Senate
10 October 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
QUESTION
- BOOKS OFREFERENCE
QUESTION
- MILITARY SENATORS
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 5855

PETITIONS

Senator CHARLESTON presented a peti tion from the South Australian Conference of the Australian Wesleyan Methodist Church, praying that the Senate would reject the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill.

Senator Major GOULD presented a peti tion from the Standing Committee of the Synod of the Church of England for the Diocese of Sydney, containing a similar prayer.

Petitions received and read.

page 5855

QUESTION

BOOKS OFREFERENCE

Senator SirFREDERICKSARGOOD.Several times lately, Sir, senators have found it necessary to refer to May’s Parliamentary Practice, and they have had to send into the Library for a copy. I venture to suggest that it would be a very great convenience to honorable senators if two or three copies of May and Bourinot were placed within the Chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– I quite agree with the honorable senator that we ought to have in the Chamber copies of all the standard books of reference on parliamentary practice, including not only May and Bourinot, but also Todd, Cushing, Jefferson, and other books of a similar nature. With the approbation of the Senate, I. shall see that the books are procured. There is one difficulty, and that is, where are we to put them?

Senator O’Connor:

– In a stand on the table.

The PRESIDENT:

– The table is pretty well encumbered. We have room on the left of the chair, and I shall see what can be done. It has also been suggested - and I think it ought to be done - that we should have copies of the statutes of the States in the Chamber. The some difficulty crops up there ; but I shall endeavour to make the necessary arrangements.

page 5856

QUESTION

MILITARY SENATORS

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

– In view of the talk of rebellion in the Pastoralists’Review, does the Vice-President of the Executive Council know of anything in the State Acts which would prevent the Commonwealth from utilizing the services of the military senators - Major Gould, Lt.-Col. Neild, and Lt.-Col. Sargood - to preserve its integrity?

Senator Major Gould:

– What about the buccaneers?

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– I am on the retired list.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I think the honorable senator should give notice of a question of that sort.

page 5856

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

In Committee - (Consideration of amendments of House of Representatives resumed from 9th October, vide page 5799).

Clause 27 (Registration of newspapers).

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

– The House of Representatives has made several amendments in this clause. The clause, as it left the Senate, provided that the proprietor of a newspaper should register at the office of the Deputy Postmaster-General, and that the Deputy Postmaster-General might at any time refuse to register or remove from the register any newspaper which contained certain objectionable matter. It is considered that that would put rather too much power in the hands of the Deputy PostmasterGeneral, and would not sufficiently protect the rights of the newspaper proprietor. Therefore the clause has been amended so that the Deputy Postmaster-General shall have no power to refuse to register, but that if anything of an objectionable nature is published he may call upon the proprietor to show cause why the newspaper should not be removedfrom the register. After that the name may be removed, but an appeal is allowed to a justice of the

High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court of the State.

Senator Major Gould:

– Where is the clause providing for the appeal ?

Senator DRAKE:

– Perhaps it will be convenient if I read clause 27 as amended -

The proprietor, printer, or publisher of any newspaper may at such time and in such form, and with such particulars as may he prescribed, upon payment of a fee of 5s., register it at the General Post Office ofany State, and the Deputy Postmaster-General of such State may from time to time, subject to appeal as hereinafter mentioned, revise the register, and may call upon the proprietor, printer, or publisher of any publication a posted copy of which contains indecent or obscene matter, or which, by reason of the proportion of advertisements to other matter therein, or for any other reason is not within the description aforesaid, to show cause why such publication should not be removed from the register, and if sufficient cause be not shown he may remove it accordingly, and any publication for the time being on the register shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed a registered newspaper.
No publication which after the expiration of one month from the commencement of this Act is tendered for transmission at any post office in the Commonwealth shall be sent by post as a newspaper, unless the provisions of this section have been complied with.
Any Deputy Postmaster-General may refuse to transmit or deliver any issue of a publication if such issue contains indecent or obscene matter.
Any posted newspaper found to contain indecent or obscene matter may be destroyed by order of the Postmaster-General.
No action shall be brought against the Postmaster-General or any officer of the department for anything done or purporting to be done under the provisions of this section, but any person aggrieved by anything done or purporting to be done by the Postmaster-General or a Deputy Postmaster-General under this section may appeal to a Justice of the High Court or to a Judge of a Supreme Court of a State by summons or petition in a summary manner. The Justice or Judge may decide whether the action taken under this section was justified in law or in fact, and may make such order as to restoration to the register or otherwise as to him may seem just and may award damages and costs or either in this direction.
All unregistered or irregularly posted newspapers, and all newspapers having any matter which is not a supplement accompanyingthem, shall be treated as packets.

The clause as amended provides that, instead of the Deputy Postmaster-General having the power of striking a newspaper off the register, he can only call upon the proprietor to show cause. If the proprietor does not show sufficient cause, the newspaper may be struck off the register, but subject to an appeal to a justice of the High Court, or to a Judge of the Supreme Court, by summons or petition. There are one or two other alterations. The words “ seditious “ and “ blasphemous “ have been struck out. The reason is that it is extremely difficult to define what is “seditious” or “blasphemous.” The House of Representatives deem it sufficient to retain the words “obscene or indecent matter.” The clause has been practically re-drawn in consequence of the amendments made ; but though these are numerous, there is no other amendment of substance to which 1 need call attention.

Senator Sir John Downer:

-As I understand, the clause now provides that this power may be exercised only in respect of any publication containing indecent or obscene matter ; but a publication may contain slanderous, libellous, or seditious matter.

Senator DRAKE:
QUEENSLAND · PROT

– The alteration is in striking out the two words “seditious “ and “ blasphemous.”

Senator Major Gould:

– For what reason?

Senator DRAKE:

– So far asI can judge from the reports, because there is a very great difficulty in defining what is “ seditious “ and what is “ blasphemous.”

Senator Walker:

– “We know what “sedition “ is, surely !

Senator DRAKE:

– Every one knows that certain expressions are seditious, but it is extremely difficult to take any particular expression that is on the border line and say whether it is seditious or not. I move -

That the committee agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives inserting before the word “revise “ the words “subject to appeal as hereinafter mentioned.”

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– I think the committee may well agree that the particular amendment now under discussion is an improvement on the clause as it left the Senate. There was a great deal of difficulty raised by a number of honorable senators with regard to placing such uncontrolled power in the hands of the Deputy Postmaster-General without any appeal to a J ustice of the High Court of Australia, or a Judge of any Supreme Court. But this appeal has now been given, and I think the clause has been amended in a right direction.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– It was subject to appeal before.

Senator Major GOULD:

– Not so clearly. The clause calls upon a man whose newspaper is alleged to contain obscene or indecent matter to show cause, and if he is removed from the register’ he may appeal. I should like to say a few words with regard to the omission of the words “seditious” and “blasphemous.” There was a great deal of uneasy feeling, if I may so express it, amongst honorable senators as tohow those words would be interpreted. Onceitismadeperfectlyclearand certain that the interpretation is not to be left in the hands of a Government official, but will be, if necessary, in the hands of a Judge of the High Court or a Supreme Court J udge in any State, we safeguard the newspaperproprietors and the public generally. It would be a very reasonable thing to re-insert the words “ seditious “ and “ blasphemous “ and then accept the whole clause in its amended form. By that means we should agree to the amendment inserted by the other House with regard to the revision of the register being only made after notice has been given to the proprietor of the paper to show cause why his journal should not be removed. Then there is a further provision that if an officer says that a certain paragraph is seditious or blasphemous, the newspaper proprietor shall have a right to appeal from that official to a Judge. We know perfectly well that our Judges are placed in such a position that they are absolutely free from any pressure that might be brought to bear upon them.. In fact, no man would attempt to influence a Judge of one of our Supreme Courts. By this means we shall protect the newspaper people and the public. It would be a dangerous thing to say that a newspaper containing seditious or blasphemous matter should be allowed to be transmitted through the post. To do so would be to outrage the susceptibilities of a large section of the public, and to gratify a certain amount of malicious feeling that may exist amongst a few people in the community. We should be doing an intense injury to the community at large by allowing the Post-office to be used for the transmission of matter of that description.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The most insulting matter can be put upon a post-card.

Senator Major GOULD:

– I agree with the honorable senator, but that is safeguarded by another clause of the Bill. This clause only deals with newspapers, and I hold that if the words “seditious” and “ blasphemous “ are reinserted, we shall be safeguarding the general public, and not injuring newspaper proprietors. It will be perfectly safe to leave it to a J udge of the High Court or of any Supreme Court to determine whether matter is “ seditious “ or “ blasphemous “ if there is any doubt about it.

Senator McGregor:

– A Judge of the Supreme Court cannot determine that any better than any one else.

Senator Major GOULD:

– The honorable senator might as well say that a Judge cannot decide any matter that comes before him better than any one else. We must have some tribunal to decide such points, and if we are not satisfied to allow them to be determined by the deputy PostmasterGeneral, we shall be absolutely safe in leaving them to be decided by a Judge. This power of appeal will make the Deputy Postmaster-General more cautious than he would otherwise be, because it will be known that the exercise of the power conferred by the clause will be subject to consideration at the hands of the highest tribunal in the Commonwealth, the High Court of Justice. If we cannot trust a J udge of the High Court or of a Supreme Court to deal with matters of this kind, we are in a very parlous state indeed.

Motion agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Drake) proposed -

That theamendment of the House of Representatives omitting the words “ seditious, blasphemous,” be agreed to.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - I shall vote against the omission of these words for the reasons I have just stated.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I hope the amendment of the House of Representatives will be agreed to. I hold no brief for any one who would attempt to distribute through the Post-office blasphemous or seditious matter. But there is considerable difficulty in determining what is seditious or blasphemous. While, as the honorable and learned senator has said, it will be safer to leave the exercise of this power in the hands of a Judge, nevertheless a certain amount of inconvenience and damage may be done to a newspaper proprietor before the matter comes before the Judge. The Deputy Postmaster-General can call upon a newspaper proprietor to show cause why his paper should not be removed from the register on the ground that “ seditious “ or “ blasphemous “ matter has appeared in it. The proprietor will thereby be put to expense on account of what may be an unfounded suspicion on the part of the Deputy Postmaster-General. I do not know whether in that case the Judge would award costs against the Post-office. His power enables the DeputyPostmasterGeneral to persecute a newspaper proprietor by calling upon him to show cause why a certain edition of his paper should not be treated as containing “seditious “ and “ blasphemous “ matter, and why he should not be liable to the penalty of having his name removed from the register of newspapers. A wide interpretation is sometimes placed on these words. What is “ blasphemous “ to one section of the community is not to another. To some extent the same remark applies to the word “ seditious.” After all, can we not rely on the good judgment of the people who keep these papers in circulation. If a paper uses seditious and blasphemous language will it not damage itself ? This is grandmotherly legislation, which will not have the effect intended. I have sufficient confidence in the people of Australia to believe that any newspaper that uses such language within the meaning of this clause will be so treated by the people as to make it unprofitable for it to be published. I trust that the committee will agree to the amendment made by the House of Representatives.

SenatorFRASER (Victoria). - I hope we shall adhere to our previous decision, and not agree to the omission of these words. Senator Pearce says that we can rely upon the people. The people are right enough, but the minds of young persons could be easily poisoned and ruined were we to allow blasphemous and seditious stuff to go abroad. I think that to do so would be a danger and a menace to the welfare of the young of the community.

Senator McGregor:

– Can the honorable senator give us any definition of what “ seditious “ is ?

SenatorFRASER. - I am quite willing to leave that to the Postmaster-General or a Judge, or to both. But I say that it is unsafe and dangerous to the welfare of the community to allow such stuff to be. circulated broadcast. When it is said that we can rely on the people it must be remembered that the people, in the aggregate, do not take action. I should be quite willing to trust people of mature age, but we dare not, and ought not, to trust children in this matter. Why are children sent to school, and kept under discipline from their infancy to womanhood and manhood? Is is not in order to discipline and train their minds, and where shall we be if we allow this kind of matter to be circulated to counteract that training and discipline ? I hope we shall do what is right in this case. There will be no danger to the community if we follow on the lines upon which the old country, and every other country whose history is worth talking about, have gone.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I am surprised that we should be asked to accept this amendment. There is or is not such a thing as sedition in the world, and surely a Judge of the Supreme Court knows what sedition is. I believe that every member of the committee knows it, and if an article is seditious, we should not allow it to go through the post-office. With regard to the word “ blasphemous “ there may be a difference of opinion, but we shall, I think, be safe in keeping that word in also. We have seen something which was very like a rebellion in a part of Australia before now, and we may see such a thing again. I hope we shall adhere to our previous decision in this matter.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

– In my opinion we should adhere to our decision, so far as the word “ seditious “ is concerned. Sedition is a term which is very well known, and there is no possibility of misunderstanding it. In this respect I think the alteration made by the House of Representatives is a distinct weakening of the protection we give to the community. I am in very much greater doubt as to the other word, because what is religion to-day, may be blasphemy tomorrow. About 50 years ago Darwin wrote his Origin of the Species, and if this provision had been in force, that famous work would have been held to be “blasphemous.” Every Bishop in the land, and every dissenting clergyman too, would have agreed that it was abominable and blasphemous. We should not only have had Darwin, but also Huxley in gaol - a most religious man in reality, but not religious according to the religiosity of certain people. We should have had .all the greatest intellects of enlightened humanity during the last 40 or 50 years wiped out by a term. I am prepared to move an amendment if necessary, but before doing so I ask the PostmasterGeneral to insist upon the word “seditious,” but not to insist upon the word “ blasphemous.

Senator Higgs:

– Will the honorable and learned senator give us a definition of sedition’?

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– No. In an hour and a half or two hours I might be able to give a fair idea of what sedition is, but nobody knows what it is better than Senator Higgs. I understand sedition to be something against the good order of the community. I consider that sedition and conspiracy are practically co-equal terms.

Senator Pearce:

– Would the honorable and learned senator call the free-trade meeting held this morning seditious ?

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– Certainly not, though probably the Government would take the view that it was a a highly improper meeting. “ Sedition “ is a well-known term, and it means defiance of good order and Government, and is very much the same as conspiracy. “Blasphemous “ is a term which has to be applied to the local beliefs of the moment, and there what might be true to-day might be wrong to-morrow in the equal opinion of the whole of the people.

Senator DRAKE:

– I think really that it is almost as difficult to define “ sedition “ as it is to define “blasphemy.” That has been shown by the speech of Senator Downer. The honorable and learned senator has said that he is not prepared at the present time to tell us what is “ sedition.” It has to be borne in mind that if the proprietor of a newspaper is guilty of sedition he can be got at in some other way. The only question arising here is as to whether he shall be punished by this method of striking his paper off the public register.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I hope the committee will support the amendment made by the House of Representatives. The word “ seditious “ is a word of very elastic meaning. What may be sedition to-day may be quite the opposite to-morrow.

Senator Fraser:

– Each generation will decide for itself.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Political events sometimes move so quickly that it does not take a generation to make changes. In times of political strife and change, a statement might be considered seditious which a few months later might be regarded as perfectly innocent. We might never have such things occurring in Australia as have occurred in the United States of America, but it is possible that they may occur. What was sedition before the American revolution was quite a different thing a few months after the revolution.

Senator Sir John Downer:

– No ; it was the same thing, only the Government was different.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– As a matter of definition it was different. I hold that we should stand by the amendment of the House of Representatives. Certainlyvery little danger or harm can follow from it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion (by Senator Sir John Downer) proposed -

That the amendment be amended by the omission of the word “seditious.”

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– If I had to choose between the two words, I should prefer to retain the word blasphemous. I can well believe that on some occasions a newspaper proprietor may find it necessary in his opinion to write an article against the King, or against some vice-regal personage, and while it may not be very seditious it may be deemed to be so by the Postmaster-General. Again, if some enthusiastic journalist were to write a seditious article, and it were to be circulated throughout the Commonwealth by means of the Post-office, I cannot believe that the same harm would accrue as from the circulation in the same way of a filthy, blasphemous article which would, as Senator Fraser very forcibly put it, besmirch the minds of the children of the community. I should prefer that seditious should be left out rather than blasphemous, and I shall, therefore, vote against Senator Downer’s amendment.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I hope the committee will accept the amendment made by another place. When this question was before us on a previous occasion I was one of those who voted for striking out the words “ seditious and blasphemous,” and I am still of opinion thatthey should be omitted. It can readily be imagined that their retention in the Bill would be an interference with the liberty of the press.

Senator Major Gould:

– With the licence of the press.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I anticipated that interjection. I do not believe in a licensed press, nor would I allow it to be circulated through the Post-office. We shall be taking a backward step in this age of progress and enlightenment by insisting upon the retention of these words. Senator Downer has well pointed out the difficulty of defining the word “blasphemous.” Iam sorry he did not refer also to the difficulty which surrounds the definition of the word “ seditious.” I think we might leave it to the common sense of the Australian public not to support any newspaper which circulates seditious, blasphemous, obscene, or indecent matter. I am not exactly in favour of allowing the words “ indecent and obscene “ to remain in the Bill, but it would be far easier for the PostmasterGeneral to determine what is indecent and obscene than to decide what is seditious or blasphemous. I objected to the retention of the words “seditious and blasphemous “ before, and my objection is equally strong to-day.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - Asthereseems to be somedifficulty with regard to the interpretation of these words,I may point out to the committee that they are defined in “ Wharton’s Law Lexicon,” which may very well be accepted as an authority. The definition given of the word “ blasphemy “ is as follows : -

An offence against God and religion, by denying to the Almighty His being and Providence, or by contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Christ. Also all profane scoffing at the Holy Scripture, and exposing it to contempt and ridicule.

Senator Pearce:

– What religion is referred to?

Senator Major GOULD:

– The Christian religion, I presume. Then the definition of the word “ sedition “ given by “ Wharton’s Law Lexicon” is as follows : -

An offence against the Crown and Government, not capital, and not amounting to treason. All contempts against the Sovereign and the Government, and riotous assemblies for political purposes, may be ranked under the head of sedition.

– I voted against the motion as I would vote against any motion placed on the notice paper by an honorable senator for the purpose not only of ridiculing Parliament, but of covering himself with ridicule. I have no desire to put a newspaper in an unfair position, but I have a desire to protect public decency in matters of this kind. I shall always endeavour to do so, but fairly and justly, and with full consideration for the proprietor of the newspaper. I trust that honorable senators will see that it is not unreasonable to ask them to insist on the retention of the words which they declined to omit in the first instance.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).There is one argument which has been addressed to the committee, to which I should like to refer. Senators Pearce and O’Keefe have expressed a desire to have these words, blasphemous and seditious, eliminated because of the faith they have in the common sense and good instincts of the people. That is a very fine sentiment.

Senator O’Keefe:

– It is a very true one.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’KEEFE (Tasmania). - I rise to correct a wrong impression which may get abroad from the remarks of Senator Millen. I was rather surprised to hear the honorable senator, who is generally so clear and logical in his remarks, misinterpret what I had said. I believe he did it unintentionally. I ask him to remember that I objected to the words “ seditious “ and “blasphemous,” mainly because of the difficulty which the Postmaster-General would have in determining what was seditious or blasphemous. I do not object to the words “indecent or obscene “ remaining in the clause. I was also surprised to hear such a high authority as Senator Millen say that an attack on the personal character of a monarch is not sedition, because, if I remember aright, it is not very long since a Member of Parliament lost his seat through an attack of that character.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I hope that the committee will agree to the amendment of the other House. Surely if a House of 75 members has calmly reasoned out a question of this kind and come to the conclusion that the words seditious and blasphemous can be eliminated, a Senate of 36 members has no greater right - not even so great a right - to its opinion as that House has, if we agree with the maxim that “in the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom.” Suppose that Mrs.

Besant delivered a lecture in an Australian capital and that it was reported verbatim in some newspapers. There arepersons in the Commonwealth who would consider the lecture the height of blasphemy, and there are Members of this Parliament, too, who would hold that view. But would it be blasphemy?

Senator Millen:

– She did give lectures and they were fully reported, and she was not prosecuted.

Senator McGREGOR:

– But these words were not in the State law. Do Senators Millen and Gould consider her teachings for the last twenty years blasphemous ? There is not a word of blasphemy in them, but there are thousands of persons who have said that they are blasphemous.

Senator Fraser:

– A Judge did not say so.

Senator McGREGOR:

– There are some Judges narrow-minded enough to say anything and they have done so. Judges have banished and hanged people in Ireland for saying far less than appears in the newspapers to-day without any notice being taken of them. Again, suppose that a teacher of the Mohammedan religion visited Australia and gave us an idea of the tenets of his religion and that a report of his lecture appeared in some newspapers. No doubt some of the expressions he used would be considered blasphemous, and yet there would be no blasphemy in them. The definition which Senator Gould quoted from Wharton’s Law Lexicon did not refer to the Christian religion but only to religion. He interpolated the word Christian. I have heard leading men amongst the Brahmins give lectures in Australia and in Glasgow. There are doctrines involved in their teachings which thousands of our Christian friends, even amongst the Judges, would be inclined to call blasphemous from their point of view. But there is no blasphemy in them so far as the Brahmins are concerned. It requires as keen an intellect to understand sedition as it does to understand blasphemy. I remember once being in a very important town in the North of Ireland, and at two different times in the year. When a friend of mine went into one portion of the town, he was asked - “ Are you a Lanty,” and as soon as he said, “yes,” down he went; he was seditious. When he went to another portion of the town to get peace and quietnes, he was asked if he was a Tague. He said he was a

Tague, and down he went again ; he was seditious. These things occurred in the nineteenth century, and probably will occur in this century. It shows the inclination of narrow-minded people. Surely Senator Fraser does not imagine that the J udges either here or elsewhere have lost all these prejudices ? The Lanty might be seditious and the Tague might be seditious. Whenever you come to a question of defining what is or is not your true relationship to your country, your Government, and your creed, if I might refer again to blasphemy, there is a multiplicity of opinion not only in the old world but in Australia. It would be more to the credit of the Senate to leave out of the clause words upon which honorable senators do not all agree. I am sure that Senator Eraser and myself will never agree on some expressions either in respect of sedition or in respect of blasphemy. There is any amount of room in the State Parliament to deal with such situations. I think we had plenty of evidence recently that they are always prepared to act. Therefore I recommend that we agree to the amendment.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I am sorry that such warm feeling has been exhibited. From the arguments of honorable senators, it is quite clear that there is almost a unanimous opinion that the word blasphemy might be omitted. The word seditious is not so difficult to define as the word blasphemous. One word deals with spiritual matters, and the other with material matters ; and seeing that sedition is practically opposition to the civil law, we might retain that word and omit the other. I know there is sometimes a feeling that even the very active spirits in a strike over labour matters may be charged with being seditious. But I do not think there is any possibility, in a fair strike for better conditions, of any of the actions of the parties concerned being brought under the word seditious, so long as it is a legitimate agitation for better conditions socially or politically. I do not think we shall jeopardize our liberty one bit by retaining the word. We want to prevent a newspaper or a person from using the post-office to stir up an agitation against civil law which may lead the people into an insurrection. In the present state of society, we are perfectly justified in retaining the word “seditious,” but I shall support the omission of the word “blasphemous.”

Question - That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the amendment - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 11

Noes … … … 14

Majority … … 3

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion agreed to.

Question - That the amendment, as amended, be agreed to- put. The committee divided -

Ayes…….. 14

Noes…….. 11

Majority…….. 3

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Drake) proposed -

That the committee agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives inserting after the word “aforesaid” the words “to show cause why such publication should not be removed from the register, and if sufficient cause be not shown, he may remove it accordingly.”

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I find a very great difficulty in ascertaining how these amendments fit in with the Bill, through not having a proper copy of the measure before me. We ought to be able to compare the amendments made by the House of Representatives with the Bill as it was sent up to them.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to the two divisions which have just taken place. I regret not having been able to take part in them, and I make the explanation in order that the matter of which I complain may be rectified. I was called away a little while ago to receive a deputation, and before going I stated to the Postmaster-General that I should be in the waiting-room, and that as soon as the division bell rang I would come in and vote. But there seems to be no bell in the waiting-room. No sound came to me to warn me that any division was about to take place. Otherwise I should have been in my place. Surely it is too bad that honorable senators who are called away to discharge duties in connexion with public matters should not be informed when divisions are about to take place on most important matters. I trust that this defect will be rectified. I strongly object to being excluded from any division through the lack of proper appliances in the waitingrooms. I resent what has happened very much.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– I can corroborate what Senator Glassey has said with regard to the fact that he informed me that he had been called out of the chamber on important public business. I thought he was within hearing of the division bell, or I should have taken steps to find him.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I can assure Senator Glassey that I can quite recognise that the matter of which he has complained requires attention, and I will bring it under the notice of the proper authorities.

Senator GLASSEY (Queensland).- I desire to say that if I had been here I would have voted with the Postmaster-General.

Motion agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 consequentially amended, and agreed to.

Clause 55 (Power in certain cases to refuse to register or deliver letters).

Senator DRAKE:

– We are dealing now with the celebrated 55th clause, and the amendments which have been made by the House of Representatives do not alter the sense in any way except with regard to one amendment - the omission of the words “ not sanctioned by law.”

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable and learned senator has changed his opinions slightly.

Senator DRAKE:

– I have not changed my opinions. These words “ not sanctioned by law “ were put into the Queensland statute in order that the provisions of the clause might not apply to the case of a lottery, or church bazaar ; which had been sanctioned by the Attorney-General. The clause, as we passed it, provided for the interference of the Postmaster-General, if he had reasonable ground to suppose any person to be engaged in the Commonwealth, or elsewhere, in receiving money or any valuable things -

For promoting or carrying on a scheme connected with any such assurance, agreement, or security, or a lottery, or scheme of chance not sanctioned by law, or an unlawful game.

Some of these amendments may be said to be exceedingly hypercritical. I move -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives, omitting the words “if he,” be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Senator DRAKE:

– I have already referred to the subsequent amendment. I move -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives, omitting the words “not sanctioned by law,” be agreed to.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

-The Postmaster-General will admit that this amendment raises the original question discussed upon the clause. I do not propose to reopen it. My opinions on the subject are as strong now as when we previously debated it ; but I am always willing to give my adherence to the majority, as the voting in this Chamber indicates. I rose to ask a question of the Postmaster-General with respect to the expression “not sanctioned by law.” I pointed out when we were discussing the matter previously that if the Senate wanted the wishes of the majority carried into effect these words “ not sanctioned by law” should be left out. The Postmaster-General at the time said he could not agree with me. If I felt that the PostmasterGeneral were now of the same opinion as he was when we previously discussed the matter I should deem it my duty to urge the committee to restore the words ; but I am convinced that the honorable and learned senator, like the rest of us, occasionally makes a mistake, and freely recognises it. I therefore do not propose to move for the restoration of these words. We all know that this clause 55 aims at suppressing the institution known as Tattersalls, and aims at suppressing what has received the sanction of Tasmanian legislation.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It aims at all of them.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Yes ; but it particularly aims at the institution known as “Tattersall’s,” and I remind Senator Dawson that these very words “ not sanctioned by law “ have been carefully taken out in another place in order that “ Tattersall’s “ should not be allowed to go on. I do not rise to plead on behalf of “ Tattersall’s,” but I deem it my duty to remind the committee that in this case we are proposing to suppress something that has the legislative sanction of one of the States forming the Commonwealth. I am not demanding compensation in any way, but in the case of private individuals it is generally recognised as a fair business transaction, that before we suppress something which has acquired a vested right, we should at least give some notice to the persons affected. We know that “ Tattersall’s “ has acquired rights sanctioned by the law of the State ; and I desire to ask the Postmaster-General if he can give me any indication as to when he proposes to put this clause into force. Before the honorable and learned senator answers the question, I desire to say that I should be satisfied, and, I believe, the State of Tasmania would be satisfied also, if this clause were not enforced until that State had an opportunity of appealing to the Federal High Court. That, I think, is a suggestion which should meet with the support of every honorable senator, however desirous of .suppressing “ Tattersall’s “ he may be. It is purely a State question, and if this clause is enforced at once, as it may be, the State laws of Tasmania will be entirely ignored. I submit that it would not be fair treatment to a private individual to suppress him without notice, and I submit that where we are dealing with one of the States forming an integral part of the Commonwealth, it is worthy the serious consideration of every honorable senator who hates gambling, that he should give the State a right of appeal where there is some distinct question of State rights being infringed. This appeal has no reference whatever to gambling, and I am not instigated, in the slightest degree, by any desire to defend the position of the proprietor of these sweeps. In what I am saying I am representing the

– I move -

That the committee agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives inserting after the word “railways” the following words - “and (b) the owners of any railway or tramway may maintain for the time and to the extent authorized by any State Act any telegraph lines which were erected before the commencement of this Act in pursuance of rights conferred by any State Act, and which are required for the working of the railway or tramway.”

This perhaps is rather important. We come now to the telegraph clauses of the Bill, and it is right that the amendments should be understood before they are passed. The new paragraph inserted by the House of Representatives has probably been introduced because of the powers that have been given, mostly by the Queensland Government to private companies to work telegraph lines in connexion with their own railways and tramways. It seems to me to be reasonable that where such powers have been conferred by State Acts they should be continued under the Commonwealth. I do not see that in taking over the Post and Telegraph department we can claim the power to interfere with rights which have been conferred on those companies under State Acts.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– I should liketo point out to the Postmaster-General that the amendment requires some amendment in order to make it perfectly clear. It provides that -

The owners of any railway or tramway may maintain for the time, and to the extent authorized by any State Act any telegraph lines which were erected before the commencement of this Act. . . .

These companies have power under the State Acts to erect telegraph lines, and some may be in course of erection at the time of the coming into operation of the measure. Therefore, I would suggest that the amendment be amended, so as to read that the owners of these railways or tramways may maintain the lines, which were erected before -

Or may be erected after the commencement of this Act in pursuance of the rights conferred by any State Act passed prior to the coming into operation of this Act.

Senator DRAKE:

– That would apply to telegraph lines erected under the authority of any future Act. I will ask leave to withdraw my motion, and to postpone the consideration of the amendment so that I may look into it. I quite agree with the principle suggested by Senator Gould.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment postponed.

Clause 83 -

A person so authorized may whenever it is necessary for continuing or completing a telegraph line cause a wire or cord to be supported by affixing or annexing the same to in or upon through or against any part of a house building or other structure in a city town or village. . . .

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– I move -

That the committee disagree with the amendment of the House of Representatives omitting the words “in or.”

– I do not think there is any danger.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).I wish to ask the Postmaster-General whether the department would have any difficulty in taking a cable round a house in ordinary water-pipes? Every house has a water-pipe, but the main is not taken under a dwelling. I do not see why the Post and Telegraph department should want more power than a municipal council has.

Senator DRAKE:

– When the telephone system is laid on to every house, and every proprietor has to pay, whether he wants the service or not, the same as he has to do for his water, no doubt we shall be able to run cables all round the streets to every man’s door. We want this power, not for the telegraph system, but for the telephone system. Supposing that a large building is put up, and that a number of persons there desire to be connected with the Exchange, they may want a dozen wires laid on to the building. We wish to take the wires in a cable by the shortest route through private property. If they are aerial wires, the difficulty will not occur, because then we can attach them to the building, and go by the shortest route. But if we can get them underground, which we are trying to do as much as possible, we claim that we should be allowed to take them by the most direct route.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– The Postmaster-General might allow these words to be struck out, because as long as the word “ through “ remains in the clause he will accomplish all he really wants. It is wise for us to meet the wishes of the House of Representatives in every way we can.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

– The telephone business can be very well carried on without giving this power to the department. It is a dangerous power to give. It may be all very well in Queensland, where there are many buildings that are erected on piles 10 or 12 feet high. One can drive a cart and horse under some of them.

Senator Glassey:

– The principal buildings in Rockhampton and Brisbane are not built on piles.

Senator FRASER:

– A good many of them are, and it is a good practice in hot countries. Such a power as this may be applicable in cases where goats and cattle are allowed to browse under buildings. It does not matter about running an electric wire through under such circumstances. But it would not be applicable to buildings such as those erected in the city of Melbourne.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I must again impress upon the committee the undesirableness of this clause. Senator Drake suggests that it is necessary in some cases to take a wire through a building. To show how undesirable that would be in many cases in Melbourne let me take my own case. First of all, the wire would have to be taken through foundations 4 feet thick. It is not an easy matterto punch a hole through masonry of that thickness. Then the Postmaster-General says that the cable would be taken through the cellar. It would have to be either buried under the ground or fastened to the walls. In either case when repairs are needed it will necessitate workmen entering the buildings at all reasonable times. That in itself is not desirable. In addition, there is a certain amount of danger. I admit that it is not as dangerous as if the wires were used for electric lighting purposes ; but still, if repairs are needed the repairers will have to use braziers, and all these things tend to increase the risk of fire. We have sufficient risks at present, in the city of Melbourne at all events, without adding to them ; and it is not fair that property should be interfered with in the way proposed. I do not think this power is needed. I venture to say that there is not a single building in Melbourne in regard to which it is needed. If such a power can be dispensed with in connexion with the enormous telephonic system of London, surely it is not needed for the Commonwealth.

Senator DRAKE:

– We are continually being pressed to adopt the underground system, and we all admit that that would be better. I am informed by the officers of the department that, if an underground telephone system is to be adopted at moderate expense, we must have the right to go through buildings with our wires.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL (Victoria). - I will mention to the PostmasterGeneral a case in point, so far as his own department is concerned. There is a postoffice in connexion with the Stock Exchange in Collins-street, Melbourne. The department rents the office from the Stock Exchange proprietary, and there are wires running into the building connecting it with the telephonic system. Would the Postmaster-General contend that it is necessary to burrow underneath that large building in order to take a wire to Queen-street, just round the corner ?

Senator McGregor:

– The department would not do that ; the honorable senator does not understand it.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:

– It is my business to understand matters of this kind, and I say that the power asked for is not necessary at all. What is the use of spending money when there is no necessity for it ? What is the use of making a nuisance of the telephone system? It is not desirable that a cable should be put through any man’s house, whereby his children and family will be liable to be maimed for life. Honorable senators know very well that the law prevents a man from keeping gunpowder or other explosives in his house, but they are not half so dangerous as an electric cable.

Senator McGregor:

– Oh !

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:

– Let the honorable senator put his hand on an electric wire and get a shock. If he does, it will be a long while before we see him in his seat again. Apparently some honorable senators do not understand the force of the current that runs along these wires. Is it desirable that people should be subject to such risks when there is no necessity for it ? Iam in favour of giving the department every facility that is required, but I would not go further than that.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I do not like to have any misunderstanding with Senator Zeal, who is always so genial. When I said that he did not understand something, he was referring to burrowing under a large building like the Stock Exchange when it would be easy to go round. It is very often cheaper to go round a building than through it. What the Postmaster-General wants is that the department shall have a choice. He wants to do whatever would be best in the interests of the department and of the public. He does not mean that in every instance where a telephone wire has to be taken from one place to another the department is going to burrow under a building. That in some cases may be the most expensive way of doing the work. The cheapest method will always be followed. With respect to the great harm that some honorable senators fear is going to be done, I reply that in the first place a child cannot receive a shock unless that child is burrowing in the cellar, doing something that it ought not to be doing. Moreover, the wires would be properly insulated, It is all nonsense to talk of the matter as being dangerous simply because a boy once climbed up a telegraph pole and was killed - probably by lightning. If there is such danger in connexion with the use of telephones, we ought to do away with the civilizing influences which these instruments exert. Judging from the way the subject has been discussed, one would think that for the next 50 years the Telegraph department was going to do very little else except make rabbit holes between one building and another. I maintain that the provision is in the interest of the public, and I trust the committee will negative the amendment made by the House of Representatives.

Question - That the amendment be disagreed with - put.

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 17

Noes … … … 6

Majority … … 11

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Drake) agreed to -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives, clause 83, line 26, omit “ through,” be disagreed to.

Clause84 (Trees obstructing telegraph lines may be cut or lopped).

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– There are three amendments in this clause, and I propose to ask the committee to accept two of them, and to disagree to the other. I should like to say a few words on the clause generally in order to explain the reason of my objection to one of the amendments. In connexion with the last clause, we have been speaking of the underground system of telephones, and I want the Senate to understand some of the difficulties we have to meet with in connexion with the aerial system in consequence of the growing of ornamental trees in towns and suburbs. The practice is very commendable, indeed, from a health andaesthetic point of view, but the difficulty is that the local authorities plant a row of trees just underneath our telegraph wires, and as they grow up in the course of a few years, they come into contact with the wire. We desire to have the power to lop the trees where they interfere with the telephone service. The minimum height of our wires is 18 feet, and what we ask is that when the trees grow so high as to interfere with the wires, we shall have authority to lop them. We endeavour to meet local authorities by giving them an opportunity to lop their trees themselves, but if they do not do so, we want to have the authority to lop them. We are now confronted with this difficulty that the local authorities have taken up the position sometimes of saying - “We want to have our trees, and we will not allow you to cut them. If you do cut them we shall bring an action for damages against you.” They go so far as to say that we cannot compel them to cut their trees, and that if we do not like it we should take our wires away and put them under ground. When we consider the miles and miles of trees planted, it must be seen that we must continue the aerial system or else have no telephone service at all in some of the suburbs, because of the enormous expense that would be incurred in putting the wires under ground. The Bill has been so amended by the House of Representatives that we have no absolute right to interfere with the trees, and another provision has been altered in such a way that a local authority may claim damages against the department for lopping their trees and may insist upon their claim being submitted to arbitration. That would mean that the cost of carrying on the telephone service would be altogether beyond what could be borne. I have a statement here with reference to one instance which came under my notice for the first time the other day. It is a New South Wales case and the statement is as follows : -

Some time since owing to the complaints that were made regarding the unsatisfactory working of atelephone exchange, it was considered necessary by the Post and Telegraph authorities in Sydney to lop some of the limbs of the trees which came in contact with the wires, and interfered with the proper working of the telephone system. Several deputations from the residents waited upon the Postal authorities in Sydney to protest against any interference with the trees, and, as a result, it was decided to defer the matter for further consideration. It was then suggested to the department that it should place the wires underground, but the expense involved (over £3,000) would have been so great that this request was declined. The next proposal was that the wires should be raised about 60 feet from the ground ; this was declined, but the department expressed its willingness to meet the wishes of the residents by providing higher poles, on condition that the expense involved would be borne by the residents, but this was not agreed to. Sug- gestions have since been made to the department b y the Mayor to overcome the difficulty by a zigzag system in regard to thepoles and wires, the adoption of which, however, has been reported against by the chief electrician in Sydney on the grounds of expense and impracticability.

I am informed by the department in Victoria that at the present time there is more or less trouble in connexion with this matter with from eight to ten municipalities in this State. I do not object at all to the first amendment proposed by the House of Representatives, amendment No. CO, providing for the insertion of the words “after notice to the local or other authority having the care and managemenent thereof,” or to amendment No. 61, proposing the insertion of the words “ after consultation with such authority.” There can be no objection whatever to giving notice to the local authorities and consulting with them before taking action. The practice already has been, as I say, to give the local authority - if it will take it - the power to do the work itself to its own liking; but, in their amendment, the House of Representatives proposes the omission of sub-clause (2), which says : -

This Act shall be sufficient to indemnify the Postmaster-General and his officers servants agents and workmen and all other persons whomsoever for what he or any of them shall reasonably do by virtue of the powers by this section granted.

That has to be read in conjunction with an alteration in clause87, the compensation clause, and it will be seen that the effect of it is to put the local authority in every case in aposition of being able to refuse to allow anything to be clone, and then to make a claim for damages if anything is done. I move -

That the amendments of the House of Representatives inserting after “ may “ line36, the words ‘ ‘ after notice to the local or other authority having the cure and management thereof,” and after “officer “line 37, the words “after consultation with such authority “ be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Drake) agreed to-

That the amendment of the House of Representatives omitting sub-clause (2) be disagreed to.

Clause 86 (Laying lines under streets).

Senator DRAKE:

– The House of Representatives propose in this clause also the insertion of the words, “ after notice to the local or other authority having the care and management thereof.” I move -

That the House of Representatives’ amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Senator DRAKE:

– I move -

That the committee agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives inserting the following new clause: - 88a (1) The Postmaster-General may, after giving six months’ notice, resume any private telegraph or telephone line.

The compensation, if the amount cannot be otherwise agreed on, shall be settled by arbitration.

That the amendment of the House of Representatives be amended by the insertion of the words - “with the consent of the Parliament, and,” after the word “ may” in sub-clause (1).

Senator Sir John Downer:

– That will mean a Bill.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It does not mean a Bill. The consent of Parliament can be given by resolution.

Senator DRAKE:

– I think the amendment will destroy all the use of the clause. If it is made we may just as well bring down a Bill. It will prevent the Minister, if necessary, from acquiring a small length of line which it might be very desirable to acquire, in order to save the expense of erectingone.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– He has to give six months’ notice, and Parliament is sure to meet within that time.

Senator DRAKE:
QUEENSLAND · PROT

– The six months’ notice seems to be a sort of safeguard against any wrongful action on the part of the Minister. He could not do anything to-morrow or next week before public attention would be drawn to it. If there were any objection to his acquiring a. length of line, there would be ample time for anyone to enter a protest.

Motion (Senator Playford’s) agreed to.

Clause 90 (Certain lines, &c, to belong to Postmaster-General).

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Senator DRAKE:

– In clause 90, the other House, in order to prevent any possibility of question arising as to the legal ownership of the lines, has inserted the following sub-clause: -

All telegraph lines erected or maintained by the Postmaster-General, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, are hereby vested in the Postmaster-General.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– As the Minister has just taken power to acquire a line, will not this sub-clause require to be altered ?

Motion (by Senator Drake) agreed to -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives adding a sub-clause, be amended by the insertion of the word “acquired “ after the word “erected.”

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 92 (Blasphemous, obscene, and scandalous telegrams may be refused).

Senator DRAKE:

– I confess I do not like the amendment of the other House in clause 92. At the beginning of sub-clause (1) it has substituted the word “ postmaster” for the words “person employed in the telegraph-office “ so that it now reads -

Any postmaster may refuse to receive or transmit a telegram containing blasphemous, indecent, obscene, offensive, or scandalous matter in its contents, address, or signature.

When the clause was before theSenate on a previous occasion, I explained that the reason why the expression “ person employed in a telegraph-office “ was used was in order that a telegram of that nature might be stopped at once. The person into whose hands it will probably come will be a telegraph operator and he has no power to refuse to receive it or to transmit it under the amendment of the other House. The person we want to authorize to stop a telegram of this nature is the telegraph operator.

Senator Pearce:

– Would not the operator refer it to the postmaster?

Senator DRAKE:

– If the postmaster were there he might, or he might not. But under this amendment he has no authority to refuse to receive or transmit it. The postmaster is not necessarily there the whole time. The House of Representatives has also struck out sub-clause (2), which reads -

Telegrams which appear to contain seditious language shall be submitted to the Deputy Postmaster-General in the State of origin before being transmitted.

I do not know exactly why that has been struck out.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

-If the Minister uses the words “postmaster or officer “ he will cover everything.

Senator DRAKE:

– There are some places in the States where there is no postmaster. I think in sub-clause (1) we had better stick to the original term, which was very carefully considered and had stood fire before. I feel sure that the amendment has been made by the other House without a full knowledge of the circumstances. I move -

That the committee disagree to the amendment of the House of Representatives, in sub-clause (1), omitting the words “person employed in a telegraph-office,” and inserting the word “ postmaster.”

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - I would draw the attention of the committee to the definition of the word “ postmaster.” It means -

The officer in charge of a post-office or post and telegraph office.

I contend that if there is only one employe in an office, no matter what status he occupied, he would be in charge of that office, and would be the postmaster within the meaning of that definition.

Senator Drake:

– I do not think so.

Senator PEARCE:

– If he is the only employe in the office, he must be in charge of that office. Seeing that that definition practically means that there is an officer in charge of every post - office, I think the House of Representatives has made this amendment with a view of giving to every telegraph officer in charge of an office the power to refuse a telegram if it contains libellous matter. If there is a postmaster in charge, the operator will not act upon his own responsibility, but must refer the matter to the judgment of the officer in charge, who is responsible for the acts of his subordinates. It is just as well that we should be careful about this provision, because the stoppage of a telegram might involve a question of law, and might involve the department in damages. I trust that, in the interests of his own department, the Minister will withdraw his motion.

Senator DRAKE:

– Of course there would be no difficulty if Senator Pearce’s reading of the definition were correct, and if any person who was left alone in an office might be taken to be the postmaster. But I do not think that is so. That reading strains the. interpretation clause. Senator Pearce will notice that the interpretation clause commences by saying that these definitions apply - “ Unless the context otherwise indicates.” I do not think that the Bill in any part could be taken to mean that a person who happens to be casually left in charge of an office is the postmaster within this definition.

Senator Pearce:

– Does the PostmasterGeneral think that such a person should have a right to stop a telegram ?

Senator DRAKE:

– The idea is to give authority to the person to whom the telegram comes, in the natural order of things. The person authorized to receive and transmit telegramsis by this clause authorized to refuse to receive and transmit them.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I think I am right in saying that a good many of the offices upon our railways are used as telegraph offices, and that the officers in charge there are not in the employment of the Post and Telegraph department. The term “ telegraph office “ is definedtomean -

A house, building, room, or other place or structure, occupied by or under the authority of the Postmaster-General.

I do not suppose that telegraph offices upon the railways are under the control of the Postmaster-General. As a matter of fact many of these telegraph offices are also booking-offices, which are under the control of the railway authorities.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - I would suggest to the Postmaster-General that he should make the clause read - “ Any postmaster, or, in his absence, any person under the authority of the PostmasterGeneral.” That would provide that the senior officer would take the responsibility ifhe were present ; but where there was no senior officer in charge the operator in charge would take the responsibility.

Senator DRAKE:

– I think we might get over the difficulty by making an amendment upon the amendment carried by the House of Representatives. I will therefore withdraw my previous motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion (by Senator Drake) proposed -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives be amended by omitting the word “postmaster,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words ‘ person employed under the authority of the Postmaster-General.”

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia). - Practically every person employed in a telegraph office is employed under the authority of the Postmaster-General.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– It is questionable in the case of railway officers, who are employed under the railwayscommisioners.

Senator PLAYFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

– Then we are to understand that, so far as the railways are concerned, a man can go to a railway telegraph office and get all sorts of indecent and libellous telegrams sent, and that no one can stop him?

Senator Drake:

– Under the motion which I propose, such an officer would be under the authority of the PostmasterGeneral. That would cover a railway officer.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 93 (Regulations).

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– The House of Representatives have inserted in this clause, which gives the Governor-General power to make regulations upon certain subjects, the following new paragraphs after paragraph (o) - (o1) Voting by post at elections under the law of the Commonwealth or that of a State, but in the latter case only at the request of the Governor of the State, and on such terms as the GovernorGeneral prescribes. (o2) Providing for the payment by the receiver or by the Governor of any State, instead of the sender of the rate payable on any postal article.

The matter dealt with is important, and I intend to propose an amendment upon the amendment inserted by the House of Representatives. The new paragraphs enable the Post-office to make arrangements with a State for the transmission of postal matter, to be paid by the person receiving it instead of by the person who posts it. I mentioned previously the question of voting by post. In

– After the bookkeeping period, of course all this will cease, because then any deficit there may be will be borne equally by the whole of the population, and we assume that the benefits of the postal service will be. enjoyed equally by all. I move -

That the words “by the receiver or” in paragraph [oS) of the House of Representatives, amendment, be omitted.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– I understand that clause 93 is the clause giving power to make regulations for certain purposes under the Bill. But since we passed it clause 25a has been inserted providing for electoral lists and ballot-papers, where there is voting by post and so on, and providing that the State shall pay the cost of postage in such cases. Hence it is necessary to add to clause 93 a power to make regulations dealing with that matter. But the amendment the Postmaster-General now proposes goes further than that, and provides for the payment “ by any persons.” I point out that we have not provided an enacting clause dealing with “ any persons,” and I think it would be better to postpone the amendment.

Amendment postponed.

Clause 126 (Injuries to telegraphs).

Senator DRAKE:

– The House of Representatives proposes three amendments in this clause which I think must have been made under a misapprehension. There are three paragraphs, the first two of which commence with the words “ unlawfully or maliciously,” but those words do not occur in paragraph (c). I think the view taken in the House of Representatives must have been that the words had been inadvertently omitted in paragraph (c), and to put the clause into proper form the House of Representatives has proposed amendments which have the effect of striking the words “ unlawfully or maliciously “ out of paragraphs

and (6) and of making them applicable to paragraph (c). I desire to show why they ought not to be made applicable, to paragraph (c). I have no objection to the words appearing in paragraphs (a) and (£>), but on no account of the peculiar nature of the offence referred to in paragraph (c) -

Interrupts or impedes the use of any line or the transmission of any messages.

I think they ought not to be made applicable to that paragraph. Referring particularly to the interruption of a line of telegraph, the offence is of such a character, and is of such great importance that we should not give any one any excuse for committing it. A person should not be permitted to take the law into his own hands, and if, for instance, a telegraph line has sagged down, no one has a right to cut the wire. Our wires are supposed to be 18 feet from the ground, and that would be clear of all ordinary traffic. But a difficulty has occurred’ in this way. I am informed that in Victoria there are people engaged in removing houses on trollies, and they come along and simply break through our wires. That has been done on several occasions. The practice has been that if they give notice to the department, a gang of men is sent to cut the wires for them, and when they have passed through, the wires are immediately replaced. On more than one occasion they have broken right through the wires, and when that is complained of, they say - “ Your wire was less than 18 feet from the ground, it was interfering with us, and so we went through it.” Such a thing as that ought never to be permitted. Honorable senators can quite understand that if the clause were amended as proposed it might lead to telegraph lines being cut in the interior, and in consequence to enormous loss and injury to the community. Cutting a line of telegraph communication is a very grave offence, and it should be distinctly understood that under no circumstances is a person justified in cutting a telegraph wire. I move -

That the committee disagree to the amendments of the House of Representatives, inserting in line 23, and omitting from lines 24 and 29 the words ‘ 1 unlawfully or maliciously. “

Motion agreed to.

Senator DRAKE:

– I move -

That the committee agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives inserting the following new clause after clause 137: - 137a. In the case of an electric tramway or electric lighting system the electric authority using such tramway or lighting system shall not be held responsible for its lines or works affecting the lines of the Postmaster-General on which an earthed return is used if such electric authority has adopted all known and reasonable precautions to avoid such injurious affection and has complied with the regulations.

The amendment that we agreed to just now was topavethewayforthis new clause. Ihave considered this matter very carefully. I do not like it altogether. It is not quite fair to the department to throw upon it all the responsibility of having an earthed return. On the advices I have received from the officers of the department I am inclined, to think, however, that, with the proviso contained in this clause, it may be accepted. The latter part of this proposed new clause safeguards us, although it seems hardly fair that the whole of the responsibility should be thrown upon the department if it was an earthed return.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– Before this amendment is agreed to I should like a little fuller explanation from the Postmaster-General as to the meaning of “earthed returns.” We are not all experts. I have in my mind the case of overhead lines, which was thoroughly debated on a former occasion, when we came to the conclusion that the Postal department ought to be thoroughly guarded. The overhead line of the Perth Electric Tramway Company interfered with the Postal department’s lines, and involved the Government in serious expense.

Senator DRAKE:

– Every line must have either a metallic circuit or an earthed return. A current of electricity must be either brought back by means of a metallic circuit or through the earth. The metallic wire is by far the better, but it is also the more expensive system. We have earthed returns in many cases, because we have not been able to go to the expense of providing a metallic circuit.’ This proposed new clauseprovides that if the line of any electrical authority injuriously affect a Government line in connexion with which the more expensive system is not employed, that authority is not to be liable for the damage if it can show that it has adopted all known and reasonable precautions to avoid it, and has complied with the regulations. If we have a metallic circuit, then the case comes under clause 142, and if our wires affect those of any private authority the question arises as to which was erected first. The unfairness of this proposal is that it compels us to adopt the metallic circuit, but does not compel the electric lighting authorities to do the same.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Does the Postmaster-General say that the Commonwealth is being compelled to adopt a system which is the least efficacious while private companies are forced to adopt the more expensive one ?

Senator Drake:

– No ; quite the reverse.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am glad to have that explanation, because it seems to me to be undesirable that the Commonwealth should adopt a cheap and nasty method while it compels private individuals to do that which is deemed to be efficacious.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - I think this clause might very well be postponed. It seems to me at first sight to be safeguarding the interests of private companies, while it makes no provision for safeguarding the public. I would draw the attention of honorable senators to the case of the Perth Electric Tramway Company. That company erected lines along the route of existing lines owned by the Government. The company’s line was erected in the centre of the streets, and every telephone wire along those streets was thrown out of order. The result was that the Government had to spend some thousands of pounds in establishing proper communication. I do not know whether any other clause covers the case of a Government line that is erected first ; but it seems to me that a company might very well say - “ We did not know when we erected our lines that it was going to have an injurious effect on the Government wires. We acted according to the provision in the latter part of this clause. We took every known and reasonable precaution, but it was not until our line was in operation that we found it had an injurious effect upon yours.” In the case of the Perth Tramway Company the Government recovered no compensation, although I think it should have been able to do so.

Senator Playford:

– The Government lines being there first, the company was an interloper.

Senator Pearce:

– In the Western Australian case the whole cost of making the alterations was borne by the department.

Senator DRAKE:

– In answer to Senator Pearce I would point out that clause 142 provides that when any line owned by the Postmaster-General is injuriously affected by any line erected by an electric lighting company he may serve notice upon them requiring them to take such action as will correct the error and prevent the injurious affection. If that notice is not complied with the Postmaster-General may order that the supply of electricity shall be discontinued until the fault ceases. Then we have sub-clause (3), which provides -

Where such electric lines or works have been lawfully constructed prior to the erection of the telegraph line of the Postmaster-General injuriously affected thereby, the Postmaster-General shall pay to the person owning or using or entitled to use such electric lines or works the amount of any costs reasonably incurred or damages sustained by him by reason of compliance with such conditions and restrictions.

That is to say, if a company’s wire is erected before that put up by the department, we give the compensation for any damage done. What I think is the safeguard in the amendment we are now considering is the proviso that if a company does any injury to a line owned by the Postmaster-General, it has to show that it adopted all known and reasonable precautions, and complied with the regulations. We make certain regulations, and if the company can show that it has complied with them and taken all known and reasonable precautions to avoid the injurious affection, the expense of correcting the injurious affection is thrown upon the department. I propose to accept the amendment, because it contains those words. They throw upon us the responsibility of making such regulations - probably like those of the Board of Trade - that the lines will be protected.

Motion agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The committee have now to deal with the postponed amendments.

Clause 1 (Short title and commencement).

Motion by (Senator Drake) agreed to -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives be agreed to, and that the blank in clause 1 be filled by the insertion of the words “ first day of December, 1901.”

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 78 (Postmaster-General to have exclusive right in respect of telegraphs).

Senator DRAKE:

– I propose to ask the committee to amend the amendment of the House of Representatives so as to make it read in this way - and(b) The owners of any railway or tramway may maintain for the time, and to the extent authorized by any State

Act, any telegraph lines erected in pursuance of rights conferred by any State Act in force at the commencement of this Act, and which are required for the working of the railway or tramway.

I think that will carry out the object of the Council, and meet the objection which was suggested.

Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to.

Clause 93 (Regulations).

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– The amendment inserting two paragraphs in clause 93 was postponed in order to give me an opportunity of taking advice with regard to whether we could carry out the object sought to be attained. During the interval I. have seen the Parliamentary Draftsman, and he is of opinion that the amendment which he suggested, and which I moved, will best give effect to what is desired. I move -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives, inserting paragraph (o2), be amended by the omission of the words “ by the receiver or,” and by the insertion of the words “or by any person “ after the word “ State.”

Motion agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining amendments agreed to.

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Resolved (on the ‘’ motion of Senator Drake) -

That Senator Sargood, Senator O’Keefe, and Senator Drake be appointed a committee to prepare and bring up reasons for disagreeing to amendments, Nos. 6, 58, 09, 62, 87 to89 of the House of Representatives.

page 5881

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

In Committee (consideration resumed from 2 October, vide page 5458) :

Clause 5 -

Upon which Senator Pearce had moved, by way of amendment -

That the words “during the pleasure of the commissioner “ be omitted.

Senator DRAKE:
General · Queensland, Post master · Protectionist

– When I was speaking on this Bill before, I pointed out, after consultation with my colleague, who had charge of the measure in the House of Representatives, and who will have the administration of it, that the words “ during the pleasure of the commissioner “ were put in, not with the idea of having any meaning in connexion with the power of suspension, but simply to make it clear that the inspectors should discharge certain duties during the pleasure- of the commissioner. That is to say, the commissioner shall at any time have power to transfer an inspector from one place to another. I do not think there is any ambiguity about the provision.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– But there is the power without these words.

Senator DRAKE:

– The words make it clearer, perhaps. If the words to which Senator Pearce takes exception are omitted, it would be advisable to put in, after the word “ fit,” the words “from time to time.” There is really nothing in the point, but rather than devote any more time to it I will allow Senator Pearce’s amendment to go, and will afterwards move an amendment to the effect I have described.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Drake) agreed to-

That after the word “fit” the words “from time to time “ be inserted.

The commissioner and inspectors shall each be appointed for a term of seven years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I move -

That after the word “commissioner” in subclause 2, the following words be inserted : - “ Shall hold office during good behaviour, and shall not be removed except by the GovernorGeneral in Council on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

– Senator Playford has answered himself. The honorable senator asked whether the Public Service Commissioner would not be an autocrat if appointed during good behaviour, and yet the honorable senator has himself mentioned an instance in which a Judge so appointed was removed by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I see no reason why we should not appoint this Public Service Commissioner during good behaviour. If the Ministry find that he is not carrying out his duty, they can bring down to Parliament the resolution necessary to remove him.

They can advise the Governor-General to suspend him in the meantime, while they consult Parliament as to what the)’ should do. If the Public Service Commissioner is not to be placed beyond the reach of the Ministry, he will be of very little use. I consider there is very little difference between an appointment for three years and an appointment for seven years, and we know what the appointment of a Public Service Board for three years means. We know that the Public Service Board in such cases have one eye on the public and the other on Ministers, and they simply act as a buffer between the Ministry of the day and the public, shouldering the responsibility of any erratic or inefficient appointment. It is because I do not wish to see the Public Service Commissioner made a mere buffer between the Ministry and the public that I make this suggestion, under which, if Ministers want to attack him, they must bring a motion before Parliament, and he may be satisfied if he has done his duty that he shall get defenders enough to keep him in his position.

Senator DRAKE:

– I think Senator Higgs is now going to the opposite extreme. Since the Bill has been before the Senate we have heard a good deal about the undesirability of placing the Public Service Commissioner in the position of an autocrat, yet Senator Higgs now proposes to go further, and give him his office during pleasure. I think that would be a great mistake, because it would make Mm practically irremovable. Of course I know that Senator Higgs proposes that the commissioner shall only be removed on an address to both Houses of Parliament, but we know that such a course would never be taken except in very extreme cases indeed.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– It has been taken in the case of a Railway Commissioner in Victoria.

Senator DRAKE:

– We have one instance quoted in Victoria, but that does not detract from what I say, that a man appointed during good behaviour is appointed for life, and until he is dropping into the grave. I think that is not desirable. Seven years seem to be a long enough term, and there should be some term fixed after which Parliament may have an opportunity to reconsider the whole matter. This matter of boards and commissioners has been before several of the States, and there is hardly one State Parliament that has not had cause to alter its mind, not within seven years, but within three or four years. We are commencing our history now under new circumstances, and it is desirable that within the next seven years the Parliament of the Commonwealth should have an opportunity of reconsidering this whole matter. We have had this Bill subjected during the last few weeks to the severest criticism, and are we now to assume all at once that the Parliament of the Commonwealth will not change its mind, not in the next seven years, but in a much longer period, and that it is desirable for us now to appoint a man to this position practically for life ? I think it far better to appoint him for the term provided for, and I cannot accept the amendment.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I intend to support Senator Higgs in his amendment, but I do not agree with the honorable senator that the appointment ought to be for life. I think it would be far better to set out with the idea that in this case there shall be no fixed term of office at all, because I feel that, before the half of seven years is over, the Public Service Commissioner we are appointing will be very much discredited, and the Commonwealth Government will desire to do away with him altogether.

Senator Drake:

– How are we to gat rid of him? If he is to be appointed during good behaviour, as proposed, we cannot get rid of him except for proved incapacity or misbehaviour.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I should have preferred an amendment striking out subclause (2) altogether, and having no provision as to the term of office at all. By doing that we should place the commissioner on the same footing as any other officer in the service, and for the life of me I cannot see why he should be in any other position. I do not see why the “ Commissioner of Toorak “ should hold office for a term of seven years, and “ George Jones” the postman should only hold his position so long as he does his duty. I hold that, no matter how high and responsible a position may be, the officer appointed to it should not hold it upon different terms to the humblest employe in the service.

Senator Drake:

– And yet the honorable senator says he will support Senator Higgs’ amendment.

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– The commissioner will not care for Members of Parliament : he is appointed for seven years. If we take the ordinary political life of a Member of Parliament, it is not seven years. Perhaps the average political life of a member of this Senate will be longer, because honorable senators are giving such satisfaction to the country. If we take the ordinary political life of a Ministry, it does not amount to seven years, though if the present Government live as long as they wish, they will remain in office for life. Senator Playford has’ said that in South Australia nothing like political influence has ever been resorted to, and that therefore a Civil Service Commissioner has never been required there.

Senator Playford:

– I never said anything of the sort.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

Senator Walker:

– There will be others.

Senator CHARLESTON:

– Then let us wait until we have taken over the others, and until we have taken over such great departments as the railway departments of the different States.

SenatorFraser. - That willnot be in our day.

Senator CHARLESTON:

– Just so ; and what I am contending is that the commissioner and inspectors are to be appointed practically to organize the two departments of the Custom’s and Post-office, which we have taken over, and to see that there are no more officers employed in them than are required.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– We have seven departments now.

Senator CHARLESTON:

-We are dealing particularly with two departments only. Having decided that there shall be a commissioner and inspectors, we have to consider what services they will have to render to the Commonwealth. Wo see that their work will be to organize these two departments, to see that no more officers are employed than are necessary, and that appointments shall be made according to the principles of justice. Surely they will not take seven years to do that work? According to the estimates which have been sent to us we find that this department of the public service commissioner and inspectors will cost nearly £10,000 a year, and in the course of seven years the department will have cost us some £70,000. I say we shall not get an equivalent for that large amount of money. If, as honorable senators think, at is necessary for someone to be appointed to organize our service, let us appoint this commissioner and his inspectors yearly. Let us place their salaries upon the Estimates where they may come up for consideration year by year, when, if we find that the services rendered by these gentlemen are worth the money we are paying for them we can continue to vote their salaries. If, on the other hand, we find that they have done their work, and that having organized the departments the service will be able to go forward under certain regulations which will be made, we may see our way clear to dispense with these worthy officers. I see no reason why we should’ not be in a position to do that in any year when we think their services are no longer required. Let us take the case of the Deputy Postmaster-General we have had for years in South Australia. He has given every satisfaction to the State. He has thoroughly organized his department, and has been above all political influence. I question very much whether any legislator in South Australia hasever attempted to bring political influence to bear upon Mm, yet his service is the same, and his salary is voted year by year on the Estimates in the same way as those of other members of the civil service. We should adopt the same principle with regard to this commissioner. If we say that he is to be appointed during good behaviour, that will practically mean until we can prove that he is unworthy of the position he holds. If we struck out sub-clause (2) altogether the salary of the Public Service Commissioner would appear from year to year on the Estimates. The idea of putting the Public Service Commissioner on the same level as our Judges is monstrous. I quite agree that the AuditorGeneral should be placed in such a position that he could not be removed except by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. We have to trust him to give us correct statements as to expenditure of money, and he may often have to check Ministers in extravagance, and bring such matters before us. He is not the servant of Ministers but of Parliament, and should be subject to removal by Parliament only. But this commissioner and his inspectors will be dependent upon the Ministry of the day for re-appointment, and they should be placed in such a position as I have suggested. They are officers who will be doing routine administrative work of Government, and their position should come before us from year to year on the Estimates, that we may discuss the value of their services, and say whether it is desirable to continue their employment or not. I shall oppose the amendment proposed by Senator Higgs, and if no other senator does so, I shall move the omission of sub-clause (2).

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 9.27 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 October 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1901/19011010_senate_1_5/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate10 October 1901

PETITIONS

QUESTION

BOOKS OFREFERENCE

The PRESIDENT:

Senator O’Connor:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

MILITARY SENATORS

Senator HIGGS:QUEENSLAND

Senator Major Gould:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

Senator DRAKE:PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Major Gould:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir John Downer:

Senator DRAKE:QUEENSLAND · PROT

Senator Major Gould:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Walker:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Major GOULD:New South Wales

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator McGregor:

Senator WALKER:New South Wales

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:South Australia

Senator Higgs:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator DE LARGIE:Western Australia

Senator Fraser:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Sir John Downer:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator O’KEEFE:Tasmania

Senator Major Gould:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Glassey:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Higgs:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Higgs:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Millen:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator DE LARGIE:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Millen:

Senator Higgs:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Millen:

Senate
10 October 1901

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator DRAKE:
QUEENSLAND · PROT

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:
Victoria

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia