Senate
1 July 1903

1^st Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS ACT
QUESTION
- INTERSTATE COMMISSION
MARRIAGE BILL.
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES :
VICTORIA
SUGAR BONUS BILL
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1)
PAPER
SUGAR REBATE ABOLITION BILL
SENATE ELECTIONS BILL
- Second Reading
NATURALIZATION BILL
- Second Reading

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

page 1574

PETITION

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL presented a petition from the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, praying the Senate to repeal sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Post and Telegraph Act.

Petition received and read.

page 1574

QUESTION

CUSTOMS ACT

Senator WALKER:
for Senator Lt.Col. Gould

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

How many prosecutions have been instituted tinder the authority of the Customs Act in each of the States since the establishment of the present Customs Tariff?

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable and learned senator’s question is as follows : -

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Are the moneys collected in the form of fines for breaches of the Customs Act credited to the ‘respective States in which theyare collected ; if not, how are they disposed of ?
What is the total sum collected in fines throughout the Commonwealth since the introduction of the Federal Tariff to the latest date for which the figures are available?

Senator DRAKE:

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

Yes.

page 1574

QUESTION

INTERSTATE COMMISSION

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

If he will furnish particulars of all State laws, by-laws, regulations, tolls, fees, and charges which in the opinion of Ministers give or may have the effect of giving preference to one State, or any part thereof, over another State, or any part thereof, in respect to trade, commerce, or revenue which, if continued, could be dealt with by the Inter-State Commission if appointed?
Have Ministers made any efforts to try and get the question of all such “ preferences “ before mentioned settled by arbitration or otherwise ; and, if not, will they do so ?
Are such “preferences” as now exist sufficiently numerous and important in the opinion of Ministers as to preclude their settlement by arbitration and necessitate and justify the appointment of the Inter-State Commission ?

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable and learned senator’s questions are as follow : -

. A minute investigation of all State laws and regulations under which preferential and discriminating rates, which prevent that absolute freedom of trade and intercourse between the States which is contemplated by section 92 of the Constitution Act, have been brought into existence, has not yet been undertaken, nor, indeed, may it be necessary to make such a detailed examination of the State laws. The most obvious of the existing preferences by State authorities are the’ preferential and discriminating railway rates ofNew South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia ; the railway tariff of Western Australia, under which goods produced in that Stateare carried to the gold-fields at rates which are in some cases only about one-fourth of those charged for the carriage of goods produced in other parts of the Commonwealth; the wharfage charge levied at the principal ports of Australia on goods imported from other States for consumption, thereby creating a preference which at Sydney is 2s. 6d”. per ton, at Melbourne practically 3s. per ton, and in Tasmania sis much as 6s. per ton ; and the pilotage charges incurred by shipping entering the carious potts; while apart from the State authorities there are the Inter-State traffic on rivers within the Commonwealth, and other carriage by water, which afford opportunities for discrimination by carriers. 2 and 3. Section 101 of the Constitution Act provides that there shall be an Inter-State Commission, and section 102 provides that no preferential or discriminating railway rates shall be taken to be undue and unreasonable or unjust to any State, unless such rates have been so adjudged by the Inter-State Commission. It is the intention of Ministers, therefore, to ask Parliament to carry out the provisions of the Constitution Act. Prior to the federation of the States, attempts were made to settle the question of preferential railway rates by mutual agreement: but, although the Railways Commissioners in conference came to an understanding in the matter, the Governments of the States concerned did not effect a settlement on the basis suggested.

page 1575

MARRIAGE BILL.

Senator DOBSON:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Will Ministers consider the desirability of introducing, when time permits, a Federal Marriage Act, so as to secure uniformity throughout the Commonwealth, and do away with the anomalies now existing in some of the State laws ?

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -

The propriety of introducing such a measure when time permits will be considered, but Ministers do not think that an opportunity will be afforded during the present session.

page 1575

ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES :

page 1575

VICTORIA

Ordered (on motion by Senator Styles for Senator Fraser) -

That a return be prepared and laid upon the table of the Senate showing the arrivals and departures from this State during the past two years.

page 1575

SUGAR BONUS BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 26th June, vide page 1490) :

Clause 2 -

There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated accordingly, to every grower of sugar-cane or beet within the Commonwealth, in the production of which sugar-cane or beet white labour only as been employed after the twenty-eighth day of February, One thousand nine hundred and two, a bonus, at the rates provided by this Act, on all such sugar-cane or beet delivered for manufacture after the commencement of this Act and before the first day of January, One thousand 1 nine hundred and seven.

Upon which Senator Lt.-Col. Neild had moved by way of amendment -

That the f following words be added : - “ Provided also that the said bonus shall not be paid in respect of any sugar-cane grown or produced by or with the labour of females.”

But I repeat that. as regards the employment of white women by the rapacious husbands and fathers, and the employment of young children, there is no word of condemnation that can be offered in opposition to such a state of affairs, which is not worthy of a man who attempts to represent the people.

The assertion that women and children are employed in the industry merely for the purpose of gain was pursued to a considerable extent. If that statement were true Senator Neild’s condemnation would be merited, and I would join him in it strongly. He went on to say -

I am saying nothing under the shelter of privilege. I published the same statements with my name attached in the morning press of Sydney when I came back from North Queensland. It is notorious that there are persons engaged in the sugar industry who are debasing their womenfolk and destroying the health of their young children by placing them at labour which the average white man will not tackle.

I distinctly call that statement into question. I know of no system of farming that is more simple than the cultivation of sugar-cane. To tell this Chamber and the country, as Senator Neild did, that no white man will tackle the work, is most misleading. Where is the proof ? I know that Senator Charleston is imbued with a spirit of generosity’ andof sympathy for women and children when he supports Senator Neild, but as he does so, it is proper to ask him for the proof of the statements which he supports.

Senator Charleston:

-Can the honorable senator disprove them ?

Senator GLASSEY:

– We call upon those who make these charges to prove them. It is not for me to present the opposite case ; it is for honorable senators who believe in these charges to make out a case for themselves. I say again that these statements are libels under which I am not going to allow my State to lie. If honorable senators cannot prove the charges let them stop their nonsense. Senator Neild says further -

The advantage they obtain from this sweated labour is supplemented by a bonus.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator is its step-father.

Senator CHARLESTON:

– Yes, because the mover is not here. I listened to the very able speech made by Senator Neild, in which he stated that it had come under his own notice, when visiting North Queensland, that women were being employed in the cane-fields, and I think I was justified in saying that I was ready to support him in preventing any bonus being paid on Sugar produced by the labour of white women. If it be true, as Senator Glassey would lead us to believe, that there are no women employed in the cane-fields, a provision of this sort will still prevent such a thing being done with a hope of securing extra remuneration in the shape of a bonus. If we do not carry this amendment, there is a possibility of women being employed and working at a cheaper rate than men in the cane-fields, whilst the canegrower will be assisted by the bonus. I have not visited Queensland, but I am basing my arguments on the remarks made by Senator Neild, who has been in that State. T have listened attentively to Senator Glassey, and I am not aware that he has denied that women are employed in the cane-fields of Queensland. He very wisely threw the onus of proof on the mover of the amendment. I presume that no honorable senator knows Queensland better than does Senator Glassey. He is familiar with the districts which he has named, and if he has never seen women employed in the canefields of that State, and believes that they are not so employed, he would be justified in saying so. I am inclined to infer from the honorable senator’s silence that he knows that women are employed in the canefields in at least some parts of Queensland. But even assuming that they are not so employed, why should we not pass this amendment, which will discourage the employment of women in that occupation ? I should be able to appeal with confidence to honorable senators of the labour party, who arrogate to themselves the right of protecting women and child-labour, to support this amendment, so that every discouragement may be given to the employment of women in the cane-fields. Unless Senator Glassey is able to disprove the assertion made by Senator Neild that women are so employed-

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I gave the statement a most emphatic denial.

Senator CHARLESTON:

– The honorable senator should repeat his assertion, in order to strengthen his opposition to what is, at least, a humane amendment.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– In entering upon this crusade against the employment of women in the cane-fields, Senator Charleston arid Senator Neild have apparently neglected two most important matters that are necessary to make good their case. They ought to have proved, in the first place, that women are employed largely in the cane-fields, and, secondly, it devolved upon them to prove in addition that the employment of women in that way is more deleterious to their health than are the many other occupations in which women are engaged. They have not done so. Senator Charleston, apparently depends entirely upon the assertions of Senator Neild, and takes no responsibility. He says, “ Senator Neild said so and so, and I am working upon his statements.” Where did Senator Neild obtain his information 1 I think I can inform the Committee of the way in which he was primed. I happened to accompany him during a portion of his journey to Northern Queensland, and I am prepared to say that on the up trip he did not visit a single cane-field. On the down trip I believe he went ashore at Townsville, where he was interviewed ‘ by certain -gentlemen representing the black-labour interest, and was primed with information. I am almost certain that he did not see a canefield on his way down the coast. He depended for his information entirely upon people who are opposed to the white-labour proposal.

Senator Pearce:

– He gave us a most interesting article on the cane-fields.

Senator STEWART:

– I think that the honorable senator drew very largely upon his vivid imagination in connexion with that article. Let us come to the facts. Is it true that any very great number of women are employed in the cane-fields of

Queensland. Senator Glassey has said that they are not so employed to any great extent, and that assertion has been repeated by Senator Dawson. I am free to admit, however, that I have heard that a few women were at one time employed in the cane-fields of the Mackay district, and I imagine that some honorable senators will be rather astonished to learn that the rebate which theFederal Government has paid has been the means of affecting the emancipation of these women, so far as their work in the canefields is concerned. There were a number of people in the Mackay district with young families who refused, for certain reasons which I need not elaborate before the Committee, to have any kanakas about their premises. They were so loyal to the principle of a white Australia that they declined to employ them. The wives and children of these men assisted them occasionally in the cane-fields, but the payment of the rebate liberated them from the necessity to do so. When they received the rebate they said - “ We can employ white men to do the work which no doubt has hitherto been done to some extent by our wives and families.” Women and children were probably employed to a very small extent in the canefields, and it is likely that they will be so employed in the future. I do not know whether they will or not, but I certainly see no objection to their employment in that way. If we object to women working in the cane-fields, we must prohibit their employment in a number of other occupations. If I happened to be a woman, and might choose whether I would be a cook in a stuffy kitchen in a big city, or work in the cane-fields, I should sooner follow the latter occupation. Then, again, how does the employment of women in steam laundries compare with their employment in doing such work as they are in the habit of being called upon to perform in the canefields? I do not know whether Senator Charleston has ever seen a cane-field.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).I was rather surprised, a little time ago, when some honorable senators asked for information about the inferior climate of Northern Queensland, and said that it ought to be shown it was was not a fit climate for women and children to work in. I did not expect that so much ignorance on the subject would be shown by honorable senators, because last session it was clearly proved that the climate of North Queensland was deleterious to health. Dr. Maxwell and many others showed that it was in their reports. I have not been able to procure these documents in the few minutes which have been at my disposal. But I have obtained the report of a conference of representatives of agricultural, pastoral, and horticultural societies which was held in Bundaberg in June, 1901. It is described in these terms -

An agricultural conference, organized by the Department of Agriculture, similar to the conferences held at Gatton in 1S97, at Rockhampton in 189S,- at Mackay in 1899, and at Warwick in 1900, was held at the Queen’s Theatre, Bundaberg, on the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th June, 1901, and was attended by representatives from practically all the leading agricultural, horticultural, and pastoral societies of the State.

The president said in his address -

Climatic conditions count for much in labour, whether performed by women or men, and our northern climate is a peculiarly trying one.

Mr. E. Swayne said

With regard to the temperature question, it is not the temperature readings only that you must take; for it is the humidity that makes the difference. On the Herbert River, they have already had 130 inches of rain this year. Work has had to be done during that time, and I do not think anybody could work in such a climate without doing himself an injury.

The friends of humanity in the Chamber are boasting that that climate would not be deleterious to female labour. I am surprised at their statements. They talk of men working for women ; so they ought to do. Why a cane-grower should try to obtain a bonus by employing female labour in a climatewhich is deleterious to health I cannot understand. I. shall vote for the amendment.

Senator WALKER (New South Wales).I move -

That the amendment be amended by the omission of the word “ females,” with a view to insert, in lieu thereof the words “children under the age of fourteen years.”

I can confirm largely what Senator Glassey has said with regard to cane-growing in.

– Not to such an extent. I do not oppose my experience to my honorable friend’s, but I appeal to honorable senators generally to say in a spirit of kindliness that a bonus ought not to be given to any cane-growers who employ young children in the fields. Without this condition the bonus will offer an inducement to some parents to employ their children on the cane-fields, while there are many other more suitable occupations in which they could be employed.

– No, I am not so eminent as Senator Zeal, who for so many years occupied a dignified and high position in this State. There is eminence for you ! Whether there was ability also is another question. I hope that Senator Charleston, now that he has obtained further information, will not allow it to go forth that we need to enact a law to prevent evils which do not exist, never have existed, and, so far as I know anything of the sturdy manhood and ability of the people of my State, are not likely to exist.

Senator WALKER (New South Wales). - In reply to Senator Glassey I desire to say that he has overlooked the real danger. No person objects to a boy amusing himself on a holiday in the cane-fields. The word labour, as here employed, means doing certain work for so much a week. I offer strong objection to young people working in the cane-fields as a matter of livelihood.

Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia). - I am exceedingly grateful to

Senator Stewart for corroborating the statements of Senator “Neild. He has clearly shown us, notwithstanding the eloquent remarks of Senator Glassey, that women have been employed in Queensland, and that by giving a rebate which we are now turning into a bonus, the growers of sugar have been enabled to emancipate their women and employ men. In the interests of such canegrowers as have emancipated their women, let us agree that no bonus shall be paid on sugar grown by the aid of women. Then we shall give encouragement to that nobleconduct which has been so highly praised by Senators Stewart and Glassey. Senator Stewart’s excellent remarks have afforded the very strongest reasons why we should support Senator Neild’s amendment, and I hope that the Committee will adhere to it,, and not destroy it at the instance of Senator Walker by striking out the word- “ females “ in order to insert other wordsLast week it was decided that we should test the question on the word “females.” I therefore hope that Senator Walker will withdraw his amendment and support that of Senator Neild.

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

– I like neither the amendment of Senator Neild nor Senator Walker’s amendment upon it. There is very nearly the same objection to the one as to the other from the point of view that both are entirely impracticable ; because it will be impossible to obtain sufficient inspectors to look after every small farm and see that boys of fourteen are not engaged in doing a bit of weeding occasionally. ‘ We have devoted some hours to discussing the question from the point of view of the female, who we are told has been worked to death in the cane-fields, and our feelings having been excited to a high pitch upon that subject, an amendment is suddenly moved throwing the ladies overboard, and objecting to the employment of boys under fourteen. We have got nearly down to the bed-rock of absurdity, and it is a pity to waste more time over the question. I can quite understand the amendment as to women being brought forward, but every one must see that it is quite absurd to suppose that boys would be employed by planters to any considerable extent. I do not see how it would be possible to prevent their being employed upon small farms close to cottages, and indeed there would be no more danger of employing them in that way than in any other form of agricultural production. It is really cottage work. I have never seen white women employed in the cane-fields of Queensland, though I have seen them engaged in other kinds of agriculture. I have seen them working in potato-fields and upon crops of a similar kind, and . I have seen female kanakas working alongside male kanakas. There is no necessity for either of the amendments, the only effect of which would be to prevent the regulations with regard to white-grown sugar from being properly carried out.

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

AYES: 3

NOES: 21

Majority … … 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - resolved in the negative.

Amendment, as amended, negatived.

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

-I move -

That the following words be added : - “ But nothing in this Act shall be held to invalidate the right of any grower to obtain the bonus for white-grown cane in respect to which notice shall have been given prior to the first day of March one thousand nine hundred and three, in pursuance of the’ New SugarRegulation of the eighth January one thousand nine hundred and three, notwithstanding that the said regulation was ultra vires.”

It is necessary to explain why I propose to add this amendment to the clause. In the Excise Tariff Bill, we provided that people by giving notice that they intended to grow cane with white labour prior to the 28th February, 1902, should obtain the advantage of a rebate.

Senator Drake:

– I only object to the form of Senator Matheson’s amendment. I think that his object can better be attained in another way.

Senator MATHESON:

– Perhaps the Postmaster-General will explain what he means.

Senator DRAKE:

– I know the object which the honorable senator has in view. It is that there may be no doubt as to the position of cane-growers under the regulation issued in December last, with regard to the bonus where white labour has been employed since the 28th February, 1903. I think the proper way in which to do what he desires will be to re-insert the words we have struck out. Senator Glassey’s amendment was to put in the words “for a period of twelve months immediately preceding the delivery thereof,” and to strike out the words “ 28th February, 1903.” The proper way would have been to insert the words suggested by Senator Glassey after “1903.” The amendment I propose to. move on recommittal is to insert after the word “employed “ the words “ after 28th day of February, 1903, or.” Honorable senators will see that Senator Glassey’s amendment simply extends the time of registration for the bonus for white-grown cane beyond the date previously fixed in the Bill. If we again insert the words “after 28th February, 1903, or,” the object of the honorable senator will be accomplished in what I venture to think is a simpler and more regular manner than by tacking an amendment to the clause. It was only through inadvertence that Senator Glassey’s amendment was allowed to pass in that form. What I propose will substitute an alternative period. There will be one period up to a fixed date, 28th February, 1903, and another alternative and intermediate period covered by the words of Senator Glassey’s amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, with requests, agreed to.

Clause 3. (Calculation of bonus on sugar-cane.)

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I intend toasktheCommitteetoomitclause 3, and to make a slight alteration in clause 4, because one of these clauses isobviously unnecessary. When the Excise Tariff Bill was originally introduced it only covered sugar-cane, but beet was subsequent])7 included b)’ a separate clause. All that is needed is to pay the bonus on the sugargiving contents of sugar-cane or beet. Honorable senators will see that in clause 5 that expression is used, and reference is made to “ the average sugar-giving contents of the sugar-cane or beet in any particular district.” If clause 3 is omitted, I shall propose an amendment of clause 4, omitting the words “in the case of beet,” and inserting the words “sugar-cane or” before the final word “ beet” in that clause. So that that clause would then read -

The bonus shall be at the rate of 40s. per ton on the sugar-giving contents of the sugar-cane or beet.

That will make the matter quite clear, and will remove the surplusage that at present exists.

Senator DRAKE:

– Senator Pulsford was good enough to inform me that he intended to direct the attention of the Committee to these two clauses. I have therefore been making inquiries as to the reason why sugar-cane is dealt with in one clause and beet in the other. The reason is that in the Excise Tariff Act a difference was made between cane and beet sugar in respect of the method by which we were to get at the sugar-giving contents. In the case of cane, the rebate was to be calculated on cane giving 10 per cent, of sugar, and in the case of beet there was to be a bonus of 40s. per ton on the sugar-giving contents.

Senator Pulsford:

– It is the same thing.

Senator DRAKE:

– It may be, but I am informed that there are good reasons for making a distinction here between cane and beet corresponding with the distinction made in the Tariff. It is no waste to devote a few extra words to keeping two subjects distinct, and preventing the possibility of mistakes arising.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - Does the honorable and learned senator intend to make a corresponding alteration in clause 5 t We have in that clause simply the words “ sugar-giving contents of cane or beet.” If a distinction is necessary in one case, it is equally necessary in the other. I have no wish to waste the time of the ‘Committee. I have called attention to what seems to me something like smut on the face of the Bill. I proposed to remove it, but if the Minister in charge of the Bill prefers to keep it, I am willing.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -

It may be prescribed by regulation that the average sugar-giving contents of the sugar-cane or beet in any particular district shall, for the purposes of this Act, be taken to be the sugargiving contents of each lot of sugar-cane or beet in that district.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I should like to ask what this clause really means. In the first place, upon reading the clause one would imagine that the average contents of the sugar-cano grown in an)’ particular district should be made up, but then the clause goes on to say “ be taken to be the sugar-giving contents of each lot of sugar-cane or beet.” As I understand it, what is intended is that a number of lots of sugar-cane in any particular district should be analyzed to find out the average sugar-giving contents, and that subsequently all the cane cut in that district should be taken to have the same sugar-giving contents, in order to save the expense and trouble pf analyzing each particular lot of cane coming to the mill. The clause does not appear to me to carry out what is intended, because I understand the expression “each -lot” to mean each and every lot. If we provided that a number of lots should be taken to get the average, and that that should subsequently be adopted as the standard for the whole district of the cane in that district I could understand it.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

SenatorFraser. - He will do so.

Senator DRAKE:

– He would do so if it were not for this clause, which says, that the average having been ascertained and prescribed by regulation, each lot of cane in the district concerned is to be held to contain that quantity of sugar.

SenatorClemons. - It does not say that, although that was the intention of its framers.

Senator DRAKE:

– It appears to me to be clear. I rose simply to point out the obvious mistake which Senator Playford was making in imagining that each separate lot referred to was to make up the lot from which the average was to be ascertained. It is quite the other way. The average is to be ascertained from samples taken from various parts of the district, and when it has been ascertained, it is to be held to be the average of each lot brought to the mill.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - I deplore the fact that I have to point out that the Postmaster-General does not know the meaning of the word “ average.” If he objects to the amendment which I first suggested, I can point out another way of making this clause intelligible. As it stands, it is sheer nonsense. The insertion of the word “ average “ before the word “ sugar,” line 4, would make the clause intelligible.

Senator Drake:

– There is nothing about “average” in the Excise Tariff Act.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The word “average “ appears in the clause, and if it is not repeated at the point I have indicated this provision will be nonsensical. The adoption of either of the suggestions I have made would make the clause intelligible, and I ask the Postmaster-General to accept one or the other.

Senator DRAKE:

– I cannot do so. In view of the fact that Senator Clemons has just discovered that the clause does not carry out the object in view, I might point Out that it appears to have been copied word for word from the Excise Tariff Act. He will see at once that in these circumstances it would be inadvisable to have any variation. The Excise Tariff Act provides that the rebate is to be at a certain rate, and that it is to be ascertained in a certain definite manner. This ‘ clause provides that for the purposes of the Act the contents of each lot of cane shall be taken to be the average which has been ascertained and prescribed by regulation. This is what the Excise Tariff Act provides -

All rebates to be allowed at the time of delivery of the cane or beet on the ascertainment in manner prescribed of the sugar-giving contents, and so that it may be prescribed that the average sugar-giving contents of the cane or beet in any particular district shall be taken to be the sugargiving contents of each lot of cane or beet in such district.

Senator Fraser:

– If those words appeared in the clause, there would be no difficulty.

Senator DRAKE:

– We have practically the same words in this clause. The average has been ascertained from the yields for five years previous to the time when it was fixed by regulation, and all this clause provides is that the average ascertained for each particular district shall be taken to represent the sugar-giving contents of each lot of sugar-cane which is brought to the mill.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - I do not know why the Postmaster-General objects to amend the clause in the way I have suggested. I have no desire to alter its effect in any way ; I simply wish to put it in an intelligible form. The PostmasterGeneral attempts to argue that an average may be half-a-dozen different things. An average is a single number, derived, perhaps, from half-a-dozen different things ; and unless it is reduced in that way it cannot be obtained. I think the first amendment which I suggested should be accepted.

Senator Keating:

– This clause implies that the average sugar-giving contents of the cane has already been found.

Senator CLEMONS:

– If that is the Postmaster-General’s contention, he should agree to the insertion of the word “ average “ at the point suggested. I shall move an amendment, and I should like the PostmasterGeneral to say which of the two I have indicated is the least objectionable to him.

Senator Drake:

– I am afraid that the second suggestion would not’ be a compliance with the Excise Tariff Act.

Senator CLEMONS:

– We are not bound to comply with any Tariff Act. If we have drawn the Excise Tariff Act badly, I do not see why we should repeat the mistake. I move -

That, after the word “the,” line 4, the word “ average “ be inserted.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

– I agree with Senator Clemons.

Senator Drake:

– If the honorable senator does so I do not think he can have grasped the full meaning of the clause.

Senator FRASER:

– Reading the clause as a layman, it seems to me to provide that -

The average sugar-giving contents . . . shall … be the sugar-giving contents of each lot of sugar-cane or beet in that district.

Leaving out certain words in the middle of the clause we arrive at its literal meaning. It is really absurd. If the PostmasterGeneral reads the clause as I have put it before the Committee, he will not fail to arrive at the conclusion that some amendment is necessary.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia). - The clause would be made clearer by the insertion of the amendment, but having looked up the Excise Tariff Act, it appears to lite that it is absolutely unnecessary. We have made provision in that Act to accomplish what we want. The quotation which the Postmaster-General has read from the Excise Tariff Act is the law of the land ; under it all the necessary regulations can be made, and there is not the slightest necessity for this clause.

Senator DRAKE:

– The law of the land, so far as the Excise Tariff Act is concerned, would necessitate the ascertainment of the sugar-giving contents of every lot of cane that came to a mill. That is one of the difficulties which has occurred, and it has been met by ascertaining the average yield of the sugar-cane in each district. The Excise Tariff Act provides that we are to pay the rebate according to the sugar-giving contents of the cane. We now desire the authority of a statute to sa>y that the average having been ascertained and fixed for the whole of a district, it shall be held to be the sugargiving contents of each lot of cane that comes to the mill. To thrust in the word “ average “ at the point proposed, would be to undo what has already been done. We want in this provision to be able to say that, for the purposes of that payment, the sugargiving contents of the cane are the average which has been fixed by regulation for the whole of the district. We must not put in the word “ average.” There is no such word as “ average “ in the Excise Tariff Act, and if it is inserted where proposed in this clause we shall not be able to say, as we wish to do, that the average as ascertained shall be taken to represent the sugar-giving contents of the cane grown in a given district.

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

– What the Postmaster-General means is that this is not a clause for fixing the average at all. That is where the mistake has arisen. What the clause says is that the average fixed shall be applied to each lot of cane in the district. We ought to understand from Senator Drake how the average has been fixed.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I desire to point out to Senator Playford that we are entitled to assume that, if the Bill is passed, the provisions in the Excise Tariff Act which are designed to provide for a rebate will be superseded. The object of this clause is not to ascertain the average : it implies that the average has already been ascertained, though by what method I am not in a position to say. The marginal note is misleading, and, perhaps, to some extent is the cause of the misconception which has arisen. From the words of the marginal note one would be inclined to infer that the clause was designed to provide for the ascertainment of the average sugar-giving contents of the cane in the district ; but it is not so. It provides for using and applying that average once it has been ascertained. It remains for the Postmaster-General to explain the method which has been adopted in ascertaining the average before applying the principle of the clause. But if the average has been ascertained, it would be of no use to put in the word “ average “ where suggested.

All rebates to be allowed at the time of delivery of the cane or beet on the ascertainment in manner prescribed of the sugar-giving contents, and .so that it may be prescribed that the average sugar-giving contents of the cane Or beet in any particular district shall be taken to be the sugar-giving contents of each lot of cane or beet in such district.

It may be prescribed by regulation that for the purposes of this Act the sugar contents of each lot of sugar-cane or beet in any district shall be taken to be the average sugar contents of the sugar-cane in that district.

That is exactly what the PostmasterGeneral wants.

Senator Drake:

– No, it is not.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Surely the Department wants to provide that when any farmer brings in his sugar it can be said to him right away - “ We are not going to analyze your sugar, but will pay to you a bonus in accordance with the average sugargiving contents for this district.” They want to tell the farmer that the sugargiving contents of his cane are to be taken to be the same as the sugar-giving contents of the cane grown by other farmers in the same district. In the interests of clear draftsmanship and lucidity the Minister should agree to alter the clause. If he will not do so I shall say no more. I am sick of the subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause7 -

All rebates of excise duty on sugar paid before the commencement of this Act shall be taken to have been paid as bonuses undsr this Act.

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

– I intend to vote against this clause. I wish to explain to the Committee that, though it is apparently an innocent looking clause, it is really a piece of retrospective legislation, which is intended to allow the Government to deprive certain of the States of money to which they are entitled under the Excise Tariff Act.

Senator Walker:

– The money is only held in suspense.

Senator MATHESON:

– We passed last year an Excise Tariff Act, which provided that the £2 per ton rebate on sugar was to be paid as a rebate. That meant that it was to be taken off the excise, and therefore was to be paid by the persons who consumed the white-grown sugar. Sir George Turner has supplied us with a paper showing the results of the operation of the Act. On the 30th April the Government had collected the sum of £163,000, which was due to the States in various proportions, but which the Treasurer of the Commonwealth did not pay to them. As time has gone on the sum of money retained, but which should have been distributed amongst the States, has increased to something like £215,000. I frankly admit that it has been proved that our legislation of last year was wrong, and that the method applied in calculating the rebate was not equitable. But at the same time it must be admitted that what we passed was an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament. That being so, the money collected is to-day the property of the States, and ought to have been paid over to them month by month under the Constitution Act. It is of no use for Senator Walker to say that the money has simply been retained. The point is that it has been retained absolutely illegally. Its retention is a theft-a deliberate theft - on the part of this Government from every one of the States concerned. I say so deliberately and after careful consideration. The Acts which this Parliament has passed should be carried out. Who are the Ministry that they should sit down on the money-bags and say - “ We do not like this or that way of dealing with the revenue, and we intend to hold back this money for twelve months, and to ask Parliament to pass a fresh Bill dealing not only with the future” - in which they are quite right - “but with the past.” The States have been counting on receiving the money due to them. The States Treasurers have been expecting it. Honorable senators seem to think that this is merely a question of a new basis of distribution of funds which have been retained. But this Bill goes far beyond anything of that kind. The effect, stated in figures, as applied to South Australia, will be that not only will she be deprived of the small sum of £1,500 which has been credited to her, but she will actually have to make good a sum of something like £4,158 which has never been credited to her, and which she has never received.In fact, we are proposing to legislate here to-day that not only shall we change the law so far as South Australia is concerned - because it is the law ; that is what honorable senators are apt to forget - but that we shall oblige that State to make good a deficiency that has occurred through the mistake of this Parliament. Is that a class of legislation which is likely to recommend the Commonwealth Parliament to the people of Australia? I say that it is not. . I do not care if I am in a minority of one, I shall endeavour to divide the Committee upon this clause, merely as a protest against retrospective legislation, and against an attempt which, unless prevented, will bring this Parliament into the gravest disrepute amongst the nations of the world. This is not a small matter. It involves a most important principle, and a principle which I intend to maintain whenever possible. We are proposing to cany retrospective legislation, simply because we have the power to do so, to the detriment of helpless States or helpless individuals. I submit no motion upon the clause, because the proper course for me to take is to divide the Committee upon it.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– I do not feel called upon to answer the honorable senator who has just sat down, for the reason that the whole subject has already been exhaustively debated. Last week Senator Downer desired to raise the point by an amendment upon clause 2. Though that amendment was in order, I thought that it was not a convenient way of raising the question. Still, as the honorable and learned senator was desirous of raising it, it was fully discussed, and I think that every honorable senator understood the question after listening to the debate.

Senator Matheson:

-I did not understand it.

Senator DRAKE:

– I hope that every other honorable senator understood it.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– I did not understand it.

Senator DRAKE:

– Senator Downer’s amendment was moved for the express purpose of bringing up the question which Senator Matheson has raised. It was discussed at considerable length, and I should have thought that every honorable senator regarded the point as settled after the division which was taken. I hope that we shall not have another lengthy debate.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– This matter was discussed upon the second reading of the Bill, and also in Committee. Therefore I imagine that the Committee thoroughly understands it. It resolves itself really into two points, with only one of which the honorable senator who has signified his intention of voting against the clause has dealt. That is the point with regard to this being retrospective legislation. There are good and sufficient reasons why retrospective legislation should sometimes be passed, and from that point of view I do not grumble very much at the position taken up by the Government. But there is another point which is of far greater importance, and about which the Federal Government may hear something in the future. That is as to how this Bill affects the Constitution. The Constitution is absolutely clear and mandatory. It provides that the Government shall, at the end of every month, divide the surplus, crediting the States with the amount of money received, and debiting them with the amount which the Commonwealth has spent in matters in which they are especially interested. The balance is to be handed over to the States. If we pass this Bill, and say that what the Constitution requires shall not be done, the States will still have a perfect right to go either to the Privy Council or to our Federal High Court and ask for justice. The chances are that the States that are injured by this process will decide to test the question. Whatever we may do in the way of retrospective legislation, we should not break the Constitution. But in this case we are doing more than passing retrospective legislation; we are absolutely breaking the Constitution, and it appears to me that that aspect of the matter would be regarded as very grave if it were brought before the courts.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 9

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Bill reported with requests.

page 1592

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1)

Firstreading.

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives, and (on motion by Senator Drake) read a first time.

page 1592

PAPER

Senator DRAKE laid upon the table

Papers relating to the appointment of Mr. Charles Powers as Crown Solicitor.

page 1592

SUGAR REBATE ABOLITION BILL

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

page 1592

SENATE ELECTIONS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18th June(vide page 1 1 02), on motion by Senator Drake -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– At the outset, I must say that I heartily concur with every word which fell from my honorable colleague, Senator Barrett, as to the unfairness of clause 9 of this Bill. If I understand it aright, Senator Playford put the view of the Government very tersely when, during the speech of the PostmasterGeneral, he interjected -

Why can we not say that the successful candidate who gets the fewest votes shall be elected for the shorter term ?

That is a very simple way of getting out of the difficulty. To that interjection Senator Drake replied -

That is exactly what we are saying in this Bill. By following the line of common sense, Senator Playford has reached the conclusion that the Government have recommended.

I notice that the speakers who followed - honorable senators who are in for three and a half years yet - all sided with the

Bill. That is merely a coincidence, no doubt, but they appear to be quite content that honorable senators who vacate their seats at the end of this year should take their chance. I was rather surprised at the remark coming from Senator Playford, and the common-sense line he laid down was readily jumped at by the Postmaster-General, followed by Senators Higgs and Millen. I would ask why the section providing that, in the event of a vacancy, the Parliament of the State in which it occurs shall appoint a member to fill it, was inserted in the Constitution?

Senator Playford:

– I think the honorable senator will find that the section says “ until Parliament otherwise provides.”

Senator STYLES:

– I think not, but I am not quite sure about that. I understand that the Constitution maybe altered. There is a way to alter it which is provided for in section . 128.

Senator Fraser:

– That would take some time.

Senator STYLES:

– The Convention, in framing the Constitution in such a way that in such a case as has happened in the Senate, when, through the lamented death of the late Sir Frederick Sargood, Senator Reid was appointed to his place by the Parliament of the State, did so with the sole purpose of saving the Commonwealth a large expense in the matter of elections. In this case it might have cost ?10,000 or ?20,000 for an election to return one man to the Senate. The Convention showed its wisdom, as I think it did all through the consideration of the Commonwealth Bill, so far as a layman like myself is able to judge, by saying - “We do not desire to put the Commonwealth to such expense as that, and we therefore say - ‘ Let the State Parliament appoint a man to hold office until an election shall take place, whether it be for the House of Representatives or for- the Senate.’ “ Supposing the Convention had not taken into consideration the question of expense, what would have happened then? There would have been an election, and if Senator Reid had won that election he would have held the seat until the expiration of Senator Sargood’s term. There is no getting away from that position. The honorable senator could never have been placed in one of the other seats. He would have ‘held a particular position. What would happen if a dissolution were to take place next month?

– Yes; but only seventeen of them will retain their seats. The Postmaster-General, in moving the second reading of this Bill, read only one section of the Constitution. He omitted to read section 13. I shall supply that omission. Section 13 provides that-

As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes-

Senator Playford:

– That has been done.

Senator STYLES:

– I shall come to that point. I contend that it can be done no more by this Senate. The section continues - as nearly equal in number as practicable ; and the places - not the senators - of the senators of the first-class shall become vacant at the expiration of the third year, and the places of those of the secondclass at the expiration of the sixth year from the beginning of their term of service ; and afterwards the places of senators shall become vacant at the expiration of six years from the beginning of their term of service.

– If Senator Reid is returned at the top of the poll next December, he will still belong to the class in which the late Senator Sargood was placed by the Senate when it exercised the right it possesses under the Constitution. I contend that this particular Senate can only exercise thatright once. It is true that it is a risky thing for a layman to raise a constitutional question. I recognise that fact, and I raise this point with a good deal of hesitation, because I recollect that of the nine members of the Government eight were members of the Convention. One member was President of the Convention, while another was the leader of it. We have also to remember that there are six lawyers in the Government, so that the chances are not 9 to 1, but something like 99 to 1 that I am wrong in my contention. But I submit my reading of the Constitution to the President, who is the authority to decide this matter. Before I proceed to make certain quotations showing what the lawyers have to say about thispoint, perhaps I should refresh the minds of honorable senators as to section 15 of the Constitution, which provides that -

If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen shall, sitting and voting together, choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term, or until the election of a successor as hereinafter provided whichever first happens. At the next general election of members of the House of Representatives, or at the next election of senators, for the State, whichever first happens, a successor shall, if the term has not then expired, be chosen to hold the place from the date of his election until the expiration of the term.

When the question as to the rotation of honorable senators was before the Senate two years ago, Senator O’Connor said -

The matter is important in this sense : -

He was referring to the question that it should be settled at once - that it is necessary that the Senate shall come to a conclusion as early as possible, because, in the event of any vacancy occurring, the person who is elected- - “ elected,” not “ chosen” by a State Parliament will be returned for the remainder of the term of the senator whose seat has been vacated.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I listened with a very great deal of attention to Senator Styles, but I really did not master the point which he raised. The position appears to be plain enough as laid down in the Constitution. Two casual vacancies have occurred, one by resignation, and the other by death. When a casual vacancy occurs the Constitution provides that the Parliament of the State in which it occurs, and if it is not in session the Governor in Council, shall choose a successor. That provision has been complied with. Then comes the question of how long shall they hold office % Section 15 provides -

At the next general election of members of the House of Representatives, or at the next election of senators for the State, whichever first happens, a successor shall, if the term has not then expired, be chosen to hold the place from the date of his election until the expiration of the term.

The term for which Senator Sargood would have sat, if he had lived, would have been six years. The gentleman who has been chosen to fill his seat will sit until the next general election, and a person will then have to be chosen by the electors to hold that position for the term of three years only. Now comes the question as to which person out of the four who have to be elected is to fill the position. You may have nominations for the filling of vacancies caused by the periodical retirement of senators. You may also have nominations to fill the casual vacancy for the remainder of the original term. But see what a confusion that would occasion. The Constitution is silent about how it is to be decided, and being silent it is open to us to make due provision. Of the two courses - the one which I have indicated, and the other provided in the Bill - which is the fairer’ 1 If the decision is to be left to any body, it should be left entirely to the electors. Of course by the first method which was indicated by Senator Drake, the decision would be left to the electors; but this awkward position would arise, that certain candidates would stand for the casual vacancy which would have to be voted for separately, and certain candidates would stand for the periodical vacancies. Is it not far better to let the electors of the State know that the men who are to fill the periodical vacancies, and whose term will, therefore, be for six years, are to be those who are highest on the poll, and that the man who is fourth on the poll shall fill the casual vacancy, and sit for three years ? That will leave the whole decision of the matter with the electors. Is Senator Styles alarmed at a provision of this kind ? Are we afraid of the electors? Does he think that they will not make the best choice under the circumstances ? Does he not see that going before the electors when four candidates have to be returned is a great deal better than going before them when only three- have to be elected? If he misses being chosen as one of the three he may be chosen as the fourth, and enjoy the three years’ tenure. I hope that he will not be fourth on the poll. I sincerely trust that he will be one of the first three. But we never know how elections will turn out, and it may be, after all, that what Senator Styles is complaining about will be the very thing that will give him a seat in the Senate for three years after the next election. I fail to see the constitutional point. Indeed, there appears to me to be no constitutional point at all. The question as to who is to fill the position vacated by the death of Senator Sargood is left to be decided, and we have to provide a way in which it shall be decided. I contend that the method proposed by the Government is the intelligent and common-sense way of doing it. It leaves it to the people, who have most interest in the matter, to say who’ are the candidates in whom they have most confidence. The three in whom they have most confidence will sit for six years, and the fourth on the poll will sit for three! Where on earth a constitutional question comes in I cannot for the life of me understand. I should like to hear Senator Styles on the point again, so that we might have some chance of understanding this great constitutional question, upon which you, Mr.

– He enters the Senate under those conditions.

Senator PEARCE:

– No, certainly not; he enters the Senate under the conditions laid down in the Constitution. That is to say, he is to hold the place until the next election takes place. Then what is his position ? The obligation placed upon him by the State Parliament ceases at the next election, and if he wishes to re-enter the

Senate he has to re-enter under conditions laid down by this Parliament and not by the Constitution.

Senator Styles:

– We cannot override the Constitution.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Constitution has nothing to say about it. Our Electoral Act and this amending Bill lay down the conditions under which he shall re-enter the Senate.

Senator Barrett:

– This almost converts me to the High Court idea.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Constitution says that a successor shall be chosen. Under what conditions ? Under whatever conditions this Senate likes to put intoan Act of Parliament. We are now asked to say in this Bill that the method which we adopted after the last general election shall be adopted in future - that the three highest on the poll shall hold their seats for six years, and the fourth on the poll shall hold the seat foi* three years. That is only asking the Senate to put into an Act of Parliament what it has already decided by resolution. We have only to apply the same principle to future elections, and to say that what under our resolution applies to three senators shall in the present case of Victoria apply to one. As to the position of the present occupants of seats, I consider that both Senator Styles and Senator Barrett are at a distinct advantage over honorable senators from other States ; because there are four vacancies for Victoria, whereas in the other States the vacancies are limited to three. This Bill in no way attempts to override the Constitution, nor does it place any disability upon, any retiring Victorian senators. In fact, it gives those senators a distinct advantage. I shall support it.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I think that the last speaker has failed to apprehend the point particularly under discussion. We are dealing with two distinct things. Section 13 of the Constitution clearly sets forth what shall be done after the first election^ and after a dissolution of both Houses. We have decided that those senators who were highest on the poll shall sit for six years, and that the three next on the poll shall retire at the next election. Now comes an entirely different thing. The Constitution provides for this contingency. Suppose a vacancy occurred such as has been caused recently in Victoria owing to the sad death of Senator Sargood. He was in the second class, elected for a term of six years, and another vacancy was caused by the retirement of Senator Ewing, who was in the first class, and due to retire at the end of three years. It is clearly stated that if a senator should retire, or if his seat should become vacant, the Houses of the State Parliament meeting together shall select a man to fill the vacancy - but for how long ? The Constitution says “until the expiration of the term.” In the case of Senator Saunders, that would be until the end of this year. His term will then expire, because he has been sent to the Senate to fill the place of Senator Ewing, whose term would have expired at the end of this year. Supposing Senator Ewing’s term did not expire at the end of this year, Senator Saunders would have held the place according to the Constitution “ until the election of a successor as hereinafter provided.” Supposing there were an election of senators prior to the expiration of the term for which the retiring senator was elected, the seat would become vacant and might be filled at the election by any candidate. The Constitution provides -

At the next general election of members of the House of Representatives, or at the next election of senators for the Senate, whichever first happens, a successor shall, if the term has not then expired, be chosen to hold the place from the date of his election until the expiration of the term.

That is the case of Senator Sargood, and his successor would be elected to hold the place from the date of his election, because Senator Reid might not be elected, or might decline to stand, and the person chosen as the successor of Senator Sargood would be chosen to hold the place from the date of his election until the expiration of the term which would have been filled by Senator Sargood, had he lived. It is to me perfectly clear that whoever is sent to the Senate to fill the place of Senator Sargood will only hold the seat for the term for which the late senator would have held it, had he lived.

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

– I think that a very good point has been raised in connexion with clause 9, but it has not been made as clear as it might be. First of all, I may say that the point arises in connexion with an election where a senator is to be elected by the voters of the State to fill up a gap that exists - that is to say, to fill a term that has not expired at the date of the election, but which goes on for three years further - while at the same time an election of senators is being held to fill vacancies for a term of six years each. That is where the trouble arises. Clause 9 of the Bill says that the first three elected candidates shall have the six years’ term, and the fourth candidate shall have the three years’ term. It seems to me that the difficulty we are in in getting the matter adjusted arises from the operation of clause 5, which says -

The election of senators to fill the periodical vacancies and of senators to fill the casual vacancies shall be conducted as one election of senators.

I wish Senator Styles to attend, because I am about to show how his difficulty can be got over - if it is desirable to get over it, and of that I am not convinced.

Senator Pearce:

– We are all agreed as to how it can be got over ; but the question is whether it should be got over.

Senator MATHESON:

– I do not quite mean what Senator Pearce suggests. It ought to be got over according to v the Constitution, and not according to our desires. As I read it, the Constitution clearly anticipated that where at the same time elections were being held for senators for the six years’ term, and for senators for the three years’ term, there should be separate nomination. To take a case, a man, Jones, would say - “ I intend to stand for the six years’ period, and not for the three years’ period or stop-gap vacancy,” and his nomination paper would indicate that. Though the voting would be carried on at the same time, in the same room, for senators standing for both terms, different ballot-papers would be used.

Senator Pearce:

– Where does the honorable senator read that in the Constitution ?

Senator MATHESON:

– I do not read that in the Constitution, but the Constitution leaves matters in such a condition that we may fairly infer that that was the intention. I am not satisfied that it is right, but it is certainly a deduction which any impartial person may draw from the Constitution.

Senator Charleston:

– That is all I claim for it.

Senator MATHESON:

– The Constitution says in section 15 -

At the next general election of members of the House of Representatives, or at the next election of senators for the Senate, whichever first happens, a successor shall, if the term has not then expired, be chosen to hold the place from the date of his election until the expiration of the term.

It was obviously contemplated, it seems to me, by the Constitution that the successor to be elected should be a person who had nominated for the particular vacancy, and should not be one of a bunch of candidates.

At the next general election of members of the House of Representatives, or at the next election of senators for the State, whichever first happens, a successor shall, if the term has not then expired, be chosen to hold the place from the date of his election -

Not from the 31st December- - - until the expiration of the term. “The expiration of the term” is exactly the same expression as is used in the previous section, in which it clearly means until the expiration of the six-year period, because it says “ until the expiration of the terra, or until the next election, whichever first happens.” It appears to me that it is perfectly clear that we cannot give a different meaning to the expression “expiration of the term “ from that given to the same expression in the previous section, and in that section the meaning of the expression is clear, because it is put as an alternative term to the election of a successor. The way I should read the provision, therefore, is that a person chosen to fill a vacancy fills it until the election, unless, of course, the term expires before the election, andthe person who is elected to fill the vacancy holds the position from the date of election, probably some date in November, until the expiration of the term. However, this is a matter upon which there may be a difference of opinion, and I have given, what appears to me to be, the reading of the Constitution.

Senator Charleston:

– The honorable and learned senator will see that under section 7 of the Constitution it is provided ‘ that “ the senators shall be chosen for a term of 6 years.”

Senator DRAKE:

– That is subject to the other provisions of the Constitution. I see that the word “ term “ is used in that section. I have not referred to section 13, which provides, for the purposes of that section, that -

– If it will please the honorable senator better, I will state the position in this way : That a senator who has been elected cannot say that previous to the election he was in the first class or the second class, as the case may be, and that, therefore, he still remains in- that class. In these periodical elections, the question whether a man holds office for three or six years does not arise except in a case where we are filling up a vacancy that has occurred, in respect of the six years period. The only question with which this Bill deals is that of deciding upon the person who is to occupy this position. It matters not in the slightest degree whether or not that person has been a member of Parliament before. I do not think there is anything in the difficulty which has been suggested by Senator Matheson. He admits that the Constitution is silent upon the point, and, because of that fact, he says that we may infer such and such a thing. But the fact that the Constitution is silent, leaves it open to us to legislate in this way. The necessity for such legislation has arisen from the fact that, if we held separate elections, a great deal of trouble and inconvenience would be involved, and an elector would find it more difficult to exercise his rights in such a way that he would be able to obtain the full value of his franchise. I am very glad that the principle of the Bill has met with the approval of nearly every honorable senator. Those who admit that we have power to do what we propose under the Constitution, and who see that the difficulty in connexion with a casual vacancy has to be met. unite in the opinion that the scheme of the Bill is the best which up to the present time has been devised.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time -put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 5

Majority…… 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (The writ).

SenatorPULSFORD (New South Wales). -I desire to know whether there is any danger of a conflict between schedule A, to which the clause refers, and the schedule in the Electoral Act. The point was raised on the second reading of the Bill, and it is desirable that it should be made clear.

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

– The draftsman tells me that both schedules will be necessary. The writ in schedule A of the Bill is drawn up to meet the case of a mixed election - that is, an election to fill periodical and casual vacancies, while the writ in the Electoral Act applies only to periodical elections. The explanation is the same in regard to the writ in schedule B.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 -

Those of the elected candidates, to the number of the periodical vacancies, who receive the greatest number of votes shall be elected to fill the periodical vacancies.
In the event of an equality of votes between two or more elected candidates, not all of whom can be elected to fill the periodical vacancies, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State shall give a casting vote for the purpose of deciding which of them shall be elected to fill the periodical vacancies.
The elected candidates who are not elected to fill the periodical vacancies shall be elected to fill the casual vacancies.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– I move-

That paragraph (1) be omitted.

Garran upon the matter I ought to be converted to the honorable senator’s view of the question.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I anticipate the same question from Senator Styles by saying at once that I have not read Quick and Garran upon the matter. It seems to me, however, that there are two parties in an election - the electors on one side and the candidates on the other - and there has been a disposition this evening to consider chiefly the interests of the candidates, and not to pay sufficient attention to the feelings and wishes of the electors.

Senator Styles:

– That is hardly fair. I have a perfect right, as any other honorable senator has, to raise this question.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Exactly ; but I think I have an equal right to express my opinion in that way. I am sure that . I may do so without offence.

Senator Styles:

– The honorable senator is imputing motives.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I beg to assure the honorable senator that I am imputing no motives. We have had a great deal of discussion, in which I think the wishes of the electors have been lost sight of, and I now repeat that I think we might well leave it to the electors to say who they desire should be in the Senate for six years, and who should hold office for three years only. We have already in this Senate done something in barring State members, with which I did not agree, and which I thought was putting a ring fence around the present members of the Federal Parliament. That is perhaps beside this question, but I hope that honorable senators in the division to be taken are not going to do anything further to create in the minds of the electors a feeling that, when an honorable senator comes here, he thinks he has a better right to the position than any man outside who chooses to offer himself for it. There is one other thing I should like to say. When any person has held an opinion that a certain course of action has been wrongly taken, it is always satisfactory to him to find evidence in support of his views. I have always held that the provision in the Constitution that one-half the first senators elected should retain their seats for six years was rather questionable. I have thought that it would be more in accordance, with such a democratic Constitution as we have, if all the members of both Houses of the Federal Parliament were obliged to go to the country every three years. I am satisfied, after listening to the discussion on this Bill, that I was not far wrong in holding that opinion. “Senator STYLES (Victoria). - I desire to absolve Senator O’Keefe of any intention to impute motives. The honorable senator would be one of the last in this Chamber to do anything of the kind. 1 also desire to say that my contention arises from a firm conviction that I am right. That makes me very tenacious of the position I have taken up. I recollect last session that my friend, Senator O’Keefe, and every other senator present in the Chamber at the time, with the exception of Senator Barrett and myself, crossed the floor in a division of about 25 to two on the question of disqualifying State Members of Parliament. But what did they doon the next occasion? They crossed the floor and sat beside us.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The honorable senator makes a mistake so far as I arn concerned.

Senator STYLES:

– I am not mistaken in this case, because there were the two of us on the one side, and I remember, when the division was .asked for, using a great deal of persuasion in endeavouring to get Senator Barrett to try off. I mention this matter to show that people change their opinions. I hope that we shall be able to convince honorable senators in the same way as we convinced them before, and that later on they will admit that they were wrong in this case also. I believe that when the Bill goes to another place it will be found that the interpretation of the Constitution on this matter is not so easy and so clear as some honorable senators would have us suppose.

Senator Pearce:

– We must put the honorable senator on the High Court Bench.

Senator STYLES:

– I thank the honorable senator, but I am not looking for anything of that kind just now. I have a little modesty, and strange to say, though a politician, I would not accept a position which I could not fill. I rose specially to absolve Senator O’Keefe from any intentional imputation of motives. I am sure the honorable senator would not do such a thing. I do not know that any honorable senator present would do it unless he was very much ruffled at the time, as I think Senator Walker was upon this occasion.

Senator WALKER (New South Wales). - As a matter of explanation, I desire to point out that while Senator Styles says that only two Senators voted in favour of allowing State Members of Parliament to be eligible as candidates for election to the Federal Parliament, I never voted otherwise than in favour of the perfect freedom of the electors to vote for whom they like. I believe that several other honorable senators held the same view.

Question - That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 3

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11, and Schedules A and B agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 1607

NATURALIZATION BILL

Second Reading

– It is the law all through the British Empire.

– There was no Commonwealth law on the subject hitherto.

Senator WALKER:

– Will not our Commonwealth law supersede the old State law?

Senator Drake:

– Yes.

Senator WALKER:

– With regard to married women, I think it absurd to say that if a foreign woman marries a British subject, and her husband dies, her status under the law shall change.

Senator Drake:

– We do not say that ; but if she marries an alien she loses her nationality.

Senator WALKER:

– That is interfering with the liberty of a British subject, is it not?

Senator Pearce:

– Evidently the equality of the sexes is not recognised.

SenatorWALKER. - We hear a great deal about preferential trade and about building up the Empire. This Bill in many respects does not accord with that principle. I have a distant recollection that when I was a schoolboy we used to have explained to us the old Roman principle, CivisRomamum sum - I am a Roman citizen. Once a man was a Roman citizen he was always a Roman citizen. But under this Bill an Australian citizen might go to England and say - “ I am a citizen of the Australian Commonwealth,” and it would be said to him - “ We do not know such an individual.”

Senator Drake:

– No; Australian citizens will be protected by the flag, and recognised by British consuls.

Senator WALKER:

– I am glad that the Bill has been introduced, but I see many things in it that strike against my preconceived ideas of what it means to be a British subject. I also hope that we shall reduce some of the charges under the Bill. A fee of £1 must be rather a tax upon some people. Our object should be to get as many reputable citizens in Australia as possible. We should offer every facility to Europeans to come here, and allow them to be naturalized as soon as possible. We have a wonderful object lesson in the United States. Where would the great Republic have been to-day if she had not offered facilities for Europeans to become naturalized t

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– What about the negroes’!

Senator WALKER:

– I understand that they also can become citizens of the United States. I shall vote for the second reading of the Bill, but I shall do my best to improve it in Committee.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– Like the last speaker I welcome the advent of this Bill, but at the same time I differ from him because I think that due regard has been had in some of the clauses of it to what is the existing English law, or the main principles of naturalization, in different parts of the Empire. It would seem from the remarks of the last two speakers that there is in their minds some misconception as to the law of naturalization in British dependencies. We, as a subordinate Legislature, have not the same power of conferring nationality by our statutes upon those who are not naturalborn British subjects as is enjoyed by the Imperial Parliament. The British Parliament has the power of conferring British nationality upon any alien, and that nationality follows the person throughout the whole- Empire. The different subordinate Legislatures, each within its own limits as a dependency of the British Empire, have a corresponding power, which, however, does not extend beyond their own territories. Hitherto the different State Parliaments of Australia have been able to legislate for the naturalization of aliens within their own confines. Consequently the German friends of Senator Charleston, who formerly were naturalized only in South Australia, were made British subjects only within the confines of South Australia, and when they passed the border their naturalization was not recognised by other States. That is the position to-day. In connexion with one of the Federal conferences which was held some years ago, I believe, a difficulty arose by reason of the fact that a prominent statesman in South Australia, Mr. Homburg, who occupied the position of Attorney-General, although he was Her Majesty’s legal adviser, would lose his status as a British subject if he went beyond the limits of his own State. I believe that that difficul tj’ cropped up in connexion with the representation of South Australia at some Federal gathering. Now my honorable friend desires, and so does Senator Playford, that all those who have been naturalized within the States shall, on the passage of this Bill, become ipso facto naturalized within the whole of the Commonwealth. There is really no difficulty in the way of their becoming so. I point out to honorable senators that the provisions made for those persons obtaining naturalization throughout the Commonwealth are simply provisions of a precautionary character intended to secure the proper identification of the persons who profess to have State naturalization. They have not to demonstrate their qualifications, or pay fees, as have those who are being naturalized for the first time under the Commonwealth law. They must demonstrate their identity with the persons named in the State naturalization papers they produce. Any person ordinarily naturalized under a State law will have received naturalization papers and will keep them. Any person naturalized under the Commonwealth law for the whole of Australia will have his naturalization papers given to him. A person naturalized under the State law will simply have to present his State naturalization papers to prove his identity and his bona fides, and to make a declaration that the State naturalization papers which he holds were not obtained by fraud. He will not have to go through the ordinary forms which must be gone through by an individual being naturalized for the first time under the Commonwealth law. It is only a precautionary measure so that the Commonwealth, in adding to his limited naturalization the fuller naturalization which it can confer upon him, shall be satisfied that he is identical with the person named in the State naturalization paperswhich he presents. My honorable friend desires apparently that by some automatic process those people should become citizens of the whole Commonwealth without any evidence of bona fides or identity. We know that in more than one of the States of the Commonwealth there are a great number of Asiatics. We know also, from past experience, that persons of Chinese nationality are remarkably deft in the handling of naturalization papers. It is possible that there may be hundreds of persons in one or more of the States of the Commonwealth holding naturalization papers which were never originally issued to them. Senator Charleston desires that, simply because of the fact that they hold these papers, and are assuming the names of the persons to whom they were originally issued, they shall become British citizens throughout the Commonwealth. Under the Bill, if persons claiming to have been naturalized come forward and prove their identity with the persons named in the papers they present, and satisfy the officials of the Commonwealth that those papers have not been obtained by fraud, they will become, without any further difficulty, British subjects, not merely in the one State in which their naturalization papers were issued, but throughout the whole of the States of the Commonwealth. The whole question of naturalization rests on the question of nationality. We cannot get away from the old principles that permeate the whole of the law in Great Britain, where, of course, nationality was determined entirely by the place of a man’s birth, on the old feudal principle that persons on the soil were themselves really appanages of the soil. We cannot depart, either, from the old principle adopted in Great Britain in regard to this matter, because, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we can only legislate upon this particular subject in a subordinate way. We are only conferring British nationality within the province of our own territorial jurisdiction, and we have, over and above us, a higher authority which can, on this matter, legislate in respect of the whole of the Empire. Honorable senators will see that we occupy with regard to this subject of legislation a specially subordinate position, and, no matter whether they may accord with our principles or not, we must have regard for those main principles which permeate the law in connexion with the higher authority to which I have referred. As I have said, the law of nationality rests upon feudal principles.

Senator Pearce:

– Does the honorable and learned senator think that his argument applies to naturalization papers issued by the Imperial Government in a Crown colony 1

Senator KEATING:

– I should not be prepared to say that off hand, but naturalization papers issued in respect of persons in a Crown colony would, I think, be issued by the Imperial authorities acting as Administrators of that Crown, colony, and would have force and effect only within that territory. Whilst naturalization papers issued in the United Kingdom confer British citizenship throughout the Empire, naturalization in a State gives British nationality in that State only. With regard to what Senator Walker has said as to the awkward position in which women are placed, that follows from the principle to which I have already referred, that the law of nationality depends entirely upon feudal principles, and the nationality of the wife follows that of the husband. Senator Walker has said that he is extremely surprised to find that a woman may be for a time a British subject by reason of the fact that she has married a British subject, and that on his death she ceases to be a British subject. The honorable senator’s error has been pointed out. That is not the provision at all. There must be something after his death, and the woman must, after his death, have remarried an alien to divest herself of her own acquired nationality. This law is based upon feudal principles, and we must respect those principles, no matter how little they may be in accord with the sentiments of our own immediate environment.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– What is objected to is that a British citizen can naturalize his wife,, whilst a British wife- cannot naturalize her alien husband.

Senator KEATING:

– Quite so ; that is because the feudal principle that nationality in the first instance is determined by the place of birth at common law. Although much legislation was passed before that time to confer rights upon children of British subjects born outside His Majesty’s dominions, I think it was only about the time of Queen Anne, if not later, that any statutory provision was made to enable persons who were not natural born British subjects to become naturalized. The wife’s nationality and status always merged in those of the husband at law, and the nationality and status of the husband were not merged in those of the wife, and are not to-day according to British law. It is for that very reason that the converse does not apply in the case stated by Senator Dawson. An Englishman marrying a foreign wife confers upon her British nationality simply because by a fundamental principle of law her status is merged in his. But au English wife marrying a foreign husband does not confer on him

British nationality; on the contrary, her status is merged in his and her nationality becomes his nationality.

Senator Pearce:

– Does the honorable and learned senator contend that we are bound by these limitations ?

Senator KEATING:

– I do, for the reason I have stated : that this is a particular class of legislation in dealing with which we do not enjoy that supremacy which we possess with respect to most other subjects.

Senator Pearce:

– Because we recognise their naturalization, we must also recognise their limitations ?

Senator KEATING:

– Yes ; because we are conferring British nationality, not Austraiian nationality merely. That must not be forgotten. We are conferring British nationality, not, of course, throughout such an extensive sphere as the British authorities may confer it, but we are conferring full British nationality within a certain defined geographical area. It is because we confer British nationality that we must view this legislation in a very different way from legislation upon most other subjects. It is well known that this question of naturalization is one which has engaged a considerable amount of attention, and that it has evoked a considerable amount of correspondence between the Imperial authorities and the authorities of the various dependencies of the British Empire. If honorable senators will turn to the papers circulated a short time ago in connexion with the ‘conference between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Prime Ministers of the self-governing colonies, they will find some very interesting matter in connexion with this subject, in Appendix 13. The authorities of Canada have been desirous for some time of being able to confer by. their naturalization papers, British nationality that will extend to the United Kingdom. They have been desirous, too, of in some way or another passing legislation by which the difficulty suggested by Senator Walker could be overcome. I refer now to the difficulty which the honorable senator raised, when he pointed out that the Bill provides that a person on first applying for naturalization, must have been resident for five years within the Commonwealth. The honorable senator suggested that an alien might at intervals be absent from the Commonwealth, and might not be able to qualify for naturalization by a period of five years’” continuous residence within the Commonwealth. In Great Britain five years is theperiod fixed, and in Canada, also, five years’” residence is required. It was proposed, in the course of the negotiations between theauthorities of Great Britain and Canada, that if the applicant had put in five years’” residence in the King’s dominions, twoyears, for instance, in the United Kingdom and three years in Canada, he should beeligible to apply for naturalization in either country. In a despatch from the Clerk of the Privy Council, there is given an extractfrom a report of the Committee of the Honorable the Privy Council, approved by His. Excellency on the 12th April, 1902, in which the Clerk of the Privy Council says -

The Minister states that under the law as proposed to be amended, it would seem that an alien who had resided five years in either the United Kingdom or in Canada, would be able to obtain full naturalization, but an alien who bad resided four years in the United Kingdom, followed by four years’ residence in Canada, or vice versa, would be unable to obtain naturalization in either country.

In reply to that, the Naturalization Committee, in their report to Mr. Ritchie, state -

In drafting our report, we considered the question whether a person applying for a certificate of naturalization should be required to show that hehad resided for five years within the jurisdiction of the naturalizing authority to whom the application might be addressed, or whether, so long as the applicant could show that he had resided five years within the King’s Dominions, ifc should be immaterial that he had during that period resided within the jurisdiction of more than one naturalizing authority. We recommended the first alternative. We considered that five years’ residence in the United Kingdom or some one British possession would be a proper guarantee of a definite intention to continue to reside within the Dominions, and that if it were permitted to an applicant for naturalization to reckon five years’ residence made up of shorter terms in various parts of His Majesty’s Dominions, difficulties would arise in reference to evidence of residence and fitness for naturalization. We adhere to this view.

Now, whether honorable senators agree or do not agree with the report of that committee, which, for the reasons stated, selects that first alternative - that is, the necessity for five years’ residence within the jurisdiction of one naturalizing authority - we have this to remember : Here is the Dominion of Canada endeavouring to obtain something in the nature of reciprocal recognition of naturalization with Great Britain. The Dominion is endeavouring to obtain a more extended British nationality, in a geographical sense, for the naturalized Canadian, and there we have- stated the attitude of the Imperial authorities. The more we deviate from the main principle bf the common law of nationality and the English statutes with regard to naturalization, the less will be our chance of obtaining that reciprocity to which Senator Dawson has referred in his interjections, and which I think it is desirable to have established as early as possible, between the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom with reference to this particular subject. We must, .for these reasons, adhere to and respect the main principles underlying the British law of naturalization. A perusal of that correspondence will disclose the attitude taken up by the Imperial authorities. It will be seen how great are the difficulties which confront Canada at present in endeavouring to relax its naturalization law to what would seem to be the harmless and slight extent referred to in this report of the Privy Council. I hope that the Bill will go into Committee, and that many of the assaults which we have heard are likely to be made upon its provisions will not be attempted. It would be all very well for us to endeavour to make, as Senator Walker has suggested, a law which would enable as many people as possible to become British subjects ; but the greater the tendency shown by us to relax the conditions under which aliens may acquire the full benefits of British nationality in our territory, the less will be the likelihood of our naturalization of these aliens being recognised in the United Kingdom or in other parts of the British Empire. That is the point to which we must pay attention. If we are going to impose conditions so simple that they will be calculated to deter the authorities in other parts of the Empire from recognising as British subjects those on whom we choose to confer that distinction, we place little value on our nationality.

Senator Stewart:

– We want population; they do not.

Senator KEATING:

– We may require population. We have many who are not already naturalized, and I do not know that facilities for naturalization will necessarily be an inducement to many to come here. But if we relax the particular condition as to the term of residence, it is almost certain that the naturalization laws of the Commonwealth of Australia””, will never receive in other parts of the Empire that recognition that it is desirable they should receive. The more we relax these conditions the less will be the value of the naturalization to those who acquire it. We should do everything in our power to enable those who have already acquired a limited naturalization under the laws of the States to obtain with facility the recognition of that naturalization and the extension of it to the whole area of the Commonwealth. But so far as applicants for admission to the position of British citizenship in Australia are concerned, we ought to be as jealous of that privilege as are the people of America. We ought to be so jealous of that right that when we confer it upon any person, so far as our own territory is concerned, the British people in the rest pf the Empire might be prepared to accord it full recognition. Canada is endeavouring to do that, and we have learned of the difficulties which confront her. When the Postmaster-General was moving the second reading of the Bill, his attention was drawn to .clause 10, which provides that -

An infant, not’ being a natural born British subject, ….

whose mother is married to a natural born British subject, or to a person who has obtained a certificate of naturalization ; and who has, at any time, resided in Australia with such father or mother shall in the Commonwealth during infancy, be naturalized, and have the same rights and privileges, and be subject to the same obligations as a person who has obtained a certificate of naturalization.

Then there is the further provision in subclause (2) that -

The infant shall, on reaching the age of 21 years, cease to be naturalized by virtue of this section.

The Postmaster-General and Senator Best said that that was the English law. Certainly the marginal note invites a comparison with section 10 of the British Act. But it should be only a comparison.

Senator Drake:

– It is based on the New South Wales law.

Senator KEATING:

– I have here the United Kingdom Statute, and sub-section (5) of section 10 provides ‘that -

Where the father, or the mother being a widow, has obtained a certificate of naturalization in the United Kingdom, every child of such father or mother who during infancy has become resident with such father or mother in any part of the United Kingdom, shall be deemed to be a naturalized British subject.

Nothing is added to that provision to disqualify the child on attaining his majority.

Senator Drake:

– Has the honorable and learned senator the report of the committee in regard to that point 1

Senator KEATING:

– I hare a reference to it. Foote, in his Private International Jurisprudence, gives *the whole of section 10, and it is followed immediately by this paragraph -

Infant Children. - Sub-s. (5) of this section is apparently intended to meet the cose of children born before the certificate of naturalization is obtained.

So far as I can see, the wording of this provision in tho Bill before us would not insure its application only to the case of a child who had been bora before the certificate of naturalization had been obtained. Foote goes on to say that -

It is plain that, so far as these are concerned, they do not acquire British nationality unless they reside with the naturalized parent iu the United Kingdom. But it would a fortiori apply to children born after the certificate of naturalization is obtained, assuming th’e opinion of Kay, J. , in He Bourgeoise, that such certificate does not give tho power. of transmitting nationality to descendants, to be correct.

He points out that -

The Court of Appeal in the case’ cited left this question unanswered as one of great difficulty.

In these circumstances I think that once a child has acquired a nationality, we might hesitate somewhat before divesting him of it by the operation of a statute. Apparently there is no provision in the English Statute similar to that in sub-clause (2) of clause 10, and we should insure its application only to the case of a child who had been born prior to the issue of the naturalization certificate to the parent. If the certificate had been obtained before the birth of the child, that child, despite the fact that a decision upon the subject has not been given in the old country, should have transmitted to it the naturalized nationality of the parents. In any case, if a child has attained British nationality through the naturalization of its parents, he should have to take some active measure on reaching the- age of 21 in order to divest himself of that nationality. The whole principle rests upon that point. Curiously enough the following paragraph appears immediately after that which I have just quoted from Foote’8 work : - lt will be been that all the legislation which has taken place on this subject proceeds on the principle that a man is unable of himself without statutory assistance, to change his nationality.

In the words of Lord Hatherley, iu Udny v. Udny, ” the question of naturalization and allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.”

He goes on to quote another cose, that of Moorhouse v. Lord, in which Lord Kingsdown - - speaking of the acquisition of a French domicil is reported as saying that in order to effect such a result, a man must intend to become a Frenchman instead of an Englishman.

I think we ought to hesitate before placing in . our statutes any provision which would cause a person who had enjoyed British nationality until the attainment of his majority, to be deprived of that nationality on the attainment of his majority without any active effort on his own part to be divested of it, and which would necessitate him taking the course of naturalizing himself and becoming on attaining hia majority of the same nationality as he was before reaching that particular age. I hope the Bill will go into committee, and that with the discussion of its main principles, those who have spoken so largely against certain provisions in it will see- that there is no reason for them to push amendments of the character they appeared to indicate their intention of moving. .

Debate (on motion by Senator Pearce) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 9.40 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 July 1903, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1903/19030701_senate_1_14/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 1 July 1903

PETITION

QUESTION

CUSTOMS ACT

Senator WALKER:for Senator Lt.Col. Gould

Senator DRAKE:Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE:

QUESTION

INTERSTATE COMMISSION

Senator DOBSON:TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE:Protectionist

MARRIAGE BILL.

Senator DOBSON:

Senator DRAKE:Protectionist

ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES :

VICTORIA

SUGAR BONUS BILL

Senator CHARLESTON:South Australia

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator CHARLESTON:

Senator Pearce:

Senator CHARLESTON:

Senator McGregor:

Senator CHARLESTON:

Senator GLASSEY:Queensland

Senator Charleston:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator Glassey:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Glassey:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Pearce:

Senator CHARLESTON:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator CHARLESTON:

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator Pearce:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Pearce:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Sir William Zeal:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Styles:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Styles:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Styles:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Walker:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator WALKER:

Senator Drake:

Senator WALKER:

Senator Glassey:

Senator WALKER:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Walker:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Walker:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Walker:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Sir William Zeal:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senate
1 July 1903

Senator WALKER:
for Senator Lt.Col. Gould

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator STYLES:
Victoria