Senate
21 July 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH TRAWLER
COMPULSORY ADULT TRAINING
PAPERS
QUESTION
- SMALL ARMS FACTORY
QUESTION
- FISHER GOVERNMENT
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE TOLL SYSTEM
QUESTION
- SENATOR SYMON’S SPEECH
QUESTION
- POSTAL NOTES
QUESTION
- EXCISE ACT
LAND SETTLEMENT, VICTORIA
QUESTION
- ADVERTISING AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION ACT
QUESTION
- PACIFIC CABLE
QUESTION
- UNIFORMS AND HORSES
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
QUESTION
- TELEPHONES IN HOTELS
QUESTION
- IMPERIAL DEFENCE CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- POSTAL COMMISSION
QUESTION
- DEATH OF PRIVATE BAKER-
QUESTION
- OIL-FUEL DEPOSITS
QUESTION
- TARIFF ANOMALIES
QUESTION
- CANBERRA WATER SUPPLY
QUESTION
- CASE OF P. J. LEYDEN
QUESTION
- WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE EXCHANGE : ADELAIDE
MESSAGES
- Bills of Exchange Bill
- Parliamentary Witnesses Bill
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL
LIGHTHOUSES BILL
COST OF PRINTING
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
- Second Reading
SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– In due time, of course, such arrangements will be made, but if my honorable friend will give notice of the question I may be able to give him more definite information. At the present time the trawler is on the coast of Tasmania, and I canhardly say now when, according to- its itinerary, it is likely to go to South Australia, but that State will be visited.

Senator Turley:

-The trawler will go to all the States?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Certainly.

page 1362

COMPULSORY ADULT TRAINING

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

– I . desire to ask the Minister who represents the Minister of Defence, without notice, if . we can correctly interpret a speech made by his honorabie colleague at Randwick, on the 10th July, as indicating that it is not the policy of the Government to bring about compul- soryadult training for at least three or four years.

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– My honorable colleague has since informed the press and those who took exception to the report that he made no such statement.

page 1363

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Lands Acquisition Act 1906. - Port Kembla, New South Wales : Defence Purposes. - Notification of the Acquisition of Land.

Papua. - Native Regulation Ordinance of 1909.

Public Service Act 1902. - Documents in connexion with the promotion of Mr. Edwin Broad to the position of Manager, Telegraph Branch, 2nd Class, Clerical Division, Postmaster-General’s Department, Adelaide.

Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the question of the supply of Uniform Clothing for the Commonwealth Services and the establishment of a Government Clothing Factory.

Report of Committee on the proposed scheme of the Defence Department for the ownership of horses, &c, for military purposes.

Precis of Proceedings in connexion with the tenders for Machinery for Small Arms Factory.

Quarantine Act 1908. - Provisional Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1909, No. 73.

Post and Telegraph Act 1901. - Amendment of General, Parcels Post, and Postal Notes Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1909, No. 87.

page 1363

QUESTION

SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the

Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether he has laid upon the table the whole or only a portion of the correspondence on the subject of tenders for the erection of a small arms factory ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– I am unable to answer the question without a perusal of the papers. As they have been- tabled, my honorable friend will be able to examine them, and if he will repeat the question to-morrow I may be able to give a more definite answer.

page 1363

QUESTION

FISHER GOVERNMENT

Withdrawal of Support

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether it is true, as stated by the Age in its issue of Thursday, 8th July, that the Liberal Party’s support was withdrawn from the Labour Party because of its Land Tax and Note Issue proposals, and its opposition to the Dreadnought proposition ?
And whether further support from the Liberal Party was, as stated by the Age,, rendered impossible because certain constituencies were to be contested by the LabourParty ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– It seems that one cannot get an) thing out of this Government.

page 1364

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TOLL SYSTEM

Senator FINDLEY:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether it is true, as stated by the Age, in a report of a meeting of the Victorian Employers’ Federation, held on the 12th July, that it was due to the influence exercised by that body that the toll system in connexion with telephone facilities had been rendered inoperative, that two expert accountants had been appointed to go into the financial side of the question, and that for the present subscribers remain under the old terms and conditions.
And whether the Postmaster-General, on assuming office, was correctly reported as having said, prior to the deputation from the Employers’ Federation interviewing him, that the toll system as proposed and extended by the previous Postmaster-General had come to stay.

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The answer to both questions is “ No.”

page 1364

QUESTION

SENATOR SYMON’S SPEECH

Senator DE LARGIE:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has he seen the following paragraph in the Melbourne Herald of the 8th July : - “ It is understood that Senator Sir Robert Best, Minister for Customs, intended to reply to the attack made in the Senate yesterday by Sir Josiah Symon on the Prime Minister, but that Mr. Deakin preferred that no notice should be taken of the criticism. Mr. Deakin was silent on the subject when interviewed to-day.”
Will the Minister for Trade and Customs state whether this is correct?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– My honorable friend does not attempt to disguise that he had an offensive object in view in asking this question-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! It is not in order for the honorable senator to make such a statement. He can, if he chooses, decline to answer Senator de Largie’s question.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I decline to answer the question in the circumstances stated, but I wished to make an explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must ask the Minister to withdraw the expression which he used.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Certainly, if any objection is taken to it. But I had no desire to be personally offensive. What I said was by way of explanation only.

page 1364

QUESTION

POSTAL NOTES

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Does the Government regard the explanation of the Associated Banks, in regard to the proposed charge on postal notes, as satisfactory?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The PostmasterGeneral is not at present in a position to express any definite opinion as to the explanation of the associated banks.

page 1364

QUESTION

EXCISE ACT

Victorian Brandy and Whisky

Senator CLEMONS:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

To what extent Victorian distillers have taken advantage of the provisions of the Excise Act to produce both brandy and whisky of the highest grade, and upon how many gallons of

brandy (2) whisky, the Excise authorities have levied the lowest duty under the schedule to the Excise Act?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

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

No separate record is kept of the quantity of Victorian brandy and whisky upon which Excise duty is paid, but the attached returns (2) show : -

The respective quantities of brandy and whisky complying with items1 and 3 of the “ Excise Tariff 1906,” upon which Excise duty has been paid in Victoria, the bulk of which is, no doubt, Victorian production ; and

the quantities of such brandy and whisky produced in Victoria since the operation of the Excise Act 1906. (a)

Commonwealth of Australia.

Return showing the number of proof gallons of brandy and whisky on which Excise duty was paid in Victoria at the lower rate of 10s. per proof gallon (vide items 1 and 3, Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1906 - Spirits).

(b)

Commonwealth of Australia

Return showing the production under the Excise

Tariff 1906 (Spirits) of Brandy and Whisky respectively of the highest grade, in the State of Victoria.

page 1365

LAND SETTLEMENT, VICTORIA

Senator GIVENS called the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive Council to a statement made by Mr. Membrey in the Victorian . Legislative Assembly, as reported in the Age of the 1st inst., that it was the intention of the Victorian Government to proceed with the policy of “settling poor people on the poor lands of the State,” and asked the Minister, upon notice -

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– This Government has no official knowledge as to what the policy of the Government of Victoria is ; and., even if it had, it would not feel justified in expressing any criticism upon’ a matter within the jurisdiction of the State.

page 1365

QUESTION

ADVERTISING AUSTRALIA

Senator FINDLEY:

asked the Vice-

President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Whether the Government has negotiated, or intends to negotiate, with the proprietors of the London Daily Chronicle for advertising or other space in that journal on behalf of the Commonwealth ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– Proposals have been submitted by the Daily Chronicle with reference to advertising in that paper. These are awaiting consideration.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Arising out of the Minister’s answer, I desire to inquire whether the Senate will have an opportunity of considering the terms for advertising, and the conditions generally in connexion with the contract, before they are finally approved.

Senator MILLEN:

– Will my honorable friend kindly give notice of that question ?

page 1365

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION ACT

Newspaper Trust : Shipping Combine : Amending Bill

Senator PEARCE drew the attention of the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral in the Senate to the following paragraph appearing in a circular headed Joseph Palmer and Sons’. Monthly Share List : -

In Australia there is scarcely a business or occupation of any kind that is not now regulated by an agreement or understanding as to prices and conditions, and the results to the public are altogether satisfactory- and beneficial. Space will allow here but a single illustration of this, and we choose one that may, at the same time, help to show the absurdity of the law, namely, the Newspaper Trust. It is well known that there is among the newspaper proprietors of Australia an agreement that all cable messages from Europe shall be obtained through one channel only, and which in restraint of trade forbids any paper to receive and publish any independent cables. This it is that explains why the cables published daily in all the different papers are identical. As a result of this arrangement, instead of cable news appearing in a small number of larger papers only, every newspaper throughout, the Commonwealth, even in the remotest backblocks, is enabled to supply its readers daily with the latest intelligence from all parts of the world. But however beneficial this may be to the public, it is, under the Australian Industries Preservation Act (section 7), an offence, for which the penalty is £500. However, it is quite certain that no Government will dare to put the law in operation against so powerful an organization as the press. and asked the Minister, upon notice -

Will the Minister make inquiries as to the truth of the statements made?
Seeing that this circular is signed by Joseph Palmer and Sons, sharebrokers, 96 Pitt-street, Sydney, N.S.W., and dated 22nd June, 1909, will the Minister give this firm an opportunity of giving evidence in the case?
If the facts are as stated, will the Minister prosecute ?

The statements in the paragraph seem to be inconsistent. If the agreements are beneficial to the public as alleged, the persons entering into them cannot well be deemed to have thereby committed offences within the meaning of the provisions of an enactment directed only at agreements to restrain, or monopolies of, or attempts to monopolize, trade and-commerce “to the detriment of the public.”

The paragraph does not suggest that the firm is in possession of any evidence of an offence against the Act in question, nor allege facts which, if proved, would justify a prosecution^ but if there are any facts available from any source calling for inquiry, they will be given full consideration.

Senator PEARCE:

– I draw attention to question No. 2, in which I state that the circular is signed by Joseph Palmer and Sons, and particulars are given. I wish to ask whether the Government will afford this firm an opportunity to give evidence? The Minister has not replied to that question .

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I have given the reply supplied by the AttorneyGeneral, who considers that there is no case on the information stated.

Senator CROFT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has his attention been called to the following news item appearing in the Age of 23rd June : -

COASTAL, SHIPPING TRADE.

Affiliation of Steam-ship Owners and Coal Merchants.

Sydney, Tuesday.

An important development in connexion with the coastal shipping trade was announced to-day, when, at a conference held between the New South Wales Coastal Steam-ship Owners’ Association and the Sydney coal merchants, it was arranged that, with a view to consolidating, the two bodies should affiliate on all matters of mutual interest. The shipping companies include all those engaged in the coastal trade, and the coal interests concerned are the Howard Smith Co., B. Byrnes, Warburton and Sons, Jones Bros., and others.

Will the Minister give an assurance that producers, shippers, passengers, and the general public will be effectually protected from the socalled “ affiliation “ charging arbitrary rates or insisting upon irksome conditions in respect to freight or fares.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

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

The only assurance that can be given is that if any contravention of Commonwealth law is brought under notice, such action as the lawofficers advise will be taken.

Senator CLEMONS:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, uponnotice -

If it is the intention of the Government at an, early stage of the present session to introduce a Bill to amend the Australian Industries Preservation Act in such a way as to cover the defects disclosed by the recent decision of the High Court?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Theanswer to the honorable senator’s question, is as follows: -

The decision of the High Court disclosed nodefect in the Act, but only an excess of jurisdiction as regards two clauses - which aredirected against interference by corporationswith purely local trade.

The Government has under consideration the question of securing, by amendment of the Constitution or otherwise, power to legislate against combinations in restraint of trade within a State..

page 1366

QUESTION

PACIFIC CABLE

Senator McGREGOR:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council,upon notice -

What amount does the Commonwealth Government contribute to the Pacific Cable?
Who are the representatives of the Commonwealth on the Pacific Cable Board?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

The amount contributed by the Commonwealth during the current financial year is. £20,707, being 6/18ths of the deficiency after providing for expenses of working, interest, sinking fund, renewal and depreciation.
Sir Horace Tozer and Mr. T. A. Coghlan.

page 1366

QUESTION

UNIFORMS AND HORSES

Senator PEARCE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, uponnotice -

Will the Minister lay upon the table of the Senate copies of the report of the interdepartmental committees representing the Defence and Post Office Departments on the question of theestablishment of a Government clothing factory, for the supply of uniforms for the Departments?
Will the Minister lay upon the table of the Senate the report of the departmental committee of the Defence Department on the question of the supply of horses for the field artillery?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The answer to both questions is “ Yes,” and, as my honorable friend is aware, the papers have already been laid on the table.

page 1367

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator GIVENS:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Will the Government expedite the settlement of details connected with the Capital site question, so as to permit of the Parliament and Government being housed in Federal territory at as early a date as possible?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

Senator GIVENS:

– Arising out of the

Answer to the question, I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he can indicate the stage at which the negotiations have arrived, that we may have some idea as to when we can expect a settlement of the question?

Senator MILLEN:

– If the honorable senator gives notice of his question for tomorrow, I shall possibly be able to obtain the information he seeks.

page 1367

QUESTION

TELEPHONES IN HOTELS

Relative to the press-announced desire of the Postal Department to extend the public telephone system -

Is it correct that some order, instruction, rule, or practice of the Department prevents the establishment of such facilities in hotels?

Is the Department aware that the absence of such facilities is productive of great inconvenience to guests residing in large and reputable hotels in the more populous centres of the Commonwealth ?

Since when has such order, instruction, rule, or practice (if any) been in existence; what is its form or nature; and upon what is it based ?

Will the Department cancel any such order, instruction, or rule, or abolish any such practice?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

Yes.
The Department is not aware that the absence of such facilities is productive of the inconvenience referred to, and there should not be such inconvenience because there is nothing to prevent an hotel proprietor from having in his hotel a telephone which will be available for the use of the guests at that hotel, either at the sole expense of such proprietor or upon payment by the guests of a charge not exceeding One penny per call.
It is presumed the order referred to was Circular No. 114, dated 14th April last, whichstated that the Postmaster-General had decided that no public telephones are to be opened in hotels, and thai should hotel proprietors desire to have telephones on their premises available for use by the public, such are to bc allowed subject to the provisions of the proposed amendment of Part VII., under which Regulations the Department would look to the subscriber for payment of all calls made over the line; the subscriber would be allowed to charge id. for every call, but would have to make his own arrangements for collecting the fees and protecting himself against use of the instrument: by persons without payment, and further, would not be allowed to exhibit any notice, other than’ that on the coin attachment near the telephone, advertising the fact that the telephone was available for public use.

This circular was based upon the principle that public telephones which are supplied at the sole expense of the Department should not be established in hotels.

It is not proposed to cancel the order referred to.

page 1367

QUESTION

IMPERIAL DEFENCE CONFERENCE

Aerial Navigation - Colonel Foxton’s Instructions

Senator CLEMONS:

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

If the instructions given by the Government to the Honorary Minister who has proceeded to England to join in the Defence Conference include a reference to the question of /Urial Navigation, as affecting the question of Defence ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

The possibilities of serial navigation in relation to the defence of Australia were discussed by the Cabinet with Colonel Foxton.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Arising out of the answer to that question, I wish to ask whether Colonel Foxton received any instructions from the Cabinet to make further investigations when in London in regard, to the possibilities of serial navigation; and whether, if the Government are satisfied as to the wisdom of that course,, we are to understand that they will, in the interests of Australia, introduce such a system for its defence?

Senator MILLEN:

– The Prime Minister has already indicated, in reply to a similar question in another place, that it is not the practice or the custom of the Cabinet to give instructions to one of its members. As to the rest of the honorable senator’s question, I ask him to be good enough to give notice of it.

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

– Arising out of the reply to Senator Findley, I wish to ask if the Senate is to understand that Colonel Foxton has gone to England as

Ihe representative of the Government, without having received any instructions from the Government as to what his attitude or conduct there is to be?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will see that his question is alreadydealt with in a question which appears later’ in the business-paper, and it is irregular to anticipate a question.

Senator PEARCE:

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

Do the Government propose to inform Parliament as to the instructions issued to Colonel Foxton, M.P., as delegate to the Imperial Naval and Military Conference, and if so, when?

Senator MILLEN:

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

As the honorable senator is doubtless aware, a Government does not issue “ instructions “ to one of its own members.

Colonel Foxton is proceeding to London as a member of the Cabinet to attend a confidential, consultative conference convened by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He is acquainted with the views of his colleagues upon the questions expected to be discussed, and will communicate with them, by cable, during the sittings of the conference should the necessity arise. The proposals of the Government in this regard will be submitted to Parliament.

page 1368

QUESTION

POSTAL COMMISSION

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

If any report has been handed to the Government giving reasons why three members of the Royal Commission on Post and Telegraph Department have resigned ?
If so, will the Government give the information to this House?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

Two reports were received from members of the Commission, but those documents did not give the reasons why they resigned. A communication from the Honorable J. Hume Cook to the Prime Minister, dated 4th January last, gave his reasons.
A copy of that communication is available.

Senator SAYERS:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Has any report been presented by the Postal Commission j if so, when will it be laid on the table of the Senate?
What is the total cost of the Postal Commission up to date?
Three members having resigned, is it the intention of the Government to close the Commission or to add thereto?

Senator MILLEN:

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

No report has been received from the Commission. Two individual reports were presented by former members of the Commission on their retirement.

2- ^3.392-

Action seems unnecessary since it is understood that the Commission will close before long.

page 1368

QUESTION

DEATH OF PRIVATE BAKER-

Senator VARDON:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice-

Will he lay upon the Library table the correspondence which has passed between Mr. John Baker, of Port Pirie, South Australia, and the Defence Department, in reference to the claim for compensation on account of the death of his son, Private George Edward Baker, which occurred while on duty at the Rifle Ranges at Port Pirie on the 27th May, 1908?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

page 1368

QUESTION

OIL-FUEL DEPOSITS

Relative to a question asked on 9th December, 1908, regarding oil-fuel deposits in Australia and other parts of the Empire -

Has the Government, since the date named, taken any action?

If so, what is the present position of the matter ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

Yes.
The papers on the subject will be placed on the table of the Library.

page 1368

QUESTION

TARIFF ANOMALIES

Senator FINDLEY:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the inquiries he is said to be making in respect to a number of anomalies in the Tariff, he will introduce a Bill for the rectification of the anomalies during the present session, to safeguard the interests of the producers and manufacturers of the Commonwealth ; and, if the Bill is to be introduced, will it be in the direction of higher duties?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

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

Consideration is being given to the adjustment of anomalies in the Tariff, and any Bill on the subject would, as a matter of course, safeguard the interests of the producers and manufacturers of the Commonwealth.

I cannot fix a date for introducing such a Bill, as the Government will be guided by any circumstances which might make a measure of the kind urgent, and by the state of public business.

Each anomaly will be dealt with according to its character ; the general policy of the existing Tariff being maintained.

page 1369

QUESTION

CANBERRA WATER SUPPLY

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

In view of the necessity for the removal of all doubt as to the adequacy and purity of the water supply in the proposed Federal Capital, and the fact’ that the experts who supplied the report are the servants of the State Government of New South Wales, will the Government obtain an independent report by experts who are not in the employ of the Government of New South Wales?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

The adequacy and purity of the water supply for domestic and civic purposes at the proposed Federal Capital at Canberra are sufficient for a population up to 250,000.

The officers who have reported are competent and trustworthy, and there is no warrant for impeaching their opinion. Two of the four members of the Board - whose report was unanimous - are in the service of the Commonwealth, and not of the State.

Senator VARDON:

– Arising out of that answer, I should like to know whether the reference is merely to a domestic supply, or to a supply sufficient also for power and sanitation purposes ?

Senator MILLEN:

– The figures I have given clearly -apply to domestic and civic purposes.

page 1369

QUESTION

CASE OF P. J. LEYDEN

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Vice-

President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Will he place on thetable of the Library the files relating to the case of P. J. Leyden, a Postal employe in Western Australia?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The papers in question will be laid on the table of the Library as desired.

page 1369

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the VicePr.esident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Will he inform the Senate as to what further progress, if any, has been made in connexion with the installation of a wireless telegraph station at Fremantle, Western Australia, and other places on the Australian coast?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

No further progresshas been made. The matter will be considered in connexion with the Estimates fbr the coming financial year.

page 1369

QUESTION

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE : ADELAIDE

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of. Home Affairs, upon notice -

Who is responsible for the design of the new telephone exchange at Adelaide ?
Were any suggestions invited from the Superintendent of Public Buildings in South Australia?
Were any suggestions offered by that offi cial and” accepted by the Home Affairs Department ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

Sketch plans were prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and working plans by . the State Public Works Department. The Department of Home Affairs is responsible.
Yes.
Yes’.

page 1369

MESSAGES

The PRESIDENT reported the receipt of messages from the House of Representatives, acquainting the Senate that, in compliance with its request, it had resumed the consideration! of the following Bills: -

Bills of Exchange Bill

Parliamentary Witnesses Bill

page 1369

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Motion (by Senator Sir Robert Best) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Industries Preservation Acts 1906-1907.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

[3.7]. - I desire to move now that the Bill be printed and read a second time at a later hour to-day.

SenatorDE LARGIE (Western Australia) [3.8]. - I object to this unnecessary haste. I would point out that the Bill has not yet been printed, and whilst I am sure that nobody desires to delay its passing, it should, at least, be in print and in the hands of honorable senators before we are asked to proceed further with it.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would point out to the Minister of Trade and Customs that before his motion can be moved it will be necessary to suspend the Standing Orders.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [3.9]. - I thought that a reasonable understanding had been arrived at in regard to this matter. I believe it was Senator de Largie who on Wednesday last asked my honorable colleague what would be the order of business to-day, and it was then intimated that, providing a certain motion had been disposed of elsewhere, we proposed to move the second reading of certain Bills here, and that we should ask for a suspension of the Standing Orders to enable that course to be adopted. The only object we have in view is, of course, the saving of time.

Senator Pearce:

– The Government do not intend to do more thanmove the second reading’of certain Bills to-day?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Certainly not. We merely propose to move the second reading of this Bill and of two other measures. The adjourned debate upon those motions will be proceeded with later.

Senator de Largie:

– I am quite agreeable to that course being followed.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Then I move -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading of the Australian Industries Preservation Bill being moved this day.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 4

Majority … … 22

AYES

NOES

– The Government cannot say that the Opposition were not prepared to assist them to proceed with business. I agree with Senator Clemons that Ministers should have the Bill before the Senate, or postponeits consideration until it has been circulated, and in the meantime go on with other business that they have ready. If they cannot do that, I think . we should amend the motion by adding the words, “when the Bill has been printed and placed in the hands of honorable senators.” We should have the Bill before us in less than half an hour if the Government are in earnest in their professed desire to go on with business. Last week we were given an intimation that Ministers would ask for the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable them to make their second-reading speeches on the measures they intended to introduce. No one objected at the time, because every member of the Senate who has seriously considered parliamentary procedure had it in mind that the Bills wouid be printed, and in the hands of honorable senators. I move -

That after the word “ day “ the words “ after the Bill has been printed and placed in the hands of honorable senators “ be added.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [3.54]. - I am very sorry that the action of the Government, which had for its sole object the expediting of public business, should have been so misunderstood.

Senator Givens:

– Bunkum !

Senator Henderson:

– The honorable senator should really apologize for saying that.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– My honorable friends may interject unworthily as they have done, but let me point out the facts. Honorable senators are aware that, in accordance with the practice of the Senate, the

Government could not go on with Government business while a certain motion was pending elsewhere. Accordingly, on Wednesday last, we intimated that as there was a prospect that the motion of want of confidence moved in another place would be disposed of on Friday, we were desirous that we should meet to-day not merely to do formal business, but to get on with as much public business as we possibly could. With a view to expediting public business, we intimated at the same time that we should ask that not only the formal motions for the first reading of certain measures should be taken, but also that Ministers in charge of them should be permitted to move the second reading, and give an exposition of them. Then, as soon as the Minister had sat clown it would have been the duty of a member of the Opposition, in accordance with the usual practice, to move the adjournment of the debate.

Senator Pearce:

– Why did not the Minister make his arrangements accordingly?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– My honorable friend has had some experience of these matters, and must know what is the ordinary practice in circumstances of a similar character. If, for the sake of expedition, we had not made the suggestion which we did, it would have been the duty of my honorable colleague and myself to have submitted the ordinary motions that leave be given to introduce certain Bills for certain purposes. These formal motions having been disposed of, we should have had to adjourn until tomorrow.

Senator Pearce:

– The Minister knows that that question is not at issue.

If honorable senators voted to suspend the Standing Orders under a misapprehension, the Government do not wish to take advantage of them. It is quite possible to fix the resumption of the debate at a later hour of the day, when copies of the Bill will be available.

Senator McGregor:

– If the Minister gives that assurance to the Senate, I will not press my amendment.

Senator Pearce:

– I ask the Minister to recall what happens when a Supply Bill is received. Immediately the motion for its first reading is passed the Bill is circulated.

Senator MILLEN:

– My honorable friend knows that there are three reasons for that practice. As a rule, there is a contingent motion on the notice-paper in anticipation of the arrival of the Supply Bill. On the motion for its first reading the main portion of the debate on the Bill is taken. And as a Supply Bill originates elsewhere, it is always in print and available to honorable senators. This Bill, however, has been originated here. The Government have no desire to proceed with the motion for its second reading if the Senate considers that it would be under a disability in that course being taken. As this discussion has lasted some time, it is anticipated that very shortly, probably in a few minutes, the Bill will be available for circulation. If my honorable friend will withdraw his amendment, the Government, having done everything they can to expedite the printing of the Bill, will see that its second reading is not moved until copies are made available to honorable senators.

Senator McGregor:

– With that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1377

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to compensation to seamen for injuries suffered in the course of their employment.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of theExecutive Council · Free Trade

– I move -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading of the Seamen’s Compensation Bill being moved this day.

I desire to inform honorable senators, as I did in regard to a similar motion .just now, that I will not proceed with the motion for second reading if copies of the Bill are not available for their consideration.

Senator Turley:

– No leave has been given by the Senate to the Minister to submit the motion, and if any one objects it cannot be put.

The PRESIDENT:

– Standing order 433 says-

In cases of urgent necessity, any standing or sessional order or orders of the Senate may be suspended on motion, duly made and seconded without notice : provided that such motion is carried by an absolute majority of the whole number of senators.

The Minister is perfectly within his rights in submitting the motion, but, of course, it ‘will have to be carried by an absolute majority of honorable senators.

Senator Turley:

– Only on the ground that it is urgent.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate will judge that question by its vote.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to -

That the second reading of the Bill be an order of the day for a later hour this day.

page 1378

LIGHTHOUSES BILL

Motion (by Senator Sir Robert Best) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to lighthouses lightships beacons and buoys.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (VictoriaMinister of Trade and Customs) [4.12]. - I beg to move -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading of the Lighthouses Bill being moved this day.

Of course, I give an assurance to honorable senators that the second reading of the Bill will not be proceeded with until it has been circulated.

Senator MCGREGOR:
South Australia

– I do not think that the Minister of Trade and Customs should ask the Senate to suspend the Standing Orders in order to enable the second reading of a third Bill to be . proceeded with to-day. The Government should be satisfied with the concession which they have obtained. When the second reading speeches on the two other Bills are concluded it will be a reasonable time to adjourn. The second reading of any other Bills might reasonably be made orders of the day for tomorrow.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– If that isthe general wish, I certainly shall have no objection lc that course being taken.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– The Minister’s justification for asking the Senate to suspend the Standing Orders has been that he wanted to fill up time. I am sure that the introductory speeches on the Seamen’s Compensation, Bill and the Australian Industries Preservation Bill will occupy the time of the Senate to-day, after those measures have been made available. If we agree to this motion, it may be urged hereafter that because we suspended the Standing Orders to enable the second reading of two Bills to be proceeded with, that course should be taken in all cases. In my opinion, it will be a dangerous precedent to establish, unless, of course, there are-good reasons for doing so. I admit that there were good reasons for suspending the Standing Orders in regard to the other Bills. The Minister will be well advised if he does not press the mo’. ion.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– We will not press the motion if there is any objection to it.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– The previous discussion and. the remarks of Senators McGregor and Pearce on this motion have rather amused me. So far as [ understand the position, we have given leave to the Ministers to move the second reading of two Bills, because we want to fill up our time, and they are quite prepared to do that. We have also understood that, as soon as each Minister’s secondreading speech is concluded, the debate will probably be adjourned. In carrying out this idea of filling up our time, no assistance is expected from, or can be given by, any one except the Ministers. The whole onus of filling up our time to-day is upon the Ministers. I also gather that they are quite willing to see that an opportunity is given to them to fill up our time.

Senator Pearce:

– We will advance the Bills a stage, though.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The honorable senator will agree with me that if the two Ministers were to occupy our time until 10 o’clock in moving the second reading of two Bills, their speeches would be very lengthy ; in fact, before they had finished we should probably be asking them to resume their seats, and, before they had been speaking a great while, they would probably be asking us to allow them to do so. Seeing that we have committed ourselves to this idea of filling up time, I think it is inadvisable to prevent the Ministers from moving the second reading of the other two Bills, if they so desire. I venture to suggest that they can take that course and yet not occupy our time until 10 o’clock.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I think that there is a good deal in the views which have been expressed from this side, and also in the statement by the Minister that he does not propose 10 proceed with this particular Bill to-day. It is provided in the Standing Orders that sufficient time shall elapse after a Bill is introduced and circulated to enable its provisions to be considered by honorable senators. The second reading of two important Bills will be moved to-night, and the debate thereon adjourned until to-morrow, and we are now asked to allow that course to be taken with a third Bill. I ask Senator Clemons if, when the Senate assembles to-morrow, he will be prepared to discuss the whole question of the light-houses, beacons, and buoys of Australia, and the constitutional point which is involved in the Bill? If, however, the second reading of the Bill is not moved until to-morrow, we shall have another day in which to consider its provisions before the debate is resumed. I think that at least a day should be allowed to elapse before the second reading of the measure is moved.

Senator Clemons:

– Does not the honorable senator see that if the Minister moves the second reading of the Bill to-day, it may be a week before any one will be expected to discuss that question?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– That may be so, but if the Government wish to hurry on the consideration of any Bills, they will set them down first on the notice-paper, and expect us to be ready to proceed with them.

Senator Clemons:

– Let the Government getall the Bills they can in print.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I prefer to see the Senate make haste slowly, so that these measures may receive full consideration at our hands. I trust that the Minister will be induced to fix the second readingof this Bill for to-morrow.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– We shall not be depriving honorable senators of an opportunity for consideration, and will be expediting business, if we allow the Ministers to carry forward these measures a stage to-day. We suspended the Standing Orders because we recognised that the circumstances of to-day are peculiar, and that we should do something to-day which ordinarily we could not do. If it was right to take that course with reference to two Bills, there can be no reason against doing so in the case of other Bills. I heartily indorse what has been urged by Senator Clemons. The only two senators who can engage the attentionof the Senate tonight are the two Ministers. It would be ridiculous to assume that they could occupy the time until10 o’clock in moving the second reading of two Bills. I think that it is quite possible that they may. The Ministers may, by dinner time, have moved the second reading of four Bills, and we can proceed with the discussion of them at a later date.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Six Robert Best) agreed to -

That the second reading of the Bill be an Order of the Day for a later hour this day.

page 1379

COST OF PRINTING

Motion (by Senator Givens) agreed to -

That there be laid on the table of the Senate a return showing -

The total cost (exclusive of the cost of reporting) of printing, publishing, and circulating Hansard for the year ended 30th June, 1909.

The total cost of printing, publishing, and circulating the Commonwealth Government Gazette for the year ended 30th June, 1909.

The total amount paid for Government advertising for year ended 30th June, 1909;

page 1379

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 8th December 1908, vide vol. xlviii., p. 2843):

Clause1 (Short title and citation).

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I should like to say a few words of a general character in regard to this Bill. It will be recollected that the measure was introduced last session by Senator Pearce. The second reading was agreed to. At that time there was a fear in my mind, and in the minds of other honorable senators, that it might be possible to manipulate the recording machine in some way or other.

Senator Givens:

– Some of us have that fear yet.

Senator MILLEN:

– I admit at once that it is a fear that is not to be pushed on one side lightly. I have no objection to, but rather I regard with pleasure, any mechanical contrivance designed to save time and labour both to the public and to private firms. At the same time, last session 1 expressed grave doubt as to whether the machine had been subjected to sufficient tests. Senator Pearce did inform us that he had had reports from New Zealand; but unfortunately he omitted on that occasion to show that friendly desire that honorable senators should be supplied with the printed matter which he has displayed today, and we were not furnished with copies of the reports. Consequently, although they were satisfactory to the honorable senator, theyleft something to be desired from the point of view of the Committee generally. Since then the reports from New Zealand, coming practically down to date, have been printed and circulated. I think that if honorable senators have read them they will see that there can be little doubt that the confidence which Senator Pearce expressed last session, can find an echo in the minds of all of us at the present time. I, at that time, expressed the necessity for manifesting caution. I have satisfied myself since by reading the reports that the measure may be safely adopted. I have now brought the Bill again under the notice of the Senate in the hope that the good work commenced by Senator Pearce will be completed.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– Of course, I had an opportunity of reading the reports referred to by Senator Millen before I moved the second reading of this Bill last session. Having been responsible for the measure then, subjects connected with it have naturally attracted my notice since. Probably honorable senators have observed from the newspaper reports that there has been an’ unusual number of frauds perpetrated principally by lads upon mercantile houses. During the recess I noticed reports of a large number of stamp frauds.

Senator Millen:

– I doubt whether more frauds have been committed, but I think that more have been detected.

Senator Clemons:

– Frauds, how committed ?

Senator PEARCE:

– By lads who have purloined stamps. In two cases lads were given a large quantity of invoices to post. They removed the stamps and destroyed the invoices. In one case a large amount of trouble, and I do not doubt considerable expense also, was caused to a firm. I am certain that this measure will be of great benefit to large mercantile houses in preventing stamp frauds. I satisfied myself as far as I was able that the machine is safe from a departmental point of view. I do not think that it would be possible to “fake” the machine in the interests of those who use it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 -

The following part and sections are inserted after part1 of the principal Act : -

Part Ia. - Recording Machines. 65a. In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears, “ Recording Machine” means a machine for the purpose of making impressions upon postal articles and telegrams, indicating the value of the postage or charges chargeable in respect of their, transmission by the Department, and of recording the amounts of the values so indicated.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Senator Pearce and Senator Millen have both made general remarks concerning this Bill. Probably both honorable senators were justified in making what were virtually second-reading speeches in Committee. But, as we have now reached the part in which I take an interest, I should like to point out that the measure is one for the introduction of a machine which will render the use of adhesive stamps unnecessary. It is not a Bill to facilitate the sale of stamps; it is a Bill to enable them to be done without. The machine is one which makes a mark on an envelope, showing that a certain amount of money has been paid. Now, I happen to know that there is also available a very ingenious invention which may be used to supplant the machine mentioned in this Bill. It provides for the automatic delivery of adhesive stamps. There is such a machine in use in the precincts of the House of Commons at present, and it is largely used.

Senator Pearce:

– There was such a machine at the General Post Office, Melbourne.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That machine might, in the ordinary course of things, come into competition with the machine mentioned in thisBill. If we are not careful, we may exclude the use of the rival machine. If the Minister can assure me that there is no possibility of the Bill excluding the use of the other machine, it will not be necessary for me to continue my observations.

Senator Millen:

– The machine mentioned in the Bill does away with the adhesive stamp. It supplies an optional form of stamp.

Senator CLEMONS:

– But, as I have said, there is an extremely ingenious invention which provides for the automatic supply of adhesive stamps, and which would enable the public, where the machine was used, to secure postage stamps much more readily than they could do by obtaining them at a postoffice. Moreover, it is an invention which will save a considerable amount of labour, because it is automatic. I shall not enlarge upon the subject if I am given to understand that it is not the intention of the Government to allow of any monopoly of the machine mentioned in the Bill precluding the possibility of another machine being used by the Post Office. Can the Minister give me that assurance? The rival machine, though different in operation, is similar in results, and in securing efficiency, economy, and convenience to the public. I do not desire to defeat the object of this Bill at all, but to secure freedom for the use of the rival machine.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator MACFARLANE:

– No. I presume that the Government would require a large deposit from the firms who used them. Consequently, we have adopted every reasonable safeguard, so far as the revenue is concerned, when we countenance the use of these machines.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– The report from the New Zealand Go,vernment regarding the use of this automatic stamping machine for postal purposes- does not appear to me to be of an entirely satisfactory character. For instance, it states -

The machine unfortunately is only fitted with, indicators of the ½d., id., ad., 6d., and is. values.

Suppose that a person desired to send a letter which required stamps to the valueof more than is., would the machine work satisfactorily ?

Senator Givens:

– Yes.

Senator SAYERS:

– How can that beso if it be fitted only with the indicatorsmentioned ?

Senator Givens:

– A person could use a is. stamp and a 3d. stamp, or a is. stampand a 6d. stamp.

Senator Vardon:

– A letter may be stamped twice.

Senator SAYERS:

– I am merely basing my remarks upon the report with which wehave been favoured from New Zealand. I do not admit that there is any great demand for the adoption of these machines. It seems to me that they are merely in theexperimental stage. The report states -

During the period the machine has been under trial postal matter amounting to ^43 os. 2d. hasbeen franked.

Senator Chataway:

– The honorable senator is quoting from a copy of a memorandum from the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, and not from the New Zealand report.

Senator SAYERS:

– For the moment, I was under the impression that I was quoting the New Zealand report. The memorandum proceeds -

As was to be anticipated, the officer operating the machine suffered at first from want of experience, but as this was acquired and confidence gained, he was able to pass the matter through the machine with great celerity.

Apparently, the operation is not so simple as Honorable senators would make it appear.If an officer requires time in which to learn how to operate the machine, it is obvious that its working cannot be such an extremely simple matter. That being so, business people would probably have to employ an expert to operate it. My experience teaches’ me that all machines, such as cash registers, are capable of being mani pulated. Consequently, I think that this automatic stamping machine might lend itself to fraud being practised against the Government. At any rate, we require more information than is contained in this memorandum before we are warranted in embarking on the experiment proposed. Senator Pearce has said that a check might easily be kept upon correspondence passing through the post. But if the members of the postal staff are called upon to check stamps of½d.,1d., 2d., 6d. and1s. values, instead of lessening the expense of the Department, additional hands will certainly be required. If that is the idea underlying the change, we ought to know it.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- I agree that the use of this machine marks a departure which ought to be regarded with a great deal of caution, particularly, as was pointed out by Senator Stewart, as it is a departure which is to be made, not so much in the interest of the Post and Telegraph Department as in the interest of certain firms. I claim that it is almost impossible for the ingenuity of man to invent a machine which the ingenuity of another man will not enable him to” fake.” I have had the privilege of examining this automatic stamping machine, and whilst I admit that it is an exceedingly ingenious contrivance, there are two ways in which the Department could be defrauded, apart from the accuracy of its recording powers. In the first place, the stamp is impressed upon the envelope or article which it is desired to forward through the post. A spring is released, and the stampcomes down and leaves its impression upon the letter or telegram as the case may be. But it appears to me that there is nothing to prevent two or three envelopes being simultaneously placed in the machine with a specially prepared carbon between them, and in that case the one stamp would be impressed upon all. I am assured by the expert that the plan which I have suggested would not work, because the pressure exerted by the stamp is too light. But if that be so the pressure might easily be increased. It is also urged that letters are too thick to permit of the idea which I have outlined being practicable. But that contention will certainly not hold good in respect of telegrams which are usually written on very thin paper. Three or four telegrams might be stamped simultaneously, and in that way the Department might be defrauded. I know that the fact that each die would bear a certain number would enable the Department to trace the articles sent through the post by any firm. But honorable senators are aware that letter-sorters are required to discharge their functions with extreme rapidity. Consequently it is scarcely possible to have an effective check kept in that way. There is another method by which I think fraud could be practised. It is true that the dies which make the impression are to be made with a secret mark which will be known only to the engraver and to the Department, and that the latter will thus be enabled to trace any particular impression of a stamp which passes through the post. But I would ask, “ What is to prevent any ordinary individual who knows that a firm has a No. 6 die on its machine manufacturing a facsimile of the impression stamp made by that machine? “ With an ordinary hand stamp he would thus be able to stamp as many letters as he chose, and these would continue to pass through the post until the fraud was detected. In such a contingency I venture to say that it would be almost impossible to trace the culprit. Of course, we may be told that forgery of the present stamps is possible. I admit that it is. But we know perfectly well that the difficulty that would be experienced in laying down a plant with which toforge postage stamps is so great that it would not be worth anyperson’s while to attempt it. The practical test to which these automatic stamping machines have been subjected in New Zea land does not say very much for them. A highly respectable individual who occupied a very responsible position was convicted of embezzling money, and he had a host of persons in the witness-box to prove what an excellent character he was, but the Judge pointed out that every one bore an excellent character until he was found out.

Senator Gray:

– That has nothing to do with the testing of this machine by the New Zealand Government.

Senator GIVENS:

– The character which that Government give the machine is an excellent one, but that may be because they have not yet found out that it has any defects. So far the test has been a very limited one. Persons here do not speak about it in such very high terms, and I want to put on record a passage from a letter dated 14th July, j 908, from the Secretary to the General Post Office, Wellington, to the Secretary to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, Melbourne -

I have the honour to inform you, in reply lo your telegram of the 10th instant, that the undermentioned methods are adopted by this Department to remove the possibility of the revenue being defrauded by the use of the franking machines of the Automatic Stamping Company, Christchurch.

They go on to indicate ten precautions which are taken - for what purpose? To remove the possibility of the revenue being defrauded. That goes to show that the Department considers that otherwise there is a possibility of the revenue being defrauded. But is there any guarantee that in spite of those precautions being taken the revenue will not be defrauded ? That is the only experience we have to guide us. I admit that the machine is an exceedingly ingenious one, and if it can do all that is claimed for it, without laying us under an undue liability to be defrauded, I have no objection to the use of it. In fact, I would gladly welcome the introduction of such a machine, but, with the knowledge I have, I am not satisfied that it will do all that is claimed for it. I was not satisfied when the Bill was last under consideration, nor am I satisfied now, that the Department will be placed in a better position. In fact, I am positive that it will be placed in a very much worse position. I am not complaining of any faults or defects in the present system. Only large insurance companies and big mercantile houses will use this machine. I am credibly informed that there are not above a few hundred of the machines in the whole of New Zealand at the present time.

Senator Millen:

– It is only right to say that in New Zealand the Government have proceeded cautiously. First of all, they issued a limited number of machines.

Senator GIVENS:

– In the first instance, the issue of the machines was limited, but now it is not limited beyond the fact that an applicant has to be approved by the Department, and a certain deposit made. 1 think that the Minister will admit that I am right in saying that at the present time only a few hundred machines are in use there. In view of the fact that a selfcontained country like New Zealand, with a population almost equal to that of New South Wales, has only a few hundred of these machines in use, is it worth while for the Commonwealth to make a great flurry in order to suit the desires of an exceedingly limited number of persons who are fairly well served by the present method ? We are told, and I admit that there is soma force in the argument, that the use of this machine will remove the opportunities for peculation and fraud indulged in by the employe’s of big firms, but I submit that it is no part of the duty of the Department to look after the morals of the emploés of any one else.

Senator Chataway:

– What about ‘the gambling sections in the Post and Telegraph Act?

Senator GIVENS:

– I do not think that they should have been included in the Act. I hold that the Commonwealth, if it wanted to interfere, should have had the courage to deal with the question separately from that measure, and in a proper way. 1 hope that my honorable friend will not try to make me responsible for something with which I had nothing to do. The business of the Department is to carry letters and parcels, to transmit and deliver telegrams, and to provide the fullest possible facilities for those purposes. It is no part of its duty to try to give to private firms facilities which are not available to, or needed by, the great bulk of the people. Every employer should- be able to keep an easy supervision over his employes with regard to the number of stamps used. He knows the number of letters required to be posted in a day, and he can easily issue the requisite number of stamps, and see that the letters are all properly stamped before they are taken to the post-office. The employers should not ask the Department to look after their employes. Again, I do not think that there is very much in the suggestion that the boys are always peculating. I believe that any of the big firms which are respectable employ decent boys. Such firms ought to pay decent wages. They should not try to sweat down the boys to a miserable living, and so tempt them to indulge in miserable peculations. I believe that if employes were treated fairly and well by their employers, we should ‘ hear little or nothing of petty peculation. At any rate, because of a little peculation which is alleged to go on in a very limited circle, are we to alter our post and telegraph system in order to leave the Department open, perhaps, to be defrauded in some way ? If any employers are being defrauded, it is their business to adopt methods to safeguard their interests, instead of trying to saddle the Commonwealth with a liability, in order that they may be protected against fraud.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– The discussion on this proposed new section has been apparently confined c to the merits and demerits of a particular machine, which undoubtedly the Department has been trying. This is simply a provision to alter the law so that the Department, if it thinks fit, can use a stamping machine, or allow persons to do so. Senator Givens had a great deal to say about the peculation of stamps. I admit that that has been one of the arguments used, but I think that a far more important argument in favour of the Bill is the fact that whatever mechanical device can be found to reduce the amount of labour and quicken the pace at which the stamping of letters can be done, should be utilized. I think that the Department should not be faced as it is now with an Act which says that, no matter what machine is- in existence which will do the work effectively, it must have adhesive stamps. Not only will the use of an automatic stamping machine quicken the work when it has to be done on a considerable scale, but it will .also largely reduce the amount of stamping which has to be done in the Department. I do not think that the general question as to whether a particular machine is good or safe, or reliable, need be discussed. ‘The Department is simply asking that if it is satisfied that any machine will do the work required, it shall have the right to use that machine, or to allow persons to use it. If this power is granted it will be for the Department to thoroughly examine and test this particular machine. The evidence which was sub mitted here last session made me very chary about giving my assent to its adoption. If 1 thought now that the day this Bill was passed the machine would be used by the Department without better evidence as to its superiority being obtained, I believe that I should vote against its third reading. It was introduced by the late Government, and its Postmaster-General assured me that the machine was being tested very thoroughly. We have had a similar assurance from the present Government. If there are other’ machines of this kind in existence they will naturally be tested by the Department. It is not proposed to give to a particular make of machine a monopoly of the business. If better machines are invented, the Department will be free to use them. As the only question which arises in connexion with this provision is whether we should allow the Department, if satisfied with any form of recording machine, to use it, I shall vote for it.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– The important question is whether the adoption of this machine will be mutually advantageous. There will be an advantage if the machine results in a saving to the Department j and if, on the other hand, it enables the clients of the Post and Telegraph Department to transact their business more readily, and to prevent peculation in stamps, I do not see why we should not suit their convenience in that way. But I am not satisfied with the documents that have been supplied to us. The letter from Sir Joseph Ward is not addressed to any one connected with the Commonwealth Government, but to the Secretary of the Automatic Stamp Machine Company. It is true that the letter states that the reports received from the chief postmasters of the districts in which the. machine has been used are favorable, and show’ that the machine is regarded as a great convenience.

Senator Millen:

– The original of that letter has been in possession of the postal authorities.

Senator VARDON:

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [5.39]. - The Vice-President of the Executive Council has referred to the fact that probably large numbers of stamps which have , been cancelled are cleaned and re-used. That remark attracted my attention, because, a few years ago, I made a similar observation in the Senate. I forget who was Postmaster-General at the time, or what Ministry was in power - or, rather, in existence. But I brought before the Senate substantial information, to the effect that cancelled stamps, to the face value of thousands of pounds, were sent from Australia to be doctored, and came back again ready to be used as perfectly good stamps. I made that statement here and called for action, and I was told that I was speaking on a matter I knew nothing about. I was given no encouragement to go further. The statement made by the Minister this afternoon goes to prove that what I said in this chamber years ago was substantially correct.

Senator Stewart:

– Why send them to Germany ?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Because I suppose they could be more easily handled there, as the Germans are a scientific nation. As for the methods adopted for obliterating stamps on envelopes, I can only say that they are a disgrace to the Department. If this Bill will afford any relief in that regard, well, thank God for it ! One continually gets letters that are barred across on the upper half to such an extent as frequently to cover the name of the addressee.

Senator Turley:

– That is because the stamps are obliterated by a machine.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Then it is a machine the use of which ought to be abolished. Really, the eccentricities of the Post and Telegraph Department are so extraordinary that I feel justified in mentioning one of the latest which has come under my notice. In districts in which, for over a quarter of a century at least, letters have been delivered to persons at their own houses, a notice has been issued, over the signature of the

Deputy Postmaster-General, to the effect that, if people do not provide letter-boxes for the reception of their correspondence, their letters will not be delivered, and they must apply for them at the local post-office. I have written to the Postmaster-General, to ask whether this notification has been issued with his knowledge or consent. I have suggested that it is a freak, and that really a process of letter delivery which has been continued for fifty, sixty, or seventy years should not be departed from, except under a regulation issued through the Governor-General in Council. I admit that this matter has no direct bearing upon the Bill, but I have ventured to mention it as evidence of the eccentricities that are afflicting the Department. Instead of endeavouring to make it an efficient public convenience, they appear to be chasing after all sorts of fads and nostrums, and I shrewdly suspect that this Bill deals with one of them. If, as the Minister declares, this recording machine has been in use in New Zealand for thelast four vears and no one has been shot before breakfast for using it, it may do no harm to give it a trial here. I hope that, if we carry this Bill, it will not be regarded as a premonitory symptom of the view we shall take of a voting machine which will secure the return of the fellow who is cleverest in manipulating appliances of the kind. I agree with the Minister’s statement that, as a rule, these machines would be worked by innocentboys, who would not possess sufficient mechanical skill to. enable them to tamper with the apparatus, but surely the honorable senator has overlooked the fact that one who desired to manipulate one of these machines would give it, not to an innocent boy, fresh from school-;– but to the cleverest mechanic he could find. The boy would not be able to doctor the machine, but the mechanic might. I do not think we can derive very much comfort from the suggestion that innocent youths will operate these machines. I suppose that we should give the machine a trial, and I shall support the Bill.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I have looked up the report of the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Department, dated 22nd June, 1908, and I find in it a reference to these automatic postage-recording machines. No opinion is expressed for or against them, but apparently they have given a certain amount of satisfaction to the Department, as the closing paragraph of the report states -

The Automatic Stamping Company has been given permission to install machines in any number up to 200 at Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin.

It is a pity that more detailed information in regard to this innovation is not given in the report. If the use of these machines were to be confined to large public offices, telegraph offices, and so forth, there would not be so much objection to the measure as the Department would be able to discover whether it was possible to defraud the revenue by means of them. But I again insist that, if fraud is to be detected, the Department must exercise a continual check upon the correspondence of the people in whose places of business these machines are installed. That must involve considerable additional expenditure by the Department. For instance, a large commercial firm may send a bundle of trade circulars weighing one hundredweight to the postoffice to be distributed. These are stamped with a machine.

Senator Turley:

– At the post-office.

Senator STEWART:

– Under the Bill it is proposed that they may be stamped on the business premisesof the firm issuing them. After being stamped they would be brought to the post office, and deposited there. If put into the post office one by one, each would have to be checked by the Department if fraud was to be detected. Under regulation, it might be provided that such circulars should be handed over in bulk to postal officials before being finally posted. There would not, in such a case, be so much difficulty in checking the postage upon them. I recognise that opposition to the Bill is futile. A majority of honorable senators seem to be in favour of it. I am always prepared to welcome progress if it can be made without very much risk, and therefore I am not much concerned whether the Bill passes or not.

Proposed new section agreed to.

Proposed new section 65B agreed to.

Proposed new section 65c - (1.) ThePostmaster-General may grant to any person a permit to issue recording machines of approved patterns and may at any time revoke any permit so granted. (2.) An application for a permit under this sec tion must be made in writing. (3.) Before a permit is granted the applicant must give securitv bv bond to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General -

that he will only issue recording machines of approved patterns and to approved persons and in accordance with the. regulations ; and
that he will make good to the PostmasterGeneral any loss to the revenue of the Commonwealth arising from fraud in the use of any recording machine issued by him.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– The crux of the whole question is raised by this proposed section. We have to decide whether the power to extend the use of these machines is to be given to the company, or whether the Government are to take full responsibility in connexion with their use. There is great difference of opinion on this phase of the question in New Zealand. They are not satisfied there toallow a private firm to run these machines, whilst all responsibility in connexion with them is thrown upon the Government. In a letter dated 14th July, 1908, from the Secretary to the General Post Office, Wellington, to the Secretary Postmaster-General’s Department, I find this paragraph at the close -

Although no difficulty has yet arisen from the sale to users of the machines, I am of opinion that sales should not be permitted, but that the machines should be leased by the company to users; or, what would probably be a more satisfactory arrangement, the machine should be vested in the Postmaster-General, a rental being paid direct by the users to the company.

– I do not think they have.

Senator TURLEY:

– Is that evidence that fraud is being practised throughout the Commonwealth? It seems to me that the Government are fairly well protected by the use of adhesive stamps. Personally, I do not like the clause under consideration at. all. The power to issue permits to a company suggests to me the propriety of the Government taking over these machines as a monopoly. Certainly they could work them to much better advantage than can any private company.

Proposed new section agreed to.

Proposed new sections 65D to 65I agreed to.

Proposed new section 65J -

Any person who -

wilfully obstructs any officer in the execution of any power under this part of this Act; or

tampers with any recording machine; or

without authority breaks any seal placed by an officer on any part of a recording machine or on any lock used to fasten any part thereof ; or

without authority interferes with the mechanism of any recording machine ; shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceedingFifty pounds.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I do not think that the penalty provided is sufficiently severe. It may be only 5s., or it may be £5.

Senator Givens:

– Even the maximum penalty would be no deterrent in the case of a wealthy man.

Senator STEWART:

– Any of the offences enumerated is tantamount to theft, and we do not usually punish theft by a fine. Sometimes a fine is imposed; but in nearly every instance the alternative is a term of imprisonment. I think that it is desirable to substitute a penalty of £100, in lieu of £50, and to provide an alternative in the form of imprisonment.

Senator Givens:

– That would mean that the wealthy man would always get off with a fine, while the poor man would be sent to gaol.

Senator STEWART:

– No doubt my proposal is open to that objection; I move -

That the word “Fifty,” line15, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “One hundred,” and also that after the word “pounds” the words “or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months “ be inserted.

Sitting suspended from 6.20 to 7.45 p.m.

page 1393

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

[7.45]. - I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This is a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Industries Preservation Acts of 1906 and 1907. It will be remembered that the parent Act, which is the basis of what is known as our anti-trust legislation, and which was passed in the year 1906, was followed by an amending Act, passed in the year 1907, providing some additional effective machinery. The present Bill has for its object the amendment of those Acts, in order to make our legislation still more effective. Honorable senators will be aware that it has been the duty of the Attorney-General’s Department and of the Department of Trade and Customs to make many investigations into what are variously known throughout the Commonwealth as combines, trusts, vends, or monopolies; and the result of the investigations made has shown that it is necessary that in some respects the machinery should be more direct and simple.

Senator Pearce:

– In this Bill is it proposed to legislate against ‘‘fusions”?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– There are legitimate combinations, some of which are not detrimental to the public interest; and the fusion to which my honorable friend refers is one of those which are beneficial. The Bill practically deals with two matters. First of all, it formally strikes out of our legislation the sections which were declared by the High Court to be ultra vires ; and it makes various consequential amendments in the law so far as those sections are concerned. It substitutes two new clauses which have for their object the further repression of monopolies. It will be remembered that several provisions of the original Act were challenged by an action which was instituted by Messrs. Huddart, Parker, and Co. against Moorehead, a Customs officer, who was the informant, testing the constitutionality of those Acts. Amongst other things, it was held by the majority of the High Court - that is to say, by the Chief Justice and by Justices Barton. O’Connor, find Higgins - that the Australian Industries Preservation Act, in respect of sections 5 and 8, was ultra vires. By the first of those sections the Commonwealth Parliament enacted that . any foreign corporation or trading or financial corporation, which, either as principal or agent, entered into any contract or continued in any combination with intent to restrain trade within the Commonwealth or to injure by means of unfair competition any Australian industry, should be guilty of an offence. It was held by the High Court that that enactment was ultra vires. Mr. Justice Higgins, who was one of the majority on the Bench, said that the principle, nature and character of the enactments contained in sections 5 and 8 of the Act did not constitute them a law with respect to corporations within the meaning of section 51, paragraph 20 of the” Constitution; and he held that the sections were not within the legislative power of this Parliament. It will be remembered that section 51 of the Constitution gives the Parliament power to make laws “for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth” with respect to “trade and commerce with other countries and among the States” and by paragraph 20 Parliament has the same power with respect to “foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.” The sections to which I have directed attention sought to regulate the trade of corporations within a State. We thought that we bad that power under paragraph 20 of sub-section 51 of the Constitution. But the High Court held that we had no such power, but that we had power only to legislate, in regard to trade and commerce with other countries and amongst the States so far as corporations were concerned. One portion of this Bill provides, therefore, for the elimination of those two sections from the principal legislation on this subject, and makes consequential alterations. The other important matter dealt with in the Bill has regard to rebates. In this connexion, I wish to draw attention to the provisions of the present law which have been found difficult and cumbrous to carry out, having regard to the intention of the original Acts of 1906 and 1907. Section 4 of the Act, 1906, provides that -

Any person who, either as principal or as agent, makes or enters into any contract -

So that the first thing that had to be proved was one which it was sometimes difficult to prove, namely, that there was a’ contract. That contract had to be in relation to trade and commerce with other countries. Paragraph a of the section I can pass over, and I come to paragraph b - with intent to destroy or injure -

So that the second thing to be proved was the intention to destroy or injure an Australian industry. Next - by means of unfair competition -

That had to be proved. Then it had to be proved that the preservation of that particular industry - is advantageous to the Commonwealth -

In section 6 of the Act of 1906 certain things are presumed, So far as unfair competition is concerned. That is to say - the competition is to be deemed to be unfair unless the contrary is proved, in several cases. The only one, however, I need refer to for the present purpose is that mentioned in paragraph d -

If the defendant with respect to any goods or services which are the subject of the competition, gives, offers, or promises to any person any rebate, refund, discount, or reward upon condition that that person deals, or in consideration of that person having dealt, with the defendant to the exclusion of other persons dealing in similar goods or services.

– Of course corporations are only excluded so far as sections 5 and 8 are concerned. The only reason why the word “corporation” was used in sections 5 and 8, where they are specially dealt with, was because it was thought that by the terms of paragraph xx. of section 51 of the Constitution we were enabled to deal with the regulation of internal trade so far as corporations only were concerned. I desire to bring under the attention of honorable senators the very important report of the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings or Conferences recently issued by the British Government. It will be my duty to make some extended reference to it. But before I do so, I wish to make some explanation of a paragraph which appears at page 7 of the report -

In 1906, the Legislature of the Commonwealth passed an Act entitled the “ Australian Industries Preservation Act,” containing provi- sions which might affect the operations of shipowners muting use of the rebate system. But, as is stated in the Board of Trade memorandum, the Government of the Commonwealth, on representations being made by the Colonial Office, undertook that in administering the Act, so far as shipping rings were concerned, they would bear in mind that a Royal Commission, including colonial representatives, had been appointed by the Imperial Government to inquire into the whole question.

For their information, I direct the attention of honorable senators to what actually took place. On the 24th October, 1906, a cablegram was received from the British Government to this effect -

Has Australian Industries Preservation Bill become law? If so, Board of Trade hope that in administering Part II., which may apparently be held to include operations of Shipping Conferences, your Ministers will bear in mind question is about to be considered by Royal Commission on which Australia and other Colonies will be represented.

The reply sent by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Deakin, was -

Australian Industries Preservation Bill assented to 24th September, 1906, became law that date. In administration, matter referred to will be borne in mind.

– Practically they were dominated by Sir Donald Currie. They had been subjected to the most despotic and arbitrary treatment, as I shall show honorable senators presently. Their treatment, indeed, had caused such an outcry that representations were made to the British Government to appoint this Commission. Now, in dealing with a report of this character it is important that we should have some little idea of the procedure which was followed in the conduct of the Commission. So far as I can gather, they did not examine witnesses upon oath. In fact, they say that what they did was to invite complaints from merchants and other shippers, to listen to any grievances which might be brought forward by other outside shippers, and, having tabulated these, to afford the shipping conferences an opportunity of replying to the complaints so made. Those who signed the majority report seem to have largely discounted a suggestion which was made to the effect that a large number of merchants and others were afraid to come forward and give evidence, because of the influence wielded by the conferences. This matter is dealt with very succinctly upon page 97 of the minority report, which says : -

Not a few merchants are interested in the shipping rings, either directly as principals or indirectly as being their agents. Many merchants would be unwilling to oppose them.

Mr. Spens, who gave evidence on behalf of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, said, in his memorandum of evidence (paragraph 9) - “ . . Unquestionably there is difficulty in getting shippers to allow cases of their own to be quoted with names and particulars. This difficulty in itself illustrates how completely the shipping rings have succeeded in destroying fair bargaining between themselves and shippers. It is the completeness of the domination of the lines over those they deal with, and the dangers shippers therefore run if they put themselves in a position of active antagonism, which naturally make shippers most unwilling to come forward and give particular instances of the hardships they are experiencing.” Mr. Wright, who gave evidence on behalf of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, said - “ During the past few years the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce has received constant complaints from merchants and manufacturers with reference to the manner in which their trade was being affected by the operation of shipping rings. In most cases it has been impossible to obtain details, even on the promise of the strictest privacy, and this reserve on the part of traders can only be put down to the fear that the communication of details might conceivably lead to their being traced by shipowners and penalized in consequence.”

Mr. Spens also gave the following instance, both of the power of the rings and of the unwillingness of shippers to place themselves in opposition to them. “ Unquestionably, at the time of the Thompson-Houston opposition, I was informed by quite a respectable firm that they shipped by the Thompson-Houston line, and found that their South African agents and correspondents declined to take their goods, not only because they were threatened with being charged double the freight ; and, further, in order to get back they had not only to express their penitence, but to send a sum of money to a charity.”

In regard to this matter, the following remark is made in the report of the majority : - “A suggestion was put forward by Mr. Spens and Mr. Wright that important evidence of arbitrary abuse of their power by the Shipping Conferences was withheld from us owing to fear on the part of shippers that the giving of such evidence would lead to acts of retaliation by the shipowners concerned. This, however, we cannot believe.”

We can only say that the unwillingness of some shippers to appear in opposition to the rings seems to us to be beyond question. That this unwillingness is due to a fear whether reasonable or not of possible consequence is an inference as to the legitimacy of which each person can form his own opinion.

The remarks which we have just made illustrate one of the difficulties under which the Commission has conducted its inquiry. The members of the shipping rings have the same interests, and their organization is complete. On the other hand, the merchants, the persons more immediately affected by the action of the rings, are divided in their interests ; they may live far apart ; they can only combine with difficulty, and they are, at least in some cases, unwilling to appear in opposition to the rings. The producers and consumers, who are really the persons specially interested in the matter, are only affected indirectly, and have even less power of combination. The inevitable result is to give the shipping rings an advantage in procuring and adducing evidence over those who are opposed to them.

– When the Navigation Bill is passed, they can only engage in our coastal trade on our own terms. On page 72 of this report, some of the complaints of arbitrary acts by the

South African Conference are referred to. Of course, it will only be possible for me to quote a few extracts. I ask honorable senators to listen to this quotation from page 72 - ^ By a letter of the 23rd May, 1907, to theChairman of the South African Merchants’ Committee, Sir Donald Currie announced certain proposed new rates of freight. But the same letter also announced a reduction of the amount of the rebate from ten to five per cent. When the effect of the reduction of the rebate is taken into account, the net result is that while the rates on classes 2, 3, 4, and 5 to Durban and Delagoa Bay, and on classes 3, 4, and 5 to East London were reduced, the rates on all classes to Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, and on classes 1 and 2 to East London were increased. That is to say that, although the merchants and Governments of South Africa have been for many years past asking for a percentage reduction of the tariff rates, the alterations which have been’ made actually increase the rates to certain of the ports.

The report continues -

Further, it may be noticed as an instance of the autocratic spirit of the South African Conference, that Sir Donald Currie, in announcing the intention of the Conference to make the above reduction in the rebate percentage, stated (with reference to a resolution passed in South Africa in favour of the abolition of the system of deferred rebates) that he was glad the shipowners had been able to go half-way in meeting this proposal.

That is, I think, a magnificent piece of humour. Sir Donald Currie was prepared to alter the rates. He reduced them as regards one port, increased them as regards another port, and, as they had suggested the abolition of the rebates, he said, “ I will meet you half-way by reducing the rebates from 10 per cent, to 5 per cent.” This action caused alarm to the various Governments in South Africa. They called a Conference at Bloemfontein to take steps to counteract the effect of the change. According to the report -

This Conference passed a resolution to the effect that “ the railway rates at present shall remain undisturbed, but rebates shall be granted in respect of the various ports affected, in such a manner as to maintain the, status quo which existed prior to the 1st July, 1907,” an arrangement which, as explained by Mr. Mosenthal and other witnesses, involved much trouble to men of business. No doubt the Conference lines were within their legal rights in acting as they did.

In other words, as State was put against State, and as all the railway freights were upset by reason of the alteration of the rates, the various Governments in South Africa were obliged to meet, and ultimately to resort to the same process, for the purpose of counteracting the action of the shipping combines.

Senator Guthrie:

– Exactly as the Government of Victoria do in order to get the Murray River trade - they quote less rates than do the other States.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– No matter where it is done, it is wrong. The report continues -

No doubt the Conference lines were within their legal rights in acting as they did. But this procedure on their part disturbing a longstanding arrangement of great importance, not unnaturally appeared to be highly arbitrary. As SirH. F. Wilson, commenting upon it, said, “We may come to make elaborate arrangements - as we have on various occasions - here with regard to Tailway rates, and the Conference lines, by a stroke of the pen, may upset such arrangement and produce complete chaos.

Later, the report says -

The actions of the Conference in these matters seem to us to show that the members of the Conference, or the dominant members of it, have not only been alive to, or anxious to meet, the wishes of the South African communities, but that for the purpose of preserving their monopoly and resisting change, they have not abstained from playing off the interests of one colony against those of another.

We have dealt only with arbitrary actions by the South African Conference, because it was with regard to that Conference that the most serious complaints were made ; but complaints of a somewhat similar kind have been made with regard to certain other Conferences, especially the West African, and it is obvious that in view of the power which the system gives to ship-owners, and of the fact that owing to that power, the lines in Conference are judges in their own cause, there may always be from time to time arbitrary actions of which shippers may have reasonable ground for complaint. This will be particularly the case in Conferences which are dominated by oneline.

The advocates of the system of shipping rings and deferred rebates appear to hold that it is positively advantageous to the community as compared with the system of unrestricted competition. As stated in the majority report, the chief advantages which they claim for it are the following : -

Improvements in service by -

the institution and maintenance of regular sailings and stable rates of freight.

the provision of steamers of high-class and speed.

Economy in cost of service.

More economic distribution of cost of service.

The maintenance of equal rates from the United Kingdom and the Continent.

Uniform rates of freight to all shippers, large or small.

No carriage on ship’saccount.

We may note the fact that none of these advantages - the chief of which, or analgous advantages to which, are claimed by the advocates of all monopolies - are given under any contract which can be enforced by law; that all of them mav be withheld without the shippers affected receiving, or being entitled to, any redress; and that the report of the majority which lays stress upon their existence does not propose that the ship-owners shall be placed under any legal obligation to continue them. The Conferences are free to withdraw any or all of such advantages.

Referring to these advantages, the majority say, on page 50 -

Our opinion on the whole matter may be summarized as follows : -

The advantages conferred by Shipping Conferences are substantially dependent upon the system of deferred rebates, or some system equally effective as a “tie” upon the shippers and equally uniform in its application.

If the rebate system were abolished, shipowners would endeavour to secure the custom of shippers by making contracts with them covering long periods.

The contract system would in large general trades lead to the making of preferential contracts with large at the expense of small shippers.

The conclusions and recommendations of the majority start at page 75. After summarizing the matter, they say, on page 77 -

We found, in short, that the system existed in practically all trades where the nature of the trade and the character of the shipments require an organized service, where there is at the same time actual or probable competition of other ships, and where there are no special circumstances securing the provision of such a service independently of cargo requirements.

