Senate
28 September 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- WAGES ON THE “ POCAHONTAS
QUESTION
- PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS ACT
QUESTION
- PAPUA: PUBLIC MAILS
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SPECIAL DUTIES) BILL
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATE DEBTS) BILL
BOUNTIES BILL
- Second Reading
REFERENDU M (CON STITTJ TION ALTERATION) BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Postal Voting

The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 5639

QUESTION

WAGES ON THE “ POCAHONTAS

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to again draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs to the question which I put to him on Wednesday regarding the steam-ship Pocahontas trading on the Australian const with a Chinese and Malay crew, and which he said had been referred to the AttorneyGeneral. I desire to ascertain whether he has yet received from his honorable colleagues a reply as to her position ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– I have not.

page 5640

QUESTION

PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS ACT

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

Will the Minister kindly inform the Senate what steps the Government intend taking this session to modify certain portions of the Pacific Island Labourers Act as regards the deportation of the Islanders from the ‘Commonwealth?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

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

The proposals of the Government are indicated by the Bill now before the House of Representatives.

page 5640

QUESTION

PAPUA: PUBLIC MAILS

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister re presenting the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

Is it true that the Government vessel Merrie England has called at Cooktown on three different occasions recently for British New Guinea official mails, and has refused to Carry public mails?
What is the reason that public mails for British New Guinea are not placed on the s-s. Merrie England when that vessel visits Cooktown ?

Senator KEATING:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

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

The Department of External Affairs has no knowledge of the Merrie England having recently called three times at Cooktown, nor of public mails having been refused conveyance, but inquiries will be made.

page 5640

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SPECIAL DUTIES) BILL

Call of Senate : Adoption of Report.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– Before I move for a call of . the Senate it is necessary for me to submit the motion which stands on the notice-paper as contingent on any Constitution Alteration Bill being reported from a Committee of the whole. I move -

That so much of standing order No. 271 as refers to a period of twenty-one days be suspended for the remainder of the session for the purpose of expediting the passing of such Bill through its remaining stages.

The PRESIDENT:

– No; the Bill has been reported, but the report has not yet been adopted.

Senator Drake:

– My second objection to the motion, is that, according to your ruling of the 7 th September, it is out of order. On the 5th September Senator Keating had on the notice paper the following motion : -

That standing order No. 233 and also all other standing orders, so far as they require or relate to a call of the Senate before the third reading of any Bill by which an alteration of the Constitution is proposed, be suspended on and after the 1 8th day of September, 1906, for the remainder of this session.

Objection was taken on the 7th September to the motion, on the ground that it did not comply with standing order 435, which provides that -

The suspension of standing orders shall be limited in its operation to the particular purpose foi which such suspension has been sought.

The matter was debated, sir, and, in consequence of your ruling, Senator Keating gave notice for the nth September of this motion : -

That so much of standing order 271 as refers to a period of twenty-one days be suspended for the remainder of the session, for the purpose of expediting the passage through its remaining stages of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Elections) Hill.

The Standing Orders were suspended, the Bill was passed through all its stages, and the suspension was practically exhausted by that fact. I need not refer to the debate on the objection to the form in which it was proposed to suspend the Standing Orders on the 7th September. It is sufficient for me, sir, to read your ruling on the subject, and to submit that, according to that ruling, the motion is out of order, on the ground that the proposed suspension of the Standing Orders is not -

Limited in its operation to the particular purpose for which such suspension has been sought.

On page 4240 of Hansard your ruling is reported in the following terms: -

As it appears to me, the question on which I am asked to rule is whether this motion comes within the scope of standing order 435, which reads - “The suspension of the Standing Orders shall be limited in its operation to the particular purpose for which such suspension has been sought.”

A similar standing order is, I think, in force in every Stale Parliament in the Commonwealth. lt certainly has been in force in South Australia. The practice in reference to the suspension of standing orders concerning Bills in all the State Parliaments, and in the Senate ever since it first met, has been that each particular Bill shall be dealt with by a particular motion. A contingent notice of motion is given towards the end of a session to the effect that when a Bill comes on for consideration, the leader of the Senate will move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent that particular Bill being passed through all its stages without delay. So that we have in the first place a specific motion foi each particular Bill, and we have no such motion for any Bill other than a Bill that is before us. Now it is sought to extend that practice so that it shall apply, not to a particular Bill, but to a class of Bills, or rather to a number of Bills which have one feature in common, namely, that they propose an amendment of the Constitution. It is not only sought to apply the rule to Bills which are before the Senate, but to Bills which have not yet appeared in the Senate, and which, so far as we are concerned, are yet unborn. Can that be done? I do not think it can. Suppose the notice of motion specified all the Bills which have been referred to, could not any honorable senator claim that it was a complicated motion, and that each Bill must be dealt with separately? An honorable senator might say that he was in favour of the suspension of the Standing Orders to expedite the consideration of one or two of the Bills referred to, but was not in favour of the suspension of the Standing Orders as applied to some of the other Bills. He might, in the circumstances, say, “ This is a general motion, and I desire that it should be dealt with as a particular motion applying only to certain Bills.” Another point has been very clearly stated by Senator Millen, .and that is, that this motion does not state any purpose at all. I agree with the honorable senator. The words of the motion simply indicate the class of Bill, and then go on to show that the intention is that certain standing orders shall be suspended in reference to that class of Bills. As the Minister intends to submit another motion, I need not further elaborate the point, but I say that I do not think the motion which he has moved is in order.

Senator Drake:

– Everything, I think. It was a motion moved in general terms to apply to the third reading of any Bill by which an alteration of the Constitution was proposed. You in your ruling stated conclusively that the motion ought to be specific. There ‘ is nothing in the motion now before us to state whether it applies to one Bill or another. Honorable senators have a right to claim that notice shall be given with regard to a particular Bill. On the nth September, the vice of Senator Keating’s motion - that of being too general - was cured bv the Minister inserting in it that the motion was for the purpose of expediting the passage through its remaining stages of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Elections) Bill. I submit that if the Minister can now move a motion in this form, there will be nothing in the future to prevent a Minister at the commencement of a session from giving notice that upon any Bill of this character being reported from Committee, he will move the suspension of the Standing Orders, and then, when an actual contingency arises, without giving a day’s notice, he may at the last moment put in the name of a particular Bill and claim that he has stated the particular purpose. I submit that that is not sufficient. The Senate has a right to discriminate between suspending the Standing Orders to facilitate the passage of one Bill, and doing the same with reference to another. Let me put a case. Suppose that I am inclined to allow the Standing Orders to be suspended with reference to a particular Bill, but am equally determined to make no concessions whatever with regard to another Bill. Suppose that both Bills are on the notice-paper together, and are at the same stage. Have I .not the right to have one day’s notice in regard’ to each of those Bills so that I may know what business is coming on? When the Standing Orders are to be suspended regarding a Bill that I favour, I may. perhaps, find it advantageous to be present and vote : whereas if it is proposed to take that course with reference to a Bill which I do not favour, I mav be inclined to put myself to kil sorts of inconvenience to prevent the Standing Orders being suspended. Have I not a right, when the Minister seeks to suspend standing orders, to twenty-four hours’ notice of his intention ?

– I adhere to every word that I said on the 7th September. But I cannot agree to the conclusion that what I said on the 7 th September applies to this motion. If I were to do so I should upset the universal practice of the Senate since we have been a Senate, and act contrary to the practice of every State House of Parliament. Senator Drake will see that his arguments, if they are valid, apply equally to the contingent notices of motion which have been given for all Bills. For instance, notice of motion No. 2 is -

To move (contingent on any Bill -

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator has already taken one point of order, and it has been settled. I cannot have the same point of order taken again.

Senator DRAKE:

– Then I desire to speak against the motion. The PRESIDENT. - Has the honorable senator not spoken ?

Senator DRAKE:

– I have spoken only on a point of order. The motion is made to facilitate the passage of the Constitution Alteration (Special Duties) Bill, and I hope that, even at this, stage, honorable senators will consider the danger of sus pending the Standing Orders to hasten the passage of this measure. It is a very serious matter to amend the Constitution. The proposal now being made is that the Constitution shall be so amended, as to allow of the imposition of special duties of Customs and Excise that are not contemplated in the Tariff Acts of 1902. No measure proposing an amendment of the Constitution should be passed until every opportunity afforded by the Constitution and the Standing Orders is given to honorable senators for a full discussion of the matter. The object of the motion now before the Senate is to set aside the safeguard provided by our Standing Orders for the proper consideration of all measures proposing amendments of the Constitution. We have provided in our Standing Orders that no such measure shall pass its third reading unless there is an absolute majority of the Senate in its favour, and until there has been a call of the Senate to insure that every member of it shall be in attendance. They provide, also, that the call is not to be made for a date earlier than twenty-one days from the date of the notice of the call. The object of the present motion is to do away with that safeguard. If ever there was an occasion in our history when it is desirable that these provisions should be most loyally and faithfully observed it is the present, when we are dealing with a Bill proposing a most important amendment of the Constitution, and are setting a precedent for all time. It is now proposed that we shall begin the amendment of the Constitution by sweeping awav the Standing Orders which . were deliberately passed by the Senate at

time when there “ was no party feeling, and when we were looking forward to the future, and considering how the affairs of the Commonwealth in Parliament could be most satisfactorily conducted to insure the greatest care and the fullest consideration, and we are asked to do that merely because the Government desire that this amendment of the Constitution shall be rushed . through. I cannot find any justification whatever for the suspension of the Standing Orders at this time. If, when we begin the amendment of the Constitution, we can afford, in the case of a measure proposing a most important amendment, to set aside all the safeguards we have provided to secure full consideration, we might as well sweep them away altogether. It is probable that no amendment of the Constitution will in future be proposed that has not been considered for years, and yet we now have this measure absolutely sprung upon us. So suddenly, in fact, has it been brought forward that it can be seen from the debate which has taken place that many honorable senators are not satisfied as to what might be the scope of measures which might be introduced in consequence of the proposed amendment of the Constitution having made the introduction of such measures possible. We have been told during the debate that the object which the Government have in view is to introduce a. system of old-age pensions. That, no doubt, is a very desirable thing in itself ; but there is nothing about old-age pensions in the Bill.

– I do not think that in history there is a precedent for the numerous dissents from his rulings.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- I believe that the points of order have been taken honestly, and with a desire to bring about decisions which would be followed until altered by the Senate upon ample notice. The dissents from his ruling have not been moved out of disrespect to or want of confidence . in the President. It has been recognised that every man is liable to make a mistake. We are entering upon a very dangerous course. What is to prevent a Government from waiting until the end of a session, and then trying to put through a far more drastic and sweeping amendment of the Constitution than this by resorting to a suspension of the Standing Orders, and thereby preventing the people and the Parliament of each State from having an opportunity to voice their opinions upon it ? Why was twenty -one days’ notice of a call of the Senate required by the standing order? It was not simply for the convenience of individual senators, but in order that the people of the Commonwealth should have their attention directed to a proposed alteration, and an. opportunity to say whether in the interests of the Commonwealth it should be made. Every Parliament must be influenced by the feeling of the people on a broad question of policy. No question could be of greater importance than a proposal to alter the

Constitution. . It will not. redound to the credit of this dying Parliament that some of its last deeds should have been committed in derogation of every principle of protection and honour as between itself and the people. We have often heard of a Government trying to smuggle a proposal through ‘ Parliament. Here is an instance when not an ordinary, but an extraordinary, proposal is sought to be smuggled through. There should be no power to suspend the Standing Orders in this way when the Senate is asked to deal with a national question. All I can do is to protest against this treatment of a Bill that contains the germs of most important alterations, which, prior to their submission to the people, ought to be debated, not merely in the Federal Parliament, but in each State Parliament. I shall always raise my voice in protest against a measure being dealt with in a way which, I believe, to be injurious to the people of the country, to our principles of government, and to the Constitution, even if it should be no more than “ a voice crying in the wilderness.”

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I find it very difficult to speak to the motion, because, to a certain extent. I have committed myself to help the Ministry, but I recognise that they have blundered, and blundered badly, with regard to contingent notices of motion, in order toget to the end of the session.We have been asked, on notice, to suspend the Standing Orders ; we are proceeding to suspend them without notice, and in order to suspend them without notice we have previously broken them. I venture to think that if any one calmly reads to-morrow what has happened here to-day he will come to that, and no other, conclusion.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Standing Orders have not been suspended.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am assuming that they will be suspended; but we are being asked to suspend them without notice, and that could not be done except upon one condition, and that is that we had broken them, when pretending to give notice. I unfeignedly regret, sir, that you have been put in an extremely difficult position, which I believe that it was almost impossible for any man to get out of. The whole fault is attributable to the Government, which has confused matters throughout. I raised no protest this morning against the proposal of Senator Playford ; I knew that he was going to do what was utterly wrong, and I endeavoured to point that out to him. I would not put any unfair or even unusual obstacle in the way of the honorable senator getting on with business. Yet that deplorable result has been brought about simply because Ministers have utterly failed to understand the Standing Orders, or to have them properly applied. What I am going to do in the division I do not know. I can see that it is my duty to uphold the Standing Orders. I believe that if I support the motion to suspend them I shall be acting contrary to my duty. On the other hand, I know that the time to be fixed for the elections depends upon the date when this or the other Constitution Alteration Bill passes the Senate. If I do anything to postpone the date for the third reading of these Bills, I know that I shall thereby be assisting to postpone the date of the elections. We all agree that they will be held late enough as it is, . and every day we remain in session will push them further forward.

Senator Playford:

– Hear, hear.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is one side of the question. There is, however, an alternative, and. in view of the state of confusion into which the Senate has got, I ask Senator Playford whether he ought not to seriously consider it. He knows that he is not at all certain of securing the passage of both measures. It is doubtful whether he will carry one of them. I begin to think that the only solution of the difficulty is to drop the Bills.

Senator Drake:

– Hear, hear; that is right.

Senator CLEMONS:

– O - Of course, I know that I shall be charged with having a party object in view. In this case, it is not fair that I should be charged with offering the suggestion simply because I want to defeat the Bills. I am always prepared to take my chance of defeating a measure to which I am opposed by the ordinary means. But this is a different case, and I ask the Minister to believe that I do not offer the suggestion with , a view to secure the defeat of a Bill to which I object. If my action were to be so regarded, every honorable senator who opposes this motion might be held to be doing something which, in my opinion, he ought not to do if he has any respect for the procedure of the Senate, or of doing something which may postpone the holding of the elections for perhaps weeks.

Senator Col. NEILD (New South Wales) [11.43]. - I shall only take up sufficient time to enter my protest against suspending the Standing Orders in relation to the making of a call to deal with a Bill to alter the Constitution. The framing of the Constitution occupied a vast deal of time. It was the subject of a great deal of ingenuity by our leading public men. At the last gasp of the Parliament we are asked to suspend standing orders which were designed for the protection of minorities and for securing proper deliberation, and with a few hours’ notice of a call of the Senate it is attempted to thrust through Constitution Alteration Bills in a manner which, I think, could not have been anticipated by the authors of the Constitution. . I cannot credit that if the people of Australia, had even guessed that a carefully devised Constitution would be brushed aside in this thoughtless manner - that it would permit of such inroads being made - they would have accepted it. I feel it to be my duty to enter my protest and most reluctantly to give my vote against the action proposed. I have taken up no time on the points of order which have been raised, but I must, as a matter of duty to those who have sent me here, utter these few words of emphatic protest against proceedings which I take to be ill-advised in the interests of the whole of Australia, and equally ill-advised in relation to the conduct of the business of the Senate.

Question (Senator Playford’ s motion, vide page 5644) put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I move -

That there be a call of the Senate on Tuesday, 2nd October.

In asking honorable senators to agree to the motion, I wish to say that as a number of honorable senators will be absent on Tuesday morning, I do not propose to take the call, and to move the third reading of the two Bills to which it relates until after the luncheon hour.

Senator Col Neild:

– This is playing with us in reference to appointments which we have made.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I am trying to consult the convenience of honorable senators who are away, and to give them an opportunity to be present. I certainly have no desire to play with them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted.

page 5650

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATE DEBTS) BILL

Call of Senate : Adoption of Report.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That so much of standing order 271 as refers to a period of 21 days be suspended for the remainder of the session for the purpose of expediting the passage of the Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Bill through its remaining stages.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator knows that I have already ruled that it is the universal practice of Parliament, and has been the practice of the

Senate for a general notice of motion relating to the suspension of Standing Orders to enable Bills to pass their remaining stages without delay, to be given towards the end of the session. I cannot hear any more argument on the point.

Senator Clemons:

– I think you are misunderstanding me, sir. I do not wish to misunderstand you. I rise to call attention to what you said on a previous occasion. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think you said that Senator Playford had a right to amend his motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, I did not. I have decided that it is universal practice not only inreference to Bills amending the Constitution, but to all Bills, to give a general notice of motion to suspend the Standing Orders to expedite their passage, and to move the motion in reference to each particular Bill as it comes on. That practice has been pursued ever since the Senate has been in existence.

Questionput. The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That the report be adopted.

page 5651

BOUNTIES BILL

Second Reading

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

– Japan is doing in this case what the South Australian Government has done in London for the wine industry of that State.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The South Australian Government did something similar to advance the wine industry. They established a depot in London, and spent some thousands of pounds over a number of. years in order to promote the sale of South Australian wines in Great Britain. Russia has established a system of bounties on hemp and flax goods exported, and these rates are paid : -

On yarn and thread, unbleached. 7½d. per 36 lbs.’

On yarn and thread, bleached, is.5½d. per 36 lbs.

On tissue, unbleached, is. 61/3d. per 36 lbs. On- tissue, bleached, 2s. 43/6d. per 36 lbs. On tissue, dyed, &c, 3s.01/4d. per 36 lbs.

I propose now to refer to some matters of administration. Honorable senators will recognise that much will depend upon the administration of a measure of this character. I have noticed that Senator Dobson has given contingent notice of a motion, which shows that he has directed his attention, and has given some thought to this question. He proposes to move that the Bill be not read a second time -

Until Ministers have consulted the Government of each State, and ascertained if they will administer the Bill if it becomes law, and lend the aid of their experts to carry out Us objects; and,
To enable Ministers to obtain from the Agricultural Departments of the said States a report upon the desirability or otherwise of granting any, and what, bounties for the production of products from the soil, and as to the probability of a permanent industry being established in any of such products, having regard to the cheap labour and other favorable conditions employed in similar tropical industries outside the Commonwealth.

The honorable senator’s idea is that we should, in the first place, ascertain whether the various States Governments will assist us in the administration of this measure. I have not the slightest doubt that they will be only too pleased to help us in every way they can. With reference to the inquiries which the honorable senator suggested, I may state that full inquiries have already been made bv a Committee formed of three members of the Ministry, who were appointed with a view to the introduction of a Bounties Bill to encourage certain industries. I have here a detailed statement submitted by the Committee in connexion with the various articles mentioned in the schedule of this Bill. It would take much too long to read it, but I shall read the references to one line to give an idea of the scope of the inquiries which have been made. This is the report made by the Committee on the question of fish : -

Duties : -

Fresh, smoked, or preserved by cold process, id. per lb.

Potted or concentrated, including extracts of and caviare, 20 per cent. Preserved fish, in tins, &c, id. per lb. N.E.I. Tariff, 5s. per cwt. Imports : -

Fresh, smoked, or preserved lb. ‘ £ by cold process … 941,189 12,060

Potted or concentrated, &c. … 9,747

Preserved in tins … 11,872,801 249,054 cwt.

N.E.I……. 15.,73624,662

Fresh, smoked, or preserved lb. £ by cold process … 1,275,175 16,505

Potted’ or concentrated, &c. … 8,508

Preserved in tins … 13,463,83s 288,371 cwt.

N.E.I. … … 16,992 … 27,898

Gross amount of fish imported about 16,000,000 lbs., of the value of about . £320,000.

That will continue to increase, because, as our population increases, we are every year consuming more of this imported tinned fish, and sending more money out of the country for articles which we consider can be produced in the Commonwealth. This indicates one of the reasons which induced’ the Government to propose the purchase of a trawler, namely, in order that we might locate so far as we could the portions of our coast where trawling might be carried on with good results. Ihave said that the gross import of fish represented 16,000,000 lbs. in weight, of a value of £320,000. This money is being sent out of the country to pay for something which we can produce in the Commonwealth. We could catch the fish and tin them ourselves.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– We could not get the same kind of fish.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– We could get fish quite as good. The recommendation made by the Committee of the (Cabinet was -

A bounty of £d. per lb. on tinned fish. Period of five years.

- ’ * * * * *

Fish oil and manure industries would follow this industry, but no special steps need be taken about them at present.

It is necessary to establish an industry bv bounty of 3d. per lb.

Make investigations in regard to the species of which we know little or nothing.

Acclimatize suitable fish from other parts of the world in these waters.

I have referred to the statement of the Committee to show the care and attention bestowed uipon the recommendation’s on which this Bill is based.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Did the Committee of the Cabinet take into consideration the manner in which this proposal would affect the_ suggested Tamff “ preferences with the United Kingdom?

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– That is only a sham scheme.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– This Bill will not interfere with that scheme at all. On the question of administration, when I saw that the Bill was Iikely to pass in another place, and thai I should have to ‘deal with it here, I asked Sir William Lyne to give me .a statement as to the way in which he proposed that the Bill should be administered. This is the reply I got, and I hope it will be satisfactory to Senator Dobson : -

In regard to administration, every effort will be made to avoid an increase of expenditure. The services of the Customs officers in the various districts, cane inspectors, revenue inspectors, officers employed in the supervision of vignerons and distillation, will be made use of. The State Governments will be asked to render assistance, as in connexion with the Commerce Bill, which, it is anticipated, will be cheerfully given by means of the officers of their Agricultural Departments, factory inspectors, &c, who are in touch with the producing community, and would be in a position to render efficient service. »

– I did not say from the States even.

Senator DOBSON:

– Do I understand that the States have not been consulted ?

Senator Playford:

– I really do not know.

Senator DOBSON:

– I have down in my notes the entry, “ Inquiries from States have been made,” and I am perfectly certain that Senator Playford, by has absolute words, led me to suppose that inquiries had been made of the States. I, however, know that inquiries have not been made in that direction, and that is the reason why I place my amendment on the notice-paper. I will pass on to my fifth reason - that the States are strongly against the proposal of the Government. There is no room for misunderstanding as to what took place at the Hobart Conference, because the report speaks for itself. Mr. McLean made a nice little speech from the protectionist stand-point, .and then Mr. Carruthers took up the running.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator DOBSON:

– The Minister of Defence is not present, and I should certainly like his attention to what I am about to say. [Quorum formed.]

Senator Givens:

– I beg, to draw attention to the fact that the lift is out of order, and that the bells are not ringing.

The PRESIDENT:

– All 1 can say is that I know the officers went round this morning and tested all the bells.

Senator DOBSON:

– I desired the Minister to be present, because he said he had read the report of the debates at the Hobart Conference of Premiers, and that he was of opinion that they had no bearing whatever on the Bill. If the Minister will listen tb what I am about to read, I think he will see that he was wrong, because the question of bonuses was referred to again and again at that Conference. An absolute conclusion in regard to them was come to, and it is astounding that this Bill should now be introduced. Mr. Carruthers, the Premier of New South Wales, said -

I look with very great concern at any time on proposals to enlarge ‘Commonwealth functions. I do not think it was ever contemplated that the Commonwealth Government or Parliament should extend its operations by, for instance, the establishment of a Department of Agriculture. The various States, and of course I speak of my own State in particular, have taken great steps towards the enlargement of our cultivation, by introducing new plans and methods, and I think that Mr. McLean has shown consideration to matters upon which our opinions are united ; but when it comes to a question of the Commonwealth Government taking up the business, then I say “ No.” It must be first shown that the States are incompetent to do this work. The Commonwealth Government have plenty to do in other ways. We have in our State Department of Agriculture, and by administration and necessary legislation, done much to encourage our young men to go on the lands of the State. All the States, however, , find that the great difficulty in this connexion is to curtail expenditure, and not enlarge it.

Senator Playford:

– That has nothing to do with bonuses, but deals with a Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, which it is not proposed to establish.

Senator DOBSON:

– But the debate goes on to deal with the difficulties in keeping down expenditure, and at the same time

Supplying extended knowledge: It is now proposed to expend £500,000 without consulting any of the States Departments. Mr. Carruthers went on to talk about flax and other materials, and then, dealing with cotton, to say -

The cotton industry was established in New South Wales and Queensland; but for some reason it declined. It will, however, in my opinion, be again established in Queensland. If the Commonwealth Government interferes in these matters, it will only be in an artificial way. The story of the cotton industry in Queensland is good reading, and is a story which shows that the Commonwealth Government, by taking it up, would be proclaiming inability 011 the part of the State Government. In regard to New Guinea, Mr. . McLean’s proposal seems a good one. My opinion is that New Guinea, for purposes of agricultural development, Sc., should be attached to the nearest State. If we ate to have Agricultural and Lands Departments run bv the Commonwealth, simply 011 account of New Guinea, the result will be a curse to us.

Senator Playford:

– We do not propose that.

Senator DOBSON:

- Mr. Morgan, the Premier of Queensland, said -

I am against the proposal.

Senator Playford:

– That meant the establishment of agricultural colleges, and so forth.

Senator DOBSON:

– It meant an Agricultural Department, with bonuses.

Senator Playford:

– Bonuses are not mentioned there.

Senator DOBSON:

– I shall come to the question ‘of bonuses if the Minister will be patient. Mr. Morgan said -

It would mean the Federal Government entering upon work which I think can be better carried out by the States themselves.

Does the Minister imagine that the Federal Government could carry on a system of bonuses in three of four separate States better than can the Agricultural Colleges and Departments of those States ? Is it not shown by the memorandum read bv the Minister that, in the administration of this Bill, we shall have to depend on State experts and other officers? Did ever such an unbusiness-like proposal issue from a Government? Mr. Morgan went on -

Holding that view, I do not propose to address myself at any length to the subject. Mr. McLean has devoted himself to the question of encouraging immigration, but I would remind him that the Commonwealth has done nothing yet in regard to the appointment of a

High Commissioner…..

Cotton-growing has been referred to by Mr. McLean at some length. In the sixties Queenslandused to give a bonus. While the bonus lasted the industry flourished, but immediately the bonus ceased the industry ceased. We can grow cotton in Queensland, but I do not think even a bonus will tempt the farmers to again attempt it. If the Cotton-growers’ Association of Great Britain will guarantee a minimum price of 1 1/2d. in the State, something might result, but I do not think there is any use of the Commonwealth addressing itself to the question unless the action taken is in the direction of securing a minimum price to the grower. I do not hope that we will be able to compete in the production of cotton with countries that have the advantage of coloured labour.

Then Mr. Jenkins spoke up -

The only thing is whether the ‘Commonwealth could offer bonuses for the growth of cotton in the portions of country suitable^ If Queensland had to be kept alive by the sugar bonus, I do not see why we should not come in for cottongrowing in the Northern Territory.

Senator Playford:

– Hear, hear. He goes in for bonuses.

Senator DOBSON:

– The quotation proceeds -

I think nothing would be gained by the Commonwealth taking over the general management of the Agricultural Departments. We have agricultural colleges, agricultural experts in various lines, and find it all we can do to find the revenue to keep the departments going. My opinion has been that bv general agreement between the States in the matter of export and prevention of diseases, as far as agricultural and horticultural departments are concerned, we can accomplish all without the establishment of a Federal department.

Senator Playford:

– That all has to do with a. Department of Agriculture, and has no connexion with bonuses.

Senator DOBSON:

- Mr. Bent- suggested that it would be wise on the part of Commonwealth Ministers to withdraw the subject, as it did not appear to be the intention of the Conference to agree to the proposal in the shape of a motion. He felt as strongly as Mr. Carruthers on the point.

Then the Prime Minister” said -

If the Conference passed resolutions, it would not alter the position of the Commonwealth, but it might influence Ministers very much if they found there were a number of objections. The fullest importance would be attached to the suggestions of the Stales in matters affecting the Commonwealth.

Mr. Bent presumed that? no matter what the Conference did, the Commonwealth would undertake their powers. Some members were anxious for a bonus, and it was well known what position would be taken in the Commonwealth Parliament. He would be no party to permit Mr. Isaacs to have power in the Commonwealth Parliament to give bonuses.

That is “on the spot,” for what it is worth.

Senator Playford:

– For what it is worth. That is only the opinion of one man.

Senator DOBSON:

- Mr. Bent went on -

He gathered from the President that the Commonwealth would consider, as far as they thought fit, anything said by the State Ministers, and that anything they said would have very little effect. Regarding flax, how many other pieces of land in the district referred to bv Mr. McLean would grow it? He had picked out the very spot where it would grow, and the others would be out in the cold.

Mr. Butler said

– I should say that the Agricultural Departments of the States would be able to obtain a great deal of information, or might be allowed time in which, to do so. That is another argument in favour of laying the Bill aside for the session - that nobody now has time to obtain the necessary information. Mr. Daglish, the Premier of Western Australia, said -

With regard to the main point at issue, I must express my concurrence in the views given utterance to by the members of this Conference. Tn our State we give a very great deal of attention to the work of the Agricultural Department, with, I believe, the greatest advantage lo the people of Western Australia. I do not know of any work in this direction that could be undertaken by the Federal Government. At all events, until a stronger case is put forward than that which has been presented, I must oppose the establishment of a Federal Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Evans, the Premier of Tasmania, said

My Government are distinctly opposed to the creation of any new Federal department. We think that the Federal Government have sufficient departments under their control, and when their administration has been perfected, then would be the time to consider the establishment of additional departments.

The Prime Minister, after having listened for some hours to those statements, said -

The Commonwealth consider it most important that the’ resources of Australia should be developed. The Commonwealth Government have in view this and other subjects as measures to form the subject of a policy to be laid before the next session of the Federal Parliament. The right of the State Premiers is keenly realized -

Does the Minister recognise that right? they should be consulted in the sense in which responsible men intrusted with responsible duties should consult other men intrusted with similar duties.

Senator Drake:

– I think there ought to be a larger attendance to listen to this debate. [Quorum formed.”]

Senator DOBSON:

– I particularly want the Minister of Defence to listen to what the Prime Minister said, as follows: -

We were verv anxious before introducing measures to the Federal Parliament. to have the advantage of this Conference. Not a word which has been sa’:d by any speaker will be overlooked.

Senator Playford:

– The Prime Minister did not propose to consult them any further. He has consulted them, and that is enough.

Senator DOBSON:

– See how unfair the Minister of Defence is. The Premiers were consulted about a Federal Department of Agriculture, and every one was opposed to the proposal, and two or three of them distinctly said they were opposed to bonuses. Here we have a Bill dealing with nothing but Bonuses and the expenditure of money, and requiring at its inception and in its administration the assistance of the States. Yet the Minister says that there is nothing in the statement made by the Prime Minister when he said “ not a word which has been said by any speaker will be overlooked “ ; and pointed out that the right of the States to be consulted was keenly realized. Then the Premier of New South Wales said -

I think the Federal Government should drop the matter. I will offer bitter opposition to any attempt made by the Federal Government to take over the power to establish a Federal Department of Agriculture. The States have not asked for assistance from the Federal Government in the matter at all. The Federal Government have plenty to do without interfering in State work. When the States have shown themselves unable to do the work it will be time for the Federal Government lo interfere. I am not in favour of bonuses to agricultural industries. I am not in favour of using the machine of government for other purposes than those for which it has been called into existence. It would be better to leave the States alone. They can manage the Department very satisfactorily. There would be rivalry if the Federal Government took the matter up ; and any rivalry means additional expense. The States could not interfere with the Federal Government ; and the Federal Government have plenty to do without taking up any State work. The States cannot promise any assistance so long as the Federal Ministry attempt to establish the Department. If the Queensland Department of Agriculture could be assisted, then the Commonwealth should help.

I do not know whether Senator Drake can tell me what that meant. Did the speaker mean that Queensland could not afford to extend the operations of the Department?

Senator Drake:

– Probably the assistance referred to bounties. The honorable senator seems to overlook the fact that the Federal Parliament has now the exclusive right to give bounties.

Senator DOBSON:

– I find that Mr. Bent said -

As far as I am concerned, I do not agree with the views expressed by Mr. McLean. I do not wish to see the Federal Government create fresh departments. Before expressing a final opinion I would like to be guided by the result of our discussion on the Braddon clause. I would rather a straight motion be put embracing every subject. Whatever power you at present have vested in you, you must exercise it, and in my experience I should point out that bonuses are not always successful in attaining the object for which they are granted. I think that the Commonwealth Parliament have a lot of work to do, and I am sure I would like to see them do it well. I hope that if further engagements are undertaken by the Commonwealth Parliament, they will be proceeded with on as economical lines as those which obtain in the States. I would recommend that the item be withdrawn.

Then, and I direct Senator Playford’s attention specially to this, the Prime Minister said -

Do you not think that we should frame a paragraph defining the views of the ‘Conference ; namely, that the general opinion of States Premiers and Ministers was against the proposal ? I see there is a very strong opinion held by the States Premiers on this question, especially with regard to bonuses.

Mr. Carruthers then said

There is no doubt you have powers with regard to the distribution of bonuses, but I trust you will never be called upon to exercise them fully. Such a system of extending assistance leads to bribery of the worst description. In our own House we have had experience with the iron bonus. I am most strongly opposed to the proposal, and you will find that if it is accepted you will have the worst form of lobby ism. If you give us a bonus that will help us, Queensland will have to pay, and if you give Queensland a bonus, New South Wales will have to contribute. We are quite prepared to submit to the sugar bonus, but I am not in favour of extending the bonus system beyond that which already exists. We will develop our own resources, and be guided by the experience in the past as to what is the best course to take. What will assist the trade of our State is a cheaper transport to outside markets. In Japan we have a splendid market, but the trade is blocked on account of the high rate of freight. There are other ways in which our trade could be extended. Our Commercial Agent has established markets in the East, and is doing far better work in developing our trade than would be the case if bonuses were granted. We are doing this work ourselves with the aid of the Federal Government. We want the Federal Government to stay their hand, and to assist us to do the work which we as States are more qualified to do.

I am aware that the granting of bonuses is now vested in the Federal Parliament. But my argument is that which was used by the speakers at the Conference, namely, that in all these matters the States have a special right to be consulted and considered. I have no evidence before me that the States have been considered or consulted in respect to any item in the schedule to this Bill. The system of bonuses is not new to us. From the State of Victoria, the country of protection, where the people seem to prefer an artificial life to a healthy, natural one, we have many lessons to learn from the giving of bonuses. I have here a return of bonuses given by the State, and I find that they amounted in all to £233,000. I quote some of them -

To growers of grapes and general vegetable products, , £55,000. To factories for fruit canning, fruit drying, dairying, raisin and currant” making, vegetable oil making, preparing for the manufacture of flax, hemp, silk, and other products, £37,000. For dairy produce and fruits of best quality exported to foreign markets, £’79,000. For importation’ of new varieties of seeds and plants,£3,000. For establishing a system of technical education by the employment of experts to supply instruction in connexion with the introduction of new vegetable products, and the improvement of existing agricultural methods, , £43,000. For the introduction of new machinery and appliances to perfect the treatment of new agricultural products, and to improve present agricultural methods, and for prizes for new inventions in general agricultural appliances, £’4,000. For publishing agricultural reports, including illustrations in connexion with the educational work of the experts, and of the distribution of the bonuses generally, , £11,000. Bonuses for encouragement of planting and cultivating forest trees of an economic character, £1,000.

Much of the money provided for these bonuses has been absolutely wasted. In some instances the bonus has failed to establish any permanent industry, and in other instances it has not been availed of. In making his report on the subject, the State officer, Mr. D. Martin, Secretary of Agriculture, says -

Products under the heading of general vegetable products, but which are novel products, have not received the attention I desire. This may be accounted for from the fact that they are not well understood, but there is reason to believe that before long more attention will be given thereto. I refer more particularly to flax and hemp. This colony is in every way suitable for the growth of the raw material ; in fact, in some parts of the colony samples have been produced which in quality and quantity could not be excelled. The want of suitable machinery for treating the material has so far retarded the “industry, but the manufacture of simple and cheap appliances is now receiving the attention of some of the implement makers.

He says, further - £4,850 has been paid as bonuses for exported canned fruits. The shipments were made by two companies only ; and as these have ceased exporting, it is feared a successful trade in our canned fruits will not be established for some time.

That is a second instance in which the bonus offered was useless - £3,000 for importation of new variety of seeds and plants. The expenditure has been £267.

This seems to have been a failure also -

Grant of £43,000 for technical education - £18,566 has been paid from this sub-division, consisting of payments to experts in dairying, vine culture, wine making, fruit growing, flower farming, &c. Their services have been fully made use of by those interested in the several industries, and the advantages of their advice and instruction, with the benefits derived therefrom, have been acknowledged in the most flattering terms from all parts of the colony.

I have read that to show that the giving of expert advice and instruction to our producers is a better and a sounder way of establishing industries than is any system of bounties -

If the advice of experts be taken, so that the settlers may be guided in the choice of articles for production, many new industries might be started, which would assist in the prosperity of the country.

Again, falling back on the great advantage of expert advice. He goes on to say -

Grant of£4,000 for introduction of new machinery, and for prizes for new inventions. Of this sum £1,002 has been appropriated for pattern implements. To this amount the sum of £’50 has to be added, being the amount awarded for prize- for a polato digger. The prize was manufactured in the colony, and competed against imported machines.

Grant of ; £1,ooo for planting forest trees. Originally the sum granted for this purpose was £15,000, but so far only seven applications for planting thirty-four acres have been received. This is disappointing, seeing that trees are supplied gratis by the Forest Department, and all that the land owners are required to do is to plant the trees, and attend to their cultivation.

– The butter bonus has expired in Victoria, but it started the butter industry in Australia.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator TRENWITH:

– Yes. Senator Dobson referred to that with perfect truth. He said that the giving of bounties in Victoria for the planting of vines had led to their being planted merely to obtain the money from the Government, and that as soon as the bounties ceased, the vineyards were abandoned. That that was the case in some instances. I have no doubt; but that the production of wine was very materially accelerated by the granting of the bounties is undeniable. Because a bounty is given to A., B., and C, and A. does not succeed, may prove that A. is unfitted for what he undertakes, but that is all.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Did not Victoria grant a bounty of 3d. per lb. on tobacco ?

Senator TRENWITH:

– This State has made several experiments in tobaccogrowing, which up to the present has not been remarkably successful. The State also bought tobacco, and sent it to England under Government supervision, but it was said that the supervision was lax, and that the tobacco arrived in a bad condition. As to the planting of vines, however, although some of the vignerons did not persevere after the bounties ceased, it is nevertheless a fact that from the granting of bounties sprang the considerable export trade we now have in wines. What I am urging is that the granting of bounties is merely another form of educational influence. I quite agree with Senator Gould that agricultural colleges and the grouping together of the best intelligences for purposes of training in scientific agriculture, is a splendid thing. But it is only another form of education provided at the expense of . the State. I shall be very glad to assist in that direction whenever I can. There is nothing so true as the expression “ Knowledge is power,” and wherever knowledge can be extended bythe State the whole community is advantaged. The granting, of bounties is another method of disseminating knowledge, or, rather, of encouraging people to bring out of themselves what is in them. I certainly do not think that the granting of bounties will necessarily divert agriculturists from one line of production to another. But it will encourage them to make experiments which, probably, they would not otherwise be disposed to make. It is because these experiments will probably be an advantage, not only to the men who make them, but also to the country, that I shall support the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Staniforth Smith) adjourned.

page 5674

REFERENDU M (CON STITTJ TION ALTERATION) BILL

Second Reading

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– In moving - That the Bill be now read a second time,

– Yes. In the last two clauses of this part of the Bill the procedure on petition is set forth. The procedure, subject to the Bill, shall be as prescribed by rules of Court, or, in default of rules, as directed by the High Court or a Justice thereof. As is not uncommon in measures of this kind, it is proposed that immaterial errors, or errors which, in the opinion of the Court, are immaterial, shall not vitiate a referendum. There is the usual clause with regard to regulations, and the schedule sets out in some detail the necessary forms. Of course, as honorable senators are aware, there must be some variations from the forms used under the Electoral Act. We have provided for a ballot-paper, the form of postal ballot-paper, the form of the writ, and the form of the statement to be attached to the writ. In addition to these provisions, I have given notice of a couple of amendments which have been in ‘ the hands of honorable senators for some time. I think it is as well that I should direct attention to them. We propose to insert a new clause to follow clause 14, which reads - “ 14a. (1) Where the polling for one or more referendums is appointed to take place on the same day as the polling for an election for the Senate or a general election for the House of Representatives, an application for a postal vote certificate for the purposes of the election shall be deemed to contain an application for a postal vote certificate and a postal ballot-paper for the purposes of the referendums.”

It is obvious that if a man cannot be present at the polling place to vote in connexion with an election for the Senate or the House of Representatives, he cannot be there to exercise his right to vote for or against an alteration of the Constitution. In the circumstances, we think it is right that the one application for a postal voting certificate should entitle the elector to receive a certificate enabling him to exericse has right to vote in connexion with a referendum, as well as in connexion with the simultaneous ordinary election. The other amendmentis of a minor character, providing that the postal vote certificate for a referendum shall be in the form set out in the schedule, and of course the consequential schedule must be provided for. Honorable senators will see that we are attempting in this Bill to submit nothing which cannot be considered of a purely machinery character. Inasmuch as it is intended to apply, not merely to a forthcoming referendum, but to referendums in general, it is necessary that the provisions of the Bill should be comprehensive. I feel certain that, no matter what views honorable senators may have as to the merits or demerits of any proposed alteration of the Constitution under notice at present, the Government will have their assistance in perfecting this machinery Bill, which -is designed to secure the fullest expression by the people of their opinions on any alteration of the Constitution- proposed now or hereafter.

Debate (on motion by Senator Millen) adjourned.

page 5677

ADJOURNMENT

Postal Voting

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

Thai the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– - I desire to bring a matter of some importance under the notice of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Senator Keating is aware that in our Electoral Act we have made provision for postal voting with certain limitations. The chief limitation to which I desire to direct attention is that after the issue of the writ, and before a polling day, an application made in the form in the schedule to the Act, must be sent to the returning officer for the issue of a postal vote certificate. I direct special attention to the position of electors resident on King Island. If the interval between the issue of the . writ and the pollingday should be less than thirty days, or thereabouts, and it is very probable that at the next election it will be less, the whole value of the provisions for voting by post will be lost to the electors of King Island, because, in ordinary circumstances, it’ would be quite impossible for any resident of that place to apply to the chief returning officer, who lives at’ Zeehan, in Tasmania, in time to receive a postal vote certificate entitling him to vote by post.

Senator Guthrie:

– The same difficulty will apply in other places.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I have no doubt that Senator Keating will take notice of the fact. We have no power to enable the application for a postal vote certificate to be sent to any one but’ the chief returning officer. If it could be sent to a deputy who might live near at hand, the difficulty would be overcome. As this cannot be done, I think that the only way in which the difficulty can be overcome, so far as King Island is concerned, is to appoint more than one polling place on the island. At the last election, only one polling place was appointed on the island, and, as it is more than 20 miles long honorable senators will recognise the difficulties that must necessarily arise. The Minister has just indicated in dealing with the Referendum Bill that it is proposed to give electors the opportunity to vote by post at the referendum in connexion with more than one important alteration of the Constitution. He will see that if the suggestion I make ought to be adopted to provide necessary facilities in connexion with an ordinary election there is an additional reason for doing what I ask is the fact that it is most desirable that we should give every elector in the Commonwealth an opportunity to vote at a referendum for an alteration of the Constitution?

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– Senator Clemons personally mentioned to me his intention to refer to this matter on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. I recognise the difficulties under which some of the residents of King Island must necessarily labour in connexion with voting, by post. The communication between the island and the mainland of Tasmania is very infrequent, and at times very irregular. It is quite possible that- the postal voting provision might, in certain circumstances, be of very little use to electors resident on that island. I shall be very glad to take the earliest opportunity, probably this afternoon, to bring the matter, through the Minister of Home Affairs, under the notice of the Chief Electoral Officer of the Commonwealth. I have no doubt that he is personally conversant with the difficulties likely to arise.

Senator Guthrie:

– King Island is not the only place in which they will arise. The same difficulty will be experienced at Kangaroo Island and Borda.

Senator KEATING:

– If other honorable . senators mention specific instances of the same kind I _ shall, of course, make the same representations with respect to them.

Senator Col Neild:

– I suggest that Lord Howe Island, which is part of the East Sydney electorate, may be in the same position.

Senator KEATING:

– I do not know if there will be a polling place there. Senator Clemons is pointing out that it might be desirable to appoint more than one polling place at King Island if it should be found that the postal voting provisions will be of very little use to the electors there. I shall bring the matter mentioned under the notice of the Chief Electoral Officer, who, I have no doubt, will give it his best and most favorable consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.40 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 September 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1906/19060928_senate_2_35/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate28 September 1906

QUESTION

WAGES ON THE “ POCAHONTAS

Senator GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS ACT

Senator WALKER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

QUESTION

PAPUA: PUBLIC MAILS

Senator HIGGS:QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SPECIAL DUTIES) BILL

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Playford:

Senator MILLEN:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Keating:

Senator MILLEN:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Playford:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Playford:

Senator Drake:

Senator Millen:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Millen:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Drake:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Drake:

Senator Keating:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Col Neild:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Col Neild:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senate
28 September 1906

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania