House of Representatives
22 October 1908

3^rd Parliament · 3^rd Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- NEW PROTECTION
QUESTION
- CADET ENCAMPMENTS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON
QUESTION
- POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE INSPECTION
QUESTION
- CITIZENS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF FRUIT
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- CONTRACT IMMIGRANTS ACT AMENDMENT
PUBLIC SERVICE CAP PEALS) BILL
- Second Reading
BUDGET
- In Committee of Supply
QUESTION
- THE EXCISE TARIFF STANDARD FOR TIME-WORK

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1414

PETITION

Mr DEAKIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · PROT; LP from 1910

– The House will be informed immediately a tentative arrange ment has been arrived at.

page 1415

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Victorian Deputy Postmaster-General - Bacchus Marsh Telephone Rate - Maylands Post Office

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Since notice of my questions was given, I have learned that a permanent Deputy Postmaster-General for Victoria has been appointed; but, nevertheless, as I desire the information, I ask the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

How long is it since there has been a permanent Deputy Postmaster-General in Victoria?
Hashe announced that the present Acting Deputy Postmaster-General in Victoria will not be permanently appointed ?
When does he propose to make a permanent appointment to this office, and what is thecause of the delay?

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

A year and eight months.
No.
A permanent appointment wasmade last week.

Mr CROUCH:

asked the PostmasterGeneral upon notice -

Is the telephone rate, Bacchus Marsh to Melbourne, eightpence?
Is the rate, Bacchus Marsh to Melton, two pence?
Is the rate, Melton to Melbourne, six pence ?
Why does this anomaly exist?

Mr MAUGER:

– The Deputy PostmasterGeneral, Melbourne, has furnished the following information: -

The telephone rate for conversations between Bacchus Marsh and Melbourne is 8d.
The telephone rate for conversations between Bacchus Marsh and Melton is ad.
The telephone rate for conversations between Melton and Melbourne is 4d.
The wire mileage between Melton and Melbourne is 24 miles, and between Bacchus Marsh and Melbourne 32 miles, which accounts for the difference in the charges between the two places and Melbourne.

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is he aware that, at a recent meeting of the Maylands (W.A.) Local Board of Health, the following resolution was carried : - “Whereas the Medical Officer of Health for the Maylands Local Board has certified in writing to the above Board that the premises occupied by the postmaster, as a post-office in our district, are unfit for human occupation or habitation, this Board orders that such be condemned, and that they be not occupied after twenty-one days from serving notice of same.” ?
In view of the above, will the PostmasterGeneral take immediate steps to erect a suitable post-office building in Maylands, the necessity for which in the near future has already been recognised by the Department?

Mr MAUGER:

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is - 1 and 2. I was not aware that such a resolution had been passed by the Local Board of Health, and am having inquiries made by wire. The further action to be taken in the matter will be indicated on receipt of a reply.

page 1415

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE INSPECTION

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– , for Mr. Hutchison, asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

When the Public Service Inspectors of Victoria, New South Wales, and South Australia respectively last examined the work of all the Commonwealth officers in the above States?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– A special inspection was made for the purpose of classification in 1903-4. Since then the inspection by the Public Service Department has been continuous, and, in addition, where the circumstances seem to warrant it, a special inspection is made.

page 1415

QUESTION

CITIZENS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Was he misinformed in his reply to questions as to the issue by the Citizens Life Company of a financial statement to Policy-holders which was not a true copy of the balance-sheet lodged with the Registrar?
Was not he misinformed in his reply to questions arising out of an article on the Citizens Life Company, published in the Clarion ?
Is he aware that in the Clarion of 15th September is published a facsimile of a Citizens Life Policy, signed by a director who died six months before the date of the policy ?
Is it not a fact that the Citizens Life Company returns to the industrial assured persons of Australia less money than they paid in premiums?

Mr GROOM:
Attorney-General · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

Not that I am aware of.
Not that I am aware of.
The honorable member has been good enough to show me a copy of the paper of the date referred to, in which appears what purports to be a reproduction of a policy alleged to have been signed by a director of the company, who is stated to have died six months before the date thereof.
I believe that this is usual, if not always, the case with industrial assurance.

page 1416

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF FRUIT

Mr McDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether he has noticed the Age statement to the effect that before the end of the year 50,000 cases of apples will be shipped from New York to Australia, the first consignment of 15,000 cases to arrive about the 24th inst.?
Does he not think that with proper en couragement the Australian fruit-growers should be able to produce apples enough for consumption within the Commonwealth?
Does he think the best way to encourage “the settlement of people in Australia is by allowing the foreigner to supply the Australian markets ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The replies to the honorable member’s questions are -

Yes.
Yes. Last year they exported£200,000 worth.
No.

Service in India.

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of De fence, upon notice -

Did the 6th Australian Infantry Regi ment, through its commanding officer, write, on the 27th July last, to the Victorian Commandant, volunteering for service in Bombay during the recent period of unrest there?
Has the said regiment received any official acknowledgment of this letter from the Defence Department ?
If not, why not?

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

A letter, dated 27th July, 1908, was sent by the Commanding Officer of the 6th Australian Infantry Regiment to the Officer Commanding the 2nd Infantry Brigade, stating that he had consulted several of the officers of the regiment and requesting that the Governor of Bombay be informed that the regiments would heartily enlist for service in India if the disturbance continued and the Imperial and Commonwealth authorities considered it desirable to accept their services. In forwarding this letter to the Commandant, the Brigadier stated that he was unable to make any recommendation, because the number anxious to serve in India and the rates of pay expected had not been given. This information he had asked the Commanding Officer of the regiment to furnish, but up to the present no reply has been given. 2 and 3. No recommendation having been received, no further action was considered necessary.

page 1416

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Land Legislation

Mr McDOUGALL:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether it is true, as alleged, that the Commonwealth Government has been asked to contribute towards the passage money of a number of unemployed Victorians who desire to go to New Zealand?
If so, does he consider it wise to flood the Commonwealth with immigrants before adequate steps have been taken to settle on the land, or absorb in profitable industries, the people who are already here?
Does not the liberal land policy of New Zealand attract to her shores a steady stream of desirable immigrants?
Does he propose to formulate a Commonwealth land policy, and, if so, on what lines?
Has the Commonwealth the power, constitutionally, to compel the States to carry out a progressive and uniform land policy ; if it has not, have the States the power, by simply doing nothing, to destroy the immigration policy of the Federal Government?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

No, except that such a proposal was mentioned at a recent deputation from the unemployed.
In a recent letter to the Premier of New South Wales on the subject of promoting immigration I said, “ The matter of special advertising for the purpose of securing a continuous influx of desirable settlers requires to be dealt with always with the view of bringing out no more immigrants than the States can absorb. What that number is in each State must be the first factor in our calculations,” but added that I did not regard the number of assisted immigrants arriving in Australia as indicative of anything approaching the absorbing powers of the’ Commonwealth.
Yes, in association with other attractions.
Yes, when the Commonwealth acquires territory.
The Commonwealth has no power to dictate a land policy to the States. With regard to the second part of the question, I said in a letter to the Premier of New South Wales on the 6th March last : “ Whatever course you may think fit to adopt in New South Wales, the responsibility of the Commonwealth will not be reduced, though it may be increased, by an attitude of indifference on the part of the States. The peremptory need of Australia today is population, and we shall require to adapt our policies and our legislation to that end.”

page 1417

QUESTION

CONTRACT IMMIGRANTS ACT AMENDMENT

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– I move -

That the Contract Immigrants Act should be amended so as to prevent the employment of coloured or Asiatic labour upon or in connexion with ships in Commonwealth ports during the time of industrial disturbance.

The Parliament has not hesitated to go as far as it has deemed desirable, necessary, and proper, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it. by paragraph xxvii. of section 51 of the Constitution, in pursuance of which it has passed the Immigration Restriction Act, the Pacific Island Labourers Act, and the Contract Immigrants Act. Under the Immigration Restriction Act, No. 17 of 1 90 1, as amended by the Act of 1905, power is taken to exclude from the Commonwealth “ any person who fails to pass the dictation test.” There were exempted from the operation of those Acts the master and crew of any public vessel of any Government ; and the master and crew of any other vessel landing during the stay of the vessel in any port of the Commonwealth, the intention being entirely confined to preventing the landing of persons whom it is desired to exclude beyond the period of thestay of a vessel in port. The Contract Immigrants Act of 1905 has an entirely different purpose. It provides that every person who is under contract to perform manual labour in the Commonwealth must comply with certain conditions, and that the terms of his contract must be approved by the Minister. If it is made in contemplation of, or with a view of affecting an industrial dispute; if the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment are not as advantageous to the contract immigrant as are those current among workers of the same class here; or if the agreement is made before the contract immigrant lands in the Commonwealth, then the Minister may not approve of it. It is very clear that the intention of that statute is to prevent Australian workers being subjected to the competition of cheap labour from other countries, and in particular to protect them from Asiatics and coloured labour. Under the White Australia policy we have declared very emphatically, and, I think, with the indorsement of nine out of every “ten persons in the Commonwealth, that the competition of coloured labour is undesirable.

Under the Contract Immigrants Act, or other statutes which seek to secure the same object, we have not distinguished between one industry and another.. We do not say, for instance, that competition from abroad with bootmakers is undesirable, but that competition with carters or seamen is permissible. We extend the prohibition to all industries, and the protection, whatever it is, covers the whole sphere of industry. That being so, we haveto consider how the Act operates. If, during the existence of a strike amongst carriers, there came into a Commonwealth port a vessel having on board persons who were willing, and conceivably capable, of performing the work usually done here by those on strike, there can be no doubt that they would not be permitted to land to take the place of the strikers. A contract of employment is not necessarily a written one. By far the greater number are not evidenced by one line of writing. A man goes to another, and says - “ I wish to work for you “ -and after a few words have been exchanged as to the rates of wages, and hours of duty he is engaged. That procedure has always been regarded as sufficient. Let us assume, therefore, that a vessel comes into the port of Melbourne during the existence of a carter’s strike, and that there are on board that vessel a number of passengers or sailors who profess their readiness to take the place of those on strike. In the circumstances, I submit that the Contract Immigrants Act would apply, and that they would not be permitted to take the place of the strikers. The Immigration Restriction Act could and ought to be applied in the same way. Let us assume that there is a. strike amongst sail and tent makers, and that seamen on board a vessel that has come into port, and is to be laid up for three or six months, as often happens, are ready to take on the work of sail -making. Let us assume that they are quite capable, as most seamen are, of doing such work, and that application is made to the skipper for permission to engage a number of them, whilst the vessel is inport, to enable the completion of some work of the kind. Compliance with such an application would be, I contend, a distinct violation of the spirit of the Act. I wish to bring my illustration a little nearer the point that I desire to reach, and to see how this legislation affects persons engaged in loading and unloading ships. The loading and discharging of vessels is as much an Australian industry as is the making of boots, clothes, pianos, or ‘anything else. It is an industry performed by Australians in Australia. The fact that part of the work is per- formed on ships belonging to persons in other countries is not at all to the point, nor does it affect my position in the slightest degree, because it cannot affect our right and power to regulate the conditions under which contracts of employment must be made and carried out in this country. Suppose that a foreign-owned ship goes into a clock of any sort for repairs. There are ship painters, dockers, shipwrights, boilermakers, and engineers, and so on, working on the ship. Every one of those men is < working on a ship belonging to subjects of another country. Yet every one of them would object in the strongest possible way if it were proposed to take from a ship’s company an engineer, and to say to him : “ Now that the ship is in Mort’s dock, go and work on her.” There would not during an industrial disturbance be one on the dock who, under such circumstances, would turn to. In this country, unionists have gone to the extent of declining to allow Australians in other trades to encroach upon their particular industry. A shipwright, for instance, will complain if the work which properly belongs to a shipwright is done bv a ship’s joiner, and vice versa; and particularly will an engineer complain if that part of the work which belongs to his trade is done by a boilermaker, or vice versa. When a ship is taken into a dock she is regarded in the light of an ordinary job - just as if she were so much metal, wood, and brass lying about in readiness to build a ship. I venture to say that this legislation must apply to all industries without any exception. I come now to an industry which begins and ends with the loading and discharging of ships, as regards both coal and general cargo. In coaling, as well as in loading and discharging, some men work on the ship, some men work on a collier, or in a punt or drogher alongside the ship, and some men work on the wharf. All these men are equally engaged in loading and discharging or coaling the ship. Suppose that during a time of industrial disturbance a ship manned exclusively by coloured labour comes to this port, it mav be that both parties to the dispute are resolved to submit it to a Court of Arbitration. When the ship applies for men in the usual way either to coal, or to load or discharge cargo, she is told that as there is a strike in pro- gress, she cannot get any men. Then the agent or the manager says: “Very well; wo will put on our crew,” and accordingly they put on, say, 200 men, and coal the ship. I understand that during a comparatively recent trouble, an offer was made to assist other vessels out of their difficulty by coaling them with alien labour. Now, the owner of a ship has no more right to be relieved of the consequence of an industrial disturbance than has the owner of a warehouse on shore. There is no immunity attaching to a ship-owner which ought not to attach to every person in the country. A ship-owner must comply with our navigation law, else he cannot make use of our ports. There is before another place a Bill iti which it is proposed to exclude from participation in the advantages of trading on our coast all vessels which do not comply with local conditions - that is, including rates of wages and conditions of labour. Now a vessel is permitted under the Immigration Restriction Act to carry on its business with alien labour, but it is not permitted to land that labour on the wharf until the captain has entered into a certain bond. It was surely never intended that these alien labourers should enter into competition with our own citizens. Yet after the security has been given, these men are permitted to land and to load ox discharge, not their own vessel, but any vessel. They are in Commonwealth territory and carrying on part of the functions of our industrial machine. It is only an accident, and a negligible accident, that they happen to be on a ship which belongs to subjects of another country. Handling cargo on the wharf, lighter, collier, hulk or ship, is just as much part of the industry as is the putting on of a sole,, cutting out of the upper and finishing, parts of the bootmaking industry. Exactly the same division of labour marks the operations of the two sets of men I refer to. I submit that to permit persons who are engaged on a ship, simply because they happen to be sailors and bound to obey the lawful commands of their officers, to do that which we prohibit all other men from doing, is to penalize one particular industry and declare that it alone must be exposed to foreign competition. We have gone to considerable trouble, and taken a great deal of money out of the pockets of the people, to protect 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, of those who are engaged in the industries of Australia. I do not tie myself down to accuracy, but I venture to say that there must be excluded from the operation of any protective Tariff here all shearers, agricultural labourers, seamen, waterside workers, persons engaged in the building trades, and many others. They cannot possibly hope to gain those direct and real benefits which come from a protective Tariff in the trades where it operates.

Mr Deakin:

– Of course, they can share indirectly in the benefits.

Mr HUGHES:

– One of the indirect benefits consists in paying the extra price for the other fellow. While the benefits which one derives are direct and obvious, the benefits derived by the other are indirect, and not at all obvious. While we say to men engaged in the boot industry, “ We will protect you from competition by taxing the goods of other countries, and by preventing persons coming from those countries to manufacture boots here during an industrial disturbance,” we say to the wharf labourers, coal lumpers, and seaman, “You must be exposed to all the competition, both coloured and white, that may happen to be brought against you.” That is a most unfair condition of things, and I am certain that it does not represent the intention of the Legislature. If the Act as it stands, permits this sort of thing, I say most emphatically that we have not exhausted our power to make it operative in the direction which I seek. If we have exhausted our power in that connexion, it is time that we sought an amendment of the Constitution, with a view to obtaining further power.

Mr Bamford:

– The Government confess that they have no power to do what the honorable member seeks to accomplish.

Mr HUGHES:

– I shall listen very carefully to what the Government may have to say upon the question of whether or not we have exhausted our power. If they contend that we have no power to do what I suggest, and if we) act upon such an expression of opinion, I claim that we shall be taking a very unusual course, and one which has not previously been followed. We all know that it has been the practice of the Government to take action in any desired direction, irrespective of whether they possessed the necessary constitutional power, and to allow the High Court to determine the validity of a Statute. But apparently they now intend to anticipate the decision of that tribunal by declaring that they have no power to act in the direction I have indicated. If they can establish that position, I demand such an amendment of the Constitution as will place the persons whom I represent in this matter upon a level with every other workman in the country. Why should one set of individuals be protected against the competition of coloured labour, whilst another set is exposed to that competition? Why should one class of persons be permitted to engage in an industrial struggle, with the full knowledge that nothing unforeseen can disturb the conditions of the local market - with whose factors they are perfectly acquainted - whilst the waterside workers may be at any moment exposed to competition, the nature of which they cannot foresee? Under the circumstances, I contend that vessels ought not to be permitted during times of industrial disturbance to undertake, with the aid of their crews, work which is usually performed by citizens of Australia. I do not care whether those citizens are wharf labourers, painters, engineers, or bootmakers. They should all enjoythe same measure of protection, and if the law does not allow us to extend it to them, we should amend the Constitution so as to permit of it. Of course, it may be held that under such circumstances, no contract exists, and so the Contract Immigrants Act cannot apply. But I do not think that the facts bear out this contention. I understand that the person who superintends the stevedoring and coaling of ships is usually an independent contractor. Some ships are stevedored direct by the shipowners, but in the great majority of cases they are stevedored by an independent contractor at so much per ton, or so much per hour. And the coaling of all foreigngoing ships is performed by contract. Let us assume, then, that a number of persons are under contract with the owner or charterer of a vessel to discharge certain duties incidental to its navigation. Upon their arrival in Sydney or Melbourne, let us suppose that another person who usually coals that ship with certain of his employes, has a dispute with those employes, and is unable to get a supply of labour. Let us further suppose that he goes to the ship-owner or the charterer of the vessel, and says to him, “Willyou lend me your men to coal your vessel?” If the ship-owner or charterer consents to do so, I venture to say there is no earthly doubt that a contract for the performance of manual labour has been made which is forbidden by the

Contract Immigrants Act, section 5 of which says -

The Minister shall approve the terms of the contract only…..

if in his opinion -

the contract is not made in contemplation of or with a view of affecting an industrial dispute ; and

there is difficulty in the employers obtaining within the Commonwealth a worker of at least equal skill and ability (but this paragraph does not apply where the contract immigrant is a British subject either born in the United Kingdom or descended from a British subject there born).

Ifa “ British subject “ includes a native of India, all I have to say is that it has been the invariable practice to limit the opera- tion of the Immigration Restriction Act to coloured persons. I submit, therefore, that the provision contained in paragraph b would never be acted upon with a view to permitting a coloured person to claim exemption from the operation of the Act. Under the conditions Ihave indicated there is clearly a contract entered into by immigrants to perform manual labour in this country - a contract other than that made between them and their original employer. As this work is almost invariably done by shore labour, if their original employer asks the crew to do it, in effect a fresh contract of employment is made, because an order to do such work is not one of those lawful commands that were contemplated at the time of making the original contract. If it was contemplated at that time, the employer must have had in his mind the possibility of an industrial dispute. If he did have that in his mind, it was a contract within the meaning of the section, which makes Ministerial approval of the contract conditional upon its not. being made - in contemplation of or with a view of affecting an industrial dispute.

The set of facts upon which I am moving related to the coaling of a vessel. That is work which is invariably undertaken by an independent contractor at so much per ton, to deliver coal for the purpose of taking the steamer to its port of destination. The coloured or coolie crew of the vessel did the coaling, and so were, temporarily at any rate, servants performing manual labour for a contractor, and the contract was made in the Commonwealth. If it was not, if they were working directly for their old employer, if no fresh contract was made for that particular purpose, and the old contract covered it, it must have been a contract made in contemplation of the industrial trouble.

Mr Groom:

– Are those crews paid extra by the contractor under a special contract?

Mr HUGHES:

– I could not say, and in any case I submit that the payment has nothing to do with the question. The honorable and learned member knows that any further inducement held out to seamen to do something not included in their contract could not be recovered. I could not say whether such an inducement is held out, nor do I know whether in this particular case the crew worked for their principal employer, or for an independent contractor. In my opinion that is not material. Section 4 of the Australian Industries Preservation Act of 1906 provides -

Any person who, either as principal or as agent, makes or enters into any contract, or is or continues to be a member of or engages in any combination in relation to trade or commerce with other countries or among the States -

With intent to destroy or injure by means of unfair competition any Australian industry, the preservation of which is advantageous to the Commonwealth, having due regard to the interests of producers, workers, and consumers. is guilty of an offence.

Penalty : Five hundred pounds.

Every contract made or entered into in contravention of this section shall be absolutely illegal and void.

That Act was passed in pursuance of the trade and commerce power given by subsection 1 of section 51 of the Constitution. I do not say that it will apply , to this particular case, but in it there is clearly a power to prevent anybody, whether in the country or out of it, from doing something which has the effect of injuring or destroying any Australian industry by means of unfair competition. This is an Australian industry ; competition by coloured labour must inevitably injure it, and tend to destroy it; such competition exposes those in the industry to most unfair competition, and cannot be advantageous to the Commonwealth “ having due regard to the interests of producers, workers, and consumers.” Although it may be held that it is very desirable that the ship should get away, and that if labour cannot be obtained here the ship has a perfect right to employ her own crew in order to get away, still there is the Act. It is a hardship to individuals if you like, but the law takes no cognisance of hardships to individuals. It has regard only to the general effect of legislation. No doubt every Act that is passed involves hardship to individuals. With the generality of legislation it must inevitably be so, but the intention of this legislation is clearly and unmistakably to exclude competition coming from foreign countries, particularly during periods of industrial disturbance. I ask the Government to declare, first, whether, in their opinion, the Act as it stands can deal with that matter - which I doubt - or whether, failing that, they have power under the Constitution as it stands to provide for it. I think they have ample power to do so. They may say that they have doubts, but it is to be noted that when they had no doubts at all they went on cheerfully with legislation which the High Court just as cheerfully vetoed. The Government have gone on most enthusiastically passing Acts of Parliament of the most comprehensive character, apparently for no other purpose than to provide a chopping block for the exercise of the ingenuity and judicial foresight of the High Court. I want to know what the Government propose to do in the matter. I think that it is unsatisfactory that such a considerable body of men - numbering many thousands - should be exposed to competition over which they have no control, while every other workman in the Commonwealth is safeguarded.

Mr Crouch:

– Does the honorable member intend the motion to apply only to nonresident Asiatics ? If not, what about those who are already in the Commonwealth ?

Mr HUGHES:

– I take it that the context shows that the motion is intended to apply only to non-residents. I thought that would be understood in any case.

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · Protectionist

– The motion of the honorable member for West Sydney only came under my notice just before lunch today, and I must admit that I have not had time to look into the matter with the closeness which would enable one to speak with any degree of authority. The subject is one that demands serious consideration.

Mr Reid:

– Has the motion only just been placed upon the notice-paper?

Mr GROOM:

– No, but it only came under my notice to-day. I take it that the honorable member for West Sydney does not desire to stand strictly and literally by the wording of the motion, but that he desires it to be considered in a comprehensive sense. He desires, as I understand him, that Asiatics shall not come out to Australia as members of crews of vessels, and be permitted, while their ships are in Australian waters during a time of industrial disturbance, to come ashore or go into lighters and do work which would be otherwise done by men employed in Australia. I take it that that is the honorable member’s meaning.

Mr Hughes:

– Quite true.

Mr GROOM:

– Strictly speaking, the motion refers only to labour done upon, or in connexion with, a ship, but I take it that the honorable member intends to deal with the broad principle. It is true, as the honorable member has said, that this Parliament has already considered the question of persons coming to Australia under contract with a view of affecting industrial disturbances. Undoubtedly the policy of this Parliament has been not to encourage - in fact, to prohibit - the introduction of immigrants under contract, where a strike is in contemplation, or with a view of affecting an industrial dispute. Parliament has expressed that general policy. Speaking personally, I think that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the position which the honorable member has submitted, because undoubtedly the intention of Parliament was that immigrants should not be allowed to be introduced with a view of affecting any industrial disturbance whether on a wharf, or in a factory, or in the back parts of the country. If immigrants do come into Australia under contract to perform services in connexion with what I may call wharf work, their introduction is in contravention of the policy of the Act. I ask the House to remember that our immigration legislation deals with two subjects. First of all, under the Immigration Restriction Act, we exercise what I may call a Commonwealth police power of keeping out of Australia all undesirable immigrants, including coloured immigrants. But under the Contract Immigrants Act, we deal with a special class of labour relating to those who come to Australia under contract to perform manual labour. The whole of our legislation contained in those two Statutes is based upon our power to deal with immigration, but as yet we have had no authoritative interpretation of what constitutes immigration under the Constitution. The matter recently came before the High Court in Minahan’s case, when the Chief Justice said-

Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in the case of Chia Gee v. Martin (3 C.L.R., 649), where it was said that entry without proof of an animus manendi was sufficient evidence of immigration.

That is to mv, the mere fact of> his coming in without proof of his intention to remain would constitute immigration -

In that case the question was whether it was necessary for the prosecutor to establish an animus manendi ; and it was held that it was not necessary. The question whether every person entering the Commonwealth is an immi grant was not considered.

The view taken by Sir Edmund Barton when he was administering the Department of External Affairs, and also the view taken by the then Attorney-General, the present Prime Minister, and by the late Mr. Kingston, was that the crews of vessels landing during the stay of the vessel and doing certain work ashore were not immigrants and did not come within the prohibition. That is the present position. The Contract Immigrants Act deals with persons who come into Australia as immigrants under contract ; and the essence of being under contract involves an intention to remain to perform the contract. But so far it has not been decided whether mere entry into the Commonwealth does constitute immigration. Section 8 of the Act says -

The two last preceding sections do not apply to an immigrant under a contract or agreement to serve as part of the crew of a vessel engaged in the coasting trade in Australian waters, if. the rates of wages specified therein are not lower than the rates ruling in the Commonwealth.

Mr Reid:

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I am coming to the point. It is the honorableand learned gentleman who needs to bebrought to the point. He always seeks to attain his ends by devious courses, and he is at present trying to discount my remarks by a similar method.

Mr Deakin:

– ‘The honorable member should read the motion.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– What the honorable and learned member for. West Sydney asks us to affirm is -

That the Contract Immigrants Act should be amended so as to prevent the employment of coloured or Asiatic labour upon or in connexion wilh ships in Commonwealth ports during thetime of industrial disturbance.

page 1431

PUBLIC SERVICE CAP PEALS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from1st October (vide page 656), on motion by Mr. Hughes -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– - On the last occasion, when the Bill was before the House, I said that apparently the honorable member for West Sydney was seized of the fact that there is great discontent with the present constitution of the Appeal Board. I pointed out that while the employes in a Department are represented by one elected member on the Appeal Board, the Department is represented by the Public Service Inspector, and its permanent head. In my opinion the Appeal Board ought to possess three qualifications. In the first place, it should be impartial ; it ought to be beyond suspicion, and to command the full confidence of the service and the public. I want honorable members to consider whether it possesses those qualities. I maintain that it is not impartial, for the reason that the Public Service Commissioner insists upon uniformity being observed in the Public Service, and that consequently the moment that the Public Service Inspector goes to adjudicate on an appeal he has to bear that fact in mind. The question of justice does not enter into His consideration at all. The Appeal Board is not impartial. In the next place, whatever its finding may be, it has to be remitted to the Commissioner, who possesses the power of veto. As he has indorsed the recommendation of the Public Service Inspector, who usually acts on the recommendation of the head of the Department, who also sits on an appeal, if the Board comes to a different conclusion the Public Service Inspector has to admit that he had recommended an irregular appointment, or done an injustice to an officer of the Department. I do not think that the Commissioner - or even the Inspector - on mature consideration, is likely to admit that what he did was wrong. The consequence is that having the power he will at once say, “ The appointment I made in the first place was quite in accordance with the merits of the officer.” I do not think that the history of the service will show that, in every instance, officers have been dealt with justly. The head of a Department has his favourites. If he desires a certain officer to be promoted to a vacant position he informs the Inspector that that officer is the most qualified to fill it, and the Inspector reports accordingly to the Commissioner, who, since ‘his duties extend over the whole of the Commonwealth, cannot possibly make himself acquainted with the work of the officers in all branches of the service. He is dependent upon the advice of the Public Service Inspectors, who, in their turn, are dependent upon the advice tendered to them by the heads of Departments. Only to-day, I asked when the Public Service Inspectors in Victoria, New South Wales, and South Australia, had examined the work of all the officers in those States. The reply which I received was not satisfactory, because I am sure that, in one of those States, no examination of. the work performed by all officers has taken place during the past live years.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– In what respect was the reply given to the honorable member unsatisfactory ?

Mr HUTCHISON:

– The reply stated that the’ Inspectors had made themselves familiar with the work of the officers of the various Departments. It did not say when they had done so.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I will answer the honorable member now, if I may be permitted to interject. The reply is that an examination of the work of the whole service for classification purposes took place in 1903-4, and, since then, it has been continuous, and where circumstances have warranted it, a special examination has been made.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Perhaps the Minister will be surprised to learn that in one State there has been no examination of the work performed by the whole of the officers for at least five years. Yet the Public Service Inspector in that State sits upon the Boards which deal with appeals in regard to promotions. How can he possibly give an unbiased opinion upon work with which he cannot possibly be familiar? This Board ought to possess the confidence of the Department, and of the public, but it cannot do so whilst injustices are perpetrated throughout the service. I could mention the names of officers who have been unjustly treated, but, inasmuch as they are not permitted to exercise political influence, I shall refrain from doing so. Were I to publicly announce their names, they would, doubtless, be penalized for having committed a breach of the Public Service Regulations. I could cite numerous instances in which junior officers have been promoted over the heads of their seniors, notwithstanding that the latter possessed undeniable qualifications. The; stereotyped reply given to appeals in this connexion in the case of telegraphists is as follows -

No appeal lies in connexion with the advancement of telegraphists previously their juniors to the fourth class, and the expert judgment of the Department does not support their claims to be regarded as equal in telegraphic ability to the officers who have been promoted.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Then the case I cite is only one of many and such a state of affairs ought not to be possible in the Commonwealth service. Men who are unfairly treated cannot be expected to give the best that is in them to their work. Further, I know that officers have objected in vain to be classed in certain divisions, on the ground that the new work was entirely clerical, and that they were made subordinate to the superintendent of the mail branch. The result of such classification was a promotion that effected a small saving to the Department, the others being denied the maximum salary they were entitled to reach. Indeed, I may say that the officers so classified were led to accept the new position by misrepresentation, and, in their own language, felt that they had been “ sold.” In a case in South Australia, it was the Public Service Inspector who advised the officers to accept the classification, but, as I have said, they found they were “ sold,” because they were denied the increase of salary to which they were entitled had they remained in ‘their old position. There was one officer who had been over a quarter of a century in the service, and possessed splendid educational and practical qualifications. He had a wide knowledge of postal work, and in addition was a competent telegraphist, shorthand writer and typist; but, in spite of all, the promotion was given to a clerk in the correspondence branch, who had had no experience whatever in practical work. I do not see how an officer can be expected to sit still, and do his work with satisfaction, when he is labouring under such a sense of injustice.

– . The honorable gentleman said -

The Board of Appeal must inquire into the merits of other officers.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– That is where the honorable member stopped, but I added the words “ who may be affected.”

Mr Mathews:

– That is fair ; that is what they should do.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The honorable member for Hindmarsh did not complete the quotation.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– It was scarcelynecessary that I should do so. If that were the procedure adopted it would, no doubt, be fair. But do the Boards of Appeal do anything of the kind? Instead of inquiring into the merits of other officers an appeal is refused, and a reply sent back that no appeal lies. I have taken good care to fairly quote what the Minister has said. I have so far failed to elicit from the honorable gentleman by whose authority any officer is empowered to say that no appeal lies, when under section 50 of the Public Service Act we provide that an appeal shall lie.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Section 50 provides for certain limited appeals only.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– It gives no power whatever to any officer to say that he shall refuse to hear an appeal whilst it gives power- to appeal to all officers who feel that any injustice has been done them in the matter of promotion. It reads -

Any officer (except officers of the Parliament) affected by any report or recommendation made or action taken under this Act other than a report or a recommendation made or action taken under section .thirty-one, forty-six to forty-nine inclusive, sixty-five, sixty-six, and seventy-three thereof - which deal with matters other than promotion - may in such manner and in such time as may be prescribed appeal to a Board consisting of an inspector, the chief officer of the Department to which such officer belongs or an officer nominated by such chief officer and the representative of the division to which such officer belongs elected under the regulations by the officers of the division to which such officer belongs in the State in which that officer performs his duties. The Board shall hear such appeal and transmit the evidence taken together with a recommendation thereon to the Commissioner who shall thereupon determine such appeal. Providing that in the case of reports of recommendation made by the Commissioner to the Governor-General, all such ap. peals must be taken before the report and recommendations are dealt with by the GovernorGeneral under the provisions of this Act -

Will the Minister tell me to what section of the Act I must turn to discover where power is given to the Public Service Commissioner to say that no appeal lies?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

In Committee of Supply

Debate resumed from 14th October (vide page 1 181.) on motion by Sir William Lyne -

That the item “ The President, £1,100,” be agreed to.

– I believe that locomotives are produced there as cheaply as they could be obtained elsewhere.

Mr FISHER:

– The report- the second - that I read, was to the effect that there was a saving of 21 per cent. There we have a State monopoly where the workmen get better wages, the apprentices are better paid, the conditions of labour are better than those offered by outsidefirms, and yet an article can be turned out there for the rest of the people - the consumers -at a cheaper rate than is charged by private enterprise. Why, if the workmen have improved conditions in every way, and the consumer gets the article cheaper, should we be afraid to give that advantage to the people? Why should we fear to take steps to provide better conditions of employment and at the same time a cheaper article for the general public?

Even taking the statement of the honorable member for Flinders, that the article is produced at as low a price as that at which it can be obtained elsewhere–

The provision for fair and reasonable remuneration is obviously designed for the benefit of the employes in the industry ; and it must be meant to secure to them something which they cannot get by the ordinary system of individual bargaining with employers. If Parliament meant that the conditions shall be such as they can get by individual bargaining - if it meant that those conditions are to be fair and reasonable, which employes will accept and employers will give, in contracts of service - there would have been no need for this provision. The remuneration could safely have been left to the usual, but unequal, contest, the “ higgling of the market “ for labour, with the pressure for bread on one side and the pressure for profits on the other. The standard of “ fair and reasonable “ must therefore be something else; and I cannot think of any other standard appropriate than the normal needs of the average employe, regarded as a human being living in a civilized community.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What are the “ normal needs “ of any individual at any time?

Mr FISHER:

– I shall answer that question by reading the schedule -

page 1451

QUESTION

THE EXCISE TARIFF STANDARD FOR TIME-WORK

The following conditions as to remuneration of labour are declared to be fair and reasonable, for the purposes of the Excise Tariff 1906, for persons employed on time-work in the manufactures referred to in the Act, if (except as provided in Part IX. with regard to lorrydrivers and carters) their hours of work do not exceed eight hours per day or 83/4 hours on five days in the week and 41/4 on the sixth day, or if (except as aforesaid) there be some other similar distribution of hours adopted for the purpose of securing a weekly half-holiday on the basis of an eight hours day.

– The schedule proceeds -

Part VI. - Boys (not apprenticed) -

Part VII. - Young Journeymen -

Class A.

Rate : not less than two-thirds of the minimum prescribed for journeymen.

Class B.

Rate : not less for the first year than fiveeighths and for the second than threefourths of the minimum prescribed for journeymen.

Part VIII.- Exception to Parts I. to VII.-

Any old slow or infirm worker licensed to work at a lower rate(a) by the Registrar of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration or (i) under section 99 of the Factories and Shops Act 1905 (No. 2) of Victoria (or any substitution therefor), if the licence be approved by the said Registrar.

Part IX. - Overtime -

At the rate of time and a quarter for two hours, time and a half for the next two hours, and double time afterwards.

Double time on Sundays and Christmas Day, New Year’s Day, Good Friday, and Eight Hours Day.

Overtime to be reckoned separately for each day from the usual time for beginning or ceasing work, and without regard to any time off on other days.

Part X. - Definitions.

– At the moment, I am not concerned about the kind of boats we are to obtain for our naval defence, so much as to publicly recognise the policy advocated by the honorable member for South Sydney, at a time when it was not at all popular, and was, in fact, quite out of touch with thegeneral feeling in this

– I am not as skilled as the honorable member for Dalley, and some other honorable members, in suggesting methods of blocking discussion, but I can conceive that it would be easily possible for either the leader of the Government or the leader of the Opposition, under the existing Standing Orders, to block every useful discussion. I respectfully move -

That the ruling of Mr. Chairman, namely - That the Committee is not entitled to- discuss the naval defence policy of the Government, notwithstanding the fact that a number of items affecting naval defence appear in the Estimates -be dissented from.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Wide Bay has moved dissent from my ruling, “ That the Committee is not entitled to discuss the naval defence policy of the Government.” Let me say that that was not my ruling. I ruled distinctly that the honorable member was not entitled to anticipate a question already on the paper - that the honorable member would be out of order in discussing the details of naval matters, owing to the fact that a certain amendment, dealing with that subject, is already on the business-paper. Standing order 274 distinctly says -

No member shall digress from the subjectmatter of any question under discussion; nor anticipate the discussion of any other subject which appears on the notice-paper.

No member shall digress from the subjectmatter of any question under discussion.

Mr Deakin:

– That would be hard to enforce.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It must be considered a counsel of perfection rather than a hard and fast rule, and in the Budget debate must be applied with the utmost laxity, honorable members being left perfectly free to deal with the principles and policy of every political party. This freedom has led, and may lead to long debates; but it is the inherent right of any member during the discussion of the Budget. Therefore, I think the leader of the Labour Party was justified in asking for the decision of the Committee for future guidance. We should settle whether we are to have the fullest liberty in the discussion of the Budget to deal with every question of policy in all its aspects. To limit us would be to depart from the traditions of not only the House of Commons, but the Parliaments of the States, and from the practice of this Parliament.

Mr Chanter:

– There is a principle at stake in this discussion. The question which we are now asked to determine has cropped up previously, and has been ruled upon by other presiding officers, it having always been held here, as in the Parliaments ot the States, that, the Budget debate being practically a discussion of grievances, differs from all others in that those taking part in it may discuss in the freest manner possible every question of policy involved in the proposals of the Government. It is true that if the Standing Orders were strictly applied this would not be possible, and the Budget debate would have to be very soon brought to an end, because so many questions have been anticipated by proposals on the notice-paper. But the practice has been to allow the widest latitude, other Chairmen, and even Mr. Speaker, having held that the fullest liberty must be conceded to every speaker. On Tuesday last the honorable member for Corio took exception to the precedence given to a motion of no confidence, and his point, that precedence should not have been given, would have been incontrovertible, bad the matter to be determined only by reference to the Standing Orders. But Mr. Speaker ruled, as I think you, sir, will rule now. that the usage of Parliament must also be considered. The Standing Orders provide certain rules for the conduct of debates : but if they were administered with absolute strictness, they would prove unworkable. There must be exceptions, of which the Budget debate and motions challenging the existence of a Government afford examples. According to the usage of Parliament, members, when the Budget is being discussed, must have the freest opportunity to deal with all questions of policy, and I believe that you, sir, will regard it as your duty to rule that that is so.

Colonel Foxton. - If new protection is a subject which, may be discussed by the leader of the Labour Party under the practice to which you, sir, have referred as governing the discussion of the financial policy of the Government, any other question of policy must be similarly open’ to discussion. According to May, nth edition, page 315 -

Debate must not stray from the question before the House to matters whicli have been decided during the current session, nor anticipate a matter appointed for the consideration of the House. For instance, upon a motion for the appointment of a Committee upon the game laws, a member was restrained from criticising the provisions of certain Bills before the House for the amendment of those laws ; though when Bills, in the charge of the Government, dealing with subjects bound together by a common principle, stand in a series upon the notice-paper, debate upon the first Bill may include therein a discussion of the Bills of a cognate character.

If bv general consent we are to have, on the first item of the Budget, a general discussion on the financial proposals of the Government, then everything that could possibly appear upon the business paper may be1 said to be bound up with the question that is admittedly before the Committee. A’ general financial discussion embraces, practically, every subject. I think that, having regard to this authority on the interpretation of the rule against anticipation, the honorable member for Wide Bay is quite in order.

Mr Fisher:

– I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in accordance with what is evidently the desire of the Committee, you should allow the scope of the debate to be widened. Since I spoke last, another illustration in support of my contention has occurred to me. There is on the noticepaper the Manufactures Encouragement Bill, and we find in the Budget statement proposals relating to the iron bounty, for which that Bill provides. Then we have the proposal to appoint a Royal ‘Commission to inquire into the business conducted by life insurance! companies in Australia, and a Bill to amend the Public Service Act is also on the notice-paper. I doubt whether, under your ruling, sir, it would be: competent for us to discuss any of those matters during this debate. In fairness to you, sir, I should like to say that under a literal reading of the standing, order your view is no doubt correct. But: I point out that a debate on the Budget could be rendered impossible by crowding the notice-paper with measures relating to-, every conceivable subject. A sense of public duty suggests that the broadest opportunities for discussing a Budget statement should be permitted, and, I think, sir, that it would be well for you to accept what appears to be the generalopinion of the Committee, that a wider reading be given of the standing order bearing on this point.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I would remind the Committee that I have, first of all, tobe guided by the Standing Orders, and that it is my duty to endeavour to keep the debate within proper limits. It appears to me that if a general discussion were allowed, we might have a repetition of debates that have already taken place upon measures now on the noticepaper.We have had, for instance, a lengthy debate on the motion for the; second reading of the Defence Bill, and if the course suggested by the honorable member were adopted, that measure could be discussed over and over again in connexion with the Budget. If I am not to stand by the interpretation of the standing order which I have given, there can be no limitation of the debate, and any measure that appears on the business-pap;r may be discussed over and over again. If the Committee, however, desire fuller opportunities to discuss the Budget, I have no wish’ to press the ruling I have given.

Honorable Members. - Hear, bear.

Sir William Lyne:

– Having delivered several Budget statements in. the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, and in this House, I should like, sir, to make a suggestion. In the State Parliament it was the custom - and I was not aware; that it had been departed from in this House - to allow a general debate on the first item moved by the Treasurer, at the conclusion of his Budget speech. That item having bean dealt with, however, a general discussion was not allowed on any other item. I suggest, that it would be convenient to follow that practice. The Government do not wish in any way to curtail the debate, and although I believe that you, sir, have given a ruling that is technically correct, I think that the practice I have mentioned is a wholesome one.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Does the honorable member for Wide Bay desire leave to withdraw his motion?

Mr Fisher:

– I do, sir, on the understanding that the wider scope for which we ask is to be granted.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr FISHER:

Mr Groom:

– That was in 1901.

Mr FISHER:

– The pamphlet from which I am quoting is entitled The Voice of Queensland Agricultural Societies, and is dated Brisbane, 1901. The resolutions which it contains provide as much amusement as would a comic opera, but I shall content myself with quoting those adopted by the Pioneer Farmers’ Association, Mackay, which are typical of many others. They are as follow : -

. That this association, consisting principally of small cane farmers, after many attempts during the past ten years to grow sugar entirely with white labour, find it impossible to do so successfully because of physical causes,It is distinctly a climatic and not a financial, difficulty, and one which money cannot cope with.
The Kanaka Bill now before the Commonwealth Parliament will, if carried into effect, seriously diminish the production of sugar in Queensland, and on a large portion of the NorthEast coast there is no other agricultural industry under such legislation that cantake its place.
That the proposed legislation, if it be comes law, may benefita few large mill-owners in the south of Queensland and New South Wales, while at the same time, ruining a small number of small growers in North Queensland, many of whom, in good faith, and on the understanding that there would be no sudden alteration in the existing labour conditions, and that kanaka introduction would not be abolished until a sufficient substitute was provided mortgaged their homes as security for loans amounting to£1 , 500,000. This was expended in the erection of co-operative sugar mills. These mills will now, in many cases, be worth scrap iron.
The association protests against the treating of the sugar, tariff, and labour questions as one, maintaining that they are all quite distinct. As the Queensland sugar industry employs some men at high wages, men of European race, numbering with dependents about 28,000, besides affording a large market for southern manufacturers and producers, it also is exposed to the most severe competition of cane sugars grown and manufactured entirely with coloured labour, costing1s. a day in Java and Mauritius, and from European beet sugar produced with labour costing1s. and 2s. a day, and State subsidies by export bounties, it is most deserving of protection, apart from the fact that it also employs 9,000 kanakas. We also point out that under the Federal Tariff the cost of production will be considerably increased because of the new duties on implements and machinery. We also desire to have it clearly understood that the sugar industry in Queensland claims protection to counteract the bountyfed sugar and sugar produced wholly by cheap coloured labour, quite apart from the question of kanaka labour.

– As far as I am concerned, I simply try to speak my mind to the best of my ability. I know my limitations; I admit them. If I have one little conceit, it is that I am in earnest in what I believe, whether it be popular or not. I have never advocated a principle when popular, and abandoned it when it became unpopular. I have faced every difficulty ; and to-day I am prepared to meet any charges that may be made in relation to Socialism or anything of that kind.

Whatever opponents may say regarding the Labour Party, its programme or action, I pledge myself that, so long as I occupy the position I do now, no charge of immorality or danger to morality will ever be made against the opponents of my’ party. It will never be whispered by us outside that if the policy of the Opposition is adopted there will be danger of the violation of the home. Such charges will have no countenance from our party.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at xo.47 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 October 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1908/19081022_reps_3_47/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives22 October 1908

PETITION

QUESTION

NEW PROTECTION

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

CADET ENCAMPMENTS

Mr THOMAS BROWN:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr EWING:Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON

Mr HENRY WILLIS:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · PROT; LP from 1910

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr MAUGER:Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr CROUCH:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr FOWLER:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MAUGER:

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE INSPECTION

Mr McDONALD:KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

QUESTION

CITIZENS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Dr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr GROOM:Attorney-General · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF FRUIT

Mr McDOUGALL:WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr McDOUGALL:

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

CONTRACT IMMIGRANTS ACT AMENDMENT

Mr HUGHES:West Sydney

Mr Deakin:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Bamford:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Groom:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Crouch:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr GROOM:AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · Protectionist

Mr Reid:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Hughes:

Mr GROOM:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr GROOM:

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr GROOM:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr GROOM:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr GROOM:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr GROOM:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr GROOM:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr GROOM:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Page:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Page:

Mr GROOM:

Mr Page:

Mr GROOM:

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr GROOM:

House of Representatives
22 October 1908

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · PROT; LP from 1910

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr GROOM:
Attorney-General · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Mr McDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906