View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
28 July 1904

2^nd Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- ARTILLERY AND AMMUNITION
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE CLASSIFICATION
QUESTION
- OVERSEA MAIL MATTER
QUESTION
- METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT
QUESTION
- PACIFIC CABLE CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- ATTACK ON PAPUANS
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENT HOUSE
QUESTION
- SALE OF DUTY STAMPS
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
FIELD GUNS
SELECT COMMITTEE : CASE OF SENATOR NEILD
SELECT COMMITTEE: CASE OF MAJOR CARROLL
QUESTION
- PUBLIC WORKS : DAY LABOUR
QUESTION
- NEW HEBRIDES : REBATE OF DUTIES
PAPER
FRAUDULENT TRADE MARKS BILL
TRADE MARKS BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

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

page 3633

QUESTION

ARTILLERY AND AMMUNITION

Senator MATHESON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the arsenals of the Commonwealth contain a large quantity of obsolete and useless artillery ammunition, the property of the States?
Is the Commonwealth being put to considerable useless expense in the custody and preservation of the said ammunition, which is unsaleable?
Is it a fact that the ordnance handed over by the States to the Commonwealth includes a number of muzzle-loading and obsolete pieces of artillery which are unsaleable?
Will the Minister take into consideration the question of returning the said obsolete ammunition and ordnance to their respective States by an Order in Council, following; the precedent established by the.return of the submarine mining steamer Miner to the Government of Victoria?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The replies to the honorable senator’s questions, are - as follow:

There is a certain quantityof obsolete artil lery and ammunition in stock which was taken over from the States; and Boards pf officers have already been appointed in each State to report and recommend as to its disposal.
No;’ only a small proportion of obsolete artillery ammunition is stored in magazine for which rent has to be paid.
Yes.
Yes; but then, does not appear to be any power to return to the State without the consent of the State, which was obtained in the case of theMiner. Steps have been taken to distribute obsolete ordnance (with the consent of the States), to municipalities and public gardens. Certain quantities of obsolete ammunition, such as powder, will be used up at practice. It is anticipated that obsolete stores taken over at transfer will only be paid for as such in the financial adjustment.

I may add that instead of using an expensive explosive for practice purposes, a certain quantity of . this ammunition is used, so that after all we benefit to some extent by the adoption of that system.

Senator Millen:

– So long as only its value is paid it is all right. ;

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– That is all we pay.

page 3634

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE CLASSIFICATION

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Was the classification of the Federal Public Service in Tasmania based upon the value of work performed, or upon merit, or upon length of’ service, or upon the salaries that officers were in receipt of at the time of classification ? 2: With regard to officers of the fifth class whose maximum salaries have, been fixed by the Commonwealth at an. amount less than the maximum of the fifth class, are not such officers placed at a disadvantage as compared with their subordinates who, in some cases, are allowed by the Commissioner to attain the maximum of the fifth class?
Is it not a fact that, unless a rearrangement of officers is made concomitant with a rearrangement of salary, injustice is likely to be inflicted ?
Is it a fact that the positions of some fifthclass officers have been assessed as fourth-class, andsuch positions declared open to the most competent senior officers, while other fifth-class positions have been, assessed as fourth-class and their present occupants allowed to retain. them?

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

The classification was based upon the nature and value of the work, and the merit, and efficiency of the officer. The range of salaries in Tasmania may not in all instances be as high as in some of the other States, but consideration. was. given to the fact that the volume of the work and the responsibilities are less than in the other States.
Where an officer with clerical status is performing work of a General Division character, his salary has been fixed in accordance with the Value of the work, but he will advance until he reaches the maximum allowed for such work. He is also eligible for transfer to a clerical position when a suitable vacancy occurs. Where the officer has not been fixed, his work is of a clerical character, and entitles him to (he clerical increment.
A re-arrangement of office has been made concomitant with the arrangement of salary, with the exception of postmasters and . postmistresses, and with regard to these, inquiry is being made so that the officers can be transferred to the positions to which they are best entitled by efficiency and seniority.
Yes ; and where the officer has been raised to the fourth class, he was deemed to be the most efficient for the position. In the other cases, there was doubt as to whether there was riot some other officer ‘more entitled than the occupant to the higher classification. There are only a few officers so circumstanced, and further inquiry is to be made before the officer is selected to be promoted to the higher class.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What is the basis of the gradation of officers in the Public Service classification scheme?
Have the officers - been classified according to the work which, at the time of classification, they were actually performing, or according to the work which they have qualified themselves for, and do from time to time perform ?

Senator McGREGOR:

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

The Public Service Commissioner reports : -

Upon the value of the work performed, and the efficiency of the officer.

According to the work they were performing at the time of classification.

page 3634

QUESTION

OVERSEA MAIL MATTER

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What are the respective weights of mail matter despatched by the Suez, Vancouver, and San Francisco lines of steamers during the last complete twelve months for which the returns are available ?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

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

The particulars in hand are not sufficient to enable an answer to be given, information has been asked for, and will be supplied as soon as possible.

page 3634

QUESTION

METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT

Senator KEATING:

asked , the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the- Government to establish at an early date a Federal Meteorological Department?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

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

The Government will give this consideration during the recess.

page 3634

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT

Senator PULSFORD:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

How many persons have been prohibited landing in the Commonwealth under the powers given in section 3 of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, in the aggregate, and under each of the paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), since the Act came into operation, to 30th June, 1904, or to the last date for which the . returns are available?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

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

Eight hundred and sixty-four persons havebeen prohibited from landing in the Common-

It is not true that the Commonwealth Government has refused to undertake the sale of Duty Stamps for the States.
Correspondence has taken place on the subject between the Government of the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria. There is no objection to place this correspondence on the table of the Library.

page 3635

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to -

That one month’s leave of absence be granted to Senator Lt.-Col. Neild on account of ill-health.

Motion by (Senator Keating) agreed to-

That one month’s leave of absence be granted to Senator Mulcahy, on account of urgent private business.

Motion (by Senator Higgs) agreed to -

That one month’s leave ofabsence be granted to Senator Stewart, on account of urgent private business.

page 3635

FIELD GUNS

Motion (by Senator Matheson)agreed to-

That there be laid on the table of the Senate a return showing the number of field guns at present in each State, forming part of the 82 field guns given in Appendix K of the G.O.C.’s report1903-4,. and detailed under the following headings : - Muzzle Loaders, Obsolete Breech Action, Modern Breech Action.

page 3636

SELECT COMMITTEE : CASE OF SENATOR NEILD

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That the Select Committee on the case of Senator Lt.-Col. Neild have leave to extend the time for bringing up the report to this day month.

page 3636

SELECT COMMITTEE: CASE OF MAJOR CARROLL

Motion (by Senator Higgs) agreed to -

That the Select Committee on the case of Major J. W. M. Carroll have leave to extend the time for bringing up the report to this day month.

page 3636

QUESTION

PUBLIC WORKS : DAY LABOUR

Debate resumed from 14th July (vide page 3242) on motion by Senator Pearce -

That, in the opinion of the Senate, wherever practicable, the public works undertaken by the Commonwealth should be constructed under the day labour system.

Upon which Senator Playford had moved by way of amendment -

That the words “wherever practicable” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ whenever it can be done effectively and economically.”

Senator GIVENS:

– I will quote my authority, which is more than Senator Gray did. I will also show the reasons why there was so little employment in New South Wales at the time to which I am about to refer. On page 637 of Coghlan’s

Statistical Account of Australia and New Zealand, for 1902-3, he says -

In the eastern States the year 1892 was the first to show a restricted loan expenditure, the total for the five States, which in 1889 had been over eleven millions, and in 1S90 about ten millions, falling to less than three millions - equivalent to a shrinkage of at least seven millions. This sudden contraction of expenditure had a most serious effect upon the labour market, and at least 40,000 men accustomed to look to the .Government or to contractors working under the Government for their employment, were thrown upon the labour market, which immediately became disorganized. Indeed, so far as New South Wales was concerned, the labour market was disorganized even in 1888, a’ state of affairs which did not altogether result from the cessation of expenditure on public works. Large numbers, of persons had been attracted from the other States by the extravagant expenditure and vigorous. immigration policy of preceding years, and on the Government reducing their expenditure from extravagance to moderation, thereby involving a decrease of about three millions sterling, some 15,000 men were left without employment.

That was in 1888, before the Labour Party came into existence in New South Wales, and when the population of that State was considerably less than it is at the present moment. Senator Gray says further that the depression is. due to some extent to the fact that, owing to our desire to have Government work done by day labour, with a minimum wage provision, and other arrangements of that character, we can get no more money brought into the country. Capital, we are told, does not come into Australia because of the desire of the Labour Party to confiscate everything, and to secure all the advantages and profits for labour. I will deal fully with some of those statements by-and-by, but I should like to say here and now, that so far from its being true that capital was frightened out of the country by the Labour Party, it was actually frightened away a considerable time before the Labour Party had any power in any of the States. What frightened foreign capital out of Australia, as shown by Coghlan, was the fact of the banks confiscating about ,£50,000,000 of money of investors in the old country. The banks had it in their possession, and, having absolutely confiscated it, in most cases they offered the investors merely interminable inscribed deposit notes, or something of that description.

Senator Walker:

– When was that?

Senator GIVENS:

– That was in 1893. I will read what Coghlan says upon that subject. On page 641 he says -

In 1893 the great financial crisis occurred, of which mention has been made so frequently, and was accompanied by a very large withdrawal of deposits, chiefly by persons resident in the United Kingdom.

Those withdrawals were not due to the Labour Party, but to the distrust of outside investors in the commercial honesty of the people in whose charge that money was placed -

In 1895 the amount on deposit was reduced to eighty-six millions, which included a considerable sum, estimated a£ about “fifty-four millions, locked up in reconstructed banks.

So that these banks actually “collared” ^54,000,000 belonging to British investors. They said “ This is ours, and we shall do as we like with it. You will get it in the sweet by-and-by if we choose to pay it back to you.”

Senator Walker:

– It was not merely British deposits that were locked up.

Senator Trenwith:

– No, the banks took everything thev could get, without respect to persons.

Senator GIVENS:

– I am quoting the highest authority we have in Australia in reference to statistical matters, and he says in so many words that the money was owned “ chiefly by persons resident in the United Kingdom.” If Senator Walker desires to correct Coghlan he is perfectly at liberty to do so, but he is not at liberty to correct me in a statement which I make on the authority of Coghlan.

Senator Walker:

– At no time did the British deposits in Australian banks reach to anything like the amount which the honorable senator has quoted.

Senator GIVENS:

– Coghlan .points out that even before that time British investors had begun to withdraw their capital from Australia. That was long before the advent of the Labour Party in any of the Parliaments of the States or of the Commonwealth Parliament. British investors commenced to withdraw their capital simply because of their distrust of the commercial honesty of the people who were handling their money at this end of the world ; and that distrust was undoubtedly well founded, inasmuch as within a few years it was proved conclusively that the money had been extravagantly wasted by men who were totally incompetent to handle it. I also wish to show that Senator Gray, in stating that the Labour Party are responsible for the bad position in which he says some people in Australia find themselves. in reference to low wages and dearth of employment, is speaking about a matter of which he evidently knows nothing; or else

Coghlan is altogether wrong. Because Coghlan says on page 647 -

The movement in wages from 1896 to 1901 was distinctly upward. Carpenters, for example, were in 189b paid 8s. per day in Sydney, while i-n 1900 their wages were 9s. 6d., in 1901 10s., and in 1902 gs. 6d. Though wages in Melbourne at these periods were lower than in Sydney, their upward movement has been even greater.

So that the upward movement in wages has been greater since that period. Coghlan gives a table on the previous page which shows that there was a general upward tendency of wages between 1891: and 1901. I think that those facts are an effective refutation of the fine large loose assertions made in the most reckless fashion by Senator Gray. On page 648, Coghlan points out the real cause of the depression. Coghlan, unlike Senator Gray, does not blame the Labour Party for it. He says -

But the pastoral industry, which is the key to the industria’l condition of Australia, was seriously affected during 1902 by the adverse climatic conditions which prevailed over a great part of the continent. The year 1903 opened under most favorable conditions. Abundant rains have fallen, and a larger area is now under crop than at any previous period, while the harvest promises to be very bountiful, so that the improvement in the industrial conditions manifested since 1896, but interrupted (Turing 1902, may confidently be expected to continue.

There Coghlan points out that, right up to the present time, the pastoral depression has been very great, and that that was to a large extent responsible for the general depression. I also want to show from the same authority that employment has largely increased in New South “ Wales since the Labour Party has had any considerable power’ there. I find from figures given on page 291 of the same work that the total number of hands employed in manufactures in New South Wales in 1892 - before the Labour Party came into power - was 47,916. In 1902 the number employed was 66,26g. In round numbers, the hands employed in factories have increased during that period by no less than 19,000. If that is due to the Labour Party, it is a very good (result. Notwithstanding all that has been said about the harsh treatment of the capitalist by such motions as that before us, and by provisions for a rninimum wage, a very fair share of profit is still left. Coghlan points out that,- in the manufactures of New South Wales, the raw materials and fuel used amount to 57-4 per cent, of the total value of the output, the wages to 214 per cent., miscellaneous expenses to 63 per cent., and interest, provision for trade losses and profits, to no less than 14-9 per cent. Notwithstanding the enormous amount of labour, and the great number of hands employed, we find that the wages . of the latter amount to only one-third more than the sum available for the profits of the few manufacturers. That fact is in itself proof that such motions as that before us, and provisions for a minimum wage, are necessary in order to insure that the workers shall receive fair remuneration. When the capitalist can get two-thirds of the total amount of the wages cost of production as profits, and when we consider that a company may consist of two or three persons, while wages have to be distributed amongst two thousand or three thousand people, the capitalist has little to complain of. It is high time that .those who do the largest share of the labour, and are dependent on the results, should be afforded some little protection by the Legislatures of the Commonwealth and the States. So much for that portion of my reply to Senator Gray. I recognise thai-“ I may be Out of order in going so wide of the subject, and I should not have attempted to deal with these matters but for the assertions made by that honorable senator. It comes with very bad grace indeed from any representative of the mother State to belittle that State in the eyes, not only of the Commonwealth, but of the world at large. To point out that in New South Wales there are many unemployed, and that everything is going to ruin, simply because the little oligarchy which the honorable senator represents ‘does not control the governing power, is tantamount to fouling the nest, because he cannot have it all to himself. There are some people in the Commonwealth who continually go out of their way to belittle Australia for exactly the same reason, and it is high time some protest was made, and the people of the world learned the exact truth. It is because of this that I quote the figures from Coghlan, in order to show that there is no foundation for the allegations made by Senator Gray. So far from the Labour Party having done anything to injure the Commonwealth or the general welfare and progress of tha people, it can be proved, by the official statistics of the several States and of the Commonwealth, that, since the advent of the Labour Party into the counsels of the nation, whether in the Commonwealth or State, nothing but good has resulted to the great mass of the workers. Enough has been said to show that contractors are not necessary In order that works may be effectively and economically carried out, and I hope the motion will be adopted by a large majority. It is fortunate for the contractors to have such an ardent advocate as Senator Gray proves himself to be. But I take it that most sensible men have come to the conclusion that the middleman, if he can be done without, is a useless excrescence on the body politic - that there is no excuse whatever for his existence. If the middleman had nothing to do in the way of contracting, he would necessarily undertake some form of useful work, and by adding to the wealth production of the Commonwealth, become a desirable citizen. As it is, however, the contractor is a disadvantage, inasmuch as he himself does nothing useful. He very rarely, indeed, personally supervises work, but, employing other people, he merely stands by and draws the profits. Why cannot the State employ a permanent staff of expert supervisors who would always know where to lav their hands on suitable people and ‘ material ? When State supervisors can do the work as effectively as contractors, why should not the State have the profits which now go into private pockets? No matter from what light we view the contractor, he is still an excrescence. Like sensible men, we should save to the people every possible fraction, so as to reduce the burden of taxation, and enable public works to be carried out effectively and economically. I hope other honorable senators will take the. same view as I do myself - that they will be convinced by the actual statements of facts put before them during this discussion, that the motion is a desirable one. Senator Gray was good enough to ask Senator Pearce to withdraw the motion after ii had been debated. I am totally opposed to that course, because I presume Senator Pearce did not submit the motion with the mere idea of providing matter for an academic discussion. That, I should think, was the object furthest from his thoughts. I am sure he had no desire to occupy the time of the Senate without obtaining some tangible result. We, who are acquainted with the facts, ought to be able to arrive at a sensible conclusion. At any rate, I long since came to the decision that the middleman can be done without, and that his abolition in connexion with public works would result in a considerable saving to an already overburdened people.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I have to thank honorable senators for the attention which they have given to this subject. Both sides of the question have been placed before the Senate, and I should now like to reply to the attacks made by Senators Gray and Dobson on the principle of the motion. I am sorry that Senator Dobson is not present, because I wish to point out that, in order to find arguments against day labour, he had to go to the old country, and to instance what is known as the”Ca’ canny” system. Unfortunately for Senator Dobson, that system is not looked upon in the old country as detrimental to day labour, because it is condemned there’ in connexion with contract work. The “ Ca’ canny “ system, as I say, is not used in the old country as an argument against day labour, but as an argument against the methods adopted by the working men of Great Britain generally, whether under contract or in connexion with works undertaken by public bodies. In any case, the “ Ca! canny “ system - which, by the way, has been denied by leading labour men of Great Britain - has not been proved to exist in Australia, so that, so far as this debate is concerned, the reference to it was altogether beside the point. Senator Dobson went on to say, “We all know that in the Commonwealth, there is such a thing as the ‘ Government stroke ‘ - every one knows what is meant.” I do not know that everybody does understand what is meant by the “ Government stroke.” I have endeavoured to trace the origin of the term, which Senator Dobson should know, because I find it comes from his own State. As a matter of fact, the term “ Government stroke “ was first applied to the work done by convicts in Tasmania, in reference to the slow method by which the work was carried on. I hope that Senator Dobson does not intend to apply such a term to free labour - that he does not mean to say that a term of derision of that kind should be applied to Australians who have to earn their living by manual labour. Senator Gray’s objection to day labour was that political corruption would creep in. I do not think, however, that that result would necessarily follow. Certainly, Senator Gray quoted some very strong cases from New South Wales, notably that of the Fitzroy Dock, in which political influence was used, according to the evidence given before the Royal Commission. We can all readily admit that if we are to have public works properly car ried out, either by day labour or contract, we must have honesty in our officials. Without such honesty, the State will be robbed, whichever system is adopted. If the undesirable results in New South Wales followed from dishonesty, and if the officials were deterred from doing -their duty by political influence, they would be just as easily led astray by similar influence under the contract system, and would, perhaps, rob the country to even a greater extent. The Federal Parliament has already shown a determination to stop political influence in the Public Service, as witness the Public Service Act. I suppose there is no service in the Commonwealth which is more completely divorced from political influence than that represented by the Public Departments. These Departments have been placed under a Commissioner, who is elected for a term, and cannot be removed, except by a vote of both Houses of Parliament. No one can say that such an official is not independent of political influence. All appointments have to be recommended by the Commissioner, and no appointment can be made by the Minister without that recommendation. It seems to me that the Federal .Parliament has shown a disposition to free the Public Service from any detrimental influence, whether public works be carried out by’ day labour or under contract. We ought to remember, also, that contractors have to carry on their work by means of day labour. A contractor cannot supervise all that is going on, and in many cases he very seldom visits the works. He has to depend on honest supervision, and in this respect is practically in the same position as would be the Minister. If a Minister does his duty, he can only exercise a general supervision, and must depend on officers under his control. Senator Gray drew attention to the attacks which were made on my remarks in connexion with the’ Coolgardie water scheme. Let me say that those attacks emanated from a meeting held in Perth, and largely composed of contractors. Since the correspondence appeared in the Eastern press, I have been enabled to obtain the Western Australian newspapers containing a report of that meeting. It was. made to appear that the statements made in the Eastern press were a report of what took place at the meeting, but I find that that is altogether’ an erroneous impression. The West Australian of 2nd July contains a report of a meeting of contractors and other business men, who criticised my action in moving in the matter. The newspaper report states that a committee, consisting of Messrs. Atkins, Hargrave, Hedges, and Frank Wilson, M.L.A., was appointed to send some particulars of the Coolgardie water scheme to certain prominent politicians in the Eastern States in order to rebut my statements. I do not know whether Senator Gray is one of those politicians, but if he is, I may tell him that the committee appointed did not carry out their duties fully, because they put him in possession of only a portion of the facts. This was a work which was to cost £2,500,000, and I spoke of it as a whole. I pointed out that in some particulars in connexion with the pipe contract’ the report of the Royal Commission was unsatisfactory, as will be found from the report of my speech when I submitted the motion. I did not disguise the fact that some portion of the work was unsatisfactory, but I said that as a whole it was to be commended. But the work which was unsatisfactorily carried out represented only £145,000 out of a total df £2,500,000, and it seems unreasonable to condemn the whole because of this unsatisfactory portion. In order to prove my contention, I desire to quote the report of the Royal Commission on some portions of the work. The weir cost ov.er £300,000, and was a most essential part of the work, on which a large amount of labour was employed. As to this, the Royal Commission said -

So far as the evidence goes,’ it supports the view that the work has been done at’ reasonable cost.

During the construction of the weir, the engineer who was in charge of the pipe track, which afterwards turned out unsatisfactory, laid a complaint against the engineer in charge of the weir on the ground ‘of incompetency. But the engineer in charge of the weir challenged an inquiry, and the other engineer, Mr. Hodgson, did not press his charge but allowed it to lapse, and, , as subsequent events proved, he was very wise in doing so. It was afterwards shown, not only that the man in charge of the weir was doing his duty, but that the engineer who laid the charge was at that time actually receiving bribes, and under the influence of corruption. As to the excavation of the pipe track, the Royal Commission unsparingly condemned the’ way the work was carried out, so far as cost was concerned. The Commission,, in regard to the pipe-laying and jointing, speak of gross neglect of supervision, a neglect which eventually led to the suspension of the engineer in charge, and state that, owing to this, the cost has been excessive. According to the Commission, the loss from this extravagance, “ added to the cost of the machinery purchased from Messrs. Couston and Finlayson,” resulted in the original estimate being exceeded to the end of February, though the work was not half completed, by about £11,000. That portion has been carefully left out of the reports sent to the Eastern States by the Contractors’ Association. If we look over the letter sent by the Contractors’ Association, it will be seen that they point out that the loss was £100,000, whereas the Royal Commission, when the work was half completed, fixed the amount at £1 1,000. .

Senator Trenwith:

– How could the Royal Commission tell, when the work was only half completed?

Senator PEARCE:

– The work was estimated to cost so much per mile, and the report says -

It appears probable that the ultimate cost of this branch of the work will be about £ 100,000 more than the estimate, which appears to have been fair.

What led the Royal Commission to say that was that the Government had purchased those machines from Messrs. Finlayson and Couston, and the machines, when in operation for a few months, had turned out quite unsatisfactory. As Senator Croft, has informed the Committee, the Government had to perfect the machines at the expenditure of a lot of money. The work was then done at something like the original estimate. So that the final excess of cost was nothing like that which was. estimated by the Commission at the time. I propose to give a few particulars in order to show what led to this extravagance. The expert evidence was that good pipe-caulking machines could be made for £30 each. The engineer in charge of this particular branch was indebted to Couston and Finlayson to the amount of £200, and he gave them £150 each for the machines.

Senator Trenwith:

– Is he in gaol?

Senator PEARCE:

– He should be in gaol ; he was dismissed from the service. In addition, paragraph 4 of the final report shows that Messrs. Couston and Finlayson got £7>5°° for the patent rights of the machines, although the vendor would have been satisfied with £4,000. It was given in sworn evidence that the firm had said that they would have been satisfied with £4,000, but through the manipulation of this man they got £7,500. All this money was debited to the work. This was brought about- by Mr. Hodgson, engineer in charge, who was promised by Mr. Couston £1,000 to stock his land. The peculiar nature of this contract is that, while on the 16th June £2,700 was paid to the credit of Messrs. Couston and Finlayson by the Government, on the 18th June £100 was lent to Mr. Hodgson by Mr. Couston. The Commission estimated that ,£1,300 above the fair price of the twelve machines, and £3,500 more than was necessary for the patent rights was paid, or a total sum of £4,800 was lost on the contract for the supply of these machines. Then Mr. Couston found out that still another machine was necessary - a lead-runner - and offered to supply these at £175 each. The Commission reported that £2,016 in excess of the fair cost was paid for these machines, and that a total sum of £6,816 . was paid to this firm more than the fair value of the machines and the patent rights. When this contract was completed, another £100 appears to have passed from Messrs. Couston and Finlayson to Mr. Hodgson. Messrs. Couston and Finlayson advanced to Mr. Hodgson £230 on the nth June, and £100 on the 14th January. This was proved in evidence from the bank at which Mr. Hodgson kept his account. Two days afterwards, Mr. Hodgson recommended Mr. Couston as works manager in connexion with the pipe-caulking machines, and on his recommendation the appointment was made. Two days afterwards, a loan of £30 was made by Mr. Couston to Mr. Hodgson. It is stated, in paragraph 10 of the report, that pipe-jointing commenced in real earnest on the 16th March, 1901,’ about eight months after it might have been begun by hand-caulkers. Fifty hand-caulkers, in eight months, could have caulked 40,000 joints at a cost of £8,000. Up to this date £15,900 had been paid under the contract for machines from Couston and Finlayson. More money was wasted on these machines than would have caulked the pipes by hand labour. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the report that one motor could not work two machines, as was claimed, and that as an actual fact each machine had to have a motor. Moreover, the machine, instead of doing the work at is. 6d. per joint, as had been claimed, cost 4s. 3jd. per joint, whereas the estimate for hand caulking was 5s. nd. per joint. When it is recollected that that is the report of the Commission on the portion of the work on which I have been attacked, honorable senators will recognise that no further defence, from my point of view, is necessary. It- has been stated that I’he EngineerinChief, Mr. iC. Y. O’Connor, was a strong supporter of the day labour system; but that, as the result of the Coolgardie scheme, he went back on his opinion. Appendix G to the Commission’s report contains the notes by Mr. O’Connor. The report of a statement made by a member of the Legislative Assembly, t’hat day labour had been a failure, was sent to Mr. O’Connor by the Minister, and his written comment was -

As several times already stated I have not gone back on my previous convictions at all, my views as regards departmental versus contract work being set forth in memorandum to Hon. Mr. Throssel, the then Premier.

In that memorandum he had strongly advocated the carrying out of the scheme by day labour. The weir, as I said, cost over £300,000. On page 366 of the evidence, Mr. O’Connor says that a contract for the weir would have involved a great loss. He also says that the weir, if carried out By the Department, would not cost more than if done by contract. A gentleman named Hedges appears in connexion with the contract. No doubt you, sir, and Senator Playford, will remember the gentleman when I recall an incident in the public works history of South Australia. I had occasion to make some inquiries, and I found that Mr. Hedges was the contractor for the sinking of the shafts of the Happy Valley reservoir. On page 976 of the South Australian Hansard for August, 1893, it is stated that the cost of the shafts was £4 18s. per foot. The statement was afterwards corrected, and on page 1279 the cost is given at £5 18s. per foot. The price agreed upon averaged £7 5s. 9d. per foot. On page 1382 of Hansard the Commissioner of Public Works made a statement to the House -

Hedges’ tender was accepted. It soon became evident that the contractor had undertaken a work which was quite beyond his capabilities, and on August 15, 1892, He wrote abandoning the contract, and stating that he was unable to proceed further with it. He then claimed ^3,348 for the machinery, which he had obtained for the purpose of sinking the shafts. The Department obtained a number of estimates ranging from ^1,653 to ^1,800, and the Government, although entitled under the terms of the contract to forfeit the machinery, paid him j£i,653 17s. rd. The total additional cost to the Government as the result of Hedges’ failure was £2,898 and seven months’ lost time, on a contract worth about ^7,000 to ,£8,000..

That is how the gentleman who poses as an opponent of day labour, and advocates the contract system, carried out a contract for the Government -

Hedges’ claim against the Department, when only a comparatively small part of the work was done, was ^8,143, although, his first contract was for £7,494.

The comment of the Commissioner is as follows : -

He evidently has no sense of the responsibilities of contracting, and thinks political influence will obtain compensation for him in the shape of remissions of just penalties. He ‘ asked the House to reject the claim as altogether monstrous.

So much for those who have attacked us from Western Australia on this question. Senator Gray made a considerable number of comments about work done in New South Wales. I thought that there might be something to be said on the other side, and, therefore,. I obtained from the Public Works Department of the State some particulars of a few works which have been carried out by day labour. I shall read a comparison between the cost by day labour, and the cost as estimated by the Department, in some cases, and as carried out by contractors in other cases -

Long Cove Creek Stormwater Channel - One section carried out by contract at 50s. per foot. Next section (similar exactly), day labour, 45s. per foot, saving on job ^400. Another section same work, 1645 feet, contract price, ^5 per foot; day labour, £3 5s., saving to Government, £1,200.

Byrock to Brewarrina line - Day labour earthworks, 8d. per cubic yard; Nyngan to Cobar, same class of work exactly, “done by contract, is. 6d. per yard.

Koorawatha to. Grenfell; - Cuttings and side cuttings, day labour, is. 11 1/4 d. and 10 3/4 d. respectively. Same class of work, contract, Parkes to Condobolin line, 3s. and is. 3d.

Telephone Tunnels - Total length, 49,228 feet, or nine and one-third miles, 2,354 feet done by contract, cost £8,726 18s., or £’3 14s. 5d. per foot run ; 46,883 feet, done by day labour, cost ^145,433 iis-> average £3 2s. 0 1/2 d. per foot, saving 12s. 4 1/2 d. per. foot, or £29,008 17s. 6d. Besides this saving the parts of tunnels done by day labour were 4^ inches higher than those parts done by contract. This increase would have cost £7,500 Further, bricks could be supplied to the situation of the contract sections for 33s. per thousand, but cost as much as 44s. per thousand to some of the day labour sections. Cement also rose in price during the job from gs. to 13s. per cask. These items amount to a further £20,000 for the job. If the materials, &c, had been the same price all through the saving effected would have been £1 os. nd. per foot instead of 12s. 4id.

The Railway Engineer-in-Chief , Mr. Henry Deane, has reported that the saving effected iv the construction by day labour of earthworks on railways amounts to 37 per cent.

The saving on concrete work has been 10s. to 15s. per cubic yard. This statement has been indorsed by Mr. Kernot, the Acting Engineer for Railway Construction in Victoria.

Independent experts, as the result of the practical experiments made, assert that -

Work requiring high mechanical ability such as steel bridges, &c, has been executed much more economically by day labour than by contract. It paid to carry out works .without the aid of a contractor, provided suitable men were forthcoming to take charge ; that they have fair and proper control in the employing and managing of the men, and that the simplest and least harassing methods of ordering material and keeping accounts are adopted.

It has been the unfortunate experience in nearly all the States that a big railway contract has often been followed by a big law case, and the legal expenses have had rightly to be added to the cost of the work. The experience of New South Wales is illustrated by the following examples -

The total loss to the country on the above six contracts was £127,829 - under the contract system.

Senator PEARCE:

– My motion does not mean that every job is to be done by day labour, and I do not think that the Go’vernment would take it in that sense.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. ,,

page 3646

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES : REBATE OF DUTIES

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– I move -

That, in the opinion of the Senate, a Bill should be introduced by the Government to provide for a rebate of the duties paid on all natural products of the soil imported into the Commonwealth vhich_ have been grown in the islands of the New Hebrides on land owned and occupied by British subjects.

During our short national life, the Commonwealth has laid down no broad guiding principles of external policy, nor have we denned the attitude that Australia intends to assume with regard to the islands in the Pacific Ocean. All our political energies up to the present ‘have been concentrated upon bringing into operation the necessary machinery for the conduct of Federal government, and upon passing legislation with reference to the internal affairs of Australia. Our political energies have been confined to passing largely what I may call Commonwealth by-laws for the conduct of trade and industry, almost to the total exclusion of broad national legislation which will guide us to the issue which Australian sentiment desires. I think I can show that there is no aspect of our national life and no Commonwealth interest which is of more vital importance and which demands more eternal vigilance than the question of our interests in the Pacific Ocean, Yet there is no subject that has been more neglected. The motion which I have submitted to the Senate has particular reference to the New Hebrides. These islands - most of them at any rate ; I think all, with the exception of one - were discovered by a Britisher, Captain Cook. The island of Santo was discovered by Spaniards, Torres, arid de Quiros, I believe in 1606. But with that exception, the New Hebrides were discovered by the British; they were surveyed by British people; communications with them were opened up ; some system of government was laid down; and British men-of-war have regularly called there to see that law and order are observed. British missionaries have gone to the New Hebrides, and in all, up to 1880, £140,000 had been spent in developing the territory, in promoting law- and order, in stopping inter-tribal fights, cannibalism, and other heathen customs, and in making the inhabitants practically a civilized people. From the time of their discovery until 1880 - over 100 years - the British had been absolutely paramount in the New Hebrides. Up to that time there was not a Frenchman on the islands. Therefore,’ by priority of occupation, we can say that we have strong claims to the suzerainty of those islands, irrespective of the fact which I think is generally admitted in international comity, that a nation has a prior right to islands that are unoccupied by civilized people, and which are contiguous to its coasts. Further, it has been stated in official documents that in .1:840 this group was annexed by Great Britain, together with the islands of New Zealand, by a charter bearing that year’s date. It has been alleged that the islands were absolutely in British possession at that time, and that that suzerainty was not revoked until the selfdenying ordinance- of 1873 was entered into by which Great Britain and France mutually agreed not to acquire the islands. I may state that I have not been able to verify the statement by recourse to a copy of the charter; but my information is obtained from a monograph which was written and sent by the Agents-General of Australia to Lord Derby in December, 1883. In that document they stated that the islands of the New Hebrides were included in the charter of suzerainty over New Zealand in 1840.

Senator Playford:

– Did we ever take possession of them and hoist the British flag over them?

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I am not able to say.

Senator Playford:

– That is the point.

Senator. STANIFORTH SMITH.That is not the main point, because the essential question, in international law, is that of effective occupation. If a navigator goes to an unappropriated island, and hoists the flag of his nation, but does not occupy the territory, by international law that navigator’s country cannot say that it has established a suzerainty. But if he is a commissioner delegated to hoist the flag, his nation may claim a suzerainty over the island. In 1883 there was a Convention in Sydney, which, I may say, made the first real effort, backed by popular feeling on the part of the Australian people, towards Federation. The matters discussed affected almost purely our interests in the islands of the Pacific Ocean, and the great danger that would result to Australia if foreign nations came to our front door and established themselves in close contiguity to our coasts.

Senator McGregor:

– Are not foreign nations now established closer still?

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

-I will refer later on to the foreign nations that have established themselves close to Australian’ shores. That Convention, which particularly discussed this question, carried the following resolution: -

That further acquisition of dominion in the Pacific, south of the Equator, by any foreign Power would be highly detrimental to the safety and well-being of the British Possessions in Australasia and injurious to the interests of the Empire.

Senator Playford:

– What was the position of the New Hebrides then? Were they occupied by the British?

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– They were occupied by the British solely. The French were not there at all. Lord Derby was at that time implored by the Australian Colonies and New Zealand to annex the islands, but he declined to do so. This question of the New Hebrides, New Caledonia, and British New Guinea was one of the most important factors in crystallizing Federal feeling, and in bringing about Federation. It was this dread of foreign Powers coming close into our coasts that influenced the minds of many thoughtful people. The resolution which I have quoted was, we may say, the promulgation of an Antipodean Monroe doctrine for Australia. It is a temperately-worded resolution, and one which no person can find fault with, in respect to its tone. It does not say that Australia herself should annex the islands.. It points out that the intrusion of any foreign Power close to our coasts is a danger to us. I think that the Commonwealth would be well advised in laying down some broad principle with regard to the Pacific, in very much the same direction. It may be asked, and it has been asked by some people, “ Why do we want to bother ourselves with islands outside Australia? Are we not much better employed in developing the huge natural resources of this great Continent? Why should we annex further territory that we cannot defend?” Such people advocate a policy of “ splendid isolation,” under which Australia should be content with the territory it has got, and not bother with external matters. Statements of that sort appeal to a great many people. But is is, I think, a very dangerous attitude for Australia to persist in. In answer to it I would say that we do not want any islands in the

Pacific for the purposes of territorial expansion. We do not want them for colonization purposes. We do not want them necessarily for economic reasons. I believe that the best interests of Australia are conserved by Australia annexing no territory in the Pacific ; and I was one of the first in the Senate to object to Australia taking over the suzerainty of British New Guinea from Great Britain. I pointed out- then that we were laying up for ourselves a considerable responsibility ; that we would have 1 .000 miles of our territory in contiguity to the territory of two foreign Powers, Germany and Holland ; and that we were taking territory that we could not defend. But the policy which I advocate is this : That while we ourselves should not annex islands in the Pacific, we should see that, as declared in the resolution passed by the Convention of 1883, foreign Powers do not do so. Our object should be to endeavour to induce Great Britain to establish a protectorate over these islands, and either hold them in trust for us, or keep them for herself.

Senator Playford:

– If Great Britain does not annex them, some other Power will.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.That is the point ; and that is why we should use every endeavour to induce Great Britain to annex the islands, even though we may have to pay a portion of the cost of occupation, as we had to do in the early history of British New Guinea. This question of the Pacific Islands and the New Hebrides is of supreme importance for national reasons. We want to prevent foreign nations from coming close in to Australia, and from establishing coaling stations for their cruisers in the vicinity of our coasts, by means of which in time of war they might destroy our Inter-State commerce, and bombard our coastal towns,

Ai well as being stationed right upon our principal trade routes. For ethical reasons, also, we desire to stop as far as we possibly can the horrible system of emptying al our doors the criminal out-scourings of European prisons. The military and naval policy of Australia has been, and, I hope, always will be, a policy based purely on thi exigencies of defence. We have no intention of going in for an aggresive policy. We want to work out our own destiny in these Southern Seas, at peace with all the world. We wish our battles to be the peaceful conquests of trade and commerce, we desire that the wealth which we create shall be beneficial both to ourselves and to those with whom we trade. We do not want to win spurious glory at the cannon’s mouth, but Ave want to make Australia a nation which we can look to with pride as one where the people are living in peace and are acquiring an increased degree of happiness and prosperity. In order that we may maintain that peace, which we all desire, we have to look to our interests in the Pacific, and to safeguard ourselves from attack. We want to make it as difficult as we possibly can for foreign nations to attack us, and to prevent foreign nations from establishing bases in the Pacific, which will always be dangerous to Australia’s peace. We want to make those oceans which surround Australia something analogous to buffer states, so that foreign nations shall have no interests there. In the absence of bases close to Australia it would be almost impossible foi them in time of war, by means of their fast cruisers, to come down upon our shores and to injure our commerce and our ports. Captain Mahan, who is perhaps one of the greatest living authorities on naval tactics, has laid down the- terms of the policy which he thinks the United States should adopt in the Pacific Ocean. He says -

It should be an inviolable resolution of our national policy that no foreign State should henceforth acquire a coaling position within three thousand miles of San Francisco, for fuel is the life .of modern naval warfare; it is the food of the ship ; without it the modern monsters of the deep die of inanition….. An enemy thrown back for supplies of fuel to distances of thirty-five hundred and four thousand miles - or between seven thousand and eight thousand miles going and coming - is an impediment to sustained maritime operations well nigh prohibitive.

If that be true - and it is true in the opinion of the highest naval expert in the United States - with regard to that nation, it is equally true with regard to Australia. If we can secure the islands within a 3,000- miles radius of Australia, we, by that act, would practically make it impossible for foreign cruisers to attack our shores, and we should therefore insure, as far as we possibly could, the peaceful progress of Australia.

Senator Givens:

– To do that we should have to take the whole of the MalayArchipelago.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– The map of the Pacific shows us the islands which are within a radius of 3,000 miles of Australia on its eastern flank.

With the exception of the Samoan Islands and New Caledonia, the whole belong to Great Britain, and we have, to a very great extent, defended ourselves from attack, so far as the eastern portion of Australia is concerned. But it may be asked, what about the islands north of Australia? Fortunately, those islands are held by Holland, a nation which is not aggressive, or likely to be antagonistic to Australia, and they would have to pass through the Torres Strait, which is capable of defence. With the exception of Germany, there is no nation with territorial interests in the parts close to our principal trading routes; and those islands are a great distance from OU] principal commercial ports. We can easily appreciate the great danger of foreign nations having strategical naval’ bases close to Australia, when we recall the doings of the Russian Vladivostock squadron in the war at present in progress. Even in the face of an overwhelming preponderance of naval power, that squadron has been able to do considerable damage, and will probably do greater damage in the future, to their opponent and those who carry contraband of war. We should, therefore, as far as we reasonably may, see- that no foreign nations obtain a footing close to the shores of the Commonwealth. But there is another aspect of the defence question, beyond that presented by the interests of our Inter-State shipping, or the necessity for the protecting of our territory. We have to keep in view the ‘protection of our future trade route. Australian commerce in the future will undoubtedly flow largely through the Pacific Ocean, with which the destiny of this country is more intimately bound up than it is with the Indian Ocean. With the millions of Asia, and with the 100,000,000 people in North America, we shall undoubtedly have extensive business relations; the fact that we are in a different hemisphere, with different seasons, must mean a large trade. The Panama Canal will be pierced, probably eight or ten years hence ; and the people of Australia have not yet, I believe, realized the enormous strategic and economic importance of that event. That Canal will create a new world’s highway, through the narrow portals of which will pour the enormous trade between East and West ; and by reason of all these events, the Pacific will probably become the storm centre of commercial life. The trend of trade has always been in a westerly direction. The discovery of

America broke up the. Mediterranean monopoly, at the expense of which was developed the great trade of the Atlantic Ocean. The Panama Canal will cause an enormous trade, to flow into the Pacific, which by reason of the increasing importance of the various nations on the borders of this ocean will probably become the scene of the greatest trading activity in the world. It will help us to appreciate the importance of strategic bases along what .will inevitably be our principal trade route, if we consider the relative value of Gibraltar, Malta, and Eden to Great Britain before and after 1869, when the Suez Canal was completed. Without these it would be almost impossible for British squadrons to protect her commerce on this great trade route. . The people of the United States, on the attainment of nationhood, never gave the islands in the Caribbean Sea a thought. All their energies were directed towards the acquisition’ of as much of the Continent as possible, and yet they now find that these islands, in the hands of foreign Powers, practically control and dominate the great trade route that will be created by the Panama Canal. Under these circumstances, we need not ask ourselves how important strategic bases are in the Pacific Ocean. We know that many of the groups of islands .have not any proper harbors, and from a strategical point of view are worthless. But the islands which have harbors, and which are on the prospective trade route, will be of enormous importance. Foreign nations have for years recognised this fact, and, in consequence, have made strenuous endeavours to obtain islands with proper harbor accommodation. It is realized that any nation which has no strategic bases in the Pacific is absolutely impotent, so far as maritime warfare is concerned. The route via the Panama Canal will be the shortest, safest, and most direct from Australia to the markets of Europe, and it is important that islands which practically dominate that route should not fall into the hands of foreign nations. If we allow foreign nations to establish strategical bases on this route, we shall, for all time, jeopardize our carrying trade; we shall enable squadrons of foreign vessels to patrol our principal trade route, and Australia will lay up a heritage of danger for which, in all probability, we, of this Commonwealth Parliament, will be blamed. A glance .at the map of the Pacific shows that the foreign-owned islands are not very numerous.. The French1 have the Marquesas Islands and New Caledonia, but the former, in the absence of proper harbors, is of no strategic importance. Practically, the French are restricted to the harbor of Noumea, in New Caledonia. Germany has Apia, in the Samoan group; and the prevalence of such storms as that in which the Calliope took so gallant a part, shows that that harbor is unsafe - that it is impossible as a strategical basis. Germany has no harbor or other islands nearer the trade route than the Solomons, or New Guinea, and is practically debarred from reaping any advantage in this connexion. The United States has a harbor at Pagopago, in the Tutuila Islands, and that harbor was no doubt secured in anticipation of the early completion of the Panama Canal. When the Samoan Islands were divided,- ‘the United States was quite content to take one-tenth of the area, and give Germany nine-tenths, because it was recognised that strategic position was the only object worth striving for, and that Pagopago harbor would afford a good base. The New Hebrides are strategically the most important islands, having regard to the future trade route by the Panama Canal. The harbor of Havannah, in the New Hebrides, is considered by experts to be one of the. finest in the Southern Hemisphere. There are also two smaller harbors, namely, Port Sandwich and Vila, and these are practically the key to this great trade route. In fact, French writers have stated that unless they can obtain possession of the New Hebrides, the fact that New Caledonia is close to Australia, and surrounded by British islands, will, in time, render their occupation of New Caledonia untenable. There is, therefore, an additional reason why we should see that the French do not get hold of important strategical bases on our principal trade route. Another important factor, which I scarcely need mention, is the transportation of French criminals to the West Pacific. The assumption of suzerainty over the New Hebrides would, I believe, lead to a determination of the question of whether that transportation of criminals should absolutely cease, or be allowed to continue. New Caledonia has an area of about 2,100,000 hectares - a hectare is about 2 J acres - of which about 1,000,000 hectares is barren, desolate land, useless for either agricultural or pastoral purposes. TEe transportation of

The Clerk laid upon the table the following paper : -

Return to an Order of the Senate of 13th July,1904, relating to the Bass Straits Cable.

page 3654

FRAUDULENT TRADE MARKS BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 27th July, vide page 3537) :

New clause, 1 7A (proposed by . Senator

Pulsford) -

The following goods are prohibited to be exported, and shall, if attempted to be exported, be forfeited to the King : -

All goods to which any forgery of a registered trade mark, or false trade des- ‘ cription is applied, or to which any trade mark is falsely applied.

Upon which Senator Pearce had moved by way of amendment -

That the word “ shall,” line 2, and the words “ be forfeited to the King,” line 3, be left out, and that after the word “ exported,” line 2, the words “such attempt shall be deemed to be an offence against the Act,” be. inserted.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– Since this proposal was discussed last night, I have had an opportunity to consult the Government draftsman. He has drafted two clauses which have been circulated, and are in complete unison with the Bill as it stands. I ask leave to withdraw the new clause I moved last night, and I believe that Senator Pearce is willing to withdraw his amendment to that clause.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 17A. (1) All goods ‘to which any forgery of a registered trade mark or any false trade description is applied, or to which any trade mark is falsely applied, shall be prohibited to be exported, and shall, if exported or entered for export or put on any ship or boat for export or brought to any wharf or place for the purpose of export, be forfeited to the King, and may in that case be seized as forfeited by any person acting under the authority of the Minister. (2). The Minister may, if he is satisfied that ‘ the owner of any goods which have been seized as forfeited under this section did not knowingly act in contravention of this Act, permit the obliteration, removal, or correction of any forgery, false trade description, or trade mark applied to the goods, and may, when the oblitera- tion removal or correction has been completed to his satisfaction, order the release of the goods either unconditionally or subject to the payment df the expenses of the seizure, and thereupon the forfeiture shall be remitted.”

The- clause, as now drafted, is uniform with the requirements of the Customs Act, and with the clauses of this Bill.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– It is desirable to bring this clause in accord with clause 17, in . which the phrase “ Comptroller-General of Customs “ ‘ is used.

Senator Pulsford:

Senator McGREGOR:

– The object of the new clause is to prevent persons from exporting goods bearing false trade marks or false descriptions. I think that the honorable senator will see that the clause can do no harm to honest trading.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - If any falsely-marked imports were brought in, the Customs officers would not delay action until they were sought to be exported, but would deal with them under the provision relating to imports, which has been agreed to.

Proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Pulsford) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “18a. Whoever exports, or enters for export, or puts on any ship or boat for export, or brings to any wharf or place for the purpose of export, any goods to which any forgery of a registered trade mark or any false trade description is applied, or to which a trade mark is falsely applied, shall, unless he proves that he did not knowingly act in contravention of this Act, he guilty of an offence against this Act.”

Clauses 19 to 34 agreed to.

Postponed clause 17 and Title agreed to.

Bill reported with further amendments; report adopted.

page 3655

TRADE MARKS BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 27th July, vide page 3569).

Clause 4 (Definitions) -

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

That the following new definition be added, “ Person “ and “ applicant “ include a body corporate and firm.

Upon which amendment,’ Senator Pearce had moved -

That the following words be added, “ and registered industrial organization.”

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I listened carefully to the remarks of my honorable friend, Senator Pearce, but the object which he desires to accomplish appears to me to be outside the scope of the Bill. Ha has told us very plainly what his object is. It is a laudable one in many ways, but it is not within the purpose of this measure.

Senator Pearce:

– We are making a new law.

Senator DOBSON:

– But I do not see how we can ingraft such a proposal on to a Bill concerning trade marks without altering the whole law. What Senator Pearce desires might be very proper as a piece of Factories legislation; but it has nothing to do with trade marks. A trade mark is something in which there is a property that can be assigned, and which has no value whatever apart from the goodwill attaching to it. It goes without saying that if a manufacturer can assign, the goodwill which descends to his heirs on his death, or can be assigned on his bankruptcy, it is not a proper thing to add on to his trade mark a label stating the particular conditions under which the goods were manufactured. I do not see how such a label can be a1 trade mark within the meaning of this measure. Senator Keating has dealt fully with the point’, and I quite agree with his view. Sebastian says, in his book on Trade Marks -

A trade mark cannot exist in gross and unattached to Specific articles, for, if that could be done, the mark might come to be an instrument of deception instead of a guarantee of genuineness.

Take the case of a hat factory. The Denton Hat Factory may have - and certainly ought to have, for it makes very good hats - a certain trade mark. What is the use of attaching to that trade mark a statement that the goods were made in accordance with the Factories Act? If the workmen who are employed in that factory could induce the Denton Company to adopt such a statement as part of their trade mark, I could understand it. But to say that’ a trades union can call a certain statement a trade mark simply because it informs the public that the goods were made under certain trade conditions, is a proposition the reason of which I cannot conceive. Suppose that the workmen in a certain boot factory belong to the Bootmakers’ Union. It does not follow that all the boots sold by the owners of that factory are made within the factory. Some might be made outside. Could the men in that factory claim that a statement was a trade mark, simply because it was attached to the goods, and stated that they were made under the conditions laid down in the Victorian Factories’ Act? Would this trade mark apply to all the goods made in the factory, whether they were babies’ shoes or Wellington boots? The proposal is quite outside the scope of the Bill, and I would ask the ruling of the Chairman as to whether it is in order.

Senator Pearce:

– On the point of order, I wish to say that, while the question of whether the Bill should be amended in this direction may .very properly be argued, I do not see that it can be argued that it is outside the order of leave. The Bill relates to trade marks, and while it may be debatable whether it is wise to extend- the scope of trade marks, it cannot be argued that the Committee has not that power. That is all that my amendment asks for. It seeks to extend the scope of a trade mark so as to cover a trade union label. Surely that is not out of order.

Senator McGregor:

– I do not see any objection to the amendment, nor do I think that it is out of order. A company, or a firm, might register a trade mark and never use it.

Senator Best:

– The Bill provides for the cancellation of the mark in that case.

Senator McGregor:

– In the same manner, if a registered industrial organization adopted a trade mark, it would have the same right to register as any one else. But if it were not strictly speaking a trade mark, then, according to Part III. of the Bill, it would not be registerable. Nothing can be registered as a trade mark, unless under the provisions of this Bill. I want to point out how the amendment would benefit industrial organizations.

The CHAIRMAN:

– But this definition would be necessary.

Senator BEST:

– That is a matter of drafting, though the definition would not carry the honorable senator much further.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– Even if Senator Pearce succeeded in passing his amendment he would not be one step, further towards the end he has in view. With regard to my interjection just now that the amendment would’ not help the honorable senator, I am still of that opinion. Senator Best was pointing out that the definition of “ trade mark “ would have to be altered, and the whole tenure of the measure changed ; but, so far as I can see, there is no definition of “ trade mark “ in the Bill. The only reference to a trade mark is in clause 15, where the essential particulars of a registrable .trade mark are specified ; and the ordinary acceptation of the term will be observed in connexion with .this Bill. When an applicant goes to register his trade mark, it will have to be a trade mark as known under the common law. In order to show how utterly impossible it is to accept as a trade mark anything of the character indicated by Senator Pearce or Senator Findley, I refer honorable senators to Kerly, on Trade Marks, in which we find this statement -

The foundation upon which the law relating to trade marks and trade names rests is that the deception of the public by the offer for sale of goods as possessiong .some connexion with a particular trader, which they do not in fact possess, is a wrong in respect of which the trader has a cause of action against any person who is the author of, or is responsible for, the deception.

The whole basis of a trade mark is the connexion of . particular goods with some particular trader, whether .manufacturer or seller. There is not in contemplation an indefinite class of traders, who may consist of a certain number to-day and of a larger number to-morrow. Kerly proceeds - “ No man,” said James, L. J., “ is entitled to represent his goods as being the goods of another man ; and no man is permitted to use any mark, sign, or symbol, device, or means, whereby without making a direct false representation himself to a purchaser, who purchases from him, he enables such purchaser to tell a lie, or to make a false representation to somebody else who is the ultimate customer. That being, as it appears to me, a comprehensive statement of what the law is upon the question of trade-mark or tradedesignation, I am of opinion that there is no such thing as a monopoly or a property in the nature of a copyright, or in the nature of a patent, in the use of any name. Whatever name is used to designate goods, anybody may use that name to designate goods; always subject to this, that he must not, as I said, make directly, or through the medium of another person, a false representation that his goods are the goods of another person.”

That is the whole basis of the conception of trade marks, according to law. Further on in the book I find at page 30 this reference -

So no one can acquire an exclusive right to affix the trade mark to goods which do not fall within the class indicated by the mark, or, in other words, to goods which do not possess the attribute the mark is understood and intended to connote. Thus, in Cotton v. Gillard, the defendant had invented a sauce which was prepared from a secret recipe not known to the plaintiff, and was called the Licensed Victuallers Relish. The plaintiff had purchased from the assignee in bankruptcy of the defendant’s son all his interest in the sauce, and this he contended included the right to the trade mark used with the business. Jesse], M.R., however, held that this right could not exist or be transferred without the goods with which the mark was connected, and that the plaintiff could have no assistance from the court to enable him to pass off under the mark, as the original sauce, an imitation of his own..

The plaintiff in that case had bought out the business, but he was not allowed by the court to use the trade mark, because it was considered that it would indicate to the public that it was the sauce made by the original manufacturer who had registered the mark. Then, again, honorable senators must see the direct connexion between the. trade mark and the person who actually makes the goods. Going on to page 35 I find this stated - “ The right which a manufacturer has in his trade mark,” Lord Cranworth said in the Leather Cloth Case, “ is the exclusive right to use it for the purpose of indicating where and by whom or at what- manufactory the article to 6 k 2 which it is affixed was manufactured.” And the same judge, in Farina v. Silverlock, after distinguishing copyright from the right to a trade mark, added, “ Any one who has acquired a particular mode of designating his particular manufacture, has a right to say, not that other persons shall not sell exactly the same article, better or worse, or an article looking exactly like it, but that they may not so sell it as to steal the’ plaintiff’s trade mark, and make purchasers believe it is the manufacture of somebody else.” And in Massam v. Thorley’s Cattle Food. Co., James, L.J., said, “That in truth is the meaning and object and result of a trade mark. It indicates this ; that you may take this as a warranty that it has come from the particular manufacturer of the goods with which you have been hitherto pleased.”

Senator Guthrie:

– Or that they have been made under fair conditions.

Senator KEATING:

– What I am quoting goes to show that a trade mark could not be issued in such a case as is desired by Senator Pearce, and it can only be issued in the case of the true manufacturer or seller of goods. At page 52 of the work from which I am quoting, I find this -

The office of the trade mark is to indicate some connexion between the goods to which it is applied, and a particular trader.

Not to a number of traders who may be selected or added to at will by the parties, who, under Senator Pearce’s proposal, would be enabled to register the mark. At page 98 in the same work I find it stated that -

A broader question is, whether registration can be properly made in respect of goods in which the applicant does not deal or intend to deal.

Senator KEATING:

– No; I spoke last night with certainty about the Canadian law. I referred to the adoption of trade, union marks in the United States, and in Canada, and I specially mentioned The Toiler as enjoining its readers to purchase no goods other than those which had a union label. on them. The practice is extensively followed in Canada, as well as in America. Here is the definition of a trade mark in section 3 of the Canadian Act -

All marks, names, brands, labels, packages, or other business devices, which are adopted for use by any person in his trade, business, occupation, or calling, for the purpose of distinguishing any manufacture, product, or article of any description manufactured, produced, compounded, packed, or offered for sale by him, applied in any manner whatever either to such manufacture, product, or article, or to any package, parcel, case, box, or other vessel or receptacle of any description whatsoever, containing the same, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be considered and known as trade marks, and may be registered for the exclusive use of the person registering the same in the manner herein provided ; and thereafter such person shall have the exclusive right to use the same to designate articles manufactured or sold by him.

After dealing with trade marks, much on the lines of the English Acf; which has been adopted in some of the Australian States, this Canadian Act then goes on from clause 22 to the end to deal with industrial designs, and here is where I think an opportunity is afforded to give effect to the object which Senator Pearce has in view. The’ English Act’ is an Act which deals with patents, designs, and trade marks. In the State of Tasmania we practically adopted that Act bodily. Under the Commonwealth procedure we have split up the legislation upon these matters into separate enactments. We have already dealt with patents in the Patents Act ; we are now dealing with trade marks, and we hope to pass a Trade Marks Act that will bring our legislation into line with the best in the world on that subject. I think it was the intention of the last Government - and whether it is the intention of the present Government or not I do not know - to bring in an Industrial Designs

Bill; and that would have afforded Senator Pearce a proper opportunity to enable trade unions to register an industrial design. I may refer to one or two of the marginal notes of the Canadian Act, describing the clauses dealing with industrial designs, because they are practically the same as those in force in England, in Tasmania, and probably in some of the other States of Australia to-day. I find these marginal notes “Register of industrial designs to be kept,” “Registration,” “Certificate and its effect,” “Conditions of registration,” “Who shall be deemed the proprietor,” “Tariff of fees.” Section 28 deals with the certificate to be given and its effect, and provides that -

On the copy returned to the person registering a certificate shall be given signed by the Minister for Agriculture or the deputy of the Minister for Agriculture, showing that the design has been registered, the date of registration, the name of the registered proprietor, his address, the number of such design, and the number or letter employed to denote or correspond to the registration - which said certificate in the absence of proof to the contrary, shall be sufficient proof of the design - and of the name of the proprietor, and so on. The proprietor is given in that design exclusive right of copyright, and the fees for obtaining these designs are much lower than those charged for obtaining a trade mark. These designs may be applied to such class of goods as the person obtaining them then may wish, and in section 31 it is provided that -

During the existence of the exclusive right (whether it is of the entire or partial use of such design) no person shall, without the licence in writing of the registered proprietor or of his assignee as the case may be, apply such design or a fraudulent imitation thereof to the ornamenting of any article of manufacture or other article to which an industrial design may be applied or attached for the purposes of sale, &c.

We have similar provisions to those in the State Act in Tasmania. Turning to the Western Australian statute, 48 Victoria, No. 7, which is described as “An Act to regulatethe registration of designs and of trade marks in the colony of Western Australia,” I find that Part I. is preliminary ; and Part II. deals with designs. Section 4 deals with the application for registration of designs; section 5 with drawings, &c, to be furnished on application ; section 6 with the certificate of registration, and section 7 provides that -

When a design is registered the registered proprietor of the design shall, subject to the provision of this Act, have copyright in the design during five years from the date of registration.
Before delivery on sale of any articles to which a registered design has been applied, the proprietor must (if exact representations or specimens were not furnished on the application for registration) furnish to the Colonial Secretary the prescribed number of exact representations or specimens of design.

Senator BEST (Victoria). - I have just looked up the” definition of “ trade mark “ in the Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England. It reads as follows: -

A trade mark is some symbol, consisting in general of a picture, label, word, or words, which is applied or attached to a trader’s goods, so as to distinguish them from the similar goods of other traders, and to identify them as his goods, or as those of his successors in ‘ the business in which’ they are produced or put forward for sale.

That view has been upheld in various cases which are cited -

A trade mark must, therefore, be a distinctive symbol. A word or device which is common to the trade, or is in general use, mere descriptive matter, or the name of the goods themselves, are the principal examples of marks which are not distinctive…… Trade mark rights are appurtenant to the goodwill of the business in the goods to which the trade mark relates.

Senator- Dawson. - But supposing, that the mark is registered?

Senator BEST:

– It must be registered as a trade mark.” It must comply with the terms of the Act relating to trade marks, and, as the whole scheme of trade marks has the specific application of a trade mark to the goods of a trader, therefore, an abstract sort of trade mark made applicable to goods in general, as simply indicating the quality of the labour employed, is too broad ‘ and too general. .It is not distinguishable. It could not be sold by the trustee of a bankrupt estate, nor as part pf the goodwill of a business;, and these qualities are essential to a trade mark. As regards- the point raised by Senator Keating-the matter of designs for articles of manufacture, or works of art- -we have an Act in Victoria-called the Copyright Act, which includes copyright in designs, Ore. But the designs which are contemplated in that Act are at variance with those which have been mentioned by Senator Keating. They dp not necessarily mean indus! rial designs. I mention this because I do- not desire to postpone my amendment until we deal with the Copyright Bill, nor do I think that any other measure would be more appropriate for my amendment. But I would suggest to’ Senator. Pearce that he should propose the addition of a separate part to this Bill dealing with the question he has raised, but of course coming under the title of trade marks.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). ‘ - - Personally I am under a debt of obligation to Senator Keating and Senator Best for the time that they have devoted to this question, especially as their efforts have not been directed to defeat the object at which I am aiming, but to elucidate the point with which I have been dealing. After hearing their explanations, I can hardly be expected to do otherwise than ask leave to withdraw my proposal for the time being. I recognise that there is a great deai in Senator Best’s contention that I could by another method better attain the object at which I am aiming in This Bill. But to do it by the method he suggests would necessitate the framing of a number of clauses. I hold in my hand a copy of a law which has been passed in the State- of Minnesota, United States of America, dealing with the question of labels. The first section of it includes the term “trade mark.” It is designed to accomplish the object which I have in view. The section reads as follows : -

Whenever any person, or any association or union of working men, has heretofore adopted or used, or shall hereafter adopt or use, any label, trade mart, term, design, device, or form of advertisement, for the purpose of designating, making known, or distinguishing any . goods, wares, merchandise, or other product of labour, as having been made, manufactured, produced, prepared, packed, or put on sale by such person or association, or uDion- of working men, or by a member or members of such association or union, it shall be unlawful to counterfeit or imitate such label, trade mark, term, design, device, or form of advertisement, or to use, sell, offer for sale, or in any way utter or circulate any counterfeit or imitation of any such label, trade mark, term, design, device, or form of- advertisement.

Senator Dobson:

– “ Trade mark “ is given a wider definition in that measure.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is the point I was about to make. In the United States, the tenm “ trade mark “ is held to cover such a device as we wish trade unions to have power to use, and it seems to me to. take much force from the objection urged that under the common law “ trademark “ has a limited definition.

Senator Dobson:

– What is the definition in the Constitution ?

Senator PEARCE:

– So far as I can see -there is no definition in the Constitution. We have power to deal with copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, arid trade marks. I take it that if it can be held that a trade ‘union label is a design, we have full power to legislate in this direction. If I withdraw my amendment for the time being, shall I have an opportunity of framing such clauses as will meet my views ? . That would be better than to have a separate Bill dealing with -the point.

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– I have every desire to meet the honorable senator, ‘and therefore, when we have disposed of the amendment I shall move that progress be’ reported.

Amendment of the amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 3664

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator McGregor) agreed to -

That the Senate nt its rising adjourn until Wednesday, 10th August.

Senate adjourned at 6.15 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 July 1904, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1904/19040728_senate_2_20/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate28 July 1904

QUESTION

ARTILLERY AND AMMUNITION

Senator MATHESON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator Millen:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE CLASSIFICATION

Senator O’KEEFE:TASMANIA

Senator McGREGOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator McGREGOR:

QUESTION

OVERSEA MAIL MATTER

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT

Senator KEATING:

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

PACIFIC CABLE CONFERENCE

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

ATTACK ON PAPUANS

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

SALE OF DUTY STAMPS

Senator BEST:VICTORIA

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

FIELD GUNS

SELECT COMMITTEE : CASE OF SENATOR NEILD

SELECT COMMITTEE: CASE OF MAJOR CARROLL

QUESTION

PUBLIC WORKS : DAY LABOUR

Senator GIVENS:Queensland

Senator Millen:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Millen:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Millen:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Walker:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Walker:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Walker:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Walker:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator Trenwith:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Dobson:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Playford:

Senator McGregor:

Senate
28 July 1904

Senator MATHESON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator BEST:
VICTORIA

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator FRASER:
Victoria.

Senator McGREGOR:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria