Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 4 July 1906
Page: 1028


Mr KELLY (Wentworth) .- I quite indorse everything that has been said by honorable members who have preceded me as to the unnecessary, character of the provision under discussion. I wish to add a few words as to what I take to be its complete unworkableness. As a layman, I am appalled by the amount of litigation that this paragraph is absolutely certain to occasion. I find that the question the Court has to decide in all cases before judgment can be awarded is whether or not the Australian industry in question is advantageous to the Commonwealth, having due regard to the interests of producers, workers, and consumers. The Court has to hear any evidence that may be adduced as to whether or not the industry is advantageous in the way named. We have recently had a Tariff Commission inquiring into certain industries in this very regard. The Commission has been sitting for a considerable time. It has inquired whether certain industries are worth preserving; for that practically was one of the purposes of its inquiry. I hold in my hand a digest of the evidence given before the Commission concerning the wine and spirit industries. This digest - which be it remembered does not contain the whole of the evidence - covers eighty-two- pages of closely printed matter. Does the AttorneyGeneral mean, to say that, if the Court has to receive and hear evidence of so voluminous a nature upon thequestion whether or not any industry is worth preserving, any section of the community will derive benefit from this measure except the legal fraternity ? Asa layman, I repeat, I am absolutely appalled at the amount of litigation to which this provision will give rise if passed in its present form. Other questions concerning it have been dealt with by honorable members who have preceded me. I shall not deal with, them at the present stage. But I do say that from whatever aspect this clause is regarded, whether from that of its fiscalism, and in that sense it is unnecessary as we have Part III. dealing with that question ; or whether from that of its unworkableness, it isequally inexpedient to include in it the paragraph under discussion.







Suggest corrections