Senate
30 September 1908

3^rd Parliament · 3^rd Session

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
ADDRESS TO LORD NORTHCOTE
QUESTION
- CARTRIDGE BLANKS
QUESTION
- SURPLUS REVENUE ACT
PAPERS
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE INSTRUMENTS
QUESTION
- PROPELLING PENCILS : DUTY
QUESTION
- OVERLAND TELEGRAPH LINE
QUESTION
- VISIT OF THE KING
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
- Mr. President and Gentlemen,
- Dudley
NAVIGATION BILL
- Second Reading

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

page 491

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Presentation of Address-in-Reply.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to acquaint the Senate that His Excellency the GovernorGeneral has appointed the’ hour of a quarter to three p.m. this day as the time when he will receive, in the Queen’s Hall, the Address-in-Reply to the opening speech. I shall be glad if honorable senators will be ready to accompany me then.

page 491

ADDRESS TO LORD NORTHCOTE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to announce the receipt of the following cablegram from Lord Northcote in reply to the

Address unanimously agreed to by the Senate on the 14th September -

Manilla, 25th September,1908.

President of Senate, Federal Parliament House, Melbourne.

Lady Northcote and I deeply appreciate generous resolutions adopted in both Houses as representing the people of the Commonwealth. We shall never forget Australian kindness, and wish the country every prosperity. Its interests will always be near to our hearts.

page 491

QUESTION

CARTRIDGE BLANKS

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to interrogate the Vice-President of the Executive Council in regard to a question asked last week about the production of the report of a Board appointed by the Minister of Defence. I must explain that as the result of questions asked, and representations made here, theBoard was appointed to inquire into the manufacture of cartridge blanks. I was requested to give notice of the question, but the report was tabled in the other House on that day. I ask Senator Best whether he does not think that it is somewhat discourteous to the Senate that when a question has been raised here, and a senator has asked for a report to be laid upon the table, compliance is not made with his request, and the report is tabled in another place where the question has not been raised?

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

– I feel quite certain that no discourtesy was intended, and it will be my duty to inquire into the circumstances under which the report was tabled elsewhere. My honorable colleagues are most particular in laying papers on the table of the other House at practically the same time as they are tabled here, unless it should happen that the Senate is not sitting. But where a matter has been specially referred to in the Senate, I am sure that it was owing to an inadvertence that it was anticipated elsewhere in the way suggested by my honorable friend. I shall be only too glad to inquire of my honorable colleague as to the circumstances under which it was done.

Senator PEARCE:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Will the Government lay upon the table of the Senate the report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to report on the proposed manufacture of cartridge blanks, &c. ?

Senator BEST:

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is “Yes.”

page 492

QUESTION

SURPLUS REVENUE ACT

Trust Funds

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

– When I asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council a question at the beginning of last week, he asked me to hold it over for a few days. I again askhim without notice, what is the amount of surplus revenue retained from the States during the last two months, and, if any, what amount has been placed to the respective trust accounts?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– I thought that I made it clear that I was desirous that my honorable friend should wait until the Treasurer had delivered his Budget statement. He must be aware that in the circumstances I have indicated, the practice is to extend that courtesy to the Treasurer. He will see that if information in connexion with the Budget could be elicited, by dribs and drabs, immediately prior to its delivery, all interest in the Budget would necessarily fade, and, more than that, it would not be fair to the Minister. If my honorable friend can sec his way to wait, as some other senators have seen fit to do, until the Budget statement is delivered, I am sure that he will get full information on the point. In passing, however, I would remind my honorable friend that the monthly payments to the States practically have little reference to the exact proportions of the revenue to which they are entitled. For instance, a payment may be made this month in excess of the three-fourths share ; it may be made next month below that proportion ; but of course an adjustment takes place at the end of the year. That is the only way in which it can be done.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Can the Minister give any indication as to when the Budget speech which will contain the information will be delivered?

SenatorBEST. - I asked my honorable colleague, and I should say that it will probably be made within the next fourteen days.

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Arising out of the reply,I ask the Minister if the Senate is not entitled to know what extra amount of revenue would have been paid to the States but for. the Surplus Revenue Act? In other words, Senator Chataway desires to know how much is to be retained under that measure. Surely that has nothing to do with the Budget !

Senator BEST:

– I have already made my explanation, sir.

Senator PULSFORD:

– The explanation is a refusal to give the information.

page 492

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers.: -

Report of Board appointed to report on questionswhich have arisen concerning the manufacture in Australia of brass and cupro-nickel cups required for the making of rifle cartridges, and of silver and bronze blanks for the coinage of tokens.

Papua - The Arms Restriction Ordinance of 1908.

Defence Acts 1903-4 -

Provisional Regulations for the Commonwealth Military Forces - New Regulations 605,606, 607.and 608. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 102.

Military Orders 288-298 of 1908.

The Clerk laid upon the table the following paper: -

Return to Order of the Senate of 24th September, 1908 -

Sessional Committees : Meetings and Attendances of Senators for Session 1907-8.

” ALL-RED “ MAIL ROUTE.

Senator PULSFORD:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice-

Have any despatches, which have not yet been laid on the table, been received from either the Colonial Office or the Government of Canada on the subject of the proposed “ All-Red “ mail route ?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is “ No.”

page 492

QUESTION

TELEPHONE INSTRUMENTS

Senator PULSFORD:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is the Government aware that the Lancet,a leading British medical paper, recently drew attention to the danger to health oftelephone callboxes and instruments when not frequently inspected, disinfected, and cleansed? Is the Commonwealth Postal Department giving attention to the subject?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

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

Although the Postmaster-General’s Department was not aware that attention had been directed to this matter by the Lancet, attention had already been given to the matter and instructions had been issued : -

That antiseptic devices may be attached to telephones by subscribers.
That a note be inserted in all official Telephone Lists drawing attention to the fact that such appliances are obtainable.
That a circular be issued to all subscribers drawing attention to the advantages, from a sanitary point of view, to be derived from the daily cleansing of the mouthpiece of every telephone, and suggesting that a clean rag or duster soaked in a weak solution of formalin be used by them for the purpose, also that it would be a further advantage if a clean linen duster were kept suspended near to every telephone available for application by each user.
That Public Telephones of this Department be cleaned and disinfected as often as possible.
That, so far as instruments of this De partment are concerned, proper means are to be taken by efficient disinfection, or sterilization to remove all danger of contagion on the re-issue of instruments.

page 493

QUESTION

PROPELLING PENCILS : DUTY

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is the Minister aware of the fact that the Customs Department are collecting duties on wooden propelling pencils?
If so, under what section of the Tariff Act are such pencils dutiable?
Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the remarks appearing in Hansard at pp. 9811 and 9812, relative to the duty chargeable on such articles?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

Yes.
Item 364(e), Fancy Pencils.
Yes. The remarks drawn attention to justify the Department’s interpretation.

page 493

QUESTION

OVERLAND TELEGRAPH LINE

Senator ST LEDGER:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

The number of times and the average length of interruptions that occurred on the overland telegraph line between Palmerston and Adelaide?
Has the Government considered the question of affording an additional telegraph line for providing communication with Palmerston and the rest of the Commonwealth?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

I understand the honorable and learned senator requires particulars for the years 1907 and 1908 only. The Deputy Postmaster-General, Adelaide, has furnished the following information : -

No interruption occurred on the Port Darwin line in 1907.

On 2nd March, 1908, flood 12 miles south of Charlotte Waters interrupted line from 8.4 p.m. on that date to 11.5 p.m. on 3rd March.

On 4th March temporary repairs were washed away by flood during night and line interrupted from 1 a.m. to 9.30 a.m.

On 6th March Railway and all this Department’s lines were washed sway by a great flood at the Peake. The river ran a mile wide. Communication was restored on 9th March.

There are two lines between Adelaide and Port Darwin - an iron and a copper. These are ample for all requirements, and will, I think, be for years to come.

No. The existing lines are considered sufficient for present and prospective requirements for some years to come.

page 493

QUESTION

VISIT OF THE KING

Senator CHATAWAY:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

In view of the statements appearing in some Australian and American papers to the effect that His Majesty King Edward is likely to visit Australia next year, is the Government prepared to say whether or not the matter has yet received the consideration of the Commonwealth Government?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

I regret to say that there appears to be no foundation for the statements.

page 493

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Presentation of Address-in-Reply.

The President and honorable senators proceeded to the Queen’s Hall to present the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General’s Speech, and being returned,

The PRESIDENT said:

– I have to inform the Senate that, accompanied by honorable senators, I this day waited upon His Excellency the Governor-General, and presented to him the Address of the Senate in reply to His Excellency’s speech on the opening of Parliament, which was agreed to on 17th September, when his Excellency was pleased to make the following answer : -

Mr. President and Gentlemen,

It is with great pleasure that I receive from you the Address adopted by the Senate in reply to the Speech delivered by me on the occasion of the opening of the Third Session of the Third Commonwealth Parliament; and it affords me very great pleasure to notice the expressions of continued loyalty to the Throne and Person of His Majesty the King.

Dudley

page 493

NAVIGATION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24th September (vide page 328), on motion by Senator Best -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The opportunity afforded honorable senators of looking into the provisions of this Bill, by- the adjournment last week of the debate upon it, has convinced me - as I venture to think it must have convinced every honorable senator - of the wisdom which prompted so large a section of this Chamber to request that adjournment. It appears to me that the measure stands very much in a class by itself. In the first place, it is a highly technical measure, and I, for one, am free to admit that in looking through its provisions I came across terms with which I am not familiar. Seeing that the Bill covers a very wide range, and that it is so highly technical, I assume that it will impose a very heavy responsibility^ upon honorable senators, and demand the utmost care which they can devote to its consideration. There is another reason why the Senate was more than justified in asking for time to study its details. In dealing with a matter like shipping, we have to recollect that we are dealing with something which involves more than merely Australian interests. Any Navigation Bill that we may pass must, incidentally at least, touch both Imperial and foreign interests, and to that extent the decisions at which we arrive will throw a very heavy responsibility upon us. There is another reason why the ‘request for time to study the provisions of this measure was acceded to. We must all recognise that it touches very intimately the great producing interests of Australia. To my mind, much as we may aid by means of a Tariff our manufacturing interests, our producing interests must for many years to come stand out as the great interests of Australia. In turning our attention to shipping, we must always bear in mind that we are legislating, not merely for shipping and seamen, but that we may, if we are wise, lend distinct aid to a great body of producers throughout Australia. If, on the contrary, we seek to hamper shipping, we shall, to that extent, impose a handicap upon those engaged in our primary industries. All these considerations convince me that the little time asked for and granted by the VicePresident of the Executive Council to enable honorable senators to make themselves conversant with the provisions of this Bill, was time’ well spent. I make these remarks because I have noticed - and doubtless other honorable senators have noticed - that there was some little tendency on the part of our journalistic friends’ to jibe at the

– It provides that we shall not impose any legislation unfavoably differing between British and foreign seamen. It reads as follows -

That it is desirable that the obligations imposed by Australian or New Zealand law on shipping registered in the United Kingdom should not be more onerous than those imposed on the shipping of any foreign country.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am not complaining of the practice, but asking the honorable senator not to be led into the belief that a similar provision appears in another

Act, and that having worked well in the past in some places it may be assumed that it will work well here. They are merely references to some provision which is designed, perhaps, to carry out the same purpose. Even if Australia is not prepared to give some little preference to Great Britain in this matter, I do ask honorable senators to join with me in saying that no law we pass shall make an invidious and unfair distinction between British and foreign ships to the advantage of the latter. Looking through the measure I ask myself why we should exhibit so tender a feeling for foreign shipping. I do not believe that it is due to any lack of loyalty on the part of the Government. But there must be some reason for it, and I can conceive only of one. We knowthat in the last resort no law is worth the paper on which it is written unless there is a force behind sufficient to give it effect. If we pass laws here which are distasteful to foreign countries, who is to give them effect ? We are aware that there is a power which can give effect to our law against British shipping because, when necessary, the Imperial Courts themselves become part of the machinery for carrying it out. We are to this extent, I think, imposing upon the magnanimity and good nature of the Mother Country. We pass laws affecting her shipping because we feel that she will not resent it, but we hesitate to pass similar laws against German shipping because Kaiser Wilhelm might view the matter in a different light.

Senator Guthrie:

– The Imperial Parliament has passed a law extending to foreign ships many of the provisions which previously applied only to British ships.

Senator MILLEN:

– Exactly, but Great Britain is in this position, that if her shipping law brought about a conflict she would know that she must shoulder the responsibility. We have to remember, as the Government have clearly remembered by the tender way in which they proposeto deal with foreign shipping, that if we impose harassing conditions upon foreign shipping we shall be creating sources of friction, the result of which no one can foresee.

Senator Guthrie:

– I do not think the Government have given proper consideration to the latest British legislation on this subject.

Senator Best:

– Have they not ? That is all the honorable senator knows about it.

Senator MILLEN:

– I wish it to be made perfectly clear that Australia is in a peculiar position in regard to legislation of this kind. If our legislation affecting foreign interests brought about any conflict, what would happen ? To whom do we look now when an Australian ship receives unfair treatment abroad? What happened only quite recently when a ship belonging, I think, to Burns, Philp, and Company, preferred a claim against the German Government? To whom did we look to secure consideration for that claim ? We did not look to anything which this Parliament might do, or even to anything which might be done by the Seamen’s Union, of which Senator, Guthrie is so able a leader, but to the Imperial authorities. I say that just as. we look to the Imperial Governfent to gi.ve effect to our laws and to secure our interests abroad, so we should consider that there is an obligation upon us not to pass any legislation which we can see is calculated to increase the responsibilities of Great Britain in her relations with foreign countries. I have said that Division I. of this Bill is limited to British ships. If its provisions are good, and we have a moral and legal right to impose them, we should impose therm upon all ships. If that be not considered desirable, and personally I do not think it is, we should revert to the form in which these provisions were originally introduced, and should limit them to Australian ships or ships doing business on the Australian coast.

Senator Guthrie:

– Why not also ships that draw up an agreement here and trade to an outside port?

Senator MILLEN:

Then clause 204 provides that a ship shall not go to sea unless due regard has been paid to the number and qualifications of the crew, including officers, and in every other respect fitted to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage then entered upon. I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to say how it is proposed to determine whether a ship is fit to encounter the perils of an ordinary voyage. Is the manning scale and the ship’s equipment to enter into the determinationof the question ? The answer must bethat they are, and then I ask at once, what standard is to be adopted - the Imperial, the Board of Trade, or our own? This peculiar state of affairs might arise unless we make it clear to what ships the various conditions must apply. We have an Australian standard for Australian ships, and the master of a ship coming to an Australian port with a crew held to be under the manning scale might be proceeded against and penalized, whilst another ship alongside of him might be permitted to go to sea with exactly the same class of ship and the same crew. Are we to proceed against the master of the latter ship ? I am asking how clause 204 is to be interpreted, and whether in this particular case it is proposed to determine the question of seaworthiness according to the Australian or the Imperial standard. Honorable senators will agree that these matters cover extremely difficult and complex questions, and deserve all the thought we can give them. It is not at all desirable to assume that because a certain portion of the Bill may be said to apply to one class of ships, there is not a chance that another portion may be quoted to complicate matters.

Senator Best:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that the manning scale should apply also to foreign ships?

Senator MILLEN:

– Certainly not.

Senator Best:

– That is the necessary inference.

Senator MILLEN:

Commission in Australia and a Navigation Conference in London. A considerable number of resolutions were passed at the Conference, and there has been much correspondence with the Board of Trade. I wish to make some little reference to that. Senator Best drew attention to certain phrases that occurred in the correspondence from the Board of Trade, and I quite agree with Senator Millen that the expressions referred to were ill advised. Senator Best spoke of them as the result of “ inadvertence.”

Senator Best:

– I said that I hoped they were.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I have the honorable senator’s exact words here. He said -

I venture to say that the indiscreet phraseology which has been used has not been intentional, but is rather the result of inadvertence.

When it became the duty of the Prime Minister to reply to these two despatches, it was open to him to refer to the matter incidentally. Instead of doing so and assuming that the one or two rather unfortunate expressions were the result of inadvertence, the honorable gentleman took a very high tone, and undoubtedly became exceedingly offensive. There is a calculated ofFensiveness about the Prime Minister’s reply which does not add any dignity to Australian despatches. Senators Trenwith and Best laugh at what I say, but let me read the Prime Minister’s exact words -

I desire to call attention to two passages in the documents which accompany the Secretary of State’s despatch, phrased in a manner absolutely without precedent in all the correspondence which has taken place between the Imperial Government and the Government of the Commonwealth.

– There is some constitutional difficulty in the matter. First of all, our powers must be considered. We must have regard to whether, bv these means, we can accomplish what we desire.

It is quite clear, therefore, that the Government hold strong views upon this matter, and that the issue of any order which they will be empowered to make under this Bill w;ll be determined by those views. Tn other words, if companies like the Peninsular and Orient, and the Nippon Yusen Kaisha, carry coloured labour on their vessels, they will be excluded from our -coasting trade. That, I contend, would be a grave offence to the Empire spirit. In this connexion, I should like to read -what took place at the Navigation Confer ence, which was held in England. A New Zealand delegate, Mr. Belcher, had moved -

That this Conference is opposed to the employment of Lascars, Coolies, Chinamen, or persons of any other alien race on any vessels owned, registered, or chartered to trade in the Commonwealth or New Zealand.

Sir James Mackay who, at the Conference, spoke on behalf of India, said -

It is unnecessary for me to go into the question of whether Lascars, or European are the better sailors. That has been thoroughly well thrashed out in another Committee, the report nf which, I think, you have before you. But I would strongly urge this Conference not to adopt a resolution which is worded as this resolution is worded. It is a great reflection upon 200 or 300 millions of the King’s subjects, who are just as loyal, just as law-abiding, just as industrious, just as sober, and just as good citizens as we are ourselves. I should like to point out to Mr. Belcher that if this resolution is adopted it would place vessels belonging to Australia under a serious disability. No vessel belonging to Australia, according to what Mr. Belcher said, would be able to go to Calcutta, Singapore, or China except with a European crew.

Sir William Lyne. Go from where?

Sir JAMES MACKAY. From Australia a vessel owned in Australia. He proposed that no vessel owned or registered in Australia or chartered to trade there-

The CHAIRMAN:

– It might be a British ship.

Sir JAMES MACKAY. Yes.

Sir William Lyne. I do not think under our laws she would be allowed to go away without r. white crew.

Honorable Dugald Thomson. - Oh yes, if she was going out of our waters.

Sir William Lyne. When she leaves the Australian coast, I do not think she would be allowed to go without a white crew - not if we could stop it, at any rate.

Sir JAMES MACKAY. Surely an Australian ship going up to Calcutta, an Australian-owned ship, can sign on a crew in Calcutta, and trade between Calcutta and other places. There is no law to the contrary.

Sir William Lyne. If we could stop it, we would.

Sir JAMES MACKAY. If you did stop it, what I would like to point out is that you would place your own ships under a great disability.

Sir William Lyne. I do not agree there at all’.

Sir JAMES MACKAY You cannot possibly object to an English-registered ship going from Calcutta and trading -regularly between Calcutta and Australia with a Lascar crew.

Sir William Lyne. Yes we can; we can stop them by making them pay treble wages.

Sir JAMES MACKAY. I do not think that is possible.

Sir William Lyne. When they get into our waters we will deal with them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The case put is where they are engaged in Calcutta. The contract is not made in your waters.

Sir William Lyne. That very point comes in on the question I asked Mr. Bertram. Cox in reference to Fiji. When they take on a crew to go to Fiji we can deal with them when they leave our waters; and if they make a breach of what we tell them to do, we can deal with them when they come back, and so we can with a vessel going to India.

Sir JAMES MACKAY. It cannot be the intention of the Commonwealth to prevent a vessel belonging to India to take a cargo down to Australia and bring a cargo back to Calcutta.

Sir William Lyne. It is the intention of Australia, if she can, to prevent the employment in our waters of coloured people at all.

Was ever such a monstrous statement made before? The report continues -

Mr. Cox. Wherever engaged ?

Sir William Lyne. Yes, we are dealing with ocean-going ships as well.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is a question of international law.

Sir JAMES MACKAY. You will not allow a German ship to come into your waters either?

Sir William Lyne. Oh yes, we do ; this refers to Coolies.

Sir JAMES MACKAY. This says aliens “or persons of any other alien race.”

Sir William Lyne. I do not want to delay this. I have slated exactly what our spirit is.

Honorable Dugald Thomson. - What your spirit is ! You cannot speak for Australia in that respect.

Later on Mr. Cox, a member of the Imperial delegation from the Colonial Office, said that he would read portion of a speech, made by Mr. Chamberlain at the Premiers’ Conference in 1897, dealing with alien immigration. He then quoted the following -

We quite sympathize with the determination of the white inhabitants of these Colonies which are in comparatively close proximity to millions and hundreds of millions of Asiatics, that there shall not be an influx of people alien in civilization, alien in religion, alien in customs, whose influx, moreover, would most seriously interfere with the legitimate rights of the existing labour population. An immigration of this kind must, I quite understand, in the interests of the Colonies, be prevented at all hazards, and we shall not offer any opposition to the proposals intended with that object, but we ask you also to bear in mind the traditions of the Empire which makes no distinction in favour of, or against race or colour ; and to exclude, by reason of their colour, or by reason of their race, all Her Majesty’s Indian subjects, or even all Asiatics would be an act so offensive to those peoples that it would be most painful, I am quite certain, to Her Majesty to have to sanction it. Consider what has been brought to your notice during your visit to this country. The United Kingdom owns as its brightest and greatest dependency that enormous Empire of India, with 300,000,000 of subjects who are as loyal to the Crown as you are vourselves, and among them there are hundreds’ and thousands of men who are every whit as civilized as we are ourselves, who are, if that is anything, better born in the sense that they have older traditions and older families, who are men of wealth, men of cultivation, men of distinguished valour, men who have brought whole armies and placed them at the service of the Queen, and have in times of great difficulty and trouble - such for instance on the occasion of the Indian Mutiny - saved the Empire by their loyalty. I say, you’ who have seen all this, cannot be willing to put. upon those men a slight which I think is absolutely unnecessary for your purpose, and which would be calculated to provoke ill-feeling, discontent, irritation, and would be most unnalatable to the feelings, not only of Her Majesty the Queen, but of all her people.

A little further on the chairman, Mr. Lloyd-George, said -

If you said that no Hindu should be employed in ships on the coasting trade I do not suppose that we could possibly assent to a law (that does, not belong to my Department) expressly framed; in that way, because it is a reflection upon millions of the King’s subjects. But you can do it in ways which are quite as effective.

Sir William Lyne. We have other ways of doing it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes, I beg you not to ask us to assent to a resolution which goes outside your acknowledged powers, and which will bringits into great trouble in India. They are verysensitive on these points, and, therefore, I think it would be a great misfortune if at an Imperial’ Conference of this kind we pass a resolution’ which will be regarded by them as a great offence. Mr. Belcher’s object has been attained. I was unwilling to rule the matter out because I know it is one of very considerable importance in New’Zealand and in the Commonwealth. But his object has been attained. He has made it perfectly clear that Commonwealth and New Zealand have a perfect right to deal with the matter in so far as their own coasting arrangements are concerned. But I do not think it canbe claimed that we, where you have trade between two countries - I do not care what the countries are, whether it is China, Germany, or India or America,you are able to say, “ We will only allow ships containing our own subjects to trade between these two countries.”

Sir William Lyne. We can do it in one way but not in another.

Honorable W. M. Hughes. - On our own ships of course we can do it ; there is no doubt about that.

The CHAIRMAN:

-It is a different mafter when yon are legislating with TCgard to shipsregistered in vour own country.

Sir William Lyne. We can do it in any shins, whether our own or not, which are in our coasting trade.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes. But it is so ulterly opposed to all international traditions. We could not do it with repard to Germany nr nnv other countrv, and would not dream of doing it, nor would they dream of doing it with us.

Here is a singular expression, which fell from Mr. Lloyd-George -

And it is Tather hard that the amenities which are preserved between one nation and another should not obtain between different parts of the same Empire.

It is a sad thing “that a British Minister should even think it necessary to have to utter such a sentence. Ultimately, Mr. Belcher withdrew his proposal. He said -

I have listened very carefully to the various opinions expressed with regard to the employment of this class of labour. With a great many of them I entirely disagree. Gentlemen representing the various Departments who have spoken on this matter have pointed out to me many Imperial difficulties which will arise, and, seeing that I am now assured that so far as we are concerned in Australia and New Zealand, we have the power and the right, if we choose to exercise it, of excluding that class of labour, I will now, with the permission of the Conference, withdraw the motion altogether.

I think that those extracts in themselves are very valuable, giving the Senate reason’ to pause in dealing with legislation of this character. It is time, I think, for Australians to denounce indignantly what is being done in regard to the coloured races. It is one thing to pass an exclusion law, to say that the coloured races and the white races shall be kept apart. That is entirely natural and allowable, and I for one feel that it is right. But it is an entirely different thing to take up the ground that some Australians have taken, and that was taken up last week, when it was threatened that if this Bill becomes law those who are our fellow subjects will not be allowed to trade upon our coasts. It is a serious thing to insult the natives of Asia and the hundreds of millions of our fellow subjects there. We have already gone too far in that direction. Honorable senators will not have forgotten that a couple of years ago we had a Bill before us which proposed to give some preference under the Tariff to goods brought from England in ships, provided they were manned by white British subjects. Mr. Asquith, speaking in London on the subject - not being at the time a Minister, as he is to-day - said that under no conceivable circumstances would the people of the United Kingdom consent to receive any preference of the kind from which their fellow subjects in India were rigidly excluded. The Bill was rejected on that very ground. Since then we have passed what vs known as the South African Preference Bill, in which there is a clause distinctly offensive to coloured people. We give a certain preference on sugar grown by white labour. If it is grown by coloured labour no preference is given. Nearly the whole of last session we were engaged upon the revision of the Tariff, and there was a very long list of articles as to which preference was given to goods shipped, not from the British Empire, but from the United

– The Minister did not say, “ We accept what we believe to be good and right for the Empire today,” but “What suits us.” They may be called the “ What-suits-us-Party.” In a very forcible passage, Carlyle said, “Injustice repays itself with frightful compound interest.” When he used that expression, he was commenting upon an act of in justice of a personal nature, of which Napoleon had been guilty in Germany ; and

Carlyle said that it would have been better for France and Napoleon if a whole French army had been swept away rather than that this great injustice should have been left to rankle in the minds of the Germans. We have been creating injustice after injustice, which must rankle in the minds of the people of India, and which must, sooner or later, bring about trouble foi the States of Australia. As to this Bill generally, I should like to read some introductory remarks made at the Navigation Conference by Mr. Lloyd-George. He said -

A good many questions have arisen in the working- of the New Zealand Shipping and Seamen’s Act 1904, and there are a good many questions for adjustment which have arisen under the Australian Navigation and Shipping Bill. ] understand that the New Zealand Shipping Act received the Royal Assent on the understanding that it should be considered at this Conference. The provision of these Acts of Parliament and the suggestions contained in the report to the Royal Commission on the Australian Navigation and Shipping Bill have caused some apprehension amongst British ship-owners lest those measures should impose on British ships in Colonial ports restrictions and requirements which might be inconsistent with those which are imposed by Imperial Legislation. These Imperial restrictions are very onerous in their character, and they are increasing in their burden practically from Act of Parliament to Act of Parliament. The burdens imposed upon the ship-owners in this country by Imperial legislation, I think I may claim to be the most onerous in the world, and the fact that British ship-owners- British shipping - has thriven in spite of them, is’ beyond all praise.

I draw particular attention to the reference to the New Zealand Act. Mr. LloydGeorge stated that he understood that the New Zealand Act received the Royal assent on the understanding that it was to be considered at the Conference. Senator Best assumed that because one or two clauses had the support of the New Zealand Act, to which the British Government had assented, therefore, it was to be accepted, and was good for Australia.

Senator Best:

– The honorable senator thinks that it should be accepted for New Zealand, but denied to Australia.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I do not say that, but the honorable senator, I suppose, was not quite cognisant of all the conditions. It is proper to read in connexion with that, a statement by Sir Joseph Ward. He said that the giving of the Royal assent to the Bill had been delayed for two years, and that makes me feel that the assent to this Bill, when passed, may be delayed for a good many more than two years.

Senator Millen:

– I think it is correct to say that the New Zealand Bill was onlyconsented to conditionally upon its being brought under review at the NavigationConference.

Senator PULSFORD:

– Yes. I have been pointing out that while ‘ Senator Best relied upon the New Zealand Act to support some of his. statements, Sir Joseph Ward stated that he knew that there were objections to the Bill, and that the giving of the Royal assent had been delayed for two years, but he did not admit that it was given subject to a sort of review of the measure at the Conference. Notwithstanding that there -is the statement by Mr. Lloyd-George, and, I think, it does to. some extent weaken the reliance which Senator Best placed upon the New Zealand Act. Mr. Lloyd-George wound up his speech by saying -

I want you to take into account the difficulties oT our great international mercantile marine.

I think that the Senate, as a whole, will be inclined to do that. I now wish to draw attention to the memorandum submitted by the representatives of the British shipowners to the Conference. It is a very carefully drafted, and very moderately worded, statement of their views and position. As it occupies about four columns of this closely printed document, I think I ought not to read it all, but I recommend honorable senators to examine it carefully, as it contains a good deal of interesting information. Here is a passage which bears a good deal on an interjection made by Senator Guthrie this afternoon with regard to loss of life -

There has of recent years been a marked and steady decrease in the number of lives lost from British ships. In 1872 the loss of life amounted to 3,533, whilst in 1904 it was only 1,113. During that period British shipping had doubled in size.
The reduction in the loss of British vessels through wreck during the same period has been equally striking. The comparative figures are not given until 1S76, in which year 280,000tons were lost out of a total of 6,000,000, whilst in 1903 the loss was only 135,000 tons out of atotal of /04 millions.

I think that those figures show a wonderful improvement of the position.

The British ship-owners, in submitting these points for the consideration of the Commonwealth, do not wish to minimize the importance of the consideration of safety and comfort onwhich the Royal Commission has laid so much stress, but they, believe that they are justified; in claiming that the British mercantile marine- is at the present time better equipped and better manned than it ever has been.

If British shipping is to maintain its hold upon the sen-borne trade of the world, it is essential that it should be managed on sound business lines. It must show reasonable security for the capital invested, and it must be made to yield a reasonable return on the investment, otherwise the capital will be diverted into safer and more profitable channels. Further, if the disasters which have overtaken the over-sea shipping of the United States are to be avoided, the British ship-owner must be allowed in his business to deal with its constantly-growing and varying requirements free from all unnecessary rules and regulations, the enforcement of which place the British vessels at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors on the high seas.

Rules and regulations are necessary to secure the safety of life and property at sea, but it is essential in dealing with a world-wide trade, that all such rules and regulations shall be not only reasonable in themselves, but also that they shall fix standards applicable to all ports and on all seas.

The ship-owners, as such, are not interested in questions of constitutional law, and they have no desire to conduct their business through the Law Courts. Therefore, in this memorandum, they have not attempted to deal with legal difficulties. They have assumed that it is the desire of all parties to the Conference to enable British ships, without distinction of register, to trade on fair and equitable terms in all British possessions.

In the interests of British shipping there should be : -

Uniformity of Shipping Law throughout the F.mpire, including a uniform standard of efficiency, or
If any local differences exist, reciprocity in accepting compliance withthe legal standard in all other parts.

It is obvious that British ship-owners cannot carry on their business, or can only carry it on under grave disabilities if they have to comply with different and possibly conflicting requirements in every part of the Empire, and to pass in every British possession surveys in order to establish their compliance.

The position, even for liners regularly trading on a route between two parts of the Empire, would, at best, be harassing, whilst for last passenger steamers sailing on fixed dates which leave no margin of unemployed time, it would be impossible, except at the prohibitive cost of running additional steamers.

Liners constitute but a small proportion of British shipping. The larger proportion has no fixed route. Such ships on leaving the country of their register have frequently no programme beyond the first stage. Their owners cannot, therefore, provide for compliance with divergent standards when they are ignorant of the ports which their ships will visit.

Vessels engaged in the general carrying trade of the world, must of necessity be prepared, if they are to be worked to the best advantage, to accept employment wherever offered. This ability to go anywhere and accept all employment offering has, in the opinion of British ship-owners, been one of the most important factors in building up the British mercantile marine, and, by avoiding voyages in ballast, cheapening the cost of sea carriage.

I have read about one-fourth of the memorandum, and I ask honorable senators who desire to study and understand this very important question to take an early opportunity of reading the whole of it. Let me now draw attention to the annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, which was held in London in April last. Their view is entirely distinct from that put forward by Senator Best to-day. He would have us to believe that the Bill, as it has been amended and submitted to us, is entirely in agreement with the resolutions of the Navigation Conference, but the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom do not think so. At their annual meeting, the following motion was moved by Colonel Coffey, of Liverpool -

That in the opinion of this Association legislation in Australia and other Colonies of the Empire affecting British ships owned in the United Kingdom should not, except as regards the coastal trade of the Colony, impose upon such ships any restrictions beyond those imposed upon them by the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act.

That seems to be reasonable. I shall content myself with reading one extract from the speech which Colonel Goffey delivered in support of the motion. After referring to the Conference, he said -

Following that Conference, a Bill was introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament last September, entitled a Bill for an Act relating to Navigation and Shipping, but he had no hesitation in saying that its terms practically ignored all that was agreed upon at the Con- ference.

The motion, I may say, was carried unanimously. Honorable senators would do well to bear carefully in mind the vast powers which are conferred by this measure on the Ministry of the day. For many years I have been saying that “ Government by regulation has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.” Instead of that, we have brought before us a Bill which increases government by regulation to an extent which was not dreamed of years ago. Even those very vital and serious provisions relating to the coasting trade are to be dealt with by the Minister. It is well to warn honorable senators that they must not be misled by the marginal references in the Bill.. It does not follow because we see the letters “ M.S. A. “ - an abbreviation for Merchant Shipping Act - placed in the margin, that a clause is in agreement with a provision of that Act. It is. only a slight reference to it. The interpretation clause contains two pages of definitions, and instead of these being arranged alphabetically, they are arranged in the loosest way possible, so that it is the easiest thing in the world for any one not to find a reference which he may require. The matter of desertion will have to be very carefully dealt with by the Senate. If, when the mail steamers come out here, some of their men choose to desert, and they are not to be liable to arrest for forty-eight hours afterwards, the vessels may be placed in a very awkward position, as the owners are under a penalty to perform their voyages to schedule time. If we permit men to leave the steamers, and have no power of speedy arrest, it is quite clear that the owners of the vessels may be put to great trouble. I think we should do well to alter the clause dealing with this matter, and at any rate to permit the power of arrest within twentyfour hours.

Senator Guthrie:

– The clause referred to is a very stringent one, because it gives the Superintendent power to prosecute after the ship has left port.

Senator PULSFORD:

– With regard to the extended meaning of coastal trade, we know that under the United States law it covers the Philippines and the Sandwich Islands. But it is not many weeks since I saw a cable message to the effect that a Bill was to be brought in to remove the Philippines and the Sandwich Islands from the operation of the coastal laws of America. Every one will admit that that is a step in the right direction, and therefore the existing interpretation of coastal trade under the American Act ought not to be accepted by us as any encouragement to adopt a similar interpretation. I might extend my remarks on this Bill in many directions, and when in Committee I shall deal pretty fully with various aspects of it. I support very strongly Senator Millen’s request that we should retain possession of the Bill until the despatch arrives from the Home Government, which, a few weeks ago we were informed by cable, had been sent. I feel that to some extent we are guilty of discourtesy in discussing the matter even as we are now doing before the arrival of this despatch. Certainly the very least we can do is to retain the measure in the Senate until the despatch arrives, that it may be permitted to influence our final judgment as far as possible.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– There is evidently a conspiracy of silence on the other side. Surely something may be said in defence of this Bill.

Senator Needham:

– We have heard no criticism of it.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– There has been very damaging criticism of the measure, but we have heard no defence of it.

Senator Best:

– We shall hear some damaging criticism now, no doubt.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– I am afraid there is not much to be added after Senator Millen has dealt with the measure. I express my deep regret, first of all, that the Government did not see fit to accept the invitation of the Right Honorable Alfred Lyttelton some years ago to enter into a Conference with a view to mutual legislation in the matter of navigation and shipping. Apparently Mr. Deakin did not answer the invitation at all until he had consulted with the late Mr. Seddon. At the time, Mr. Seddon had put forward his own Bill, and naturally did not wish to give it up. However, New Zealand and Australia were ultimately represented at a Conference, but Mr. Deakin’s principle of Australia for the Australians stood in the way all through, and as a result we now have a Bill submitted which in many respects is diametrically opposed to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, and it must not be overlooked that the Merchant Shipping Act of 1904 has been greatly improved. A measure which is not definite cannot be a. satisfactory measure, and if everything is to be left to regulations or to be “as prescribed,” it cannot be said that our legislation is- definite. For that reason I hold that this is not a satisfactory Bill. There is too much dependence upon the Minister all through. Under clause 279 the GovernorGeneral may declare certain vessels British ships, and free from the coastal regulations, and under the next clause, as pointed out by Senator Millen, he may exempt certain other ships. That is very indefinite. Where is die policy of Parliament in so important a matter, if the Minister is given power to do this and that in dealing with questions of policy? It is one of the great blots on this Bill that under it the Minister is enabled to do pretty well as he likes. One clause provides for a Committee of experts, who are to judge as to this, that and the other, but the advantage of that provision is nullified bv another, saving that the Minister is not required to appoint such a

Committee, and need not carry out its recommendations should such a Committee be appointed. Where is the policy of Parliament expressed in such an indefinite provision ? It is a great blot upon this measure that so much should be left to be prescribed by regulation. If this method of prescribing everything is to be adopted, I should like very much to see provision made for the appointment of a Board or Committee, and if there are difficulties in the way of the appointment of a Board, I should rather that we adopted the practice of Canada in establishing a Department of Marine for the Commonwealth. In Canada it is provided that the Marine Department shall have a Deputy Minister of Marine appointed as supreme executive head of the Department, and the administration of the following matters is placed under the control of the Department -

Pilots and pilotage.
Beacons, buoys, lights and light-houses and their maintenance.
Harbors, forts, piers, and wharfs, steamers and vessels belonging to the Government of Canada, except gun-boats or other vessels of war.
Harbor commissioners or harbor-masters.
Classification of vessels and examination and granting ofcertificates of masters and mates and others in the merchant service.
Shipping masters and shipping officers.
Inspection of steam-boats and boards of steam-boat inspection.
Inquiries into causes of shipwrecks.
Establishment, regulation, and maintenance of marine and seamen’s hospitals, and care of distressed seamen.

– Possiblv. I quite approve of the appointment of a Committee of experts to adjudicate upon the manning scale for ships, but it should be recognised that one Committee could not deal with the whole of Australia, because the conditions are verv different in different States. We must have local Committees comprised of local experts, as it is impossible to have a uniform manning scale applicable to the whole of Australia. The Navigation Commission went into that matter very carefully, and the minority on that

Commission, which was only in a minority of one, had this to say on the subject -

We recognise that the safety of ships was dependent among other things upon the crew which should not only be qualified by training and experience but adequate in numbers to discharge without being overtaxed the work in meeting the ordinary emergencies of a .voyage. In the evidence given before us we fail to find complaint of undermanning or overwork of a general character ; indeed with regard to the larger proportion of the employes their number in each vessel has been accepted as fairly satisfactory by their own representatives and by those of the employers.

They wound up by saying -

We cannot approve of a system showing such fluctuating results, and prefer that a committee representing the employers and employes and the Department which can take into consideration the structure. mechanism, and other matters which affect the requirements of a vessel, should decide the crew she shall carry. Such committee can also decide much better than any fixed formula the crew that should be temporarily carried before experience, of the vessel has provided data for a final decision.

It is very clear from the evidence before us that the requirements of a ship frequently vary. A vessel does not require the same crew each day - the same number of stokers and trimmers. Her rate of speed varies. She may be voyaging to England very quickly or she may be returning from that country very slowly. These considerations cause her requirements to vary from time to time. ,

Senator Guthrie:

– But the provision in regard to the consumption of coal will cover her varied requirements.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– The pro. vision relating to coal consumption is quite opposed to the section of the New Zealand Act, which is certainly liberal enough. All the evidence, I contend, goes to show that a manning scale cannot be equitablyadopted. As a result an expert witness proposed that a Committee should be appointed to adjudicate upon the requirements of each ship. Senator Millen has dealt with so many of the weak points of the Bill - and no reply has been vouchsafed - that I do not intend to reiterate his arguments. There is only one other matter with which I propose to deal, and it has reference to vessels employed upon our rivers and bays. The Bill requires these small vessels - vessels probably about 15 tons - to keep a log and to carry a certificated master. That, I contend, will inflict a decided hardship upon their owners. Quite a number of these vessels are engaged in carrying wood down the Huon

– Only in case of discharge.

Senator DE LARGIE:

If men from British ships were paid off in British ports it would do away with very much of this crimping.

Sir Walter Howell seems to think, and I believe it is the prevailing opinion in the Old Country, that to pay off seamen in any other port than a home port is to encourage desertion. Witnesses whom we examined at Newcastle were of a contrary opinion. They seemed to think that if seamen on British vessels were paid a certain amount of their wages in British ports there would be less desertion than there is at the present time. Here is the opinion of a boardinghousekeeper named Edward Watson -

Ships come here and may be here for a couple of months. Their seamen may have£10 coming to them in wages, but the captain gets rid of them by giving them£1 and their discharge, and keeps the £9 for himself. There is less desertion from foreign ships than from British ships. The foreigner gets a percentage of his wages when he leaves at a port; the Britisher gets little or none, except at the will of the captain. There are more desertions from British ships here than f rom any other.

That is the evidence of a man who speaks with a full knowledge of the trade. I might quote from many other witnesses, but I should especially like to quote some evidence given by Dr. Doyle, of Newcastle a gentleman whom I know personally, and who is recognised to be one of the whitest men in that port.

Senator Gray:

– He is a brother of Sir Conan Doyle, the novelist.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I was not aware of that, although I have known him for some time. Dr. Doyle has been resident in Newcastle for many years ; he was a surgeon at sea, and understands sea life. I regard his evidence as very valuable.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I quote the following evidence given by Dr. Doyle -

Seamen coming to this port are entirely at the mercy of the captain, and no matter how much is due to them in wages they are not allowed to go on shore and buy goods at any shop or where they wish. They must get an order from the captain. All kinds of tradesmen send touts on board the ships, from the laundress to the doctor, and the seaman must go to the shopkeeper or professional man that the captain arranges with, and the consequence is that the seaman does not get a fair deal. There ought to be appointed at a port like this a Protector of Seamen, whose duly it would be to inquire and make provision for paying off the men.

In view of the fact that the Board of Trade has made a request to us to permit the continuation of advance notes, I direct special attention to this evidence given by Dr. Doyle -

I think the whole incentive to crimping is to bc laid to the charge of the advance note.

In other words, if we took the profit, in this trade out of it the traffic would soon cease. That is certainly the opinion 1 formed from the evidence we heard at Newcastle. Several other witnesses were examined there whose views should carry weight, amongst them Mr. Hannell, who was shipping master at Newcastle for a very long time, and Mr. Goding, Consul for the United States of America at that port. As a very large number of American boats call in there he is familiar with the trade of the port, and knows something of the traffic in crimping. He mentioned, amongst other things, that he knew of men who had been charged £I by boardinghousekeepers for staying ten minutes in their houses. He said - lt is a matter of frequent occurrence for men to bc shanghaied and taken to ships apparently lo go to one port when they were bound for another.

Senator Gray:

– What is the meaning of *’ shanghaied ?”

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The taking of men on board a ship when they are under the influence of drink, and cannot understand where they are going to, and scarcely realize that they are again on board, until the ship has got to sea. This witness mentioned the way in which sailors were robbed of their wages, and referred to a case in which twelve men, w-ho had ,£40 due to them, received only £2 each. The witnesses examined at Newcastle were representative of all sections of the community, and there was a remarkable unanimity in their condemnation of the crimping traffic carried on in that port. I see no way of abolishing the traffic if the advance note system is continued, because, until it is rendered unprofitable, it will bo continued. I hope that the Senate will make short shrift’ of this matter, and will agree to the provision dealing with it as it stands in the Bill. I must express my astonishment that clause 99 should find a place in any Bill introduced in such a Parliament as this. If an appropriate marginal note for the clause were to be adopted, I should suggest a very different one from that which is now attached to it. The marginal note in the Bill is “ Assaults on crews,” and the clause provides that -

The master or an officer of a ship who without lawful justification assaults any person belonging to the ship shall be guilty of an offence.

– I did not take any exception to the clause, but merely wanted to know to what vessels it would apply.

Senator LYNCH:

– The honorable senator quoted the clause specially, and said that its appearance in the Bill did not reconcile itself with the intention of the Navigation Conference. I suggested that it might have been taken from the Imperial Statute. Now, section 92 of the Imperial Statute happens to be identical with the clause of which the honorable senator complains. It provides -

I f any person -

having Been engaged as one of the abovementioned officers goes to sea as such officer without being duly certificated ; that person shall be liable for each offence to a fine not exceeding Fifty pounds.

Senator Millen:

– To what ships does that section apply?

Senator LYNCH:

– To every British foreign-going ship, and every British homertrade passenger ship.

Senator Millen:

– I am sorry that some members of the Navigation Commission have not addressed the Senate at length upon the motion for the second reading of this Bill in order that we might have obtained some light and leading in respect of it. The measure is altogether too important for me to allow it to pass without making a few observations. It is an enormous Bill of 417 clauses. It- is not only of interest to Australia, but is of quite as much interest to other countries in all parts of the world. It is a fundamental measure, touching vital interests in a great many ways. It affects many classes - the seamen, the owners, the producers, and those who “ go down to the sea in ships.” The passage of the Bill will probably make 01 mar our future to a considerable extent. It will not, I trust, be looked at from one point of view. The whole of the interests affected by the measure should receive fair consideration. If the Bill concerned ourselves only it would be a very simple one to deal with. But it touches our relations with almost every country with which we trade, and ft affects crucially our relations with the Mother Country, the” greatest maritime nation on the earth. The measure is so large and comprehensive, and so full of great possibilities, that it is difficult for one who is not versed in the technicalities of the subject to deal with it effectively. I feel some diffidence in touching it at all at this stage. But I wish m to make a few remarks on questions which have not been hitherto dealt with. I venture to. express the hope that the discussion of the measure will not be, as previously, a time-wasting effort. The Navigation Bill has been before us for four or five years. I do not say that time has been lost, because we have derived more light on the subject, and have had the benefit of a larger experience to guide us. But I trust that we shall now be able to pass the Bill into law. I have some misgivings on the subject, because I fail to see how a measure of this size and importance can be passed during the present short session. It seems to me to be impossible. But at any rate we can make progress with it, and probably get it ready for another House to take up next session. While, as I have said, we need to consider the whole of the interests involved, I wish to insure that the interests of the travelling and producing public shall be considered. It seems to me that those interests have not in the previous part of the debate received that prominence which they deserve. We have here a great land, which some day, perhaps, will be a maritime country. But we are young yet, and if we wish to develop Australia as quickly as possible, our aim at present must be not to endeavour to develop a great carrying trade upon the seas, but to increase, the production of our land. We cannot do that successfully, however, without the use of maritime resources to a very great extent. We require means of communication with people outside. We need extended markets for our products. We shall make no progress unless we can do something in the direction of securing cheap freights for our producers and cheap passages for the travelling public. I have not heard the interests of the producers mentioned in the course of the debate. They have been entirely ignored, or treated as a negligible quantity. One would think that they were scarcely worthy of consideration. Yet they are the people who have to find freight for all the ships with which we are dealing in this Bill. The producers and the travelling public are those who find work for the seamen and profit for the shipowners, yet they seem to be very little considered. Any Bill that limits the possibilities of developing our travelling and carrying trade will impose a heavy handicap on sellers in this country and on buyers abroad. Therefore we must be very careful as to the provisions that are inserted. It is plain that we can do as we like in regard to many of the provisions of the Bill. We have within our coastal limits probably plenary powers. But, looking at the whole of the interests involved, I ask whether we shall be wise in pushing those powers to the fullest point to which we might push them. As the leader of the Opposition pointed out to-day, if we are going to exercise our full legal rights without regard to the interests of other countries - foreign nations as well as the Mother Country - they will push their legal rights to the utmost limit also, and then our position will be worse than before. We must not forget that we are part and parcel of the great British Empire. I am sorry to see the anti-British feeling that is abroad. I was surprised at the remarks of the last speaker, who said that British’ ship-owners had derived more advantage from Australia than Australia had derived from them. He nol only condemned British ship-owners, but local ship-owners in still stronger terms. I do not think that the allegation that British ship-owners have acted unfairly by Australia is justified. We owe a great deal to such lines is the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company and the Orient Steamship Company, which have been running for so many years, and have been carrying our goods and passengers at not unreasonable rates. More recently we have had the White Star line carrying goods and passengers at low rates. I do not consider that the animadversions passed upon British ship-owners are justified. The merrantile marine is the greatest industry in the British Empire, and Great Britain owns half the mercantile shippers in the world. Her foreign trade is enormous. If it came to be a question of whether Great Britain would have to sacrifice her foreign trade, it would suit her very much better to drop the Australian trade and stick to that with the foreigner. The position is that Great Britain can do without the trade of this country, but we cannot very well do without that of Great Britain. Last year the British entrances and clearances were 250,000,000 tons. The total foreign, British, inter-Imperial trade was not 5,000,000 tons. By our legislation, we may cause Imperial trouble, and, therefore, before we place upon the statute-book a measure that will tend in that direction, we ought to consider seriously the consequences that may ensue. Some very pregnant remarks were made by Mr. Lloyd George at the Imperial Conference in regard to the trade of Great Britain and the proposed legislation of this country. These were his words -

Owing to the vastness of our mercantile marine in every part of the world the tonnage exposed to possible reprisals or to increased competition through subsidies and in other ways would be many times as great. It is evident that (i country so situated must necessarily look upon proposals such as that made by Australia in a very different light from that in which they may appear to the point of view of Australia, whose foreign-going shipping is relatively very small. As I have already said, we have half the merchant shipping of the world. Looking at the entrances and clearances of ships of various nationalities in British and foreign ports, I take first of all the United States of America, which is one of the countries which, would be hit by this resolution, and I note that over 25,000,000 tons of British shipping entered and cleared in 1905 in the United States ports, while less than one and a half million tons of American vessels entered and cleared in our ports. There were 15,500,000 of British shipping in French ports compared with 3,000,000 tons of French shipping in United Kingdom ports. Take Russia. The British shin’s in Russian ports- came to 8? - million tons; the Russian ships in British ports came to i? million tons. There were nearly 12,000,000 tons of British shipping in Italian ports compared with less than 950,000 tons of Italian shipping in the United Kingdom ports. Even in the case of Germany the British shipping at German ports is in excess of German shipping at British ports - io? million tons as against 8$ million tons - but of this million tons of German shipping 4 million tons were simply in ballast, while of the io? million tons of British shipping, 3 million tons were in ballast ; so that, as far as cargoes were concerned, we were in the proportion of five to three. These figures have only to be mentioned for us to see at once how vulnerable our merchant shipping is. This is not said to disparage the value of the suggestions for the encouragement of British shipping, but to illustrate the special difficulties of our position as compared with that of the Colonies. There are methods by which the Colonies, or some of them, could give a very direct impetus to British shipping if they desired to do so - if for instance they were to relax some of their restrictions upon British ships which desire to enter into the coasting business in Australia more especially. As a matter of fact, in the last few years those conditions have been made very onerous; so onerous that they will drive British ships out of the Australian, trade altogether.

Mr. Deakin. You are not speaking about what has been done in Australia, because we have no law yet.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE. I beg your pardon ; I mean what is proposed to be done, because Sir William Lyne, at the Navigation Conference, said he proposed some extraordinarily stringent regulations. He read them out, and I am sure the effect will be to drive British shinning almost entirely out. of the Australian trade.

Mr. Deakin. They were to provide for equality in wages and conditions of employment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE. Yes. but not merely that; they involved structural alteration of British ships. They would be prohibited.

Mr. Deakin. Better accommodation for the men ?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE. Well, we have done that ourselves, and are in advance of every country in the world in. that respect. If you superimpose absolutely fresh conditions in Austraia the result will be that our own conditions will be quite nugatory, and ships which can enter and do trade in every other part of the world except Russia and the United States of America will not be allowed to enter the Australian coastwise trade. In fact, Australia will hit us harder than even France in that respect. If Australia wants to help British shipping, far and away the most effective way would be to treat us a little more generously in the matter of merchant shipping legislation. I am bound to say that, because the resolution comes from Australia.

I read a great portion of the report of the Navigation Conference, over which Mr. Lloyd George presided with a dignity, a fairness, and a consideration for the representatives from this country which, I think, was beyond all praise - a consideration which, sometimes, was rather sorely tried. I do not like the anti-British feeling which is springing up here. I am satisfied that it is not general, and will not be supported by the people of this country. I trust that we shall not see the cloven foot too much in connexion with this Bill, because I feel sure that the great body of the people of this country do not approve of any exhibition of anti-British feeling, and will in the end resent it. At the Conference the attitude of the Australian delegates was, in many respects, scarcely what it ought to have been. Mr. Hughes was, on the whole, fair ; Mr. Dugald Thomson was fair, as he always is, but Sir William Lyne seemed to try to bullock things through there, just as he does in this Parliament ; in fact, he went so far that the chairman had to administer to him a very dignified, but polite, rebuke. In closing one sitting, Mr. Lloyd George said -

I should like to say one or two words, more especially with reference to what fell from Sir “William Lyne. I recognise the desire of the Australian delegates to meet us as far as they possibly can, but I am sure Sir William does not wish to suggest that the Imperial Parliament has not been exceedingly anxious to do its best for the accommodation and the comfort and the health of the seamen, in its legislation.

Sir William Lyne. I think they have had that feeling ; but I don’t think they Have gone as far as they could.

The CHAIRMAN:

– They have gone pretty far. Allow me to point out that the British Imperial Parliament has been the pioneer of the world in the protection of the life and in the improvement of the conditions of seamen, and in the load-line regulations. We were the first to initiate leeislation ; we were the first with regard to life-saving appliances; we were first with regard to seaworthy ships; and we have been first with regard to food scales, and I am not sure we have not been in advance of Australia. Australia is discussing a food scale. So that on the whole we are dealing with what is, after all, a very enormous interest in this country. I want the Australian delegates to remember that when we pass a law affecting shipping we are passing a law which affects the biggest interest in this country, and we have to move a huge body, and it is a much more difficult matter for us, apart from the principle, to propose retrospective legislation. We have about 11,000,000 tons of British shipping already constructed under the old conditions. That is a very gigantic interest, and I want Sir William just to bear that in mind. We are moving very steadily, and we have moved in advance of Australia in one or two particulars; in fact, we have shown Sir William the way.

Sir William Lyne. I dispute that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– And I congratulate him upon following the admirable example we have set him, and I am very glad to see that with the enthusiasm of a convert he has rather exceeded the lesson which we have given him. But I want him to bear in mind that the lesson is ours. We are the pioneers in this matter. We do consider the health of the seamen, and I am glad to say on the, whole the ship-owners, have assisted us in this particular. Theyhave not resisted the Bill of last year, although it imposed enormous obligations; they have not challenged it. That on the whole is very creditable. Therefore I want to put that in as a note from the old country, if Sir William does, not mind.

I think that these words are worthy of our consideration, and that the Old Country is also worthy of our consideration in dealing with this Bill. With regard to our coastwise trade, I took occasion to inquire what it really amounts to, and to ascertain how much of it is being done in our own vessels, and how much in other vessels. I asked the Government Statist, Mr. Knibbs, to tell me the number and tonnage of vessels belonging to the United Kingdom which traded annually to the Australian Commonwealth, and to furnish the same information relating to British Possessions, keeping New Zealand separate, and to foreign countries. His reply is as follows -

As regards the volume of produce of all kinds taken from the Commonwealth by United Kingdom vessels, I asked Mr. Knibbs to state how much was taken to the United Kingdom, and how much to other countries, and to supply similar information with reference to the produce taken away by foreign vessels. His reply is as follows -

The records of the Department of Trade and Customs do not show the value of the cargoes carried by vessels of different nationalities. On the basis of shipping tonnage which cleared the Commonwealth, " with cargo," the results for 1907 would be approximately as follows : -

Concerning the volume of our export trade I requested Mr. Knibbs to furnish me with the figures relating to the United Kingdom, other British possessions, and foreign countries. His reply is as follows -

In reply to my inquiry for information as regards the number and tonnage of InterState vessels, with the number of men employed in them, Mr. Knibbs furnished the following reply -

The number and tonnage of Inter-State vessels cannot be given in full, but the particulars of vessels registered with the Australian Steamship Owners’ Federation on the 31st December, 1007, were as follows : -

In reply to other questions, he informed me that the value of the coastwise InterState trade is estimated to be about £33,000,000 for 1907, and that the number of coastwise Inter-State passengers during that year was, approximately, 210,000. I asked Mr. Knibbs to tell me if the figures were available, though I doubted if they would be, the coastwise trade done by United Kingdom vessels, and foreign vessels, and he replied that no record of the Inter-State trade carried by vessels of particular nationalitiesis made. I also asked Mr. Knibbs to give the number of passengers carried in coastwise tra.de by United Kingdom vessels and’ foreign vessels, and he furnished the following reply -

No compilation has hitherto been made of the number of Inter-State passengers carried byvessels of different nationalities, I have, however, examined the returns for July last, with the following result : -

Distributing the passengers carried during 1907 on this basis, the results would be approximately as follows : -

From the figures I have quoted it will be seen that the Inter-State trade done by foreign vessels is very small. It is so small as to be scarcely worth while to cause any friction, or to precipitate any trouble, with the Old Land by interfering with it. The trade done by British vessels is also very small in comparison with the volume of the Inter-State trade. In these circumstances, is it wise to deal with either foreign or British ships, so as to create complications? As Mr. Lloyd George stated, the enormous trade of . Great Britain compels a very slow movement, but during the last year or two the conditions havebeen liberalized to a’. very great extent. I shall reserve any reference to details until we get into Committee on the Bill. When the Government of Great Britain, with her enormous trade, in comparison with our small trade, invited us to send, delegates to talk things over with them, it was a great step to take, and a courteous thing to do. It showed how desirous they were to elicit the facts, to get at our minds, and to treat us with every possible consideration. We must be careful about the provisions we pass in this Bill. As Senator Best stated yesterday, the British Government have the right to hang up this Bill as they hung up the New Zealand Bill. They displayed a fair spirit towards the New Zealand Bill. They hung it up for a while, but ultimately they assented to it, and, as Sir Joseph Ward insisted, without any proviso or promise regarding a reconsideration afterwards. I have no doubt that the Home Government will treat us fairly. Our Bill goes beyond the New Zealand measure to a very considerable extent.

Senator Best:

– Will the honorable Senator point out any particular in which it does?

Senator McCOLL:

– In -Committee, I shall show that it goes beyond the New Zealand measure in a good many particulars. We should be extremely careful in what we do, because the persons who will be hit will be our own producers - the men to whom we are looking to develop this country. We must depend upon money coming here from outside to build up Australia, and we should be very careful not to take any steps which would be likely to hamper our primary producers. We should not forget that they must carry on their business ,in competition with the world, and that they are removed from

European centres, which provide the best markets, by a greater distance than are the producers of any other country. We must be very careful of the way in which our legislation is likely to affect them. It seems to me that we are a little inclined to dare legislation of - a certain character in this country because we have the Motherland at our back. If we stood entirely by ourselves we should not pass some of the legislation which we place on our statute-book. We pass it only because we have the Old Country at our back, and yet some of us are only too ready to slap the Old Country in the face when an opportunity offers.

Senator Needham:

– The honorable senator is a fine type of a self-reliant Australian.

Senator McCOLL:

– Nonsense. What has that to do with it? The honorable senator is a fine type of a Britisher when he never has a good word to say for the Old Land.

Senator Needham:

– The honorable senator is not a representative Australian, anyway.

Senator McCOLL:

– Nor is Senator Needham. I might mention another point on which Senator Lynch touched to some extent. If we restrict competition from outside in the shipping industry, we shall only increase the local monopoly of which the honorable senator so bitterly complained. The great improvement which has taken place in our coastal shipping of late years has been due to the improvement in the shipping coming from outside. Local shipping has had to make some effort to keep pace with it. If the enterprise of those interested in foreign shipping visiting Australia had not operated as a whip to the back of local effort, we should not have the comfort and convenience afforded to-day by the ships of local companies engaged in our coasting trade, and, if the outside competition did not exist, the freights, of which Senator Lynch complained,, would be increased. We should not forget that it is the competition of outside shipping that keeps our local ship-owners up to the mark. Whilst I am as strongly in favour of a White Australia as any one can be, I hold that we should be very careful about attempting to secure a> white ocean. We ought to remember that at the present time’ there is great tension amongst some of the coloured races who own King Edward as

Sovereign,and, while keeping Australia white - andI give way to no man in my desire to do that - we should refrain from doing anything which would be likely to cause trouble outside our. own country whilst the tension to’ which I have referred continues. We must study the interests of our great primary industries and the position of the Empire, and we should not permit ourselves to be led. away by socialistic leaders, whose regard is not for the Empire or for the solid future of this country, but for the whims of the passing moment. Although it ‘is not apparent on the surface, we should never forget that these movements in industrial and shipping matters are all part of a great attempt to drive us on to the nationalization of the shipping and other industries. I remind honorable senators that in the division which was taken on the motion submitted in another place by Mr. Thomas for the establishment of a Commonwealth line of mail steamers to conduct the oversea mail service, only members of the Labour Party voted for the motion, whilst every other member of the House of Representatives voted against it. This shows how careful we should be of the trend in Commonwealth legislation to which I have referred.

Senator Pearce:

– That is what Mr. Robert Reid advocated as the cure for the shipping ring.

Senator McCOLL:

– I should like to know all the facts. Without a knowledge of the whole of the circumstances we are not in a position to judge to the full effect the utterances attributed to Mr. Reid. On the proposals to be found in this Bill for bettering the position of seamen, I trust that the Senate will be found to be unanimous. The very interesting speech which we heard from Senator de Largie should convince every member of the Senate that the introduction of this Bill is justified by the provisions for the improvement of the conditions under which seamen have to carry on their work, if on no other ground. On these matters, I hope that we shall be a unanimous Senate. We should recognise that the more we improve a man’s environment, the more likely we are to effect improvement in the man himself. We were afforded a lesson in this direction by the recent visit of the American Fleet in the character of the seamen and of the surroundings in which they were called upon to perform their duties. I have travelled in American ships, and I have found that if you elevate the surroundings of a seaman you will elevate the seaman himself. You increase his selfrespect, because you give him an inducement to improve himself in accordance with his improved environment.

Senator Pearce:

– That is a good socialistic doctrine.

Senator McCOLL:

– There is nothing of Socialism in that, I hope. It is a doctrine of common humanity. Of course, with some honorable senators every good thing is a form of Socialism. But, whether this doctrine be socialistic or not, I trust we shall be found unanimous in every effort to improve the conditions of our seamen. I agree with what has been said as to the _ necessity for improved accommodation for seamen, but I think with Senator Lynch that we should deal reasonably with the case of ships whose construction renders difficult compliance with the requirements for improved accommodation. . We should strive to pass a reasonable Act. We should not ignore any of the great interests which are sure to be affected by such a measure, because once it is passed it is likely to be many years before it will be amended. I trust that its consideration will not be hurried, that every clause will be given the attention which its importance demands, and that, acting conscientiously, we shall pass a measure which will be in the forefront of the navigation laws of the world, will be fair to our own people, to the British Empire, andgenerally to a.ll with whom we have to trade.

Debate (on motion by Senator Needham) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at9.48 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 September 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080930_senate_3_47/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate30 September 1908

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

The PRESIDENT:

ADDRESS TO LORD NORTHCOTE

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

CARTRIDGE BLANKS

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Senator PEARCE:

Senator BEST:

QUESTION

SURPLUS REVENUE ACT

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:Protectionist

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:

Senator PULSFORD:

PAPERS

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

TELEPHONE INSTRUMENTS

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator KEATING:Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

PROPELLING PENCILS : DUTY

Senator ST LEDGER:QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

OVERLAND TELEGRAPH LINE

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

VISIT OF THE KING

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator BEST:Protectionist

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

The PRESIDENT said:

Mr. President and Gentlemen,

Dudley

NAVIGATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Trenwith:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator de Largie:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senate
30 September 1908

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales