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, 17 August 1921

Senator GARDINER (New South Wales) . - I am obliged 'to Senator Lynch for affording me the opportunity tocontinue my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN - Senator Lynchmerely rose to aSk for an explanation. He did' not speak' to 'the sub-item. Senator Gardiner is therefore not in order in speaking again atthisstage.

Senator Lynch - I rose, not only to ask 'a 'question, but 'also to ascertain wha't my position will be if the procedureoutlined by the Chairman is adhered to. .

The CHAIRMAN - The 'honorable senator did not intima'te 'that he intended to speak to 'the sub-item, but if he intends todo so he may proceed.

Senator Lynch - As Senator Duncan's proposal is to increase the duty, the only alternative before . the Committee is the maintenance of 'the duty at the present level, as proposed by the Government. Where, then, does my proposition come in'?

The CHAIRMAN - If Senator Dun- can's motion is negatived, any motion to request 'the House of Representatives to reduce the duty will 'be in order. On the other hand, if Senator Duncan's motion : is agreed to the Committee will have fixed the duty 'at 120s.

Senator Lynch - If Senator Duncan's motion is carried there will be no opportunity of discussing . or voting upon any suggestion. The only alternatives before the Committee at the present moment are therefore Senator Duncan's proposal ror the Government's.

Senator E D MILLEN (NEW SOUTH WALES) - No, we . can give you the opportunity of moving for the . reduction you seek.

The CHAIRMAN - The procedure is well 'established. The honorable senator must -not think that he is to be-shut>out from submitting his request. If the Senator Duncan, any motion to reduce the -duty will be, in order. -

Senator Lynch - The position . is unique. Senator -Duncan stands at one extreme,andpropose to take my stand at "the other. YetIcannotsee howmy proposal can be voted on as intelligently as it should be.

Suggest corrections