Senate
8 October 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- WAGES ON THE “ POCAHONTAS
PAPER
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
- Order of Business
STANDING ORDER 64
CUSTOMS TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) BILL
- Third Reading
APPROPRIATION BILL
EXCISE TARIFF (SPIRITS) BILL
EXCISE TARIFF (SUGAR) AMENDMENT BILL
PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

The President took the chair at 3 p.m’., and read prayers.

page 6204

QUESTION

WAGES ON THE “ POCAHONTAS

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to know from the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs if be is yet in a position to reply to. my question regarding the case of the Pocahontas.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– I have made two or three inquiries, and each time have been informed that the matter is still beinginvestigated, as there is not yet sufficient information to enable a decision to be come to. The officers of both the Department of External Affairs and the Department of the Attorney-General are investigating the matter.

page 6205

PAPER

Senator KEATING laid upon the table the following paper: -

Public Service Commissioner’s Second Report.

page 6205

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Order of Business

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

.- With the permission of honorable senators, I desire to make the statement relating to Government business which I promised on Friday last.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honorable senator intend to move a motion to put himself in order, and to enable the subject to be debated?

Senator Clemons:

– Senator Playford has asked the permission of the Senate, and we on this side do not wish to debate his statement.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I propose to take the items on the notice-paper in order. It is, of course, intended to move the suspension of standing order 64 to enable new business to be commenced after halfpast 10 o’clock at night. Then the third reading of the Customs Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Bill will be moved ; I anticipate no trouble in regard to that matter. When it is disposed of, I shall move the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. The next item among the orders of the day is the consideration in Committee of the House of Representatives’ message in reference to our requests for amendments in the Excise Tariff (Spirits) Bill. As in considering the House of Representatives’ message, in reference to our amendments in the Spirits Bill, we practically dealt with the question raised by this order of the day, it should not take long to dispose of. Order of the day No. 4, for the consideration in Committee of the House of Representatives’ amendments in the Constitution Alteration (States Debts) Bill, is a very important one. The Bill as originally sent to us permitted the Commonwealth to take over a portion of the debts of one State without, as is provided for in the Constitution, dealing in similar fashion proportionately to population with the debts of all the other States. We inserted this provision -

The powers of Parliament relating to the public debts of the States shall extend to debts incurred since the establishment of the Commonwealth.

– Does the Minister give us an assurance to that effect?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I made inquiries, and was told that there are no other measures to be introduced. One question, perhaps, may interest honorable senators, and that is when, are we going to rise? I hope that we may rise by Thursday. If honorable senators want a longer time in which to. consider measures, we shall be only too pleased to give it to them, and then I hope that we shall rise on Friday. If, however, they want still further time in order to make up their minds on some of the measures, we can meet on Saturday ; but we ought to prorogue on that day under any circumstances.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Does the Minister intend to go on with the Appropriation Bill to-day?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Yes, after the notice of motion has been disposed of.

page 6207

STANDING ORDER 64

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I move -

That standing order 64 be suspended for the remainder of this session for the purpose of enabling new business to be commenced after 10.30 o’clock at night.

– I think that honorable senators opposite cannot accuse me of having treated them in any degree unfairly. I am always willing to give them all information at my disposal as to the order of business, and Senator Drake may rest assured that if, say, on any night at 10.30, he has to leave he will always be able to ascertain from me what business I intend to proceed with. That being so, he need have no fear of being taken by surprise. I doubt whether I shall have to avail myself of the morion, but at the same time I feel that the power is one that I ought to possess. Returned Bills requiring immediate attention may come from another place, a few minutes after 10.30 on any night, and I may wish to deal with such business as quickly as possible, so that I think in the circum stances it is only reasonable that the motion should be agreed to. I should have power, as a matter of course, tq deal with such business after 10.30 p.m., instead of being compelled to secure the consent of an absolute majority. As a matter of fact, the Opposition might be anxious to assist me in disposing immediately of such matters, but it might be found impossible to secure an absolute majority, and in the circumstances our hands would be tied. I therefore ask honorable senators to support the motion. Question put. The Senate divided.

Ayes .. … … 17

Noes … … … 10

Majority

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 6210

CUSTOMS TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Playford), proposed -

That the Bill tie now read a third time.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering the schedule.

I need not tell honorable senators that this measure is one of very vital importance,, nor remind them of its origin and history. It is sufficient to say that the Senate ought to have some opportunity, which it has not yet had, of dealing with the schedule in Committee.

The PRESIDENT:

– The schedule must have been dealt with in Committee, or there would not be the certificate by the Chairman.

Senator PULSFORD:

– The schedule has not been discussed, and it certainly needs discussing. The rate of duty placed on harvesters is so high, viewed as an ad valorem duty, that it behoves us to give it some further consideration. Having regard to the legislation which has been passed, and to what is due to our Courts of Law, to which appeal is now being made - having regard to the interests of those persons who are fighting before the Courts with thousands of pounds at stake, and whom it is sought to put in a wrong position by the action of the Government - we are called upon to give special consideration to the extravagant and extraordinary proposals of the Government.

Motion (Senator Pulsford’s) negatived.

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

AYES: 16

NOES: 9

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time.

page 6211

APPROPRIATION BILL

– Yes. The increases for the year amount to £543j°46j from which must be deducted decreases, most of which are due to non-recurring expenditure, amounting to £[30,172. making the net increase £512,874. It will be recollected that last year I discussed the question of defence with considerable detail. In the first place, I mentioned what forces we took over from the States, and their strength at that time in comparison with their strength when I was speaking. I gave full details in regard to the volunteers, the militia, the permanent forces, the artillery, the cadets, and the rifle clubs. I also mentioned what war materiel we had taken over from the States in the shape of fixed defence, cannon, and war-ships, such as the Protector, the Cerberus, and a few others, and what we possessed at that time. I said that we intended to obtain 8,000 additional rifles, and to spend about £’160,000 upon field artillery, and in a variety of directions. I mentioned in detail what expenditure my military and naval officers considered was required in order to be able to say that we were properly prepared to defend ourselves. Perhaps it may be ,interesting to honorable senators if I read that part of my speech in which I summed up .the position -

Not long ago, I pointed out the number of rifles that we had in the Commonwealth. I now propose to tell honorable senators the number that we need, together with their cost. To arm the Military Forces of the Commonwealth to war strength - including those only who carry rifles - 32,000 are required. To arm those of the reserves not there provided for, 30,000 are required, of which number we anticipate that 11,000 at least would be needed by the permanent forces- in time of war. That would reduce the number to 19,000. If we add 50 per cent, in both instances, that gives us 25,500, and the total is 76,500. There are already available in the Commonwealth 35,900 rifles, and a further 8,000 are provided for on these Estimates. The balance which we require is 32,600. The cost, of these rifles, with bayonets and scabbards, is approximately £185,800. Owing to the increase in the number of rifles we should need to increase the quantity of ammunition held in reserve by some 16,300,000 rounds, which would cost £87,620.

Senator Matheson:

– That is on the basis of a reserve of 250 or 300 rounds per rifle.

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I intend to purchase those which have been ordered ; but, as at present advised, I do not intend to place a sum of. money for the purpose on next year’s Estimates. I do not absolutely bind myself.

Senator Millen:

– The Minister’s remarks just before my last interjection referred to next year?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Yes. Matters relating to our fixed defences and our Naval Forces are very much as they were last year. We make no new important proposals whatever. We have been waiting for the reports to which I have referred, and which I will mention again later on. I now have a few remarks to make in regard to the paper which I have prepared and laid on the table of the Senate relating to the Defence Department and its Estimates for the present financial year. It shows the estimated increase of votes as compared with the previous year, and gives full details under each head. I do not propose to read it. The increases amount to altogether £49,020, divided as follows :- Central Administration, £2,077 > Naval Forces, £5,767 ; Military Forces, £41,176. There is also an increase of £15,617 on account of Cadets. Last year I gave the Senate a complete statement of the proposals of the Government relating to the cadet scheme. My proposals “have since been put into operation, to such an extent that my officers tell me that the whole thing is, to use. their language, “ booming.”

Everything in relation to the cadets is proceeding in the most satisfactory way.

Senator Dobson:

– Does the Minister intend to increase their number?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Of course we shall do so when it is -necessary.

Senator Dobson:

– Has the Minister anything to say in regard to boys who leave school early ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I cannot satisfy my honorable friend whatever I do. All I have to say to him is that matters are going on satisfactorily, that the States and the teachers are taking up the question in a proper manner, and that no hitch of any account has occurred. That is all I have to say now. Of course our cadets are .not up to the full strength, but I am especially pleased to know that there is now a feeling, net merely amongst those who control our State schools, but also among those responsible for private schools - especially the high schools - that they should have a compulsory system of military training as part of their curriculum. We are very pleased that that is so. We have tried to stimulate the cadet movement, and are delighted that the States are taking it up. We hope that before long the boys who attend our schools will be compelled to attend drill, and to learn rifle shooting. We have been endeavouring te lead up ito that ideal, though we have not yet been able tn satisfy my honorable friend’, Senator Dobson, who says that we ought to have 200,000 cadets, ; whereas we have only provided for 23,000. Honorable senators will recollect that last year I made a statement on the question of defence policy, in the course of which I made certain promises which I will, recall to the recollection of the Senate. I said -

From what I have said, honorable senators will realize what a difficult task I have before me, and that it will be necessary for me to devote a great deal of time to the consideration of these questions.

Those questions related to the demand” for additional provision to be made for our defence forces -

They will recognise that it would be imprudent for me to arrive at a hurried decision, that it is necessary that I should carefully think the whole matter out before I submit a scheme to my colleagues. They will realize, too, that it is essential that I should secure the best possible advice on these questions.

I wished to pay particular attention to that point -

Having done that, it will be for me to bring my scheme before the Cabinet, and for the

Cabinet, having arrived at a decision, to submit it to the Parliament. As I have said, the task before me is a difficult one. I do not know whether I am capable of performing it, but I shall do my best. I hope that I shall be in a position before next session to bring a scheme of defence before my colleagues, and that we shall be able to ask Parliament next year to approve a system that will be more satisfactory than is the present one. I said a few minutes ago that we had no defence scheme. As a matter of fact, we have had far too many.

Senator Walker:

For purposes of calculation, therefore, it may be assumed that the landing parties disembarked for a raid on an Australian port might reach a total of 1,000 mcn at the outside. The strength and disposition of the force required to meet this attack will vary at different ports, according to the topographical conditions.

The Committee of Imperial Defence make a number of recommendations for the reorganization of the Military Forces, but these deal only with details with which I do not think it worth while troubling honorable senators. But the Committee recommend that a certain number of men shall be told off for the defence of each fort in the following proportions : - 1,000 at Fremantle, 1,000 at Port Adelaide, 1,000 at Port Phillip, 3,000 at Sydney, 1,000 at Newcastle, 1,000 at Brisbane, 400 at Normanby Sound, which we know as Thursday Island ; and 1,000 at Hobart. The next question is that of fixed defences, in regard to which we desired as much assistance as possible. On this question, the Imperial Committee of Defence say -

It follows from these considerations -

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The Committee leave out of the list Albany, Townsville, and Woollongong. Then comes a very important recommendation, to which a very great deal of consideration has been given, namely, submarine mines. The States have spent very large sums of money in providing submarine mines, and the necessary appliances. The Imperial Defence Committee reports as follows with respect to submarine mining : -

Submarine mine-fields at present exist at some of the Australian ports, but this form of defence is being discontinued at all ports in Imperial charge as a result of the consideration by the Committee of Imperial Defence of the general policy of submarine mining in relation to coast defence. The adoption of the same course has recently been recommended to the Governments of Canada and New Zealand, and is now recommended in the case of Australian ports. The submarine mining service has always been a very technical one, and in the past it has been possible to draw on the experience of a numerous personnel employed at many defended ports for the highly qualified experimental and administrative staffs which have been indispensable for its direction. But even with the very complete system of instructional manuals and circulars issued from army headquarters, it has been found difficult to secure uniform efficiency at outlying ports to which the central inspection and control did not fully extend. It is scarcely necessary to point out the disastrous effect on maritime trade that would be produced in time of war by any untrustworthiness, or even suspicion of untrustworthiness, of the submarine mining defences of ports frequented by our shipping. Nothing but the highest degree of efficiency would suffice, and all experience goes to show that this could not be maintained at a small number of isolated ports, even with selected personnel of high individual capacity. It is therefore recommended that this form of defence should be discontinued in Australia. .

Then they recommend that all forts should lae supplied with electric and search lights. I shall refer to that matter later, and shall indicate what the expense involved would be. On the Naval question they are emphatic in their condemnation of Captain Creswell’s scheme. I had marked passages of their report on the subject, but I need not read them, as I have no doubt that honorable senators have read the report with considerable interest, and have formed their own opinions upon it.

Senator Guthrie:

– What is the Minister’s opinion?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– My opinion is unmistakably that of Captain Creswell. I think that he has given a most complete answer to all the statements put forward by the Imperial Committee, so far as the naval defence of our ports are concerned. These questions were referred to a Committee of officers, who brought up a report, which honorable senators have seen. I need only read what their recommendations are. They say -

Cost per annum of completing the pre-, sent organization of the Field Force 10 Peace Establishment … … ^22,230

Cost per annum of completing the Field Force, as recommended, to Peace Establishment … … ,£26,758

Increase on present Peace Establishment of … … … … ^4,528

These figures are all wrong, though I do not know how the error occurred. The real position is that the cost of converting the field force as recommended on a peace establishment, would be £26,000, and not an increase on the present peace establishment of £4,000. Then they say -

The annual increased cost of converting the existing Volunteer Infantry to Militia would be approximately… ,£38,000

They have recommended that we should do away with- our volunteer forces, and make all our volunteers militia. I .totally disagree with that recommendation. I should prefer to see our militia turned into volunteers. In the first place, the difference in expenditure would be very considerable. The militiaman costs us £16 a year, whilst the volunteer costs us only £6 a year. There is a difference of £10 per man straight away. We know also- that in England the authorities are disbanding the regular army and telling the people of England that they must have volunteer, militia, and citizen forces for the defence of their shores, and depend on the regular army for men who require to be sent abroad.

Senator Millen:

– What does the honorable senator mean by saying that England is disbanding her regular army?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The authorities recommend that certain regiments should be disbanded, and look to make up the numbers in volunteers and militia. I disapprove of this recommendation of the officers, and therefore that £38,000 could be deducted from the estimate. They further state -

The cost of extending the period of training from sixteen to twenty-four days per annum is approximately … ^60,000

Although the Committee look upon an invasion as very improbable, still thev admit the possibility of a raid by cruisers.

In the absence of the Royal Navy, a trade worth ^170,000,000 per annum is open to attack. We cannot agree that this trade should cease, and seek security in harbors of refuge.

Having in view our defence conditions and obligations to the Umpire, a destroyer and torpedo defence supplementary to the Royal Navy will best insure coast defence and continuance of trade.

In view of Australia’s geographical situation and our distance from the Empire’s base, and having regard to our conditions, general, strategic, and other, we are of opinion that a naval force raised and trained in Australia, and provision ‘for the manufacture of all v:ir materiel, are of first importance to our present security, and vital to our future.
We consider that the present condition of the Naval Forces calls for immediate decision, either to abolish them, and accept in toto the recommendations of the Committee of Imperial Defence, or to initiate a policy of advance.

In separate paragraphs, the naval officers deal with each statement contained in the report of the Imperial Defence Committee, and make the following recommendations -

We are strongly of opinion that, in order to be efficient, this patrol duty demands the employment of vessels capable of keeping the sea at all times and in all weathers, and consider that, to meet these conditions, there are required -

Three ocean-going destroyers - displacement 1,300 tons; speed, 33 knots; and One ocean-going destroyer - displacement, Soo tons; speed, ?o knots. These vessels should be fitted with wireless apparatus to enable them at all times to communicate with stations established on shore, and also with each other. This will aid rapid concentration.

We consider that, under these circumstances, a raiding cruiser could run past the fixed defences and take up a position of absolute command of these large and important cities.

This condition renders necessary a mobile torpedo defence, and the following are recommended : -

Sixteen coastal destroyers - ,550 tons displacement; 26 knots.

Four 1st class torpedo boats.

We consider that the provision of these vessels, with their suitable disposition, would also efficiently meet -

Defence of minor ports j

Defence against landing parties;

Defence of cables and communications ; and their rapid concentration and mutual support is easily attainable.

In June, j 905, the Naval Director proposed that the Commonwealth should have three cruiser destroyers, sixteen torpedo boat destroyers, five first-class torpedo boats, and eight second-class torpedo boats, or a total of thirty-two In August 1.906, he recommended that we should have three ocean-going destroyers, sixteen destroyers of the river class, and five first-class torpedo boats, or a total of twenty-four. In the interval, he had had the advantage of making special inquiries abroad. He had been away from Great Britain for a long time, and, in the circumstances, .1 thought it was only right that Tie should have an opportunity to visit the manufacturers of such vessels, ascertain the cost of construction, and see the boats in action. He went on board some destroyers and torpedo boats, during the manoeuvres off the Isle of Wight, thereby making himself well acquainted with all the facts. As the result of his inquiries and observations, he altered his previous recommendation a little, but not much. He recommended a fourth ocean-going destroyer, still adhered to his recommendation of sixteen destroyers, of .the river class, and recommended four, instead of five, first-class torpedo boats. I think that the next thing I ought to do is to explain our intentions, and perhaps I cannot do better than read what the Prime Minister has said on that point -

Looking at the proposal of the Naval ‘Committee, we shall commence, as appears judicious, with the most economic, the best known, and the best tried of the floating defences thev advise - that is to say, with torpedo boats, of which we propose to order four, and with coastal destroyers resembling the Teviot, of which we propose to order eight in three years. At the end of three years commencing with the next Parliament, we shall therefore have twelve boats, viz., four first-class torpedo destroyers and eight vessels of the Teviot class.

The cost of the four first-class torpedo destroyers would be £120,000, and that of the eight coastal destroyers £640,000, or a total of £760 ,000. This expenditure would require us to set apart £250,000 a year for three years. The proposal would be to obtain from Great Britain one or two of these torpedo boats as rapidly as possible, with a view to securing estimates of cost from Australian ship-builders, who might, and. it is believed, could, with very little, if any, addition, to their present machinery, undertake the construction of similar vessels. Of course, the question of extra cost could not be ignored, but, in balancing that, we should have to weigh very carefully the great value of encouraging the equipment locally, either of existing or of new dockyards, in which vessels of this type might be repaired. Without proper opportunities to repair them, and without the skilled artisans who are employed in their construction, these complicated pieces of machinery might prove unavailable in our hour of need. Under these circumstances, there is every reason, both upon defence and patriotic grounds, to encourage the building of these boats within our own harbors. Nor do we see any reason why the coastal destroyers of the teviot type should not also be built in Australia. With a view of preparing the way for this, we propose, so soon as the specifications are available, to throw them open to builders in all parts of the Commonwealth, in order that thev may consider their requirements, if any, in the way of fresh machinery or of expert labour. With these twelve boats we shall have gone a long way towards accomplishing what may be termed the complete harbor defence of Australia.

– Yes- as far as I know, we provide for everything out of the revenue. Last year I promised to make further inquiries into the question of manufacturing cordite within the Commonwealth. I indicated how the position stood at that time, and promised to obtain further information. I also undertook to consider the suggestion that we should establish a small arms manufactory in Australia. I shall first deal with the question of the manufacture of small arms. Briefly the information I have obtained is as follows: -

Estimates have been received from Captain Collins, with the latest information obtainable in London, as to the cost of the necessary plant to manufacture magazine rifles complete, ‘ also rifle barrels only. Certain additional local information is, however, required from the Military Board, before a decision can be Arrived at, and when this information is obtained, it is expected that it will be possible for a practical proposal to be submitted.

We have not yet ascertained what would be the cost of the land and buildings ; this statement refers to the cost of the necessary machinery -

The information already obtained shows that the smallest plant that is recommended, which is capable of turning out fifty to sixty rifles per day, would cost ^66,000, exclusive of buildings and land. Such a factory would require a total staff of 484 men. With an output of 16,000 annually, our maximum requirements would be overtaken in two years.

If we establish a small arms factory - the smallest that could be profitably carried on - we should have to work it at its full capacity for as long as might be required, and then close the works and dismiss the men. The full capacity of the smallest factory is 16,000 rifles per annum, and in two years every rifle we required would be supplied. Then the question would arise, “What shall we do with the factory?” We should have to close it, because the machinery would be of no use for any other purpose than that for which it was laid down.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Is 484 the minimum number of workmen that it would be necessary to employ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Yes. Senator ‘ Dobson. - Surely we could manufacture a smaller number of rifles?

Senator PLAYFORD:

Debate (on motion by Senator Clemons) adjourned.

page 6226

EXCISE TARIFF (SPIRITS) BILL

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message) :

Senate’s Request. - Clause 2, at end of clause add- “ Provided further that if the distillers -

do not, after the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act, pay their employés a fair and reasonable rate of wages per week of forty-eight hours; or

employ more than a due proportion of boys to men engaged in the industry, the Governor-General may in pursuance of a joint address by the Senate and House of Representatives impose an additional Excise Duty of One shilling per gallon on each of the items mentioned in the Schedule.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Modify clause to read as follows : - “ Provided further that if any distiller -

does not, after the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act, pay his employés a fair and reasonable rate of wages per week of forty-eight hours; or

employs more than a due proportion of boys to men engaged in the industry, the Governor-General may in pursuance of a joint address by the Senate and House of Representatives impose tin additional Excise Duty of One shilling per gallon on each of the items mentioned in the Schedule as regards such distiller.”

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– The House of Representatives has made the requested amendments Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9, and has made requested amendment No. 2, with modifications. The modifications are that the words “ any distiller “ are substituted for “the distiller” in the first line, the word “ does “ for the word “do,” and the word “his” for the word “ their “ in paragraph a, whilst the word “ employs “ has been substituted for the word “ employ ‘ ‘ in paragraph b, and the words “ as regards such distiller “ have been added. The effect of the modification made in our requested amendment is that instead of the whole trade being penalized because one distiller does not pay a fair wage, the additional Excise duty will be imposed only as against the offending distiller.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Gould. - So that it provides for differential treatment! The penalty is to be imposed only in the case of the offending distiller.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– That is so. I move -

That the modification of the Senate’s request be agreed to.

Senator Findley:

– The increase is1s. per gallon all the way through.

Senator DRAKE:

– Yes, but the fines are entirely out of proportion, because the offence would be the same in each case. We have fixed the Excise duty in many cases in proportion to the cost of production. In regard to brandy, for instance, we have made a large allowance on the ground of the higher cost of production, and the same remarks apply to the case of whisky distilled from malt barley, as distinguished from that distilled from other materials. The object held in view, namely, to secure good wages and labour conditions, is a very proper one, but provision should be made, by way of a Bill, providing for a penalty. The reason that course has not been adopted is that the Government know perfectly well that such a proceeding would be unconstitutional, and, therefore, they are endeavouring to attain their end by indirect methods.

.- The Constitution confers upon us only limited powers, and we have no right to go beyond them. If we do so, we shall entrench upon the domain of the States, which will be justified in resenting our action.

Question - That the modification made by the House of Representatives in the Senate’s request be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 9

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senate’s Request. - In schedule, item 4 - “Whisky distilled wholly from barley malt by a pot still or similar process at a strength not exceeding 45 per cent. over proof. . . “ leave out “4s” and insert “

House of Representatives’ Message. - Requested amendment not made.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the requestbe not pressed.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– It may serve as a guide to the Committee to know that . the three members of the Tariff Commission who are ‘senators are favorable to the request sent down to the House of Representatives. As those three senators differ in their fiscal views, and have had an opportunity to consider this matter fully, I urge the Committee to adhere to its request.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I understood that all parties in the Senate were favorable to the request sent to the House of Representatives. Therefore I am rather surprised that the Minister should have moved that it be not pressed.

Senator DRAKE (Queensland) [8.18J.- This matter was fully discussed previously, and I understood that the request made by the Senate would not be disturbed. I hope that it will be pressed.

Senator BEST:
Victoria.

.- Personally, I am prepared to bow to the strong feeling expressed in this connexion, but my inquiries show me that the effect of adopting the request would be to destroy the advantage proposed to be granted to the distillers of pure malt whisky. Practical distillers - Mr. Preston, for instance - have stated that in order to make whisky of marketable value it must be kept for five or six years. No doubt that is a very desirable thing, but it puts the distiller at a disadvantage if he has to keep his spirit for so long a period. I understand that the members of the Tariff Commission in another place have gone back upon the 35 per cent, provision, and have agreed to the proposal of the Government to substitute 45 per cent.

Senator Clemons:

– I am sure that two of them have not done so.

Senator BEST:

– I have nothing more to say if the Committee feels inclined to insist upon the 35 per cent, requirement, but I thought it advisable to state the result” of my inquiries.

Senator MCGREGOR:
South Australia

– I am entirely against secondhand evidence being brought before the Committee. Every distiller had an opportunity to give evidence before the Tariff Commission ito enable that body to come to a definite conclusion, and I do not think that it is right that after the Commission has reported, distillers should endeavour to influence both Ministers and Members of Parliament, in a direction in. which they were not prepared to give evidence before the Commission. The Commission desired tlo promote the distillation of a pure malt whisky of the best quality, and a preference of 4s. per gallon is proposed to be allowed to distillers for that purpose. It was hoped in this way that a whisky might be distilled that would be equal to the best produced in the world. The Bill, asproposed to be amended, gives the distillers a sufficient preference, and, indeed, put% them in a very favorable position in regard to imported spirits. I trust that the Committee will adhere to its determination, and vote against any alteration.

Motion negatived.

Consequential request, as to item 5, pressed.

Senate’s Request. - In schedule, item 5,. “Blended whisky. . . . per proof gallon, us.,” leave out “ns.” and insert “12s.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Requested amendment not made.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– This request deals with a matter entirely different from that which we have just been discussing. Honorable senators will observe that in the Bill as sent to us a duty of 16s. per gallon was imposed on pure brandy; ns. per gallon on blended brandy ; 10s. per gallon on pure whisky; and ns. per gallon on blended whisky. The Senate requested that in the case of blended whisky the duty should be raised to 12s. per gallon. The House of Representatives have disagreed with that request, and I think that in the circumstances they have taken up a proper position. Blended whisky is in the same category as is blended wine brandy, and I think that the duty should be the same in each case. I therefore move -

That the request be not pressed.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 18

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the megative Motion negatived.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

page 6237

EXCISE TARIFF (SUGAR) AMENDMENT BILL

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia. · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The object of this measure is to make perfectly clear the intention of a provision inserted in the Excise Tariff Act of 1905. It was intended by that provision that sugar produced from cane delivered for manufacture before the 1st day of January, 1907, should pay an Excise duty of only 3s. per cwt. The Attorney-General has pointed out that in his opinion, although the intention was plain, the proviso inserted in the Act of 1905 does not give effect to it. This is his opinion: -

The intention of the Act, of which this is an amendment, was, while raising the excise on sugar from £3 to £4 per ton to allow sugar made from cane, delivered for manufacture before the 1st January, 1907, to be entered for home consumption at the lower rate, although not so entered until after the 1st January, 1907.

The honorable and learned gentleman expresses the opinion that the proviso in the Act of 1005 to give effect to that intention is insufficient for the purpose, and this amending Bill is introduced to place the matter beyond doubt. He is of opinion that under a strict interpretation of the proviso in the Act of 1905 sugar produced from cane delivered for manufacture before the 1st day of January, 1907, would have to pay the Excise duty of £4 per ton. This Bill of a single clause is introduced to give effect to- the intention of Parliament when it passed the proviso in the Act of 1905.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– It is scarcely fair of the Minister to spring this upon us. It was quite understood that the order of the businesspaper would be adhered to. Whilst honorable senators were no doubt prepared to go on with the Constitution Alteration (States Debts) Bill, which has been postponed, I am not sure that many of them have yet made themselves conversant with the details of this measure. So far as I can see from a cursory glance at it, the Minister is justified in saying that it is a simple one, and that the provisions embodied in the Bill will make more clear and definite the original intention of the Act of 1905. Believing that to be so, I offer no objection to the second reading.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment.

Report adopted.

page 6237

PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS BILL

Second Reading. Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence) [8.55]. - I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators will recollect that when we passed legislation dealing with the employment of Pacific Islanders in the sugar industry we made provision that, with the exception of persons exempted under special sections, they should all be deported at the end of this year. In the meantime the matter has been the subject of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland. That correspondence commences with a letter, in which the Premier of Queensland asked this Government to make arrangements for the deportation of the Polynesians for the following reasons : -

The compulsory deportation of the kanaka, and the fact that, after the end of the current year, it will be illegal to employ him, are due to ‘Commonwealth, and not to State legislation.

Some kanakas, though originally intro duced into Australia by Queensland, have drifted to other parts of the Commonwealth; and Queensland has ceased to have jurisdiction over them, and, I am disposed to think, responsibility in regard to them.

It is believed that great numbers of kanakas are unwilling to leave Australia; and only the Commonwealth Government has the right forcibly to deport even the kanakas who are still in Queensland.

The deportation of’ the kanaka involves relations with Governments external to the

Commonwealth ; and the Commonwealth is the proper authority to deal with such Governments.

The Commonwealth subsidizes, and controls the movements of, certain steamers which ply regularly between Australia and the islands to which the kanakas are to be returned ; and, unless other arrangements more satisfactory can be made, these vessels are the only ones that can be relied on to return the kanakas at a reasonable cost, and on the unprecedented scale which Commonwealth legislation has made necessary.

He said that the Queensland Government was prepared to co-operate in the work to the following extent: -

By maintaining and placing at the service of the Commonwealth the whole staff of the Pacific Island Department, and the offices and buildings now occupied bv that Department.

By handing to the Commonwealth the sum °f £5 Per head for every islander deported, the amount which was contributed by the employer for the repatriation of each islander, and which would have sufficed for the purpose but for Commonwealth legislation.

By placing the police force of the State at the disposal of the Commonwealth for the due execution of The Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901.

By exempting from port dues vessels employed in the work of repatriation.

By sanctioning no more agreements made with Pacific Islanders.

Then was given a list of officers of the Queensland Polynesian Department whose services he was ready to place at our command, while remaining responsible for their salaries. The Prime Minister concurred in those recommendations. In the’ first instance, it was thought that it would be well to place the kanakas to be deported in depots, until such time as ships would be ready to convey them to their islands. But, on tenders being invited from ship-owners for the performance of the work of repatriation, the prices asked were so high, owing to the fact that no back cargo would be available, that it was thought better to make an arrangement with Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Company, whose steamers now carry the mails to a number of island groups, and to leave the kanakas where they are at present employed until such time as we are in a position to ship them away. To carry out this idea it is necessary to provide for the issue of exemption certificates, enabling them to continue in their present employment until vessels are ready to take them away.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The time limit is six months, which is considered, long enough. There are at present some 3,000 kanakas in Queensland to be deported. There are some who are not to be deported in any case, and others whom we do not intend to deport. Those who are to be allowed to remain permanently are to receive certificates, which they can show at any time. The other certificates are to exempt those who are to be deported for a time from the provisions of the present law, preventing them from re-engaging. The general certificates are to be issued to kanakas who, because of long residence in Australia, or for other reasons, it is not considered desirable to deport. In determining who shall and who shall not be deported, the Government will be guided by the recommendations of a Royal Commission appointed by the Queensland Government to consider the whole question. There are certain classes whose deportation would be inconsistent with humanity and good faith. For these reasons, it is proposed not to deport kanakas who were brought into Australia prior to the ist September, 1879. It is also proposed not to deport kanakas of such extreme age, or suffering from such bodily infirmity, that they would be unable to obtain a livelihood if returned to their native islands ; kanakas who, having been married, or living as man and wife with natives of some island other than their own, cannot be deported without risk to the life oft either party ; kanakas who are married or are living as man and wife with females not natives of the Pacific Islands; and ‘kanakas who, on the ist July, 1906, were, and are still, registered as the beneficial owners of freeholds in Queensland.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Do not the Government propose to extend the same exemption to the holders of unexpired leaseholds ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– No. These are recommendations of the Royal Commission which we propose to adopt. Another ground of exemption is -

That he has been continuously resident in Australia for a period of not less than twenty years prior to the 31st December, ‘1906.

Senator Millen:

– Are those all the recommendations ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– No ; but those are the recommendations which the Prime Minister intends to adopt. According to clause 2 -

The Minister may grant a certificate to any Pacific Island labourer exempting him from all or any of the provisions of this Act.

There are two other recommendations which the Prime Minister does not propose to adopt -

In addition to the above classes, the Commissioners recommend the exemption of persons -

who have off-spring who have been educated in State schools ;

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Why ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I do not know. Speaking on the spur of the moment, why should we adopt that recommendation ? Some of the children may have been in the State schools for only a month or a week, but even if they had been there for a considerable time, I do not see why that should make any difference.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator know how many would be affected by the two recommendations of which the Government do not approve?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– No; and the papers do not contain any information on the point. Perhaps some senator from Queensland will be able to say whether they are likely to be numerous or not.

Senator Turley:

– According to the information contained in the report, there are about 600.

Senator Walker:

– What is the other recommendation ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It has reference to the holders of unexpired leaseholds to whom no compensation has been paid. They were recommended to be exempted, but the Prime Minister does not consider that that is advisable. He says in regard to these recommendations -

It is submitted that it is not advisable to exempt persons falling within those classes, but that officers should be instructed that, where such persons do not come within any of the other classes before-mentioned, their cases should be specially submitted with recommendations.

I think that honorable senators now realize the means by which we propose to give effect to our object. There is anitem of £12,500 on the Estimates for the repatriation of the kanakas. That is what it is estimated to cost the Commonwealth, in addition, I understand, to a sum of £5 per head, which will have to be handed over by the Queensland Government under the understanding which has been arrived at. I have now dealt with the general certificates which are to be given to the Pacific Island labourers who are to be allowed to remain within The Commonwealth. With regard to those who are not to be allowed to remain, we propose to give -

special certificates (not to be issued or remain in force after the thirtieth clay of June, One thousand nine hundred and seven), to be issued to Pacific Island labourers whom in the opinion of the Minister it will not be convenient to return to their islands immediately after the thirtyfirst day of December, One thousand nine hundred and six.
1. A certificate under this section (Whether general or special) shall, subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the certificate, hart: the effect of excepting the Pacific Island labourer mentioned therein from any specified provisions of this Act, but may be cancelled by the Minister at any time.

The Department has not yet found itself in a position to give any guarantee of the numbers who will be returned. The following figures show the number of islanders liable to deportation : - Solomon Islands1,160, New Hebrides 765. In addition it is estimated that there are about 200 for each group who are unemployed or illegally employed, and liable to deportation, making a total of 3,530.

Senator DRAKE:

– If the course I have suggested were adopted, there is no reason why life in the islands should not be made absolutely as safe as in the suburbs of Melbourne. Where marriages have taken place, the difficulty would arise from the fact that there is no doubt whatever that the woman would have an absolute right to refuse to go, and I do not suppose that in a case of that sort any one would desire that action should be taken which would involve a breach of the marriage relationship. I admit that in these cases the kanakas cannot be sent away. But there was no need for special legislation to deal with that matter, because it is all provided for in the Act of 1901. The deportation section of that Act is permissive. The section preventing kanakas entering into agreements after the 31st December is mandatory ; but sub-section 2 of section 8 reads as follows: -

The Minister may order a Pacific Islander found in Australia after thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and six, to be deported from Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

– Has not the honorable senator made that statement three or four times?

Senator DOBSON:

– I am not opposed to the Bill, as Senator Playford appears to think. I am very much iii favour of its enactment, with all the safeguards which we can make in the interests of humanity.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [10.19]. - The law provides that the kanakas shall be deported by the end of the current year. There is no proposal to repeal or amend the law, but there is a proposal to allow the Minister to exercise a discretion in certain cases. I take it that the object in taking power to issue a certificate for six months is not to enable the sugar planter to get over the transition stage, because I understand that the Act of 1 90 1 was passed to prepare him for that event, but to allow the Government sufficient time in which to carry out the intention of that Act. I am under the impression that six months is too short for the purpose. I would sooner see the Government fix the period at nine months or twelve months, so that, in the event of their being unable to arrange for the deportation to take place within six months, they should still have three months without being compelled to break the law or to ask Parliament to extend the time, I would impress upon the Government the desirability of extending the time. It would not necessarily follow that that would be taken advantage of, or be used for the purpose of providing additional labour. We have been apprised of the reasons which will guide the Minister in carrying out the law, but I think it is just as well that Parliament should enact the reasons which, in its opinion, should guide the Minister, because Ministers come and Ministers go. The Royal Commission which was appointed in Queensland recommended that certain other kanakas should be exempted, but the Minister does not propose, as at present advised, to adopt the recommendation. If we were to set out in black and white the cases which the Minister would be entitled to exempt, it would save all possibility of trouble and difficulty in the future. It would save the possibility of differences of opinion between a Minister and his successor. The law would be declared in specific terms, and the kanakas would know how they were to be dealt with. It is far better to have the law definite than vague. I shall support the amendment of Senator Stewart to include in the list of exempted persons those having offspring who have been educated in State schools, and the holders of unexpired leaseholds to whom no compensation has been paid. It must be borne in mind that we cannot legally deport the children who have been born of Pacific Islanders in Australia. The principal Act only applies to persons who have been born in those islands, and who are not of European parentage. Nor can such children be deported under this Bill. Do the Government intend to deport parents, and not their children, who may be of tender years, or, perhaps, fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen years of age, or do they hope that the parents, yielding to their natural instincts, will take their children with them? It would be cruel to separate parents from their children, and it would not redound to our reputation for humanity if we did so. It would be said that parents were being ruthlessly torn away from their children just as in the old slave days in America parents and children were separated and sent to different plantations. Suppose that an honorable senator had the misfortune to be located in a country where it was determined that he should be deported. Would he not consider it very cruel if he were deported and his children left in the country, or if he were sent to a country which, in point of civilization and comfort, was much inferior? Surely honorable senators must see that it would be cruel in the extreme to tear the kanakas from their children. Another question is whether the Government are prepared to pay the cost of deporting the children, whom they can only deport with their own consent or that of their parentis. The number of children concerned is not very large. According to a return which is contained in the report of the Royal Commission, there are as the offspring of the alliances mentioned - all of which were contracted in Queensland - 316 males and 325 females, of ages ranging from a few months to twenty-one years. All these persons would be entitled to remain here, because our law does not give us power to deport them. It is proposed to exempt all males married to or cohabiting with European women, Queensland female aboriginals or half-castes, women natives of islands other than those from which the men come, or women of any nationality other than those specified. The children of these couples would naturally remain with them. The islanders numbering eighty-nine, who are married to, or living with, women from the same islands are not exempt, and yet it seems to me that they are specially entitled to consideration.

Senator Clemons:

– How many kanakas are married to, or cohabiting with, European women?

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

– The number given here is forty. Sixty are married to, or cohabiting with, female Queensland aboriginals or half-castes, eighty-one are married to kanaka women belonging to islands other than those of the men, whilst three are married to women of some other nationality. The eighty-nine kanakas who are married to women coming from the. islands to which they themselves belong, although they may have children attending

.- It has rights which could be enforced in a Court of Equity. If there were no legal guardian in existence, the Court could appoint one. The report of the Royal Commission states, with regard to the offspring of such unions as I have mentioned -

A considerable proportion of those children have been educated in State schools, and they have acquired habits which, should they be compelled to submit to the life prevailing in the islands, may result in their suffering a certain amount of hardship. The evidence given before the Commission leads us to believe that a large proportion of these children would contract the island malarial fever. To compulsorily deport the parents alone would be inconsistent with the humane treatment of both parent and child.

Senator McGregor:

– What is the use of arguing about something which is not going to be done?

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

– I am inferring that something is proposed to be done with regard to a limited number of natives. Speaking of islanders who have acquired freehold or leasehold lands, the Commission say -

There is settled at North Rockhampton a group of islanders, many of whom are married and have families, the children attending a State school. Some of these persons have acquired freeholds, held for them in trust by

Europeans; others are leaseholders - all are of reputable character, and earning a livelihood in legitimate fashion. In various other parts of the State, islanders have acquired freeholds and leaseholds in a similar manner, and are engaged in gardening, cane-growing, and general farming. The land occupied by many of these individuals was, when leased, virgin scrub, upon which much labour has been by them expended ; the islanders appear to have entertained an unfounded belief that, as leaseholders, they would not be compulsorily deported ; and it is certain that any action involvinga forfeiture of leaseholds without compensation, or a forced sale of freehold and personal property, would entail upon these persons the very greatest hardship.

– Less than that.

Senator TURLEY:

– Mr. Kidston continued -

You will see that the Commission suggest an expensive system of depôts, clearly under the impression that the deportations must extend over many months. This, in my opinion, should be avoided, and can be avoided ; for it is easy for you to exercise the powers of deportation in the first or second week in January as in April or May.

That is a letter which was sent by the Premier of Queensland to the Prime Minister, and it says in effect that there is no necessity to extend the term, but that, with the expenditure of money, of course, the trouble may be got over once and for all. I do not know that there are many men who have registered, who will have anything to do with these kanakas, and even a great many who are not registered would not feel inclined to employ them for terms varying from three to six weeks. If these men could not get employment, then they would have to be looked after, because in centres of population they would be a. source of positive danger to the peace and lives of the people amongst whom they were scattered. The Commission say in their report -

Under a proper system of selection, it would be possible to embark for repatriation 2,000 islanders early in the month of January,1907.

We recommend -

That officers of special qualifications be detailed both for the collection of the islanders to be thus deported, as well as of those to be placed in the depôts hereinafter referred to.
That steamers to accommodate up to 500 islanders each be employed as transports. It is indispensable, in order to efficiently carry out the repatriation, that all preparatory organization in its minutest details be completed before the end of the current year.

Senator Clemons:

– I was thinking of, say, 2,000 kanakas being landed on one island.

Senator TURLEY:

– All those belonging to one island would not be taken there at once. There might be a question as to the scarcity of food.

Senator Clemons:

– That is what I am thinking of.

Senator TURLEY:

– But Senator Drake has suggested that food might be sent to them to supply their wants until they could produce food for themselves. The

Royal Commission further say-

As regards the balance of the islanders, who will not thus leave Queensland in the month of January, 1907, we recommend -

That if the Deporting Authority is satisfied by evidence, as the result of investigations, that the repatriations effected in the month of January have not seriously interfered with the economic conditions existing in the various islands, and that immediate further repatriations can be effected consistently with a humane regard to the interests of the islanders, further deportations shall be at the rate of about 500 per month after the return of the first transport.

At that rate, the whole of the kanakas could be transported by March at the outside The Royal Commission never made the recommendation that any kanakas should be allowed to enter into fresh agreements. It would have been far better had the Government made arrangements beforehand, which would have permitted of their carrying out the suggestion of the Premier of Queensland, whose letter, it should not be forgotten, isdated 23rd July, 1906. It will be seen that some considerable time has elapsed since attention was called to the matter.

Senator Millen:

– The Government have had since the passing of the Act of 1901 to make arrangements.

Senator TURLEY:

– But the Commonwealth Government allowed matters to go on until the State Government appointed a Royal Commission, and, as usual, while admitting that the recommendations of the Commission may be very good, the Government propose to do something else. We are now faced with a Bill to which I suppose we must agree, but, as Senator Higgs has pointed out, if all the exemptions are to take effect, there will be nearly half the kanakas left in Australia. A large number are engaged in industries, the conductors of which would go to any trouble, and be prepared to break any law, with the object of keeping black labour. Until these people realize that some action is being taken which will compel them to do without coloured labour, they will not. cease their efforts to retain these men. At the present time, I cannot help voting for the second reading of the Bill, because if nothing is done, the Government will be forced into the position that they will have to send away the whole of the kanakas at the end of the year, irrespective of the dictates of humanity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause1 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 6254

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until 11 o’clock to-morrow.

Senate adjourned at 11. 10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 October 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1906/19061008_senate_2_35/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 8 October 1906

QUESTION

WAGES ON THE “ POCAHONTAS

Senator GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

PAPER

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Order of Business

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Clemons:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Millen:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Millen:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Higgs:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Millen:

Senator Clemons:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Clemons:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Clemons:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Millen:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Drake:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Drake:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Drake:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Drake:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Clemons:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Clemons:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Millen:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator PLAYFORD:

STANDING ORDER 64

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Dobson:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator MACFARLANE:Tasmania

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Playford:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator DRAKE:Queensland

Senator Playford:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Playford:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Playford:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Playford:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Playford:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Ayes .. … … 17

Senate
8 October 1906

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT