Senate
14 October 1908

3^rd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL. SITE
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- TOBACCO INDUSTRY : TARIFF
QUESTION
- WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY
QUESTION
- CARTRIDGE BLANKS
NAVIGATION BILL
INVITATION TO PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT
PAPERS
NAVIGATION BILL

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

– I have ascertained from the Clerk that it was not ordered to be printed.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, if he has received from the Premier of New South Wales any information relative to the matter of the Capital site?

Senator BEST:

– I have no personal knowledge that any communication has been received within the last day or two, but if the honorable senator will give notice of his question, or will ask it again to-morrow, or even later to-day, I shall be glad to make inquiries in the meantime.

page 1084

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

– I beg to ask the Vice- President of the Executive Council, without notice, if he will endeavour to obtain a copy of Captain Barclay’s lecture on the Northern Territory; and, if he should find, as I think he will, that it contains a great deal of useful information, he will have it printed and distributed ?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– I think that the suggestion of my honorable friend is a very good one. I shall be only too glad to make the necessary inquiries, and perhaps I may be able to comply with his request.

page 1084

QUESTION

TOBACCO INDUSTRY : TARIFF

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice-

What quantities of dutiable commodities were delivered free of duty to the tobacco industry of the Commonwealth during the year 1907 ?
What would be the aggregate amount of revenue on such commodities according to the present Tariff?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

(1)-

Essences, 31 gals.

Spirits, 9,684 pf. gals. lcohol, 356 pf. gals.

Starch, 1,120 lbs.

Liquorice, 449,996 lbs.

Cornflour, 2,260 lbs.

Spices, 39,890 lbs.

Sugar,182½ tons,

Saccharine, 1,287 lbs.

Glucose, 21,379lbs.

Orange peel, 2,040 lbs.

Glycerine, 4,403 lbs.

Quantities not available. Values shown -

Tags,£1,761.

Cork, manufactures of, £3,575.

Paper, manufactures of£974.

Vaseline,£107.

Aggregate duty payable,£13,950.

I may further explain in connexion with the answer to the second question that, as the honorable senator is probably aware, these ingredients mean added weight to the tobacco; and, as we charge Excise on that added weight, the return to the Commonwealth is much in excess of the amount stated,£13,950.

Senator PULSFORD:

– Arising out of the answer given to my question, may I ask the Minister whether if, when Imported tobacco is used for manufacture, there is not a duty of, I think, is. 3d. per lb. payable on it ?

Senator Best:

– A duty of 3s. 6d. per lb.

Senator PULSFORD:

– In the circumstances is it not clearthat the useof the ingredients to which I have referred in my question reduces the weight of dutiable articles used in the local manufacture, and must therefore result in a loss, which is probably very much more than , £13,000.

Senator BEST:

– As a matter of fact, I do not think the Commonwealth suffers any loss. I have already explained that, from a calculation made on this subject, a return much in excess of the amount referred to in the answer to the second question is gained. If the honorable senator chooses to give notice of a further question on the subject, I shall have the matter looked into more fully.

Senator PEARCE:

– In order that the information given may be more readily available, may I ask the Minister to lay the return from which he has quoted on the table ?

Senator Best:

– It will appear in Han

The PRESIDENT:

– It will appear in the journals also.

Senator PEARCE:

– I think that honorable senators, as a rule, look for this kind of information ‘amongst the Parliamentary papers.

page 1085

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator PULSFORD:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Referring to the answer given on the 7th October to Senator Pulsford’s question, are the Government aware that the shorthand writers report Mr. Hesketh as having said, on the occasion before referred to, and in reply to the following question : - “ Can you say what reason is behind the action which resulted in calling for tenders?” - “I can only assume that it was in order to know exactly the terms and conditions under which installations could be obtained. When tenders are invited a question is being asked without full knowledge of the most important factor, that is cost. As soon as tenders are received a full statement of the position is disclosed”?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

Upon inquiry it has been ascertained that the shorthand writers report of the evidence gives the question and the reply of Mr. Hesketh as quoted by the honorable senator.

page 1085

QUESTION

CARTRIDGE BLANKS

Senator PEARCE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

In reference to the report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to inquire and report upon the suggested manufacture of cartridge “blanks,” &c., in Australia-

Did any, or what firms, or companies, or representatives thereof, furnish to the Defence Department, or the Committee, estimates of the cost of buildings, or machinery, for the proposed Mint, or the manufacture of cartridge “blanks” in connexion therewith?

Did such firms or persons furnish a criticism of the estimate submitted by Messrs, Corbet and McCay as laid before the Committee?

If so, will the Minister lay the said estimate or criticism on the Table of the Senate ?

Were such estimates or criticisms, if any, after being furnished to the Department, placed before the Committee of Inquiry?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

Yes. Estimates have been submitted to the Department from Messrs. Greenwood and Batley Ltd., Leeds, and Messrs. Taylor and Challen Ltd., of Birmingham.
Yes.
The papers will be laid on the Library Table.
Yes.

page 1085

NAVIGATION BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 10th October, vide page 991).

Clause 11 -

The Minister may permit any matters required by this Act to be transacted in a Mercantile Marine Office or before a superintendent to be transacted elsewhere, and before such other person as he appoints for the purpose.

Upon which Senator Lynch had moved -

That after the word “ or,” line 3, the words “if there be no such Mercantile Marine Office” be inserted.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The Minister cannot control an official for something done on a ship that has gone to sea. How is proof obtainable when nine-tenths of the vessels I am referring to are foreign bound? Senator Gray has said that we should prohibit signing on at ‘public houses. Very little is done at public houses. But it is a fact that sailors are filled up with all kinds of “ snake juice,” and taken on board sometimes in such a state that they do not know where they are, and do not even know that they are on a ship at all. By rejecting the amendment we shall simply be playing into the hands of the men who do these things. I am surprised at a man who poses occa sionally as a Christian Socialist, lending himself to any such scheme. I am also disappointed at the attitude of the Government. It is not to their credit. The evidence taken by the Navigation Commission shows the evil that is going on, and that it is widespread, at all events, so far as Newcastle- is concerned. The traffic has been a monstrous outrage for many years. Yet here is a Government that is prepared to allow it to continue. I shall be very much surprised if the Committee rejects the amendment.

Senator McGregor:

– Who is the Christian Socialist?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Senator Dobson. He has another reason for supporting the clause, but he has not expressed it yet. He has expressed a desire to stop this evil. But what is he doing? Nothing. ‘ Instead of taking a step forward, he is merely lifting his foot and putting it down again in the same place. This provision is in force to-day, and it is responsible for the existence of crimping. If Senator Dobson desires to put a stop to that evil, let him go ahead.

Senator Trenwith:

– Does the honorable senator say that no deserters have ever been shipped at the shipping office?

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator de Largie:

– But the Commission does not recommend that seamen should be engaged on board ship.

Senator TURLEY:

– It has been urged that we should trust the Minister, and I have been twitted with having resisted a proposal to place the administration of the measure in the hands of an independent Board. I did so upon general principles, and I would repeat my vote to-morrow. I ask honorable senators: “Is it wise to appoint an official to do certain work, and then to give him a free hand to supplement his salary outside of office hours “?

Senator Trenwith:

– If he were a man of that sort, could he not supplement his salary inside of office hours just as well as outside of them?

Senator TURLEY:

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Lynch’ s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 16

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

-I move-

That after the word “ elsewhere,” line 4, the following words be inserted : - “ but not in taverns or inns or any premises licensed to sell intoxicating liquors.”

Senator MILLEN:

– In the States it is not lawful for employers to pay wages in hotels. The reason which underlies that law underlies this amendment. The only doubt I have in my mind is created by an interjection from Senator Guthrie, who affirmed that the amendment would include ships, many of which, if not all of them, were really licensed houses. After the recent vote I gave I am not in a position .to vote for an amendment to do a thing which we have just said that we are not prepared to do, and therefore I should like to hear from Senator Best whether the amendment can be construed so as to include ships as well as licensed houses.

Senator Best:

– I am advised that it cannot include ships.

Senator MILLEN:

– In that case, I am content to support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 -

If a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade goes to sea without a duly certificated’ master and officers, according to the scale set out in Schedule i, or as prescribed, the master and owner of the ship shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty : One hundred pounds.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I should like to ask the Minister to say why it is proposed to make the penalty in this case twice as high as that provided for in the Merchant Shipping Act. In the corresponding section of the Merchant Shipping Act the penalty provided for is £50. In the clause before the Committee the penalty provided for is £100. There may be some special reason for the increase of the proposed penalty, and if so the Committee would be glad to hear it.

Senator BEST (Victoria- VicePresident of the Executive Council [4.26]. - It will be for the ‘Committee to fix the penalty. That proposed in the clause is an arbitrary sum, I admit, but it was thought desirable to make the penalties under this Bill more stringent than those provided for in the Merchant Shipping Act.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I should like to know why the words “or as prescribed ‘ ‘ are used in this clause. Is it intended that they shall cover the scale recommended by the Advisory Committee which is to be appointed ? Every ship, of course, must carry a master, and we make provision for a scale of officers; why, therefore, these words, “ or as prescribed “ should be introduced into this clause, I cannot understand. So far as I can see, there is no power given to alter the number of officers to be carried according to the schedule, except in the case of engineers, and we have not yet decided that they are officers.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– The honorable senator has overlooked the fact that we have included engineers in the definition of “officer.”

Senator Guthrie:

– Then, so far as the Bill is concerned, the number of engineers to lie carried is a fixed number.

Senator BEST:

– First of all, there it a scale of officers to be carried, but as it would be most unwise and unreasonable to say that that scale must be applicable to every class of ship, no matter what alterations may be made in the structure of the vessel, or what other new conditions may arise, we provide that the Minister, where any alteration in the scale is suggested, must obtain expert advice under clause 416, sub-clause 2 of which reads -

The Minister shall appoint a Committee for the purpose of advising him as to the alteration and application of the scale of the crews to be carried by different classes of ships, and as to the crews to be specified for particular ships by the Minister.

Senator Millen:

– Does that cover officers ?

Senator BEST:

– Possibly, it may be found desirable when we come to consider clause 416 to insert the word “ officers,” to make it quite clear that the clause shall also apply to them. I shall be glad if honorable senators will direct my attention to the point when we reach that clause. Having received the advice of the Committee, it will be for the Minister to take the responsibility of acting.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I am not content to leave the words “or as prescribed” in the clause. I am quite satisfied that if we set ourselves to the task of fixing a scale of the number of officers to be carried in any ship, we should not, later in the Bill, give anybody else the power to undo our work. There is a side reference to section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, but the reference is entirely misleading, in so far as the words “or as prescribed” do not appear in the Imperial Act. If they were not necessary in the control of the great shipping industry pf the United Kingdom, they can scarcely be necessary in the control of the smaller shipping industry of Australia.

Senator Best:

– The honorable senator’s objection might hold good as regards the inclusion of the scale, but not as regards the inclusion “of the words “or as prescribed.”

Senator PULSFORD:

– Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 provides that -

Every British foreign-going ship and every British home-trade passenger ship when going to sea from any place in the United Kingdom and every foreign steam-ship carrying passengers between places in the United Kingdom shall be provided with officers duly certificated under this Act according to the following scale : -

In any case with a duly certificated master.

If the ship is of 100 tons burden or upwards, with at least one officer besides the master, holding a certificate not lower than that of only mate, in the case of a foreign-going ship, or of mate in the case of a home-trade passenger ship.

If the ship is a foreign-going ship and carries more than one mate, with at least a first and second mate duly certificated.

If the ship is a foreign-going ship of 100 nominal horse-power or upwards, with at least two engineers, one of whom ‘shall be a first class and the other a second class or first class engineer duly certificated.

If the ship is a foreign-going ship of less than 100 nominal horse-power or a sea-going home-trade passenger ship, with at least one engineer, who is a first class or second class engineer duly certificated.

– What particular method is indicated by the use of the words “or as prescribed “ ?

S’enator BEST. - They mean the Minister, acting on the advice of the AdvisoryCommittee.

Senator Guthrie:

– Not acting without it?

Senator BEST:

– The Minister is compelled to obtain the advice of the Committee, but upon him is thrown the responsibility of accepting or rejecting that ad-, vice.

Senator Pulsford:

– That means” that the Minister has power to throw theschedule into the waste-paper basket if he chooses to do so.

Senator BEST:

– It is for Parliament, to say whether it will permit that to be done. If we pass this ‘Bill, we announce that there shall be a. manning scale; but that scale may be varied in the way I have indicated, either in regard to classes of ships or particular ships. It is “ a very wise scheme, and one that is calculated to meet emergencies and variations in ships- as they arise. Reference has been made to the manning scale prescribed by the Merchant Shipping Act. It is quite true that that Act prescribes a manning scale, the object of which is to insure the seaworthiness of vessels. But I would point out that that scale is of such a reduced character-

Senator Guthrie:

– Under Part III. of the Act, the scale prescribed is more complete than is that provided under this Bill.

Senator BEST:

– I am referring particularly to that portion which relates to the power to provide for the efficient manning of ships and to insure that vessels shall not leave the coast of Great Britain unless they are seaworthy. The scale prescribed in that case is a very low one.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– It seems to me that we are up against a matter of real importance, and, consequently, I am impelled to ask, *’ Are we legislating, or are we merely playing with legislation?” Are we expected to pass laws which may be thrown into the waste-paper basket at the discretion of the Minister? Clause 37 of this Bill gives the Minister power to ignore schedule 2 and to prescribe the complement which any ship shall carry. Under it any rule, regulation, or scale that may be framed may at any time be cast into the melting pot and new rules and regulations decided upon. I am very much dissatisfied with the clause under consideration. Had we been content to follow the lines of the Merchant Shipping Act this difficulty would have been avoided. I move -

That the following words be added : - “ If a ship proceeds to sea being short of not more tha’n one officer where two officers are required to be carried or not more than two officers where three are required to be carried, the master or owner shall not be liable under this section, if it is proved that the .breach was not occasioned by any fault of his own.”

My proposal is upon all-fours with subclause 2 of clause 38, which reads -

If a ship proceeds to sea being short in her crew of not more than one-fifth of her engineroom staff, or one-fifth of her deck complement, the master or owner shall not be liable under this section if it is proved that the breach was not occasioned through any fault of his own.

If it is reasonable that an owner or master of a vessel shall not be penalized because a small proportion of his crew have not - by reason of illness, or from some other cause - been able to join the ship, it is equally reasonable that an owner or master shall not be liable to punishment if one of the officers belonging to a vessel should fail to put in an appearance.

Senator Guthrie:

– Where do the interests of the general public come in? The proposal is ridiculous upon the face of it.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I do not think so. The amendment has been suggested by the steam-ship owners themselves, and perhaps that is the reason why Senator Guthrie feels called upon to jeer at it.

Senator Guthrie:

– I am usually blamed for taking their part.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– It is really difficult to think that Senator Pulsford can be serious in submitting an amendment of this kind, which means that where two officers are necessary for the safe working of a ship which may have to undertake a voyage occupying seventy-two hours or more, one officer shall be deemed sufficient. The honorable senator’s argument is that because in another portion of the Bill provision is made whereby, should 20 per cent, of the crew fail to put in an appearance, the ship may proceed to sea; should 50 per cent, of the officers of a vessel fail to turn up. she should be permitted to proceed to sea. Is such a proposal fair upon the face of it? The scale prescribed in the case of officers is the minimum required for the safe working of the ship.

Senator McGregor:

– Vessels may carry two or three more officers than are prescribed if they choose.

Senator BEST:

-And the probability is that some of them will do so. Some Australian trade ships will have more than the prescribed number, and at the present day have more. But is it to be seriously argued that where not only property, but the lives of individuals are concerned, a ship should be allowed to go to sea carrying only one officer, when two are prescribed. Suppose that the voyage of such a ship were to occupy twenty-four or seventy-two hours. Are we going to say that only one officer is necessary for the whole of such a journey? If anything like this proposition could be entertained, the whole scale would have to be largely increased.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– If Senator Pulsford would study his own amendment a little more closely he would see the absurdity of it. A ship is bound to carry a master. It is not proposed that ,a vessel shall be allowed to go to sea without one. But the honorable senator suggests that where only two officers are carried under certain circumstances a ship may be permitted to proceed to sea with only one. If the engineer did not turn up, the ship would be permitted to go to sea without an engineer at all. ‘ There would be no qualified man in the engine-room to take charge of the engines and boilers. I know that honorable senators have been misled by a statement which has been put into their hands, wherein it is alleged that the Merchant Shipping Act allows what is now proposed to be done. That Act does not permit anything of the kind. A vessel must have a master, an engineer, and a mate. The persons who drew up the circular to which I refer were evidently thinking of sailing vessels, but we are dealing with steam-ships as well. Take the case of a vessel compelled under the scale to carry two mates. If one of those did not turn up, is it contemplated that the ship should be allowed to go to sea with only one mate, who would have to navigate the vessel during the whole time, with no navigating officer to relieve him? The ship-owners suggest that it might be in the public interest to adopt such an amendment. I hold that it would not be in the public interest for a ship to go to sea under such circumstances. In the case of the Bega, which went down on the south coast of New South Wales, the engineer on watch had never seen salt water until a fortnight previous to the voyage. The ship-owners want power to send their ships away short-handed. Under such circumstances a vessel might get to her destination, but under other circumstances there would be a great probability that she would not. I look at the matter from the point of view of public safety and the safety of the crew. I hope that Senator Pulsford, after giving further consideration to the subject, will recognise the wisdom of withdrawing the amendment.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I think that we have arrived at the point of recognising how absurd it is to have a compulsory manning scale at all. Great Britain for hundreds of years has carried on her immense trade without a compulsory manning scale.

Senator Best:

– She has a compulsory manning scale under section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– But that is only a scale which any ship-owner would use. We must trust a ship-owner to look after his own property. The standard prescribed is excessive. As a member of the Navigation Commission, I was strongly against a compulsory manning scale, and Senator Pulsford has now shown how wise it would be to drop the scale in case of necessity.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I (jo not agree with Senator Guthrie that this amendment has been put forward at the instance of the ship-owners, merely with the desire to enable them to send their ships to sea without a sufficiency of officers. I cannot think for a moment that they have any such desire. To do so. would be a losing game in the long run. A ship-owner who followed that principle would soon require the services of an accountant to draw up a statement of his affairs for presentation to the Insolvency Court. The object of the amendment is, I take it, that ship-owners may be free in an emergency to decide for themselves. We all like as much individual freedom as we can get. But the reason why I cannot support the amendment is principally this. I think that we may assume that the officers represent the brains of a ship ; and whilst it is a very serious thing to let a ship go to sea undermanned, so far as manual labour is concerned, it is much more important that the head directing the manual labour should be there. Senator Guthrie made a very strong point when he said that a vessel might require to carry a mate and an engineer, and that if either were away it would be possible for the ship to sail without the engineer necessary to look after the engines, or without a navigating officer necessary for looking after the ship’s course. So that, whatever the object may be, I think that the amendment would be rather unworkable.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– Senator Best and Senator Guthrie have striven pretty hard, and have succeeded to some extent, in magnifying some difficulties arising out of my amendment. It has been said that we might have a vessel with two officers, and’ that the amendment would enable 50 per cent, of them to be taken away. But nothing has been said about the fact that vessels that carry so few as two officersare very limited in number, and that the great bulk of, the shipping trade is done in vessels which carry five or six engineers and mates. The argument about shipowners desirous to underman their vessels. will not bear examination, because the last words of my amendment are, “ If it is proved that the breach was not occasioned through any fault of his own.” I propose to make an alteration in the amendment which will largely meet the objections. I propose to strike out the words “ where two officers are required to be carried or not more than two.” The amendment will then read as follows -

If a ship proceeds to sea being short of not more than one officer where three are required to be carried, the master or owner shall not be liable under this section if it is proved that the breach was not occasioned by any fault of his own.

If the amendment, as I propose to amend it, be carried, it will simply mean that where a ship carries five or six officers she may go to sea if one of them is absent.

Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I wish to point out what the Merchant Shipping Act requires in regard to ships. . It provides -

Every British foreign-going ship and every British home-trade passenger ship when going to sea from any place in the United Kingdom, and every foreign steam-ship carrying passengers between places in the United Kingdom, shall be provided with officers duly certificated under this Act according to the following scale : -

In any case with a duly certificated master ;

If the ship is of 100 tons burden or upwards, with at least one officer besides the master holding a certificate not lower than that of only mate in the case of a foreign-going ship, or of mate in the case of a home-trade passenger ship.

Then, with regard to steamers, it is provided that they shall have an engineer, and so on. But no manning scale such as we have in this Bill, is provided.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause13 -

A certificate of competency for a foreign- going ship shall be deemed to be of a higher grade than the corresponding certificate for a limited coast-trade or river and bay ship, and shall entitle the lawful owner thereof to go to sea in the corresponding grade in the lastmentioned ships or in an Australian-trade ship, but a certificate for any other ship shall not entitle the holder to go to sea as master or mate of a foreign-going ship or of an Australiantrade ship.
The holder of a second-mate’s foreigngoing certificate may ship as a mate of a limited coast-trade ship.
No person shall obtain a first class engineer’s certificate unless he is the holder of a second class certificate, or shall obtain a second class certificate unless he is the holder of a third class certificate.
The holder of a third class engineer’s certificate, or of a marine engine-driver’s certificate, shall be deemed to be duly certificated for service in such ships and for such voyages and in such capacities as are prescribed.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– In accordance with notice, I move -

That after the words “ Foreign-going ship,” line. 4, the words “or Australian-trade ship” be inserted.

– When I first took up this Bill, I thought that the Australian-trade ship was not mentioned in this clause as the result of a mere omission, but on looking into it, I found that it provides first for the issue of a foreign-going certificate, and then goes on to say that no one shall trade either as master or mate on an Australiantrade ship unless he has a foreign-going certificate. That is virtually what the clause means. If the clause, had provided for the issue of an Australian-trade certificate, that certificate would only have been valuable to a man here, and once he had left our coast, it would not have been recognised in any other part of the British Empire. If it was possible to recognise a grade for vessels propelled by other than motive power, surely it was also possible to provide that what applies to a foreigngoing ship shall also apply to an Australiantrade ship? It is not the ship with which we are dealing, but the certificate. I am satisfied that we cannot do more than is done in that regard. But there ought to be some amendment introduced. I notice that in the regulations for the examination of masters and mates, the Board of Trade put the following footnote to foreign-going certificates - “A foreign-going ship” includes every ship employed in trading or going between some place or places in the United Kingdom and some place or places situate beyond the following limits, that is to say, the coast of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, and the Continent of Europe between the River Elbe and Brest included.

That is the definition of a foreign-going ship in Great Britain, and if a man takes his ship outside that limit, he must hold a foreign-going certificate. We should require nothing less than a foreign-going certificate for an Austraiian-trade ship. I do not think that Senator de Largie intends to introduce another grade.

Senator Trenwith:

– The honorable senator’s argument was against that. He desires the highest qualification, because of the dangers of our coast.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Just so. I think that the clause meets what the honorable senator desires.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I admit that this is a somewhat technical question, but I have not been entirely satisfied by the explanation given by the Vice-President of the Executive Council and Senator Guthrie. I cannot see how we should in any way be reducing the status of the certificates if we provided beyond all doubt that those required for our coast trade ships should be equal to those required for foreign-going ships.

Senator Guthrie:

– So we do.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I think that should appear in the first as well as in the latter part of the clause. I am not alone in taking this view of the matter, no less an authority than Mr. McKie, the Secretary of the Marine Board of Victoria takes the same view, and it is from his evidence, given before the Navigation Commission, that I got my cue. He gave the following evidence, in reply to Mr. Edwards, who was a member of the Commission - “A State-trade ship might mean a ship trading from Adelaide to Port Darwin?” - That is dealt with in the definition clause, and I have endeavoured to give attention to it. So far as masters and mates are concerned, I observe that an Australian-trade ship will require to be officered by men holding foreign-going certificates.

Or that point we are all agreed -

There is an omission, the words “Australiantrade ship “ are supposed to follow the words “ foreign-going ship “1 I take it that they are practically synonymous terms.

If the Minister is prepared to leave the matter open to be dealt with later, if necessary, I shall be satisfied to let the clause go. I can assure honorable senators that I make no proposal with the intention of reducing- the status of the certificates required for officers of Australian-trade ships.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I circulated an amendment proposing the insertion of the word “ only “ before the word “ mate “ in the paragraph referring to foreign-going ships. As used here, the reference might be to a first or second mate.

Senator Best:

– The word “mate” should be struck out.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The Board of Trade issues, in addition to a first mate’s and second mate’s certificate, an “ only mate’s “ certificate, but the qualifications required are as high as those required for a first’ mate. The certificate is not of the same value, since the holder of an only mate’s certificate could not go to sea as. a chief mate, but could only go as “ only mate” on a ship carrying one mate. I have carefully studied the examinations required to be passed to secure a_certificate as first mate and as only mate, and they are practically the same. Many years ago the examination for an only mate’s certificate was much easier than that for a first mate. Now that they are practically the same, the position of only mate has becomeobsolete, because when a man knows that he must pass practically the same examination he prefers to apply for a first mate’s certificate.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I agree with what Senator Guthrie has said. As the position of “only mate” has now become obsolete, it is undesirable that the word “ mate “ should be included. I accept the suggestion that has been made,, and I move -

That the word “mate,” line 9, be left out.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DOBSON (Tasmania) [5.32J.- I hope that in dealing with river and bay ships we shall not require vessels of from- 50 to 60 tons to carry a master and a. mate,, as provided for in this clause.

Senator Best:

– This clause deals only with the certificates, not with the officers’

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– We have decided that a limited coast-trade ship shall be as prescribed by regulation, and the voyage of such a ship may extend for 200 miles or 1,000 miles along our coast. In the schedule, provision is made that a limited coast-trade ship shall carry two mates, whilst in this clause we are making provision for certificates only of a master and mate in the case of limited coast-trade ships. I think that the word “ first “ should be inserted before the word “mate,” and the words “second mate “ should be inserted as a new line in the paragraph dealing with limited coasttrade ships.

Senator Best:

– I have no objection.

Amendments (by Senator Guthrie) agreed to.

That the word “First” be inserted before the word “mate,” line13.

– Is a certificate issued to marine engine-drivers at present?

Senator BEST:

– There may be in some States. Clause 22 provides -

All uncancelled and unexpired certificates of competency for masters or ships’ officers issued under any State Act shall continue as if issued under this Act, but shall be valid only for the purposes for which, and to the extent to which, they would have been valid in accordance with the provisions of the State Act under which they were issued.
Any such certificate may be dealt with as if issued under this Act.

Senator Dobson:

– Then, under this Bill, we shall confer upon marine engine-drivers a status which they do not possess.

Senator BEST:

– Whatever qualification they may possess under the present law, they will retain.

Senator Pulsford:

– Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council explain the difference between the value of British and Australian certificates in the case of engineers, seeing that the British Board of Trade issues only first and second class certificates ?

Senator BEST:

– That is so; but we propose to issue a third class certificate, so far as our own coasts are concerned. Our first and second class certificates will be the recognised Board of Trade certificates.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– The difficulty is that marine enginedrivers frequently possess a knowledge of their own marine engines, but have never been to sea. Around Hobart there is a very large number of small craft driven by engineers who are really not seamen in the technical sense of the term. I think that they ought to be protected by enabling marine engine-drivers to qualify as third class engineers.

SenatorE. J. RUSSELL (Victoria) [5.55]. - The Vice-President of the Executive Council seems to be labouring under a disability. As a matter of fact, we are not now discussing men possessing different qualifications, but men who are grouped under different titles. In Victoria we have no third class engineers, and never have had. The third class marine engine-drivers in Victoria are really third class engineers. But they labour under the disability of not being recognised under this Bill on an equality with the third class engineers of the other States, although they hold similar certificates of competency.

Senator Best:

– They are protected under the Bill.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– To-day they are designated as third class marine engine-drivers. They cannot rise above that rank, because there is no such thing as a first class marine engine-driver. It is provided that if they hold the necessary qualifications they can come in under this measure. But if a Victorian wants to come in under the Bill, he must pass a third class examination before he can offer himself for the second class examination, although a man holding a similar qualification in New South Wales would simply have to present himself forthwith for the second class examination. The fact is that we have in the two States men with similar qualifications under different designations. We are told that the Bill protects them. But those who turn to the part dealing with the power of engines, will notice that the Victorian marine engine-drivers are going to be reduced to the extent of 15 horse-power. I understand that persons in Tasmania are in the same position, but that it does not apply to the other States. I can see no reason why any disability should be placed upon men because they happen to live in a State where the law was so absurd as not to allow them to rise to a higher grade, even if they possessed ability. I hope that a guarantee will be given that their rights will be preserved. It is certainly doubtful whether under the present Bill the certificates they hold will retain their validity.

Senator Best:

– Clause 22 preserves their rights.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– But under the system of defining horse-power under the Bill, the divisor is altered from 30 to 25 ; and I understand that that will reduce the Victorian certificates to the extent of about 15 horse-power. I think that two things should be done. The men holding these certificates should be given their correct status, which is equivalent to that of third class engineer in the other States. In addition, they should be given the right, if they are capable of passing an examination, and possess the necessary ability, to rise from the position of third class engineer or marine engine-driver, to that of’ second class engineer by examination. Under the Victorian Act they are debarred. I trust that justice will be done to them under the Bill now before us.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– It appears to me that the clause under consideration achieves the objects for which Senator E. J. Russell has been contending. What we require to do is obvious. We should provide for the case of a number of men who are now in the service of the public driving engines on small boats. In Victoria these men have not engineers, but an engine-driver’s certificate.

Senator de Largie:

– We should make them -all third class engine-drivers.

Senator TRENWITH:

– Merely striking out the names would not accomplish our object. The general principle adopted when it is found necessary to make a change in order to secure greater efficiency in a service is, so as not to injure those who are getting their living under present conditions, to issue service certificates. It seems to me that this clause has in it the spirit that prompts the issue of such certificates; and if we wish to accomplish more completely the assertion of that principle, we shall have to do it, not by striking out the provision, but by making some other provision in another part of the Bill.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The ground that I take up in arguing for the amendment of this clause is that it would do great injustice. The retention of the words “ marine enginedriver “ in the clause simply means making a double inroad upon, the welfare and interests of men who are now acting as engineers on board small steam-ships, and are recognised as engineers. Take a case in New South Wales of a steam-ship with 50 nominal horse-power. Under this Bill a marine engine-driver will be competent to take charge of such a boat. The present law of New South Wales requires a third class engineer to take charge of her. It is possible that there is merely a difference in words, but I am informed that the conditions in New South Wales are of so exacting a character as to be the means of turning out a body of men who have .given every satisfaction as third class engineers. This Bill proposes to shut down hard on vessels over 50 horse-power that go outside Sydney Heads, and only carry a marine enginedriver.

Senator Trenwith:

– Such a vessel could not go out if she carried a third class engineer.

Senator LYNCH:

– River and bay steam-ships are not at present very clearly dealt with in the classification. As far as the schedule is concerned a steamer of over 50 nominal horse-power will have to carry a third class engineer. But at present third class engineers are employed on board such ships. If these words are retained it simply means creating a body of men called marine engine-drivers, who can present themselves to ship-owners and take positions in place of third class engineers. I feel sure that that is not the intention. The intention is to conserve the rights of those who are at present employed as third class engineers. We cannot attain that object by creating marine engine-drivers.

Senator Trenwith:

– A third class engineer in Victoria would be a marine engine-driver in New South Wales, and a marine engine-driver in New South Wales would be a third class engine-driver in Victoria.

Senator LYNCH:

– It seems that the clause requires recasting. In New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia three classes of engineers are specified. But here we have this fanciful invasion created by the draftsman of the Bill. T think it is an unfair proposition. The Minister has referred to little steamers that potter about.’ If he means little vessels of less than 50 nominal horse-power he is welcome to his description. But when it comes to assessing the value of the work of men who have been doing responsible work I think that the passing of the clause in its present form would involve an invasion of their rights. There is no reason why we should rigidly adhere to the clause, especially as it will make a double inroad upon the interests and welfare of those third class engineers who are at present engaged in other States than Victoria.

Senator GUTHRIE (South Australia) T6.io]. - There is no doubt that the issue is complicated. There should be no difference of opinion regarding the grade of .first class engineer and the grade of second class engineer, because those grades have always existed. But some States have instituted the grade of third class engineer, which stands alone. To show how the third class engineer in South Australia has been kept back from advancement, let me quote the following note to the regulation in the Marine Board Handbook -

The possession of a third class passenger’s certificate enables the holder thereof to take charge only on a steam-ship trading on a river or lake within the Province or of .a steam-ship trading, within the limits of a port or harbor. Service in such capacity does not in any way qualify for a certificate of a higher grade.

– What is proposed to be done with the existing marine engine-drivers?

Senator BEST:

– My honorable friend says that their qualification is equal to that of the holder of a third class certificate. If that be so, it is distinctly provided in clause 22 that -

The holder of any such certificate may, subject to any prescribed restrictions or limitations, surrender it for a certificate of a similar or corresponding grade under this Act.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.

Senator BEST:

– I propose to ask that the work of the Committee be suspended for a few minutes in order that I may lay certain important papers on the table.

Progress reported.

page 1110

INVITATION TO PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT

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

– I beg to lay on the table a cablegram, dated London, 12th October, 1908, just received by the Governor-General from the UnderSecretary of State for the Colonies, and transmitted to the Prime Minister, referring to the invitation extended to President Roosevelt to visit Australia.. It is as follows -

My telegram of 29th September, President United States of America wishes following message conveyed to your Government in reply to your telegram of 18th September, begins -

President very deeply appreciates courteous invitation thus extended to him, especially in view of more than generous hospitality which people of Australia have everywhere shown to American Fleet. It will not be possible for him after visiting Africa to visit Australia, but he most earnestly hopes that some day it will be his .good fortune to make a trip to the giant young .Commonwealth of the South Seas upon future growth and success of which so much depends for the whole civilized world.

page 1110

PAPERS

MINISTERS’ laid upon the table the following papers -

Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1909.

The Budget 1908-9. - Papers prepared by the Honorable Sir William Lyne, K.C.M.G., foi “the information of honorable members on the occasion of opening the Budget of igo8-g.

Transcontinental Railway Survey, Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta. - Report of Mr. H. Deane, M.I.C.E., on the progress of the work.

– That is where the difficulty arises. We have the same position of affairs in Western Australia as exists in Victoria. We have what are called “ engine-drivers’ licences.” Such » licence is sufficient to allow the holder to go right out to sea on any kind of ship whether cargo or passenger. Mr. Ramage who is an engineer surveyor in the Harbor Department at Perth, gave evidence on this point. Perhaps honorable senators will be able to get a better grasp of the position from hearing what this witness, who knew more about the subject than most honorable senators can do, had to say. He said -

The marine engine-driver’s certificate of this State will allow a man to take a vessel along the coast to Bunbury or Geraldton. It is called an engine-driver’s licence.

Another witness, who is the president of the Coastal District Certificated Engine Drivers Union of Western Australia, said -

We have a couple of recommendations we, wish to bring before you. The first is that the marine engine-drivers’ certificates be deemed a certificate for a State trade ship of 50 nominal horsepower trading within 150 miles of the port of registry.

– We say, in subclause 4 of this clause -

No person shall obtain a first class engineer’s certificate “ unless he is the holder of a second class certificate or shall obtain a second class certificate unless he’ is the holder of a third class certificate.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

.- It appears to me that the Bill does exactly what we all desire. It meets the conditions prevailing in some of the States, where there are third class engineers, whilst in other States there are men holding very much the same qualification who are called marine engine-drivers. Senator McColl would class engine-drivers with third class engineers, but I think that that is hardly right unless they have the necessary qualification. Senator Lynch, on the other hand, is so prejudiced in favour of the engineers, strictly so called, that he would absolutely shut out all the marine engine-drivers. That is not my idea of justice. My honorable friend is unconsciously suggesting something which is unjust. The Bill does justice, and the Vice-President of the Executive Council lias explained, over and over again, that the qualification for third class engineers will not be fixed without taking into consideration the present qualification of the men who are now third class engineers. The whole matter must be one of qualification and of administration ; and until we know what the qualification is to be, we are, to some extent, without the means of being precise. I should like to ask Senator Lynch whether there are men in the Commonwealth who hold their ert !ficates aas marine engine-drivers, and who are nothing more, but whom he desires to have the privilege of getting third class engineers’ certificates? The Bill conserves all their rights. My honorable friend talks about competition, and engineers’ wages being reduced; and he gave us the impression that he wanted to shut out tha men in the humbler grades. The Bill provides for both. It says ‘that the man who has a third class certificate is not to be reduced. His rights are to be conserved. What more is wanted I do not know. I come from a State where we have a large extent of still water. A man drives his little steamer out of the harbor in the morning and comes back at night. If anything goes wrong, he does not repair his engines himself, but takes his vessel to a repair shop. The Bill leaves in their . proper grade engine-drivers who are nothing but engine-drivers, and who ought not to hold the certificates of third class engineers. The men of whom Senator Lynch has been, talking have only to possess the qualification and they will get into the third engineers’ class. But we must recollect that we are dealing with property, and may be affecting the lives of passengers and crew.

Each man ought to have justice done to him ; but at the same time, each man ought to possess the’ qualification of the grade to which he wishes to belong.

Senator Lynch:

– I thought the honorable senator was in favour of encouraging men to take a pride in their calling?

Senator DOBSON:

– What does my honorable friend mean ? Is there any’ pride in a man occupying a grade for which he is not qualified? Would Senator Lynch feel proud if he had only a qualification to be in a low class-in a school, and was put in an upper class where he would be regarded as a dunce? It appears to me that the Bill carries out what we desire. Everything, however, must turn upon what the qualification is. As Senator Best has pointed out, if the qualificationprovided for in the regulations is too severe, or is not severe enough, any honorable senator can object to it.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.- I do not see what is to be gained by leaving out the words to which Senator Lynch objects ; but we may possibly do a great deal of injustice by carrying the amendment. The Vice-President of the Executive Council points out that he intends this qualification for marine engine-drivers to apply to those who are plying small craft for hire, and who, if we make no provision for them, may be left without any certificate at all. It may not be possible to provide for all of them in the third class, and consequently they may be deprived of their living. But that does not settle the question as to the future of the third class engineers in New South Wales, Queensland; and South Australia, and the enginedrivers who hold certificates in Victoria. I think that we should not leave that point indefinite. When Senator Lynch’s amendment is disposed of, I think that we might effect an improvement by adding after the word.” ships” in sub-clause 5, the words “ as are within the limited coast trade.” The limited coast trade is defined in clause 5 as meaning -

A sea-going ship exclusively engaged in making short voyages fromand to any port in Australia within limits determined for the port by the Governor-General.

Such an amendment would make absolutely certain the future of the holders of the certificates to whom I have referred.

Question - That the words “ Marine engine-driver” proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Lynch’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 16

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.-I move -

That after the word “ ships,” sub-clause 5. the words “ as are within the limited coasttrade “ be inserted.

If that amendment is made, sub-clause 5. will read -

The holder of a third class engineer’s certificate, or of a marine engine-driver’s certificate, shall be deemed to be duly certificated for service in such ships as are within the limited coast trade and for such voyages and in such capacities as are prescribed.

I do not propose to speak at any length, because the subject has been very well threshed out. Senator Guthrie has shown the uncertain position in which the holders of a third class certificate in three States and the holders of an engine-driver’s certificate in Victoria will be placed, if the clause is passed as it stands. Of course, it may be said that the matter can be settled by regulation, but my reply is that there are too many interests involved for it to be left in an uncertain state. If the Committee will insert these words in the sub-clause, I believe that the men will be quite satisfied, and they will all be placed on the same footing.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I know that my honorable friend has not intentionally sprung this amendment upon me, but it is very difficult for me to see in a moment exactly its effect if carried. It is rather a serious limitation which is proposed. I think that the words “ for such voyage, and in such capacities as are prescribed,” answer all the purposes which my honorable friend seeks to achieve.

Senator McColl:

– No; that leaves the whole position uncertain.

Senator BEST:

– The amendment is too restrictive. Under clause 5 - “Limited coast-trade ship” means a sea-going ship exclusively engaged in making short voyages: from and to any port in Australia, within limits determined for the port by the Governor-General.

My honorable friend’s amendment would confine this particular class of engineer to service between Melbourne and Portland, or between Melbourne and Warrnambool. Hut it may be desired to employ some of these men in the Australian trade.

Senator McColl:

– The interpretation clause provides for all that.

Senator BEST:

Senator Best:

– No; those voyages will be made be an Australian-trade ship.

Senator MILLEN:

– If Senator McColl calls a voyage from Melbourne to Port Darwin a short voyage. I should like to have his definition of a long voyage on the coast of Australia. I think the honorable senator has made a mistake in assuming that, “from and to any port” means between any ports in Australia. In framing the regulations, the Government will probably confine coast-trade ships to short voyages between ports fairly close together. I am sure that Senator McColl does not wish to limit the holders of these certificates to ships engaged in that trade.

Senator McColl:

– I wish to continue to them the advantages which they have at present. Personally, I should be prepared to extend their opportunities to the Australian trade.

Question - That the words proposed to inserted, be inserted (Senator McColl’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 0

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I move-

That after the word “ prescribed,” sub-clause 5, the following words be added : - “ Provided that in all examinations for engineers’ certificates under this Act indentures of service at any; particular trade shall not be required.”

I am aware that this amendment raises an issue which has already been discussed. My object is to insure that in all examinations to be held in future for the granting of marine engineers’ certificates, the examining Boards shall not be entitled to demand any indentures from candidates. We have in these matters slavishly followed the Merchant Shipping Act and the Board of Trade regulations, under which it is necessary for a man to serve a certain length of time in a shop, and get his indentures before he can present himself for examination for an engineer’s certificate. It is about time we got out of this groove and. gave some chance to men who have served lengthy terms at sea in charge of enginesof high capacity, to secure engineers’ certificates without being required to have shop experience. There is a belief amongst some of the castes in India, that if a man is the son of a shoemaker, he should be content to make shoes all his life, and if he is the son of a weaver, he should be content to continue weaving. Under the Acts at present in operation in all the States, an absolute barricade is set up which prevents any ambitious Australian youth from advancing any further than the third class grade of engineer. There are second, first, and extra chief grades to be reached but a person holding a third class certificate is absolutely debarred under existing legislation from reaching any higher rung of the ladder. My amendment, if agreed to, would remove an obstacle which has been so long placed in the way of bright youths who are earning their livelihood at sea, and who might, if given the opportunity, secure a second or a first grade certificate on any vessel afloat. I do not see why we should confine ourselves to the practice of the United Kingdom in this matter, when, if we look further afield, we shall find that in a country like the United

States of America there is no statutory provision requiring that an applicant for an engineer’s certificate shall have shop experience. Under the laws of that country, a man may go to sea as a fireman, and, if he industriously applies himself to study, there is nothing to prevent him mounting to the top of the ladder in his profession and” becoming a chief engineer.

Senator Trenwith:

– But suppose that, when his vessel was at sea, an accident happened to the machinery, and he had no knowledge of tools?

Senator Guthrie:

– He has to pass a practical examination.

Senator LYNCH:

– We had a very good example of the benefit of my proposal in this port only recently. The Ajax, a fairly large steamer, which honorable senators will remember was attending upon the American Fleet, when here had as third engineer a man who comparatively recently was employed on the Australian coast as a Fireman. Is it right that by slavishly following Board of Trade precedents we should continue to enact provisions which will place so many obstacles in the way of Australian youths who desire to advance in the marine engineering profession? I admit that the amendment I have moved is one of a radical character, but I know that many bright Australians will be prevented from securing a first or second class engineer’s certificate if shop experience is insisted upon as one of the necessary qualifications. I have been asked to consider what would happen in the case of a breakdown of the machinery at sea? That is a bogy which is frequently raised in discussing this matter. Honorable senators must not forget that marine engineering has so far advanced in these times that in almost every ship going to sea duplicate parts of the more important portions of the machinery are carried. It does not require a great deal of technical skill on the part of the engineers to put these parts info position and set the engines going again after a break-down. Let me say, also, that breakdowns may occur which engineers fresh from the engineering shops could not remedy. For instance, when a ship breaks her tailshaft, or one set of eccentric rods, the best engineer in the world can only attempt to get her engines under way by the best means in his power. Honorable senators will recollect that when the Monowai broke her shaft, she could not be brought into port unaided. The work was beyond the capa- city of any engineer. American experience conclusively proves that young men in that country who are filled with ambition are able to reach the top of the tree, whereas, under our laws, they are debarred from so doing. I submit the amendment in the belief that we should no longer lag behind America in that respect.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I shall be very glad if we can at once dispose of this amendment. I must confess that my honorable friend has proceeded upon an entirely wrong assumption. There is nothing in the Bill to warrant his doleful forebodings. As a matter of fact, I have already intimated upon more than one occasion that there is not the remotest intention on the part of the Department to insist upon indentures of shop service. On the contrary, I have told the Committee that the probability is that the precedent established by the Board of Trade will be followed, and that the substitute of sea service will be provided.

Senator Lynch:

– That is valueless.

Senator BEST:

– My honorable friend should recollect that the regulations framed under this Bill will have to be approved by Parliament. Why should it be suggested that the possession of shop experience should be regarded as a disqualification?

Senator Lynch:

– I do not suggest that.

Senator BEST:

– The honorable senator’s amendment reads -

Provided that in all examinations for engineers’ certificates under this Act indentures of service at any particular trade shall not be required.

If a man has had the benefit of shop experience, surely that is an important factor, which should count for something?

Senator Lynch:

– Under my proposal, there is nothing to prevent him from handing in his indentures.

Senator BEST:

– But the honorable senator affirms that they should be. regarded as of no value. I appeal to him to allow the clause to pass in its present form. It would be idle to insert a hard-and-fast provision such as he proposes. The regulations framed under the Act must have regard to Australian conditions, and if they arc not sufficiently practicable, Parliament will have thepower to take exception to them.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 October 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19081014_senate_3_47/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate14 October 1908

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL. SITE

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

Senator Stewart:

Senator BEST:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator BEST:

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Keating:

Senator PEARCE:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PEARCE:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator DOBSON:TASMANIA

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

TOBACCO INDUSTRY : TARIFF

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Best:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator BEST:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Best:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

CARTRIDGE BLANKS

Senator PEARCE:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

NAVIGATION BILL

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

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

Senator De Largie:

Senator BEST:

Senator McGregor:

Senator BEST:

Senator GUTHRIE:South Australia

Senator Millen:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Best:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Gray:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Millen:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator MACFARLANE:Tasmania

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator DE LARGIE:Western Australia

Senator Dobson:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Dobson:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Millen:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Millen:

Senate
14 October 1908

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

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

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

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

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

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland