- We have a call of the Senate for to-morrow, and it is unreasonable to ask honorable senators to remain here late, and then to come again at 10.30 a.m. to-morrow in response to a call of the Senate. If we had had any desire to delay business, Senator Playford will admit that, if I had seen fit, it would have ‘been perfectly competent for me to move dissent from the ruling which the President has just given.

Senator Playford:

– If honorable senators are up to those tricks, I shall move to suspend the standing order on that subject.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- I am merely reminding the honorable senator that I might have adopted that course. I did not do so because I did not, under the circumstances, think it would be a fair way of treating the Government or the Senate. I suggest that it would be a fair thing to deal with Senator Findley’s amendment and clause 2, and then report progress.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I think honorable senators might go a little further than that. They might agree to pass the whole of the clauses of the Bill, and the two first items of the schedule. I do not think there will be any trouble about those items.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– There will be a good deal of discussion on the first item.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– If there is going to be a good deal of discussion, I shall have to ask the Senate to sit on Mondays, and to keep a quorum to enable the Government to do a certain amount of business every night. If we are to go on as we are doing now, we shall be sitting here until Christmas.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I hope that the leader of the Senate will not agree to the request of the Opposition. It would not be fair to members of the Labour Party, who help to keep a quorum, so that the Government might carry on their business. We know that it is the object of the Opposition to prevent the Government from doing their business. I wish to see the measures now before the Senate passed into law. and we know that other Bills have vet to come before us. I understand that . we have only this week and next week within which to do all the business. If that be so, we cannot be running away at 11 o’clock at night, but must be prepared to sit until 2, 3, or 4 o’clock in the morning, if necessary. If Senator Playford agrees to the request for an adjournment, I cannot (guarantee to assist him to’ keep a quorum to enable members of the Opposition to talk against time until 11 o’clock at night, and then approach the Government for an adjournment. If honorable senators in Opposition must talk, we should be prepared to give them the whole night for talking, and if that were done I think that business would be transacted in very quick time.

Senator DE LARGIE (Western Australia [10.48]. - Senator Stewart has just given honorable senators in Opposition some advice. I do not know exactly whether he is supposed to be a supporter of the Opposition or of the Government, but I have a vivid recollection that only a few days ago he was himself building up a stone-wall against a Government proposal. I think that this is a reasonable hour to adjourn, and that the Government have made very fair progress. I hope that Senator Stewart’s advice will be taken only for what it is worth, and remembering his attitude of a few days ago, I should say it is not worth very much.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– Mr. Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN:

-If the honorable senator proposes to speak I shall ask htm to discuss the question before the Committee.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I do not wish to discuss that question, but to say aword or two on the matter which has already been discussed at some length.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Then I hope the honorable senator will be brief. Senator HENDERSON. - I shall be very brief, and if my example in this respect were- generally followed by honorable senators, we should not now be discussing the . question before the Chair. I hope the leader of the Senate will see the wisdom of consenting to an adjournment at litis hour. I am prepared to give the Government reasonable support, and to assist in keeping a quorum, but I am not such a whale for work as to desire to be here night after night. I recognise that it is a reasonable thing for a man to beable to get to his bed about midnight, and the man who does not want to be in bed at midnight ought to be in gaol.

Senator Givens:

– The honorable senator does not like the “ dog watch.”

Senator HENDERSON:

– I have always been opposed to the “dog watch,” and I am positive that if Senator Stewart had ever had to keep the “ dog watch “ he would not have spoken as he has done.

Senator Playford:

– If honorable sena tors will pass the clauses of the Bill, and the first two paragraphs of the schedule, I will consent to progress being reported.

Question - That the request be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 September 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1906/19060918_senate_2_34/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate18 September 1906

QUESTION

METHYLATION OF SPIRITS

Senator DRAKE:QUEENSLAND

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

PAPERS

TASMANIAN CABLE RATES BILL

SPIRITS BILL

Second Reading

Senator BEST:Victoria

Senator Pulsford:

Senator BEST:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator BEST:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator BEST:

Senator Turley:

Senator BEST:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator BEST:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator BEST:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator BEST:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator BEST:

Senator Col Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator Col Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator BEST:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator Col Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator Col Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator Drake:

Senator BEST:

Senator Playford:

Senator BEST:

Senator Col Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator Col Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Playford:

Senator BEST:

Senator Playford:

Senator BEST:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator BEST:

Senate
18 September 1906

Senator DRAKE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Victoria

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria