Senate
4 October 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- QUARANTINE
IMMIGRATION AND LAND SETTLEMENT
QUESTION
- AMMUNITION WAGGONS
QUESTION
- MR. KEIR HARDIE
WOMEN’S WORK EXHIBITION
QUESTION
- NEW HEBRIDES: TARIFF
BOUNTIES BILL
PAPER
ADJOURNMENT
- New South Wales Immigrants - Agricultural Machinery Industry - Australian Industries Preservation Bill

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

page 4243

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

– I beg again to ask the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, without notice, the question I asked on the 19th August with reference to the cost of administering the quarantine establishments in the different States ?

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

– I have been furnished with the following return showing the annual expenditure on the quarantine establishments and the value of buildings : -

page 4243

IMMIGRATION AND LAND SETTLEMENT

Rush of Applicants.

Yarrawonga, Wednesday. - For the seven blocks of the Forest Reserve, near Mulwala, about 471 applications have been received - about 67 for each block.

Bullenbong Block.

Wagga, Tuesday. - The ballotfor the Bullen bong . Plain block, of 775 acres, c.p.l., took place before the local land board yesterday. There were 168 applicants, of whom 156 were admitted to the ballot, and they comprised all ages and both sexes. The winner was a single man, A. H. Fisher, of Corowa, the next in order being H. Heinrich, of Jindera, and A. F. Hunter, of Bethanga-road. and to ask whether, in view of their frequently expressed desire to encourage immigration, the Government will consult with the States Governments to see that a supply of more suitable land is made available before inducing persons, particularly those belonging to the agricultural class, to come here?

Senator BEST:

– I do not think it is reasonable that a statement made by an honorable senator should be catechised outside, but if my honorable friend will draw my attention to any statement in a newspaper, and ask me to inquire as to its ac curacy, or otherwise, I shall be very glad to do so.

page 4245

QUESTION

AMMUNITION WAGGONS

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In relation to the contract for the construction of ammunition waggons, which was, mentioned “in the debate on the Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill, can the Minister representing the Minister of Defence tell the Senate the length of time which the contract has to run, and if Messrs. Robison, Sons, and Company, of Melbourne, are the successful tenderers as stated in the press? Has he noticed in this morning’s newspapers that the firm are discharging’ from forty to fifty employes on the ground that they have not sufficient employment for them? In view of his own statement that it would take the firm from twelve to fifteen months to supply the ammunition waggons, will he make inquiries as to the reason for the discharge of those men?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– I am not aware of the circumstances to which the honorable senator has referred, but if he will repeat the inquiry on Wednesday, I shall endeavour, in the meantime, to secure all the available information in order to give him a reply.

page 4245

QUESTION

MR. KEIR HARDIE

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, if the Government propose to ask the authorities in England whether thev intend to take any, and, if so, what steps to put an end to the mischievous, unpatriotic, and traitorous speeches which are being made by a gentleman called Keir Hardie in India?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– I think my honorable friend will see that if we mind our own business we shall’ act wisely.

Senator Dobson:

– It is the Empire’s business. The man deserves hanging.

page 4245

WOMEN’S WORK EXHIBITION

Senator PEARCE:

– I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether, in view of the fact that the Australian Women’s Work Exhibition is to be opened in Melbourne on the 23rd instant, at 3 o’clock, he will make an arrangement to enable honorable senators .to attend the opening ceremony by postponing the_ hour of meeting.

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– I approve of the suggestion of my honorable friend. In the circumstances, I think that we might see our way to meet at 5 o’clock instead of at 3 o’clock on that day.

Senator Stewart:

– I’ refused an invitation on the ground that the Senate would be sitting on that day.

page 4245

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES: TARIFF

Senator WALKER:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government during the present Session (either through the Tariff Bill or otherwise) to take steps to place British settlers in the New Hebrides in a similar position to transact business with the Commonwealth as is enjoyed by French settlers in those islands who transact business with New Caledonia ?

Has the Government seen and given consideration to that portion of. paragraph No. 27, in a letter dated Suva, Fi i i, 22nd February, 1907, from the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific to the Secretary of State, in which he suggests that British-grown produce from the New Hebrides might be admitted into Australia under special Tariff conditions under a certificate of origin from the Resident Commissioner or other suitable British official?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

For some time past it has been the practice to assist British maize growers in the New Hebrides from funds voted by Parliament for the purpose to enable them to maintain their position . under the present competition.
The despatch referred to has already received attention, and will be again considered at a later period.

page 4245

BOUNTIES BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 3rd October, vide page 4174) :

First Schedule.

Tobacco Leaf for the manufacture of cigars, high grade, of a quality to be presented ; (period) 5 years ; (rate of bounty) 2d. per lb. ; (maximum payable in any one year) ^4,000.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– No more interesting speech has been delivered on this item than that which we heard yesterday from Senator Findley. The honorable senator endeavoured to prove that it is impossible in Australia to grow a leaf suitable for the manufacture of cigars. This was a somewhat strange departure from the attitude which the same honorable senator took up a few days ago in discussing, other items of the schedule. He then said that we could grow anything in’ Australia, and of the very best quality.

Senator Findley:

– I did not say “ of the very best quality.”

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator certainly said that anything could be produced in Australia.

Senator Millen:

– And that nothing was to come in except by balloon.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Senator Findley said that if any honorable senator professed to be a protectionist, and opposed any item in the Bounties Bill, he was not really a protectionist, and that, so far as he was concerned, he would like to build a wall right round Australia so high that if any products entered the country it would have to be by balloon. He has taken up an entirely different attitude on the item now under discussion. It is true that the honorable senator speaks with u certain amount of authority on the subject of tobacco, because he was a member of the Tobacco Commission, and if he has failed to convince himself as to the way in which he should vote on this item, he has at least convinced me that I should vote against it. The Tobacco Combine has a monopoly in Australia of the machinery for manufacturing cigars.. It, ,perhaps, would be well for me to refresh the minds of honorable senators by reading an extract from the report of the Tobacco Commission, which proves conclusively that even if Australian leaf could be grown suitable for the manufacture of cigars, the small man could not compete with the Combine. If I believed that the granting of this bounty would mean that assistance would be given to the small manufacturers, I should be prepared to support the item. I take this from the evidence given before the Tobacco Commission by Mr. Hirschman. at question 7090 -

By the. Chairman. - What information do you wish to give to the Commission? - I desire to complain of the way in which the tobacco trust work machines to make what is called the inside of a cigar, but which, in the trade, is known as the bunches. The trust use, on an average, ten machines a week, putting it at the lowest estimate, but the capacity of each machine permits it to make about 3,000 bunches per diem.

Where are those machines used? - In Melbourne, in the States Tobacco Company. I produce, for the information . of the Commission, what is styled the bunch before becoming, a cigar: It is made bv hand, or by block. The ten machines would turn out 30,000- bunches a day, which would be at the rate of 150,006 per week. A boy or girl is employed on each machine, and is paid, at most, 15s. per week to work it. That shows the cost of making the quantity I have named in a week would be £7 10s. The cigarmakers of this city have lately had a case before the Arbitration Court, and from the particulars given there, it is seen that the very lowest at which I could make the cheapest cigar would be 2s. 6d. per 100; that is, to finish it right out. The rolling means putting on the covers after the bunches are made, and whether they be Sumatra, Havanna, or Mexican, the cost is is. 8d., or two-thirds for rolling, and 10d., or one-third, for making the bunches. So that to manufacture 150,000 by hand at 10d. oer 100 would mean £62 10s., as against the cost by machinery of £7 10s. The ‘ rate I have mentioned is as fixed bv the Arbitration Court, and is the same as in Victoria for block-work cigars. If taken on the basis of 50 working weeks in a year, it would mean a total wage of ^3,125, as against machinery wage of ^375, giving the trust an advantage of j£2,75° Per annum.

Senator KEATING:

– My honorable friend referred last evening to the fact that when it was considered desirable to encourage the manufacture in Victoria, the bounty was given in such a way that a number of Chinamen went in for cultivating the plants, and that they studied quantity but not quality.. I think’ the same has been the practice in different parts of Australia where attention has been given to the growth of tobacco. I will quotean extract from a report by Mr. Nevill, the Queensland expert to the Agricultural Department of that State. Reference is made in it to the growth of the leaf, and he says -

There is now a demand for a limited amount of cigar tobacco, and at satisfactory prices : and farmers in the coastal districts are inclined to go in for growing this character of tobacco, and some 30 or 40 acres will probably be planted the coming year, divided between the Upper Coomera and the Cardwell districts, with a small lot at Bowen. For the small experimental lots grown this year very satisfactory prices were obtained. The samples have elicited most favorable comments from the purchaser, with the opinion that an expert demand can be created ; should this be so, the demand for these tobaccoes will be a large one. I believe it is true, for some of the samples show considerable merit, which will be greatly improved as the growers become more expert in the growing and handling.

Mr. Nevill, I may point out, is not only the Queensland expert in regard to tobacco, but he has had a considerable experience in the United States, and has followed the growth of tobacco of different varieties there. He continues -

These tobaccoes should prove very profitable, as in the country north of Bowen two crops per year can be grown, and should yield a ton to the acre - say 12 cwt. for the first crop, and 8 cwt. for the second one. At 7½d. per lb., this would yield £70 per acre. This crop can thus be made a very profitable one to small farmers with growing families, as children of either sex, from twelve to sixteen years of age, can be employed to great advantage. I consider the outlook for the future of the tobacco industry in this State as most promising, and, if farmers can be induced to take the necessary care both in cultivation and handling, we will gradually displace much of the imported article.

It has been urged that if a bounty be given for the growth of cigar leaf of high grade as prescribed - the proposal under notice - the benefit will go to the Combine, which is the greatest manufacturer of cigars in Australia. It has also been said that no bounty car be claimed under this proposal, because Australia cannot produce tobacco of “the quality that would entitle the grower to it. With regard to this item, as with regard to others, I am not in a position to speak as an expert, and therefore I shall have to call to my assistance, and to the assistance of the Committee, the advice and testimony of those who may be looked upon as authorities. I have here a letter which, singularly enough, actually anticipates both of those objections. It was not written in contemplation of the present debate. It was received by the Department of Trade and Customs within the last few days from a distributor of cigars and tobaccoes in Sydney. The writer is neither a grower nor a manufacturer.

Senator Findley:

– Then he does not understand much about it.

Senator KEATING:

– If he were a grower or a manufacturer we should probably be told that he was an interested party. But he is an important distributor in Sydney, and has been carrying on business in that capacity for a number of years. He has also had experience in England. What t wish to impress upon the Committee is that this letter was not written in connexion with the Bounties Bill at all, although it bears upon certain important points which have been brought forth during this debate. . I do not know the man. The name on his stationery is, “ T. S. Prescott and Co., importers of high-class Havanah cigars and Egyptian cigarettes.” Surmounting the name are five coats of arms, and as many names, of Governors and Governors-General to whom the firm has been appointed to supply tobaccoes.

Senator Gray:

– He did not give evidence before the Royal Commission.

Senator Findley:

– Does he carry on business in Hunter-street?

Senator KEATING:

– The address is 17 Hunter-street, Sydney. He says -

Doubtless you have been observing the colonial cigar manufacturers’ remarks regarding colonial leaf, which leaf they allege is unsuitable for manufacturing cigars. As a retailer of long experience in Sydney, and previously in England, I want to draw your special attention to certain important facts ofl the colonial trade, more especially those concerning colonial leaf. When I was iri Brisbane in June this year, I was introduced to a cigar by one of the leading hotel proprietors there.

It will be observed that these facts only came under his notice in June last, which may explain why he did not tender evi dence before the Royal Commission, which sat some time before -

This cigar- was made in Australia from leaf grown in Australia, and I found it to be the equal of any cigar made in Australia from imported leaf. That is. this cigar completely contradicts the statement made by New South Wales manufacturers that colonial leaf is not sufficiently high grade for cigar making. As a matter of fact, however, our local manufacturers practically boycott the colonial leaf; and the only way that they can be made to use the colonial leaf is to put a heavier duty on imported leaf. In the past, the duties have been imposed to suit the local manufacturer who uses imported leaf ; the duty on imported manufactured tobacco, having always been very high, while that on imported leaf is comparatively low. Consequently the local manufacturer is drawing all his materials from other countries and crying “ stinking fish,” or to be literal, “ stinking tobacco “ to all leaf grown in Australia. Thus the local manufacturer has got the trade on an altogether wrong basis, that is wrong from the public’s point of view, because present conditions keep the trade in a few manufacturers’ hands, keep up the prices of tobacco and cigars, vet prohibit the growing of colonial leaf.

In that paragraph, the writer sets forth first of all that leaf can be grown that is suitable for the manufacture of cigars in Australia equal, if not superior, to cigars manufactured from imported leaf; and secondly, that the encouragement of the use of imported leaf for Australian-made cigars throws the trade into a few hands -

You will at once* perceive that if a heavier duty were imposed upon imported leaf, the local manufacturer would thereby be forced to use locally grown leaf : to publicly acknowledge its good qualities and potentialities, and to encourage and support its production. Thus tobacco-growing as an industry in Australia would be placed on a reasonable and equitable basis, the more so since one immediate consequence would be that other manufactories would spring up and compete with those at present existing.

What this gentleman advocates is an alteration of duties, so as not to differentiate between imported and Australian cigar leaf in favour of the former, but whether it be by abolishing or reducing the differentiation of Customs duties, the fact that stands out prominently is that, in his opinion, local cigar leaf can be used with advantage in the manufacture of cigars, in Australia, and that such cigars are equal to, if not better than, those produced from imported leaf. He points outas another consequence, that this policy would lead to an increase in the number of manufacturers in Australia. Both of those conclusions are in direct opposition to what has been urged by honorable senators who are opposed to this item. I say again, that I do not know the writer of this letter. I did not see it until yesterday. It came within the last few days to the Department of Trade and Customs. As far as I know, it was absolutely unsolicited. It had no bearing, so far as the writer knew, upon this debate in the Senate. But it brings prominently before us the opinion of the writer that Australian cigar leaf can be grown successfully, and that the consequence of promoting its growth will be the establishment of a number of manufacturers, and thereby an increase of employment. He goes on to say -

In the present position of the New South Wales tobacco manufacturing trade, the tobaccogrower labours under every possible disadvantage. His market is so restricted that his price is kept at anunpayable level, and he is not humanly able to develop and improve his output. In a word, he is being crushed down by overwhelming forces. Consequently, it is only by a heavierduty on imported leaf that his market can be opened up and facilities and opportunities given him for growth and expansion, not only in regard to cigar leaf, but also for tobacco-growing in general. Tobacco made from Australian grown leaf is not recognised to-day. This is most unjust to colonial leaf, because I have experimented with tobacco grown and manufactured in South Africa, and I have found a ready sale for it here, although in aroma, colour, and smoking qualities the South African leaf is much inferior to the Australian.

– And that did not succeed .

Senator McGREGOR:

– Thev did succeed in growing cigar leaf in Georgia and other southern States.

Senator Lynch:

– Look at the quantity which thev import from Cuba.

Senator McGREGOR:

– That is quite true. In the United States, as in every other tobacco-growing country, it was found that for the production of the best brands of cigars a variety of leaf is necessary. Some leaf has the texture which is necessary ; other leaf possesses the approved aroma, while other leaf has the right flavour. From evidence which has been given in my presence, I know that great stress is laid upon the quality of the Sumatra leaf. The greatest merit of that leaf lies in its texture, because it is considered to possess very little flavour or aroma. Its texture, however, is of the best quality, and the leaf is admirably adapted for the outside wrapping of cigars. It is the same with cigar leaf grown in every other country. Mr. Parkinson said that if Australia engaged in this industry, as it ought to do. undoubtedly it would establish a reputation for Australian leaf equal to the character of the leaf which is grown in almost any country. He said that it would be sought after to be used not alone but in combination with the productions of other countries. In America, they found that they could not produce the necessary variety of cigar leaf and the local leaf had to be blended with cigar leaf from other countries. Did the Congress abolish the duty on cigar leaf? No. The duty was reduced by one-half, and at the present’ time it is higher than anything which has entered into the mind of a member of this Parliament. Even with a duty of 4s. 6d. per lb. the Americans import a large quantity of cigar leaf for the purpose of being blended with the class of cigar leaf which they produce themselves. If we keep in view our destiny, we shall endeavour to make perfect everything which can be produced here. We ought to give even possible assistance to this industry. The time may come when not only Australia will toe using Australian cigar leaf, but America and other countries, recognising its difference, and in many respects its superiority to other cigar leaf, will be eagerly seeking after it. It is for those reasons that I, with much earnestness, advocate the granting of this bounty.

Mr. Nevill, as honorable senators are aware, has been in the tobacco growingdistricts of America, and is an authority second to none in Australia upon this subject. He points out that, not only can cigar tobacco be grown in Queensland, but that it can be grown profitably for export. So that, if any attempt is made by the Combine to cut down prices-, the grower will be able to export his leaf. So far as concerns the ability of the country to grow good cigar leaf, I may remind honorable senators that when this item first came before the Committee, I drew attention to the fact that 200 lbs. or 300 lbs. of leaf from Bowen had been sold at a price equal to is. a lb. Of -course, that is not a very high price, but I am satisfied that higher grades of leaf can be grown, especially in our more tropical climates. The proposal as it stands is that the bounty shall be given for tobacco leaf for the manufacture of cigars “ high grade, of a quality to be prescribed.” I do not know how it will be possible by regulation to prescribe a quality. I take it that the Government will have to act upon the market price. If we can export cigar leaf so as to prevent the Combine from knocking down the price, there will be no difficulty in arriving at the value of the leaf upon which the bounty is to be paid, any more than there would be a difficulty in arriving at the value of ginned cotton, New Zealand flax, or a number of other items in the schedule. But an effort should be made to see that the Government does not “ throw too low a main “ in giving the bounty. I should like the value to be placed at a high figure, but I do not expect that the Committee would be prepared to go as far as I would. Possibly it will meet the views of honorable senators if I propose to leave out the words “quality to be prescribed,” and insert “ market value to be prescribed being not less than is. per’ lb.”

Senator Findley:

– Can that be moved, in view of the ruling yesterday?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Yes. I do not propose to extend the scope of the bounty. If anything, the proposal would limit it. It will prevent the Government from making a regulation under which the bounty would be paid on tobacco worth od. or 10d. per lb.

Senator Needham:

– Would the proposed amendment alter the destination” of the bounty?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– No. The item generally is one which I think might very well be supported, and I intend to vote for it. At the same time, I shall be glad if it is so altered as to prevent the Government from paying the bounty by regulation upon too low a grade of leaf. I move -

That the words “quality to be prescribed” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words : - “ market value to be prescribed, being not less than is. per ‘lb.”

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I should like to direct the attention of protectionist senators, who, I am sure, do not wish to injure in any way the prospects of tobacco growing in Australia, to the fact that the duty which has been proposed in favour of Australiangrown tobacco leaf will probably be reduced. We know that the small cigar manufacturers of Australia have raised a great outcry about the proposed protective duty, and I think it is reasonable to anticipate a reduction. We should therefore take this opportunity of making up for it by means of a bounty. I urge that consideration upon honorable senators, because I am quite sure that tobacco growing in Australia has not .yet had a sufficient test for us to know really what we can do in this regard. I am prepared to give reasonable weight to the opinions of experts, but no expert evidence has been quoted to prove that tobacco leaf cannot be grown in Australia. Senator Findley repeatedly referred to what he called “ experts in the making of cigars.” Their opinions may be entitled to every consideration, so far as regards the work of manufacture, but I fail to see what weight should be attached to their views about the production of the raw material. This young country of ours has too short a history for any one to say that he knows exactly what it can produce. The area is so enormous, the varieties of soil so great, and the climatic conditions so varied, that anything is possible in the way of production in Australia. When Senator Needham was speaking, he asked me if I could change natural conditions so that cigar leaf could be produced. I do not propose to attempt to change nature by means of a bounty, but we know that in the case of products which require more expensive methods of cultivation, bounties are of great assistance. We do not intend to alter the whole face of nature by proposing a bounty. ; our object is to assist growers “in taking advantage of natural conditions. The basic principle of bounties or protection is to help any industry that can be reasonably expected to show favorable results. I remind Senator Needham that his own State has great possibilities in the production of tobacco leaf, a very high quality of which has actually been grown there. On page 616 of Coghlan’s The Seven Colonies of Australasia, for 1901-2, it is stated that -

In Western Australia, preparations are being made for cultivating tobacco on a large scale, and a company has been formed which proposes’ to acquire suitable land for raising the crop. Samples of the product grown in the State have been submitted to experts and pronounced equal to the finest Havana, and a large firm in England has undertaken to purchase any quantity of similar leaf at from is. ad. to 3s. per lb.

The quotation of such prices shows the possibilities of tobacco culture in Australia. No man “can afford to take up a cocksure attitude and say that we cannot do this, that, or the other. The statement I have quoted on the authority of that very careful statistician shows what can be done in Western Australia, where very little encouragement has been given to the cultivation of any tropical or semi-tropical product. If we can produce a high-class tobacco, bringing so high a price-

Senator Gray:

– If we can.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The bounty, of course, is in the nature of an experiment. The whole of these proposals may be said to be experimental. If it is wise to give bounties for articles which we have no evidence have been produced in Australia at ail, we ought to give encouragement -to this industry, for we know that tobacco has been grown in Australia with varying degrees of success. We have as many advantages for the production of tobacco leaf of a good quality in Australia as any other country. I cannot understand the arguments of those who are prepared to give a bounty for the production of inferior leaf and yet are against giving a bounty for cigar leaf. I was quite prepared to support Senator Pearce’s amendment, but, having failed to secure that, I see no logic in the attitude of those who say that, because thev cannot get a bounty for the production of inferior leaf, they will not vote for a bounty for the production of a superior article. ‘ We are making altogether too much of the Trust bogy. I know that the Trust have enormous power, but i!t is going too far to say that the whole of the bounty will probably go into their pockets. If there is any danger of the bounty for cigar leaf going to the Trust, there would be a great deal more danger of a bounty for tobacco leaf generally going to them, because they are the sole makers of tobacco in Australia, whereas there is an enormous number of small cigarmakers

Senator Needham:

– Whom this bounty will not help.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That is the strangest and most cross-eyed kind of logic that I have ever listened to. I cannot follow the process of reasoning of those who are prepared to give a bounty on tobacco which the Trust, of which we are so frightened, controls, and yet refuse to help the cigar industry, where there are a number of small manufacturers in competition with the Trust.

Senator Lynch:

– The hand makers cannot hold their own against the Trust, who own the machines.

Senator Pearce:

Senator STORY:

– In common with Senator Needham, and many other members of the Senate, I would like to see the Combine abolished. I wish to see the tobacco manufacturing industry nationalized, because I believe that that is the only way in which we can get it out of the hands of the Combine ; but, in my opinion, the Combine are here to stay for a few years more, and their existence is no reason why we should not endeavour by the assistance proposed to encourage the growers of tobacco leaf to cultivate a superior article. I hope the item will be passed as it stands in the schedule.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– A strong argument in favour of my amendment is that, to some extent it would act as a check on the people whom every one seems to fear, and would prevent them cutting down the price of leaf to the grower. There is not the slightest doubt that the largest local manufacturers of cigars have done their best to encourage the growth of cigar leaf in Australia. They have hired men to give instruction to farmers, have distributed seed, and have done a great deal of work in this way, for which they are deserving of some credit. If the minimum value of the leaf on which the bounty is to be paid were fixed by Statute it could not be altered from day to day by regulations, and the buyers of the leaf would know that they could not reduce the price below a certain figure, as the moment they did so the grower would lose the bounty and would cease the cultivation of cigar leaf. I omitted to mention that cigars have been made in Queensland from leaf grown in that State at the Texas Station, controlled by the Queensland Government. I had the pleasure the other day of enabling several gentlemen to smell a Queensland cigar whilst I smoked it myself. Those who had the advantage of testing its aroma described it as an uncommonly good cigar. I may be asked why we do not continue to manufacture such cigars. The reason was explained to me by Mr. Nevill, who really manufactured the cigar at the Texas Station. He explained that unless it was possible to obtain considerable quantities of leaf of that quality it would be impossible to establish a brand, and as honorable senators are aware, a great deal of the success obtained in the sale of certain cigars is due to the establishment of a recognised brand. It is because people are not growing sufficient quantities of cigar leaf of good quality in Australia, to establish a_ brand that we have not first-class Australian cigars now on the market. I think that my amendment would promote rather than interfere with the intention of the Bill. .

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I hope that even at this late hour Senator Chataway may be induced not to press his amendment, but that if he does press it the ‘Committee will not agree to it. It is proposed that the bounty shall be given for “ Tobacco leaf for the manufacture of cigars, highgrade, of .a quality to be prescribed,” and I point out that, while we could fix the minimum market value of the article on which the bounty was to be paid, that might be provided for in the regulations. I think it would be more desirable that the regulations should prescribe the quality, and, if necessary, determine it by the market value of the leaf. In the regulations justice might be done to the other considerations to which Senator Chataway referred in submitting his amendment. There might be reasons for a fluctuation in the value of the article from time to time, and let me remind honorable senators that by leaving the words “of a quality to be prescribed “ in the schedule the Committee would not give the Government of the day an unfettered or uncontrolled right to fix the minimum value of the article, or impose any other condition, since the regulations must be tabled in Parliament, and would be subject to the veto of either House. If Parliament is sitting, they must be tabled within a ‘ certain period after they are made, and if Parliament is “ not sitting they must be tabled within a certain period after the next assembling of Parliament, and it is open to either House to negative or modify any particular regulation. I am glad to have an opportunity to hear what honorable senators think the method of determining the quality and the minimum price of the leaf should be, but I point out again that any regulations prescribed would be open to the review of honorable senators. For this reason I ask the Committee not to support the amendment, and I hope Senator Chataway will see the wisdom of withdrawing it.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

– “ intend to support the amendment. I assume that the Government propose to offer this bounty to encourage the production of a high-class tobacco leaf, suitable for the manufacture of cigars. The intention is to encourage the growth of leaf of the very best quality, and it is not intended that the bounty should be paid for leaf of an inferior quality. I propose to vote against the item, even though it should be amended, but if it is to be carried, I would prefer that it should be in the form suggested by Senator Chataway. I think that those who have any knowledge of the subject recognise thaithe weak feature in connexion with Australian leaf is not in the cultivation of the leaf, but in the curing of it, and the details of production, to which Senator McGregor has referred so fully. The honorable senator gave the Committee a very good idea of the peculiar conditions connected with the production of tobacco leaf. We wish the growers of Australian leaf to bring their production up to the highest possible standard. It has been proved beyond doubt that tobacco can be grown in many parts of Australia. In fact, it has been grown to such an extent at times that the supply has been more than equal to the demand, and a great quantity of leaf has been destroyed. It is, therefore, clear that the bounty is not necessary to discover whether we can grow tobacco or not, and it is only necessary to induce our growers to grow leaf of a high quality. The Minister suggests that we should leave it to the Government by regulation to prescribe the conditions under which the bounty is to be given. I object to that. I think that we should fix the minimum price of leaf in respect of which the bounty shall be payable. To do that would enable the grower to know what he would be likely to get for his crop, and the manufacturer to estimate the price that would have to be paid for the article.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 16

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2p.m.

Question - That the item “ Tobacco, leaf “ be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 12

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

– While it may not come within the province of the Federal authority to look into that question, it is within our province to consider whether or not we have a right to support this proposal until we know exactly where the seat of trouble is, and until some effort has been made to remedy it. I know, of no matter to which the municipal or State authorities could better devote their attention than that of the position presented by both the fish and fruit trades. There is something wrong in the case of both those trades. The producers are producing an insufficient supply, and ought, therefore, to be getting high prices, and yet they are not ; while, on the other hand, the consumers are unable to satisfy their own requirements at anything like a reasonable price. The difficulty is in that direction, and the proper remedy can only be determined upon by a thorough examination of the details of the trade. I have no knowledge which enables ‘me to say where the trouble is, but I know that this bounty is not going to put it right.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I desire some information from the Minister before I give a vote on this item. Does the term “fish” include beche-de-mer? That is a very important fishing industry along the Great Barrier Reef, on the eastern coast of Australia. The trade has been developed very considerably lately. The beche-de-mer, or sea slug, as it is called, is secured, split open, and dried in the sun. A large quantity goes to China even now, and I see that a good deal of it is consumed in Australia. I noticed quite recently that it is finding its way to Melbourne, and. is used in the form of soups, and what l may call “ fish entrees.” A paragraph in the Cairns Daily Argus states that -

New ground has been struck on’ Swain reef, outside the Great Barrier, which has .not been fished until the last few weeks, the point of departure being Port Mackay. Great hauls are being made in quick time, and the old Northern fishing grounds are deserted for the new find.

In another paragraph in a Mackay paper, it is reported that -

Two more beche-de-mer vessels have arrived ia the river with good cargoes of slugs. One boat’s cargo is estimated tn be worth about ^170, and the other at about ^450.

As will be recognised by the perusal of the above recorded data, the assemblage together of a number of individuals is absolutely essential for the abundant propagation of the species. lt is through the full recognition of this fact and by assistance given towards the restoration of corresponding conditions on an adequate -scale, and at suitable locations, that I would -propose to bring about the resuscitation of the much depleted Torres Straits pearlshell fisheries. What i have to suggest ‘is, in fact, the establishment of a certain number of Government pearlshell-breeding .reserves, on which shall be laid down and maintained for breeding purposes only a suitable number of mature “healthy shells. These shells, to the number, say, of about one thousand to each breeding depot, should be enclosed in cheaply-constructed wood and wire netting frames, wherein they will be protected from their natural marine enemies, and also be effectively safeguarded from human interference. A decision as to the “best locations for the, establishment of these proposed Government breeding reserves can scarcely be arrived at without some further information being at my disposal concerning the nature of the ground, the predominance of the currents, and other details that would, I conaider, be best arrived at in consultation with leading representatives of the pearlshelling industry.

He goes on to say -

So far as I can indicate localities suited for this purpose without a further special inspection of the grounds, I might suggest some point in the vicinity of Badu Island, from whence the brood would be effectively distributed over what is locally known as the “old ground.”

His report is very lengthy, and therefore I only propose to pick out a few of the more interesting passages on this question -

Within a period of three or four years from the establishment of the proposed breeding reserves, I consider that the adjacent waters within many miles from these breeding centres should be restocked with young shell to such an extent as to permit of profitable fishing.

From the opinion of this great expert it will be gathered that a return will be obtained from this industry much more quickly than will be derived from any industry in respect of which a bounty is proposed. He suggests that the best breeding grounds are the depleted shallow grounds, in which may be found the natural food for the molluscs, and which are within easy access. I hope that honorable senators will recognise the feasibility of his proposal. He goes on to say -

I should, at the same time, recommend that these proposed breeding reserves should be made a permanent institution, under which circumstances young brood will be continually supplied to replace the adult shell withdrawn, and there should be no further recurrence of the deleterious depletion of the beds that has brought about the present unprofitable condition of the Torres Strait fisheries.

As a practical illustration of the efficiency of the foregoing suggested method for restocking the surrounding waters with young shell, I mav mention that in that island in the South Pacific to which the greater portion of the Torres Strait shell was transported and laid down in frames as above described, a period of six months sufficed for the propagation of the molluscs to such an extent that many of the parent shells were found with as many as from ten to twenty or thirty or more young attached to their surfaces. At the same time, it was scarcely possible to raise a coral mass from the adjacent reefs without finding young Torres Strait shell growing on them.

The report shows that the experiments which have been tried in certain localities point to the feasibility of what might be called the artificial cultivation of pearl shells. Another report on this subject has been made bv Mr. Gale, Inspector of Fisheries in Western Australia. In his report on the fishing industry for 1906, he says -

Other countries are turning their attention to the scientific investigations of the pearl-shell molluscs, with a view of improving their own pearling industries, and the time must come, sooner or later, when artificial cultivation must give place to the present methods of obtaining shell. Desultory experiments have been made in different parts of the world without much conspicuous success. If, however, proper methods are adopted, and these will eventually be proved, and suitable localities chosen, there is no reason why the pearl shell could not be cultivated in immense numbers, the same as the edible oyster, in many parts of the world, which gives employment to thousands of persons, and a permanent flourishing industry maintained.

– I do not know. I have been astonished at the prices quoted by some honorable senators. If the fisherman knows that he will not be dependent merely upon the demand of the middleman who supplies fresh fish to the- public, but that he will have a permanent demand elsewhere, he is much more likely to go into the fishing consistently and” continuously than he is at present. Present conditions are very discouraging to him, and if he gets a fresh outlet for his fish, we have every reason to believe that it will be greatly to his advantage. If Senator Sayers’ views are correct, there will be ro finanical responsibility under this item. If mine are correct-, we shall stimulate the fishing industry itself, and encourage people to give their attention to it. Pro- bably no industry in which the inhabitants of the Commonwealth can engage is calculated to bring more profit directly or. indirectly to the Commonwealth. We must remember, first, that we are an island continent, and present to our enemies a sea-border only. It will be our responsibility at all times to maintain ourselves in a state of effective defence against aggression, and if we can only induce our people to enter into the fishing industry in proportion to their numbers to something like the extent obtaining in Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and other countries, we shall have, as is pointed out in the report circulated amongst, honorable senators, a reserve of -

A race of men always fit, and with a minimum of training ready for naval service.

This report shows the number of persons engaged in the fishing industry in the United Kingdom to be 106,000, France 147,000, Italy 100,000, Norway 120,000, Russia 158,000, United States of America. 210,000, Canada 73,000, and Japan 2,508,000. The number of persons engaged in the fishing industry has been an important factor in the defence of every country. Great Britain, more than anyother nation, was engaged in this industry for centuries, and was to a large extent enabled to draw from her water-working population the reserves from which she built up her magnificent naval strength. Japan, no doubt, found it a great advantage in her recent naval war with’ Russia to have 2,508,000 of tier population engaged in the fishing industry. Honorable senators will remember that when the Russian Baltic Fleet went round the world to engage the Navy of Japan, it was stated- in the newspapers that many of the men on board had been drawn from inland, and had practically never seen blue water until they went on to the vessels, and so were absolutely’ worse than useless. Japan, on the .other hand, was able to draw successfully on. her seafaring population for her naval strength. We in Australia are doing all in our power to encourage our people to engage in bluewater occupations, because if we can get a fair proportion of them so engaged, we may rely upon it that they will have broken the back of the training which will be necessary to fit them to navally defend bur shores against aggression. Senator Sayers has thrown some doubt upon the capacity of Commonwealth waters to supply the fish-. From a report on the Bounties Bin, which was published, last year, and from which I had the pleasure of reading passages in connexion with the proposal for a trawler, I propose to read a few extracts with regard to the position in each State. In the first place, I shall deal with Queensland,- because Senator Sayers has referred to that State and the scarcity of shoal fish, in its waters. From Australia To-day, a publication which is brought out by the Commercial Travellers* Association, I ‘take this extract from a report on the Barrier Reef, by Mr. W. Saville Kent, who was quoted by Senator de Largie as the greatest fishing authority in the Commonwealth -

Queensland possesses a fish fauna remarkable both for the abundance of its species and for the structural variety of its constituents.- Alt told, the number of combined marine and fresh water species authoritatively recorded UP to date falls but little short of 900. In other words, it embraces two-thirds of the entire marine and fresh water fauna of the Australian Continent. Out of the foregoing total number, over 300 species may be classified as of more or less value for human food. Thev present almost unlimited possibilities of profitable employment. The waters- abound with shoals of fish akin to tbc European mackerel, herring, anchovy, and pilchard, which up to the present date have been literally allowed to run to waste. -

The President of the Fisheries Commission, New South Wales, Mr. Farnell, states that, with regard to seine fishery, the sea mullet, the pilchard, the herring, mackerel, and garfish abound in countless millions. The question of the supply of fish available for the industry is not open to dispute. He states further that the above fact need not be taken as a statement from him, but it is verified by every one who knows anything about the industry.

Mr. Dannevig, Fishery Expert of New South Wales, concurs.

With regard to New South Wales, this report quotes an extract from a pamphlet entitled “ The Fisheries of New South Wales,” and published in 1896. It reads as follows -

Of the presenceof the Maray - clupea sagax - say the Royal Commission in their report, in numbers close to these shores, we have indisputable evidence. At many of the coastal fisheries visitedby us we were enabled to establish the fact, on the authority of intelligent and reliable witnesses, that the herring does frequent our watersat certain seasons of the year. During September and October of this year pilchards made their appearance in countless numbers, both along the coast and in many of the estuaries, and from inquiries instituted at the time we are enabled to say that, had the Colony been in possession of establishments for treating and preserving these fish, millions of them could have been netted and converted into a marketable commodity. Mr. D. W. Benson, Inspector of Fisheries, stationed at Lake Ilawarra, has informed us that large shoals of pilchards were for several weeks seen off the entrance to that lake and off Shell Harbor. At Manly these fish swarmed in countless numbers, and at Middle Harbor and other parts of Port Jackson nearly as far as Chowder Bay the water was alive with the immense shoals. Large schools of the herring tribe were also observed at other fishing centres. The amazing abundance of these fish makes it indeed regrettable that from the mere’ lack of the necessary appliances for canning, salting, and otherwise treating them, tons upon tons were permitted to leave our shores.

With regard to Herrings, this report on the Bounties Bill says -

But very little is known about the herring in New South Wales waters. One of thefirstto assert its presence at all was the late Sir William Macleay, F.L.S., who always exhibited an intense interest in the fisheries, both from scientific and economic stand-points. He went so far as to affirm that there is no sea on the globe favoured with a more rich or varied supply of fishes of the herring tribe than that which washes our shores. He names two principal species - the Maray,clupeasagax,asbeingalmost identical with the English pilchard, and * the Southern herring,clupeasundicia- which he claims to be, for excellence and delicacy of flavour unsurpassable, being superior to the common herring of Scotland, and which if preserved in oil after the manner of sardines would eclipse even those delicacies.

The report goes on to deal with the Tasmanian fisheries and the value of the industry in other parts of the world. I think it will be recognised that there is no reason to doubt the capacity of our waters if they are properly investigated and explored to furnish not only all the fish which the Commonwealth may require,but a good deal which may go profitably into markets abroad. If Senator Sayers is right in his opinion that the fish will not be found, he is committing himself to practically no expenditure. If, on the other hand, we are right in asserting that these waterscan be profitably worked for fish and that the industry can be established with advantage, then not only he, but we, will have the satisfaction of giving further employment to our own people, and in a direction which indirectly will be of great value and benefit to us in connexion with any naval defence policy which hereafter we may have to enter upon.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– Ihave seen the report of the Chairman of the Fisheries Commission of New South Wales, and to me it reads like a story in me Arabian Nights. It is very peculiar indeed that all our fishermen - and we have some good practical men-have not been able to discover the fish referred to, and put them on the market. I am not opposing the proposal because it .is submitted by :he .Government. The Minister knows that the Government of New South Wales has spent many thousands of pounds in promoting the fishing industry. What has been the result of the’ expenditure ? .Practically nothing. I am surprised at the Minister even reading the report and asking us to believe it. I cannot comprehend why lie took that step, especially as the Government of New South Wales has spent far more money than it is proposed to spend under this Bill. I believe that if the proposed bounty of ,£50,000 is spent we shall have practically nothing to show for the money.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– According to the honorable senator’s argument it will not be spent.

Senator SAYERS:

– t do not say that it will not be spent. An experiment has already been tried, and a bounty of ohe halfpenny per lb. might make a difference of one penny, per tin. Some persons might begin to tin barracouta, and if they obtained the bounty it might leave them, with a. margin of profit. The present canners have sent thousands pf tins of barracouta to Melbourne and Sydney, but they have not been able to make a profit, and therefore have had -to drop the business. If the grant of a bounty were authorized, a syndicate, or a company might bc formed, but that would not benefit the fishermen, because they would not receive one penny per dozen more for their fish than they are now getting. It is the most plentiful fish to be found on our coast, but there is a great doubt as to whether a large quantity of it is fit for human food. I do not want that kind of fish to be tinned. If a bounty fs to Le granted I want it to be given in a way which would benefit the men who are engaged in catching the fish. The Minister must be aware that the preservation or tinning of the fish would not be done by the fishermen. That work, if done under the offer of the bounty, would be done by a syndicate, and it would bring no advantage to the people df Australia or to the fishermen.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The syndicate could give more to the fishermen for the fish.

Senator SAYERS:

– How much more would ihe syndicate be likely to give to the fishermen? At the present time the canners get the fish as cheaply as possible’. They are” offered in the market, and the price they bring is generally 2s. 6d. per dozen. Although the fish has been tinned and smoked, for instance, in Tasmania, still that has not led to an increase in the price. What I am afraid of is (hat this bounty, if authorized, would be wasted. The Minister, as well as the representatives of New South Wales, must know that the Fisheries Commission of that State has not been able lo achieve any good results with the parliamentary votes which have been placed at its disposal, and which represent far more than is intended to be spent under this Bill. For all these reasons I shall oppose the item.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– - In view of the fact that it is proposed to spend a large sum upon the construction and operation’ of a trawler, will it not bc better to wak until by means of the trawler we ascertain whether fish abound on our coast before wc pledge ourselves to give a large bounty upon the preservation of fish ? No harm- will be done by deferring the consideration of the item until we receive a report upon the results 0/ the trawling investigation. It is very doubtful whether we have edible fish in great quantities in our waters. We know that shoals of fish enter our large harbors at certain times, and at other times there are none of them to be seen. It would no doubt, be a very good thing if we had a canning industry thai could dispose of large quantities of fish when they were to be had, but I do not know: that there is any need for a bounty for the industry. If it would be likely to pay, I am certain that there is sufficient enterprise amongst our people to induce some of them to take up the work without Government assistance. There are some -varieties of the kingfish which were to be caught in Tasmanian waters fifteen years ago, and they have never been seen there since.

Senator Keating:

– We. wish to know where the’ fish go that are seen in our waters periodically.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– I think that no harm would be done by postponing the granting, of the bounty for preserved, fish until we have a report of. the operations of the trawler.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

.- This Bill has been so long before the Senate, and I am so heartily tired of opposing votes of money that I believe will be thrown away, that I have remained silent during the last few days when the Bill has been before the Committee. But it appears to me that this item is especially one in connexion with which the Government are putting the cart before the horse. I agree entirely with what Senator. Macfarlane has said. I propose to quote a couple of paragraphs from the report, not of the New South’ Wales Fisheries Commission, but of the Australian Fisheries Conference, that met in Melbourne two or three weeks ago. I had the privilege of talking to the Tasmanian Fisheries Commissioner on the. subject of this bounty. I told him that it was suggested that’ a bounty should be offered for the canning of fish, and I asked him what he thought of it. He told me that he did not think we had any fish worth canning, or that would pay to can in comparison with salmon. I asked him what he thought about schnapper, and he said he did not think schnapper good enough for the purpose. I do not agree with that, because I think that schnapper should be good enough if they could be had in sufficient quantities for canning.

Senator Keating:

– Does he know anything about Australian mullet?

Senator DOBSON:

– I am quoting what he told me. The Australian Fisheries Conference adopted, amongst others, the following resolution -

That this Conference ‘ suggests ‘the appointment of a person of practical acquaintance with the fish and fisheries to be a Commissioner of Fisheries.

That it be the duty of the Commissioner to engage upon a systematic investigation of waters off the coasts of Australia and Tasmania and o? the biological and physical problems they present with the object of determining the character, abundance, geographical distribution, and economic value of the inhabitants of the waters, as also their migrations and the causes influencing or regulating the same, the object being to arrive at the life history of all species having economic value as well as those species to which they are intimately and essentially related.

That he’ make investigations into the history of the methods and apparatus connected with fisheries for the preservation and utilization of fishery products, and cause careful study to be made of new methods and apparatus introduced from time to time, with the object of determining their effect upon production and furnishing information upon which to frame intelligent legislation regulating the conduct of the fisheries and improving their methods and apparatus.

It would appear from this, and it must be within our own knowledge, that ourfisheries have not been developed. We are intensely ignorant of what our waters contain. We know little or nothing of the habits of our fish, the quantities in which they can be obtained, and their market value. The skilled men attending the Conference suggest that inquiries should be made upon these subjects, and as men of common sense we should not determine what bounty, if any, should be paid for the canning of fish until after we have received a report of the investigation which the Fisheries Conference think should be made. I am told by my landlady that for some whiting she has to pay 10d. a-piece. The cost of some of our fish is simply enormous, and yet we are being asked to give a bounty for the canning of fish which we cannot get fresh in sufficient quantities, and when we know that we have no chance of underselling the canned fish preserved in other countries. I think that this money will be absolutely thrown away, and the Government should withdraw the item.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [3.53]- - It is strange that this proposal should be made by a Ministry .whose general interests are chiefly identified with Victoria, whilst in the matter of the destruction of fish that State is the greatest sinner in the Commonwealth. You may go as often as you like between here and Sydney, and at the refreshment rooms at Albury, on the bank of the River Murray, and you will never be able to get a bit of Murray cod or Murray perch, and why ? Because the mineral works on the banks of various Victorian streams that flow into the Murray poison the waters and destroy the fish. That is a positive fact, known to every one who has been in that part of the world, and without going there people can obtain the information by reading what appears in the press. Whilst Victoria ‘ deliberately destroys one of the grandest fish to be found in the southern hemisphere, a Ministry with Victorian1 sympathies comes here with a proposal to grant a bounty on the canning of the very fish that Victoria is busily destroying- It passes one’s comprehension, except that the whole process of our friend the enemy is to slop down like a pailful of water one proposal after another without the slightest connexion, between’ them. If these bounty proposals of the Governmeat were discharged by a mountain howitzer battery, they could not come with more uncertainty ormoredeadly effect. I speak seriously when I say “ deadly effect,” because their effect is most demoralizing on the Chamber. There is one strong reason why we should not accept this proposal. By doing away with the goat bounty there will be a reduction in the number of goats, and there is not likely to be the same demand for old tins. We all know that goats browse on tins, and as now there is to be no bounty on goats we shall not need any fish tins. This proposal is certainly one which should be allowed to stand over that we might have a little time to think about it. It is notorious that fresh fish in Australia is at very high prices. If you go to the parliamentary refreshment room in New South Wales you cannot get a little bit of fish on a small plate under1s. Fresh fish is so outrageous a delicacy and so extreme a luxury in Sydney that the New South Wales Government are making phenomenal efforts to breed fish. They are bringing flounders from Tasmania and New Zealand, and, in fact, are floundering about in all directions in the hope of getting a few fish for ordinary consumption. It is ridiculous to talk of a canning industry when the fish supply of Sydney is drawn from as far as the Clarence River. 360 miles north. Fish are caught forty miles up that river and carried to Sydney packed in ice. The only reason why the Committee might consent to pass the item is that no one is ever likely to apply for a bounty under it, as no one is ever likely to get hold of enough fish to make it worth while to start a cannery. We know that the canneries established in America are immense establishments, dealing with thousands of tons of fish . Any one who is familiar with the coast line of Australia must know that there is no prospect of getting together atany part of it a sufficientsupply of fish to make a canning industry a success. We can never expect to get out of the retail stage in the fish industry until some successful effort ismadeto establish a fish supply.

Question - That the item “ Fish, Preserved,” be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 9

Majority……… 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Item agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 4276

PAPER

Senator KEATING laid upon the table the following paper -

Return of particulars of claims and settlements in respect of lands acquired for rifle range, Sandy Bay, Hobart, and fortification, Mount Nelson, Hobart.

page 4276

ADJOURNMENT

New South Wales Immigrants - Agricultural Machinery Industry - Australian Industries Preservation Bill

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [4.1]. - I take advantage of this opportunity to refer to one or two matters of importance. This morning some sensational statements were quoted from certain newspaper reports by Senator Findley as to a horrible state of affairs connected with immigrants arriving in Sydney. I took the trouble - as indeed it was my duty to do - to telegraph to the Chief Secretary in Sydney, in the following terms -

Senate’s attention drawn to immigrants’ complaints at Trades Hall yesterday and reported in Melbourne press. Please wire me true facts by, 2 o’clock to-day if possible.

Statements by immigrants Labour Council published press to-day absolutely false. Emery refused farming work /i a week and keep the day he landed. No difficulty placing many more immigrants than are arriving current rates wages-

Mass meeting. Excise Tariff, implement makers, engineers, moulders, carpenters, woodworkers, painters, iron-workers, labourers, feeTrades Hall, Saturday. 5th October, 8 o’clock sharp. New protection policy at stake. All employes attend. ‘Protect yourselves.

The Government will not carry out the law, and by thus dallying with the matter, assists in defrauding the revenue, or defrauding the employes of these firms. They will not carry out this beautiful new protection system. They will mouth about it, but they will not do that which can be done now if they would only do their duty. I believe that there is a connexion between certain, funds of some associations and* certain firms, and that investigations by an accountant would very likely lead to some political scandals such as have occurred in the United States of America in relation to the Trusts and- certain election- eering bodies. I believe that is why the Government are afraid to do their duty. Hence, I say that one of two things is happening. Either the taxpayers are being defrauded bv not obtaining what they ought to obtain, the £6 Excise, or the persons employed by these firms are being defrauded by not being paid the stipulated and legal wages. I want to know from my honorable and learned friend, the Vice-President of the Executive Council - and I ask . the question with all friendliness, but all “ firmness - whether he will put himself in a position to give the Senate a satisfactory assurance upon this matter when it meets on the ‘first day of meeting next week?

Senator MCGREGOR:
South Australia

– I entirely agree with Senator Neild - if the facts, as stated by him in connexion with the Excise duty onagricultural machinery, and the payment of fair wages to those engaged, in the industry, are correct. I am very glad that he has “ got a hustle on “ in connexion with that matter. But with respect to the telegram that he has received from New South Wales, I should like D. know 1: if it is as reliable as the telegram which he received from the . ex- Premier of the State about the election of Dooley ? In seeking urgent information in connexion with the question asked by Senator O’ Loghlin this morning, Senator Neild was very careful ‘not to ask whether the first portion of Senator O’Loghlin’s statement was correct - that is, that 176 applicants were applying for one block of land in New South Wales. An answer upon that subject would throw some light on the situationexisting there. If information is required, it should be of the most complete character; and I hope that when we meet next Wednesday, Senator Neild will be supplied with another telegram from the Chief Secretary of New South Wales, or from the Lands Department, with respect to the excess of applicants for blocks of land, with a view of showing the quantity of land available there.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I wish to refer to the Australian Industries Preservation Act, and the proposed legislation to amend it. I point out to the Vice-President of the Executive Council that, in dealing with that question, we may have to consider an important point of constitutional law.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator cannot debate the Bill to which he has referred.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council, when dealing with that measure, enlighten us with regard to the view of the Crown Law authorities on the constitutional aspect?

Senator Best:

– To which Bill does the honorable senator refer?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– To the Bill to amend the Australian Industries Preservation Act. Will he, next week, give us some information on the constitutional aspect, embodying the opinions of the Crown Law authorities ?

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– If my honorable friend, Senator St. Ledger, refers to the constitutional aspect of the Australian Industries Preservation Act now on the statute-book, I can assure him that it was elaborately discussed when it was before the Senate. If he will refer to Hansard, he will discover the various arguments and views of honorable senators regarding it.

Senator St Ledger:

– I was referring to the new Bill.

Senator BEST:

– I do not think that the amending Bill will involve any serious constitutional question- certainly not the constitutional questions which were originally involved when the Act was before us. With regard to. the somewhat excited statement made by Senator Neild, I shall be. very glad to place his representations before my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Customs, and to learn from him what, is to be said in reply.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.16 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 October 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1907/19071004_senate_3_40/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 4 October 1907

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator ST LEDGER:QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

IMMIGRATION AND LAND SETTLEMENT

Senator BEST:Protectionist

Senator FINDLEY:VICTORIA

Senator BEST:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator BEST:

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator Walker:

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator BEST:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator BEST:

Senator Lynch:

Senator BEST:

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator BEST:

QUESTION

AMMUNITION WAGGONS

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

MR. KEIR HARDIE

Senator DOBSON:TASMANIA

Senator BEST:Protectionist

Senator Dobson:

WOMEN’S WORK EXHIBITION

Senator PEARCE:

Senator BEST:Protectionist

Senator Stewart:

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES: TARIFF

Senator WALKER:

Senator BEST:Protectionist

BOUNTIES BILL

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator Findley:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Story:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Story:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator de Largie:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator de Largie:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator de Largie:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator KEATING:Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Gray:

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Needham:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Dobson:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Dobson:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Gray:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Gray:

Senator KEATING:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Gray:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Gray:

Senate
4 October 1907

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia