The Comptroller-General of Customs has forwarded me the following letter for advice:

I have in common with others been engaged in the timber industry at Strahan in Tasmania. A short time ago those engaged in the Industry met the Minister for Agriculture and the Conservator of Forests to endeavour to secure a reduction in the heavy royalties enforced by the Government on the timber.

As a result the Conservator conceded a reduction on pine timber from 25/- to 12/6 per
1000 super feet but he made the following proviso which is expressed as follows in a letter from him to myself.

The reduction in royalty being made to assist the Sawmilling Industry of Tasmania, logs for shipment other than for Sawmilling in the State, do not benefit by the reduction.

I am interested, in that I export logs to Victoria and have not at present a mill of my own. I contend that this is nothing more or less than an export duty on logs sent to other States and as such quite contrary to the Constitution. May I ask whether as such it comes under your Department and if so whether you will take action in the matter.

In this connection I invite your attention to the opinion of Mr. Attorney-General Deakin given on the 23rd December, 1901.⁽¹⁾

In that opinion it was advised that the discrimination arising from the imposition by the Tasmanian Government of a royalty on pine exported and not on pine for local consumption amounted to a violation of interstate free trade.

In the present case the circumstances are similar, except that pine for local consumption pays 50% of the full royalty imposed on exported pine, and the discrimination in my opinion offends against section 92 of the Constitution.

It is open to any person aggrieved to take action.

[Vol. 20, p. 158]

(1) Opinion No. 34.