/
19020319_reps_1_8.xml
3325 lines (3324 loc) · 263 KB
/
19020319_reps_1_8.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1902-03-19</date>
<parliament.no>1</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>11032</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para>HouseofRepresentatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1902-03-19</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker</inline>took the chair at 2.30 p.m, and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PETITION</title>
<page.no>11032</page.no>
<type>petition</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. HIGGINS</inline>presented a petition from T. W. Slater, a manufacturer of paper patterns, Carlton, praying that tissue paper might be exempted from Customs duty. </para>
<para>Petition received. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PAPER</title>
<page.no>11032</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11032</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate>HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for External Affairs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Mr BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- laid upon the table </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Coloured immigrants admitted to the Commonwealth - Amendment of return presented 12th March. </para>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>NEW HEBRIDES</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L17</name.id>
<electorate>DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILKS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr WILKS</name>
</talker>
<para>- In reference to the reply given by the PrimeMinister to the deputation from the Chamber of Commerce which waited upon him in Sydney, that he expected shortly to sign an agreement with Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Co., in regard to the New Hebrides mail service, I should like to know if that agreement will be submitted to Parliament? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Mr BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The proposed new agreement, like the New South Wales agreement which the Commonwealth took over, will contain the provision that the contract, although for the term of ten years, shall cease if Parliament withholds or refuses to grant the money necessary for the carrying out of the service. The agreement will be laid upon the table, and, if Parliament refuses to vote the necessary supply, must lapse. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>PREFERENTIAL RAILWAY RATES</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHC</name.id>
<electorate>NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGINS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGINS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to know from the Minister for Home Affairs, whether, in reply to the questions asked yesterday on my behalf, he can let me know what are the specific preferential or discriminating railway rates complained of ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate>HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for Home Affairs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM LYNE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The information will take some trouble to obtain and some time to compile. Indeed, I am not sure that full information on the subject can be obtained, because there will be some difficulty in getting information as to rates from some of the railway commissioners. However, I shall make inquiries, and obtain what information I can. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>REVENUE FROM KEROSENE DUTY</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4R</name.id>
<electorate>BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WATSON, John Christian</name>
<name role="display">Mr WATSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Can the Treasurer furnish honorable members with a return showing the revenue derived from the duty on kerosene since the imposition of the Tariff, as distinguished from the revenue from other oils ? In the returns which he has furnished the revenue derived from all duties upon oils is shown under one heading. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate>BALACLAVA, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Treasurer</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I doubt if I can get that information before the discussion to-morrow ; but I shall send telegrams to the various States and endeavour to get it. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>COMMONWEALTH PUBLICATIONS</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2I</name.id>
<electorate>MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Sydney</name>
<name role="display">Mr SYDNEY SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>- I understood that the Commonwealth offices in the capitals of the various States were to be supplied with copies of all measures, returns, and papers laid before this Parliament ; but, on Monday last, when I made application at the Sydney office, I was unable to get any information regarding the Tariff, except a copy of the original proposals introduced last October. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Mr BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I shall look into the matter at once, so that there may be no further cause of complaint. Arrangements are in progress by which I hope a full supply of all Commonwealth parliamentary publications will be obtainable shortly at the Government Printing-office in each State. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2I</name.id>
<electorate>MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Sydney</name>
<name role="display">Mr SYDNEY SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>- I also made inquiries at the State Parliament House, but I could not get what I wanted there. I think the information to which I refer should also be supplied to the officers of the State Parliaments. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Mr BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Copies of all Commonwealth publications are, I believe, supplied to the Government of each State, and could probably be obtained in the offices of the Chief Secretaries. The matter rests largely in the discretion of the President and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> with whom I shall be glad to communicate, so that there may be no further trouble. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>DUTY ON CYCLE CHAINS</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWL</name.id>
<electorate>YARRA, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TUDOR, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr TUDOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- Although the Committee of Ways and Means decided that all chains should be exempt from duty, and the Treasurer informed the committee that cycle chains were included, I have been informed this morning that the Customs officials in Melbourne wish to charge duty upon cycle chains. Will the right honorable gentleman see that effect is given to the intention of honorable members? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I understood, and the officer in charge of the department informed me, that cycle chains would be included in the exemption. I shall make an inquiry into the matter as soon as I can leave this Chamber. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>OFFICERS' LEAVE</title>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11033</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DQC</name.id>
<electorate>WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HUGHES, William Morris</name>
<name role="display">Mr HUGHES</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister repre senting the Postmaster-General, <inline font-style="italic">uponnotice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>What regulations govern grants of leave due to officers in any department of the Public </para>
</item>
</list>
<para class="block">Service transferred from any State to the Commonwealth ? </para>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="2.">
<para>Is the Postmaster-General aware that, under the regulations of the New South Wales Postal department, leave could be accumulated for a period of two years ; and that officers, relying on that regulation and electing not to take their due leave for 1900, applying for accumulated leave in 1901, have been refused leave due in 1900? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZT</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA, TASMANIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FYSH, Philip</name>
<name role="display">Sir PHILIP FYSH</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1">
<para>. So far as the department of the PostmasterGeneral is concerned, leave is granted to officers in accordance with the regulations or practice in operation in the States prior to the transfer of the department. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>The Postmaster-General is aware of the New South Wales regulation allowing accumulated leave under certain conditions. The Deputy Postmaster-General in each Statehas been authorized to grant leave in accordance with the regulations, and the Postmaster-General is not aware that any such leave, accumulated in accordance with the regulations, has been refused in New South Wales, but he is making inquiry. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>PARCEL-POST TO SOUTH AFRICA</title>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7U</name.id>
<electorate>CORIO, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CROUCH, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr CROUCH</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Postmaster - General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>If the latter is aware that there is no direct parcel post from Australia to South Africa, but that all parcels have to go <inline font-style="italic">viâ</inline> England ? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>It the Postmaster-General will take advantage of the numerous vessels trading between here and South Africa, and in the interests of trade and public convenience, arrange for the early institution of a parcel post service? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZT</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA, TASMANIA</electorate>
<party>Free Trade</party>
<role>Minister (without portfolio)</role>
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FYSH, Philip</name>
<name role="display">Sir PHILIP FYSH</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1">
<para>. The Postmaster-General is not aware that parcels for South Africa have to go from Australia <inline font-style="italic">viâ</inline> England. There is a direct exchange of parcels by post between Australia and Cape Town. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Advantage is taken of the steamers of the lines trading regularly between Australia and Cape Town for the carriage of parcels. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS</title>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQP</name.id>
<electorate>KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCDONALD, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr McDONALD</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister of External Affairs, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is it a fact that 52 Japanese were landed at Townsville from the s.s. <inline font-style="italic">Kasuga Maru,</inline> and that 50 others are expected to arrive by the following steamer ? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>If the education test was not applied as prescribed by the Immigration Restriction Act, what were the reasons for such omission ? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Mr BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Yes. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>These are men who have received passports from the Japanese Government, issued in pursuance of permits granted by the Queensland Government prior to the 23rd December last, in accordance with the agreement between the Japanese and Queensland Governments. I have already explained that the agreement in question is to be treated as subsisting in respect to passports issued in pursuance of permits granted before the passing of the Immigration Restriction Bill. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para class="block">I have been asked - the present limit being 50 - whether there is any objection to more than 50 coming down in one ship, and I have replied that, within the limits of the arrangement, I have no objection to the number being exceeded, so that the matter may be closed as quickly as possible. I understand that about 106 will come down in one vessel shortly, and I believe that they will complete the number to whom passports and permits have been issued. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCDONALD, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr McDONALD</name>
</talker>
<para>- On a former occasion the right honorable gentleman said that the number to whom passports and permits had been issued was 208 ; but, according to the figures he has given, over 300 have come in since December. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Mr BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>-When I gave the number as 208 my information may not have been quite accurate, and I shall cause further inquiries to be made. The agreement with the Japanese Government extends only to those who have received passports or permits. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>EASTER HOLIDAYS</title>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11034</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2G</name.id>
<electorate>WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMILLAN, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yester day I pointed out that I thought we should do less work by adjourning on Thursday next week and coming back on the following Wednesday, thus breaking into two weeks, than by sitting continuously until the end of this week. On behalf of honorable members on this side of the House I now suggest to the Government that we should meet to-morrow morning, and, if necessary, sit continuously until Saturday ; or, if we can get through the items of the Tariff which have not yet been dealt with - I do not refer to those which have to be recommitted - by Friday, we might adjourn then. I would commend to the Prime Minister the consideration of the question whether by sitting continuously this week we should not do more than if we were to have two broken weeks. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11035</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate>Hunter</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for External Affairs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Mr BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I will take my honorable friend's request into consideration, and if he will renew it at a later period I shall be prepared to give him an answer. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>TARIFF</title>
<page.no>11035</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<para class="italic">
<inline font-style="italic">In Committee qf</inline>
<inline font-style="italic">Ways</inline>
<inline font-style="italic">and Means :</inline>
</para>
<para>Consideration resumed from 12th March <inline font-style="italic">(vide</inline> page 10920). </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11035</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate>BalaclavaTreasurer</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- In view of the fact that tomorrow I propose to ask the committee to deal with the postponed items in the Tariff, two of which, if not more, are purely revenue items, involving a very large amount, I have circulated for the information of honorable members the fullest details that I have been abl e to obtain as to the operation of the Tariff up to date. Honorable members will find that I have given them the returns received from every item in each of the States, except Western Australia, from the 9th October to 31st January last. I have not yet obtained the details of the revenue collected during February, but I have been able to show the total received under the different divisions during the month. I have also given separately the gross amounts received from the 9th to 31st October, and in each of the months of November, December, and January. I regret extremely that I have not been able to publish the figures relating to Western Australia. I was particularly anxious to obtain them for my own information, and in order that honorable members representing that State might know the revenue derived from each particular item there. I have applied for the information from time to time through the Customs department, and I believe that during the day I shall receive the details of the revenue collected there during the last month. If I do I shall be glad to submit the manuscript copy to honorable members from that State, as it will be possibly some guide to them. There seems to me to be some confusion in keeping the accounts in Western Australia. Unfortunately they have been placing to the credit of what may be termed the special Tariff the whole of the receipts from every item. For example, the duty on spirits under the Commonwealth Tariff is 14s. per gallon, while under the Western Australian Tariff it is 16s. per gallon. The Customs authorities of Western Australia have been crediting the whole 16s. to the Special Western Australian Tariff, thus making it appear that the extra amountreceived by Western Australia has been very large indeed. As a return that I have in my possession gives the proportion of the Inter-State trade for the month of February, I have adopted the same proportion in making up an approximate return of the duties received under the Uniform Tariff. I think that item is fairly correct in relation to Western Australia, while so far as the other items are concerned the figures which I have circulated are as supplied to me by the Customs department, and they agree practically with the amounts received by the Treasury. There is usually a difference between the figures of the two departments, because sometimes the Customs include in their returns receipts for portion of a day which may not be received by the Treasury until the following day. I have also circulated an epitome of the amount collected for the quarter ending September, under the old Tariffs of the various States, and some particulars of the revenue received from the 1st to 8th October. Then I have given details of the revenue collected from the 9th to 31st October, and during each succeeding month so far as possible in order that honorable members may have an opportunity of studying how the Tariff has worked out. I have had to make an estimate of the revenue likely to be received between 1st March and 30th June next. I have done so on the basis of thelast four months' receipts. I have, however, taken into consideration, the fact that November, December, January, and February are usually good months from a revenue point of view. March is also a good month, but April, May, and June are not. As honorable members who have had experience know, stock-taking takes place in June, and it is a particularly bad month, while the winter months make a very large difference in the returns from some of our excise duties. I have made a very small deduction on account of these circumstances, and I think my estimate will be found to be as nearly correct as possible. It may be that, with the Tariff settled, stocks that have been in bond will be taken out before June to a larger extent than I have allowed, but on the whole I think it will be found that my figures are fairly correct. The total Customs and Excise revenue for the current year is now estimated at £8,587,453, as against my original estimate of £8,009,000, showing an increase of £578,000. That is a considerable difference, but having regard to the total the percentage is not large ; and in view of the many disturbing elements,' I do not know that it can be said that my first estimate was very far out. I do not want to deny that the experience of the last few months - which, by the way, are not very good months to take as a basis for judging the permanent results of the Tariff - shows that I under-estimated my receipts. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11036</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Do these figures allow for the difference between the duties fixed originally and as amended ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11036</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Some duties have been struck off, while others have been reduced, and we know that there is a theory that when the duty on any particular article is reduced, the revenue from that source is increased. I am not going to claim that as a reason for the larger rereceipts, because I do not agree with that theory. Some portions of the calculations are in respect of duties which have been taken off altogether ; but, even although my original estimate has been exceeded, the revised estimate is still £355,000 below what I expect to receive for a normal year. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11036</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4R</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WATSON, John Christian</name>
<name role="display">Mr Watson</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the Treasurer mean <inline font-style="italic">pro</inline><inline font-style="italic">ratâ</inline> for a normal year \ </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11036</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not think that we shall have a normal year until 1903-4, when the Tariff will be in full working order, and when we shall probably have the increased production which we hope will take place as the result of protection, as well as the greater interchange between the States which will undoubtedly occur. Honorable members must not forget that, in connexion with this year's revenue, we have to take into consideration the large loading up in the different States, and the fact that goods have been left in bond, which makes a considerable difference in the amount received. I wish to impress upon the committee that we must not deal with the aggregate. It is not the total revenue collected in the Commonwealth in which we are so much interested, but the amount collected in each State, because it is to that which we have to look in order to see what the effect of the Tariff is likely to be upon each of them. I anticipated that there would be a very large increase of revenue in New South Wales. I now take it that the revenue for the year will be £2,711,000 as against my former estimate of £2,360,000 ; so that I originally under-estimated the receipts from that one State alone by £351,000. Even in New South Wales the amount collected during the year will be £517,000 less than our estimated receipts for a normal year. In making our calculations for this year we probably allowed too much for overstocking. No doubt large stocks were laid in, but I think that to a considerable extent they had to be sold. The time within which it was expected that the surprise Tariff would be introduced was exceeded,' and where these stocks were sold goods had to be taken out of bond to replace them. The Collector of Customs in New South Wales. who prepared these figures, reports to me that the increase has taken place in items in relation to which all the overstocking had largely taken place. That is the state of affairs in New South Wales, and money has been received in respect of duties on goods from which we did not anticipate to obtain very much. Our revised estimate of receipts for Victoria during the current year is £2,424,000,' while my previous estimate was ±'2,410,000, so that I was £14,000 out in my first calculation. The expected receipts fall below what we expect to receive in a normal year by £189,000. It is peculiar that in Victoria nearly the whole of the sugar consumed has been imported, and Customs duty has been paid. We have collected about £112,000 from customs on sugar imported into this State during the last four months, although .we did not anticipate receiving anything like that amount. If the sugar used had been liable to excise - in which case there would have been a difference of £3 per ton - the amount collected would have been considerably under what I anticipated. We know that in regard to tobacco, spirits, kerosene, and other articles, there has been a heavy loading up in Victoria. That will probably rectify matters, and, so far as the receipts from this State are concerned, they will be found to closely approximate what I estimated. We find an unfortunate condition of affairs in Queensland. I estimated that we should receive £1,404,000 from that State, but as a matter of fact we have received only £1,281,000- a shortage of £122,000. No doubt the serious falling off which has taken place may be accounted for by the drought, and by the fact that very little, I think, has been paid in respect of excise on sugar, the su gar for home consumption having been taken out before the excise could come into operation. With regard to South Australia, the present estimate is £683,985, whereas previously we expected to receive £665,000. In that State, therefore, it is anticipated that we shall receive £18,985 over the amount previously estimated ; but, comparing this year with a normal year, the receipts are practically the same as we anticipated. In Tasmania, the figures very closely approach those originally submitted, the present estimate being £378,639, and the original estimate £370,000, the difference being only £8,639. Compared with a normal year, however, there would be a gain of £25,200, so that it appears from the receipts that the revenue is coming in somewhat better than we anticipated. The most extraordinary position of all is to be found in Western Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11037</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KLB</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MAHON, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Mr Mahon</name>
</talker>
<para>-The right honorable gentleman is a little bit out in his calculations in the case of that State. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11037</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I admit that I am absolutely out in my calculations in regard to that State, and I cannot understand it. The estimate for this year was £800,000, a larger amount than we expected to receive for a normal year, whilst the receipts, so far as the figures submitted to me and the approximations I have made will show, amount to £1,107,321, or an increase of £307,321 over the estimate. If we add to these figures the special Western Australian duties amounting to £250,000 or £275,000 we shall find that the population of Western Australia are, contributing to the revenue through customs and excise to the extent of about £7 per head. That is an abnormally high rate of revenue, and I do not think that the representatives of Western Australia will contend that that state of affairs will continue for any length of time. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11037</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KLB</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MAHON, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Mr Mahon</name>
</talker>
<para>- It should appeal to the right honorable gentleman. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11037</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- In regard to the State of Western Australia our calculations have been absolutely astray, and up to the present time I have received no satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy. I do not think that the present high rate of receipts can continue, but, looking at the matter from the Treasurer's point of view, I hope it will. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11037</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNI</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HARPER, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Harper</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is it possible that they have added the Inter-State duties to the revenue received from Customs duties on imports from over the seas? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11037</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. I received detailed information for the month of February, and not being able to obtain details for the previous months I assumed that the revenue collected under the Commonwealth Tariff and the additional revenue collected under the Western Australian Tariff would bear similar proportions to those which obtained in that month, namely, that the extra duties would yield a revenue of from £20,000 to £21,000 a month. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11037</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJI</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ISAACS, Isaac</name>
<name role="display">Mr Isaacs</name>
</talker>
<para>- Are there any special revenueyielding items in Western Australia that would account for the large receipts ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11037</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have not been furnished with all the details, and I must confess that I am not able to enlighten the committee on that point. Western Australia has undoubtedly received a very large revenue, for which I cannot sufficientl y account. When I made the Budget statement I presented a comparison, to which honorable members can refer, of the amounts which the States willprobably receive in the form of revenue under the Tariff in excess of, or less than, the actual receipts for the year 1900. I took the receipts for the year 1900 as the basis upon which we ought to provide for the requirements of the States, because it was the year immediately preceding the coming into operation of federation on the 1st January, 1901. Instead of the figures I then gave, New SouthWales will receive £926,078 more from customs and excise duties than she derived from the same sources in the calendar year 1900. Victoria will receive £81,744 more, and South Australia £44,981 in excess. Western Australia, instead of receiving less, as we anticipated, will gain £162,575, whilst Tasmania will receive £110,512 less, and Queensland will lose £280,066, as against £157,486 which we previously estimated. We are now comparing the financial year 1901-02 with the calendar year 1900, but if we compared it with the financial year 1900-01 the increases would be less in comparison, because the receipts during the financial year 1900-01 would be much higher than those for the calendar year 1900. I do not think, however, that that would be a fair comparison, because in the latter part of the financial year 1900-01, there was a very heavy stocking up and large withdrawals of goods from bond in view of the duties to be imposed under the Federal Tariff ; consequently the revenue was very largely increased. I think honorable members will now see the object I have in view in asking them to look at the States and not at the total receipts from Customs. I wish them to consider the serious position in which two of the States are likely to be placed; namely, Tasmania with a loss of £110,000, and Queensland with a loss of £280,000. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11038</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr Fisher</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is money that they will not now collect from the people. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para>Mr.Watson. - Yes ; the money will still be in the pockets of the people. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11038</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- That may be ; but it will be very difficult to obtain that money in any other way. However, I do not wish just now to enter into an argumentative discussion which we may very well reserve till to-morrow. I wish honorable members to have these figures in their minds when we deal with the Tariff to-morrow. I shall propose to make certain reductions in the postponed duties. I consider the duty on rice too high, and I also propose to reduce the duty on tinned fish from 2d. to1d., in order to carry out a promise I practically made to the honorable member for Barrier. These reductions will result in a certain loss of revenue, but not to so large an extent as to seriously affect the finances of the States. The duty on tea represents to New South Wales a revenue of £1 14,000, and the duty on kerosene £47,000, or a total of £191,000. To Victoria the tea duty represents £115,000, and the kerosene duty £50,000, or a total of £166,000. In Queensland the tea duty represents £52,000, and the duty on kerosene £25,000, or a total of £77,000.In South Australia the tea duty realizes £34,000, and the kerosene duty £16,000, or a total of £38,000 ; whilst in Tasmania the duty on tea amounts to £15,000, and on kerosene to £4,000, or a total of £19,000. These are the estimates of the duties derived from tea and kerosene, as given in the original statements submitted to the House. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11038</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2G</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMILLAN, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William McMillan</name>
</talker>
<para>- The duty on tea was altered. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11038</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes ; but I do not know that the alteration makes very much difference. The present duty will bring us within £10,000 or £20,000 of the total we should have received under our original proposals. Although the revenue received from high class tea is not so great, the receipts from the duty upon low-classed teas are higher. In addition to these matters, we have to take into consideration the question of the rebate on sugar. This will not amount to anything very considerable during the present year, but during next year, or within a reasonable time, it will become a serious factor in our calculations. I have endeavoured to find out what will be the effect of the alterations made in some or the duties. We know that some duties have been abolished, and that a direct loss of revenue will result in these cases. We estimate that upon cocoa beans we shall lose £5,000, upon mustard seed £7,000, iron £41,000, tanks £7,000, insecticides £10,000, printing paper £25,000, and explosives £27,000, making a total of £123,000. We have to add to this the loss of revenue resulting from the reduction of the duties on cotton and linen goods, amounting to £180,000, the total thus being £300,000. In addition to this, we have placed upon the free list a large number of articles such as tools, and some classes of machinery, and a considerable loss of revenue will result from these exemptions. I am not in a position to give any estimate as to the approximate loss, but there will certainly be a considerable reduction in our receipts. Against these reductions we have increases in the duties upon opium, which will bring us in £25,000, upon spirits, which will yield £40,000, and upon cigarettes, which will yield £20,000, making a total of £85,000. I propose to ask for an excise duty on matches, which will give us a certain amount of extra revenue. In many cases the duties have been reduced from 20 per cent, to 15 per cent., and from 25 per cent, to 20 per cent., but I have not been able to ascertain, and I do not know that anyone could say, what the effect of these reductions will be. In view of the reductions, we shall probably have larger importations, but on the whole I believe that in the end we shall find that as far as the finances are concerned these alterations will make little if any difference. Therefore, I have not taken them into consideration. I believe there will be an increase in the imports, but I do not know that it will be such as to yield us more revenue than we originally estimated. I hope there will not he any very substantial increase, because I wish to see manufactures carried on here instead of allowing the work to go to other places. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11039</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- In making the original estimates, did the right honorable gentleman contemplate any reductions? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11039</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNER, George</name>
<name role="display">Sir GEORGE TURNER</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. I had fondly hoped - but I have been disappointed - that the committee would have passed the Tariff as it was introduced. I have now given honorable members a short exposition of the figures which I have placed before them, and I desire to impress upon the committee that any calculation made at the present time, on the information which is now available to us, cannot be looked upon as absolutely reliable. We have had the Tariff going on from week to week, and month to month, with importers hanging back as long as possible, and then taking out their goods as soon as the items affecting them have been passed. It has therefore been impossible to arrive at a fair basis of calculation. I place these figures before honorable members in order that they may have an opportunity of looking at them tomorrow morning before we are called upon to deal with a number of the items mentioned. I do not propose to make many alterations in the postponed items. So far as glucose and sugar are concerned, I do not propose to make any alteration. With regard to matches, I propose to leave the customs duty as it stands, and to ask for an excise duty at the rate of 4s., as against the import duty of1s. I propose to admit free of duty rice that is imported for starch making, and to place an excise duty of1d. per lb. on the starch made, because I find that among the ingredients of starch is included a number of materials other than rice, leaving the import duty at 2d. per lb. I shall propose a duty of 6s. per cental on the cleaned rice, and an impost of 4s. per cental, not on the uncleaned rice, but upon the rice produced from that imported in an uncleaned state. That will make a difference of 2s. between the dressed rice and that which is dressed here. We do not propose to make any alteration in the duties on tea, which will remain at 3d. per lb. on ordinary tea, and 4d. per lb. on packet tea. We shall also leave the kerosene duty as it is. We propose to leave match boxes subject to a duty of 3d. per gross as at present. So far as the timber duties are concerned, I think strong arguments have been adduced why ash, oak, and walnut, undressed, should not beplaced on the exempt list, whilst other and cheaper kinds of timber are dutiable. We propose to make New Zealand white pine dutiable, but to allow a drawback upon all butter boxes which are exported. I will circulate to-night if I can, or as early as possible tomorrow, information as to what we desire to do in regard to the very few items which it may be necessary to reconsider principally in order to carry out promises I have made to honorable members. I have stated all I wish to say at present. If honorable members desire further information I shall be only too glad to give it, if it is in my power, because I think that honorable members ought to be placed in possession of all the facts at my command. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11039</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2G</name.id>
<electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMILLAN, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to thank the Treasurer for the very full information which he has supplied to honorable members. Upon every occasion he has given the committee all possible details, and to that fact I think is due the marked rapidity with which we have disposedof the Tariff. Seeing that the items referred to by the right honorable gentleman were postponed to allow honorable members an opportunity of ascertaining the revenue derived from the operation of the various duties, I should like the Chairman to consider whether it would not be well to allow a little latitude during the early part of the discussion to-morrow, so that we may deal with the question of the revenue as a. whole. I do not see how the idea of the Government can be carried out unless honorable members are allowed a similar latitude to that which has been given to the Treasurer to-day, because the postponed items will need to be discussed in the light of the duties which have already been passed . </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Progress reported. </para>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PUBLIC SERVICE BILL</title>
<page.no>11039</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>
<inline font-style="italic">In Committee</inline>(consideration of Senate's amendments resumed, <inline font-style="italic">vide</inline> page 11005). </para>
<para>Clause 63 - </para>
<para>If an officer occupies, for the purpose of residence, the whole or part of a building belonging to or occupied by the Commonwealth, the GovernorGeneral may direct that a fair and reasonable sum as rent therefor be deducted from such officer's salary, and the amount of such sum shall be fixed by the commissioner, or by officers specially or generally appointed for the purpose by the commissioner. In calculating for any purpose the rateof salary of such officer, the amount so deducted as rent shall be deemed and taken to be part of his salary. </para>
<para>Motion proposed - </para>
<quote>
<para>That the committee disagree with the Senate's amendment to omit the clause. </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11040</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYJ</name.id>
<electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">QUICK, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir JOHN QUICK</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should like to know the views of Ministers in regard to this amendment, which is a very important one. The questionof the rent chargeable to officers residing in Government buildings has been a vexed one in Victoria for years past, and considerable litigation has resulted in this connexion. I think that the matter of whether or not officers who occupy Government buildings should be entitled to the free use of those buildings, should no longer be left in doubt, but should be definitely settled by legislation. If this clause be struck out the matter will still remain in doubt. We ought to declare either that these officers are entitled to the free use of Government buildings, or that they shall pay a reasonable rent for the use of them. Personally I think that the clause should remain in the Bill. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11040</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM LYNE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the committee to disagree with the Senate's amendment. A great deal of difficulty has been experienced in the past - especially in Victoria - in connexion with this matter, and I agree with the honorable and learned member for Bendigo that it ought to be definitely settled by statute, so that no quibble may arise hereafter. At the same time I am disposed to hold that wherever an officer is compelled to occupy a Government building, he should be charged a reasonable, but not an exorbitant rent, for the use thereof. The task of determining the rent to be charged might very well be left in the hands of the commissioner. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>11040</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>