Then, dealing with the nature, the conditions, and the results of the Conference system, they say -

In the first place, we pointed out in Part 3 that a combination, formed and safeguarded by such a tic as the deferred rebate, necessarily created a certain kind of monopoly, but that, owing to the form of the Conference and the nature of competition in sea transport, this monopoly was under present conditions subject to certain important limitations. The chief of the limitations are as follows : -

Outside a Conference there is always present a quantity of shipping ready to take advantage of any opportunity which may offer of entry into the particular trade.

The connexion between the lines in a Conference is not sufficiently close to eliminate competition in facilities as well as in rates.

Continued or very serious abuse of monopoly power mightlead to common action among the shippers, and consequently to effective measures of retaliation.

We nevertheless came to the conclusion that a Shipping Conference, making use of the system of deferred rebates, did possess, so far as the shipper of general merchandise is concerned, a limited monopoly, and that this monopoly was dependent upon the continuous hold secured over the shipper by means of a tie, taking at present the form of the deferred rebate, and upon the fact that a Conference includes all, or practically all, the existing means of transportation by regular lines.

I have already pointed out that the supervision of the Board of Trade is advised.

On page 90, they conclude their recommendation by saying -

We desire also, to observe that in the opinions which we have expressed in regard to the system of Shipping Conferences and deferred rebates, and in the recommendations which we have made for its improvement and control, we have had regard to the system as it exists at the present day, and to its probable developments. It is possible that at some future time the system may assume a different character, and that in the shipping trade, as in other industries, there may be trusts or combinations calling for statutory regulation of a more drastic kind than that here proposed. We have refrained from dealing with this subject, because it appeared to us to involve speculations of too doubtful and uncertain a character to form the basis of useful discussion or practical recommendations.

The minority report starts on page 95 ; and on page 96, dealing with the object of conferences, and the deferred rebate system, they say -

Under that system a number of Shipping Companies combine to secure a monopoly of a proportion of the shipping trade. They effect their object by undercutting their competitors (if any) in freights until they have driven them away, and, further, by agreeing among themselves to charge the same rates of freight and to return a fixed percentage of all freight, after a certain lapse of time, to all “ loyal “ shippers, i.e., those shippers who have not shipped any goods by steamers not belonging to the ring. Matters are so arranged that the shipping companies always have a portion of the returnable freight in hand. Consequently, the shipper can never free himself from the ring, even if he can find a steamer not belonging to the ring which is willing to carry his goods, except by submitting to a sacrifice. Unless a very large shipper, he cannot charter an entire vessel. He cannot, as a rule, afford to lose his rebates; and so in this way he is permanently tied to the ring.Even if the rate of freight has been changed while the deferred rebate is in hand, the Conferences claim to retain it if their customer ships by an outside steamer.

Their conclusion, on page114, is as follows -

Summing up the chief conclusions at which we have arrived : -

The Conference system with the deferred rebate - the natural evolution of a highly organized trade dealing with customers for the most part scattered or disorganized - has created on almost all the chief Ocean routes a monopoly, the limitations upon which are in many cases illusory, and which generally tend to decline ;

The system was introduced in the first instance with the object of raising rates or preventing their fall and diminishing competition ;

It has been successful in raising or keeping up rates ;

The public have, as a rule, to pay higher rates of freight than they would pay in an open market ;

The system has been injurious to “tramps,” the strongest element in the British mercantile marine, and it leads as to them to waste and to higher rates of freight ;

The system tends to waste in various other directions, owing to the manner in which the rings are constituted ;

There is no satisfactory evidence that the saving in cost, if there be any, under the system of shipping rings, exceeds the waste which is due to that system;

The system tends to inflate the amount of tonnage, and consequently the amount of capital invested upon which interest has to be paid ;

It has diminished or tends to diminish the ports of sailing;

It gives a country such as the United States, in which the system is illegal, an advantage as compared with the United Kingdom ;

It has caused in the case of South Africa diversion of British trade;

There is no evidence that it has appreciably increased regularity of sailing or greatly improved the quality of steamers; but it has tended to bring about equality and stability of rates.

There is, however, a reservation by Sir David Barbour, who hits out somewhat vigorously. He signed the minority report, but also wrote -

I have signed the above report because I agree generally in the arguments brought forward in it, and in the conclusions drawn from them. At the same time, while I fully recognise the evils that might be caused by hasty and ill-considered action in a matter which is of national importance, I am unable to see that any practicable system of check would remove the evils to which the system of shipping rings, as at present constituted, gives rise. Apart from the fact that no system of check would affect some of these evils, such as the injury to that important section of British shipping which is composed of tramp steamers, I do not think that the gigantic system of monopolies established by the shipping rings could safely be recognised by the Legislature unless at the same time there were provided some means of check by an independent authority over rates of freight, and if any such provision were made there is little doubt that the ship-owners would prefer to abandon the whole system rather than have the rates which they are to charge to the public dictated to them by an outside authority.

If deferred rebates were made illegal, the shipping rings would probably cease to exist, and the system of monopolies would disappear, but I am told that satisfactory legislation to this end would be difficult. A more drastic, and probably more effective and simpler remedy would be legislation on the lines of the Sherman Act of the United States of America prohibiting combinations or associations of the nature of the shipping rings which had for their object the establishment of a monopoly in restraint of trade. I see no reason why such legislation must necessarily be of a general character. It would be sufficient for present purposes to limit it to shipping rings.

Of course, there is very much more that is important in the document from which I am quoting, but I have sought broadly to give the effect. I have referred to some of the leading features, and cannot help coming to the conclusion that the effect of the report is rather to encourage us. in having regard to Australian conditions in the action which we are taking, in firmly and rigidly endeavouring to put down this system of conferences and rebates in relation to our growing Australian trade.

Senator Pearce:

– Does the honorable senator intend to give us any specimens of the local animal? Hitherto his illustrations have been foreign.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– We have the definite recommendations of the Commonwealth Navigation Commission. It reported on the subject of rebates, amongst other things. The majority report is signed by Mr. W. M. Hughes, Mr. L. E. Groom, Senator Guthrie, Senator de Largie, and Mr. S. Mauger.

Senator Guthrie:

– Subject to a dissent on my own part.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Yes. It is also fair to say that there was a minority report signed by Mr. G. B. Edwards, Mr. Wm. Knox, Senator Macfarlane, and Mr. Dugald Thomson. I wish to point out the honest fact that these gentlemen did not include anything in their minority report in regard to rebates. Although they did not sign the majority report which dealt with rebates, they have not signed any dissent from that report so far as the rebate system is concerned. Senator Macfarlane, however, signed a report of his own in regard to that subject. It is headed, “ Freight rebates,” and reads -

The recommendation in the report of the majority of your Commissioners that it be made illegal for any owner, master, or agent of any vessel to give rebate of freight or other advantage to any shipper or consignee of goods if the condition be exclusive shipment by a certain vessel or vessels, is not warranted by the evidence tendered on behalf of some principal shipping and produce firms. The witness, Mr. Glassford, urged the great advantages arising from, steadiness of rates of freight, and reliability of general business operations; this, and the additional evidence of Mr. Grayson and others, does not allow me to recommend such an extreme step as the majority propose.

The majority of the Commonwealth Commission dealt with the subject of relates on page 42 of their report. I will read only two paragraphs. The first is as follows -

Upon the point that the limitation of the coastal trade to vessels complying with Australian conditions would result in a monopoly) a considerable amount of evidence was received. It was freely stated that a combine does already exist, by which the rates for passengers and cargo carried by the companies in the Steam-ship Owners Federation are regulated. Its extent may be gauged by the fact that out of about I88,000 tons engaged in the Interstate traffic less than 10,000 are outside the ring. It will appear that the combine has been in operation for some time, and complaints of a very strong and emphatic character were received as to its methods.

The minority conclude their recommendation in this section of their report, as follows -

As your Commissioners consider that the rebate system is open to grave abuses, and calculated to seriously prejudice the commercial and industrial interests of the Commonwealth, they recommend the introduction of legislation at an early date, making it illegal for the owners, master, or agent of any vessel to give rebates or other advantages to any shipper or consignee of goods, if the condition of such rebates or advantages is that there shall be exclusive shipment by a certain vessel or vessels.

I submit that this recommendation of the Commonwealth Commission is a sound and valuable one, so far as concerns Australian trade. The British Commission recognised that these monopolies have proved, from sorry experience, to be despotic and arbitrary in their terms. They are formed for the purpose of crushing competition, or making it completely feeble. On the other hand, they establish rates according to their own sweet will. These rates are usually on the highest scale, and they are not designed on philanthropic lines, but for the purpose of creating substantial profits. The unfortunate shipper cannot help himself. He is roped in, bound, and tied down. There is no. escape from his position. He cannot ship by any other vessel : or, if he ventures to do so, if he patronizes any free ship, it is at the risk of losing the payments which have been accumulating. Evidence was given before our own Commission that the Conference at times held something like ^60,000 on account “of rebates. That money is held at the disposal of the shipping companies. There is no power of legal resort for the purpose of recovering the money. I do not suggest that anything dishonorable has. up to the present occurred in regard to failure to comply with the under-

Senator Sir. Robert Best. standing established. , Perhaps the companies have complied- with the granting of these rebates on the understandings entered into. But they do so simply as a matter of honour. The shipper has no legal rights in the matter. I submit, then, having regard to the evidence contained in the reports of the British Commission, and to the very conclusive recommendations made by our own Commission, that it is our duty to perfect our laws so far as we can, and to provide a direct and simple process for the purpose of putting an end to this system of rebates in the Australian trade.

Debate (on motion by Senator McGregor) adjourned.

page 1405

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

.-I move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

– I do not wish to take from my honorable friend the satisfaction which I know he derived from his interjection. But may I say, without desiring to offend the honorable senator, that nothing is more charming in its arrogance than the assumption of our honorable friends opposite that all good things commence and end with them. One other difficulty which confronted the- workman was that, if there happened to be any defect in machinery or building, as the result of which an accident happened to him, although the defect might have been in violation of some existing law, and although the employer might know of it, still, if it could be shown that the workman also knew of it, he lost his claim to compensation. A writer in a recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly, referring to this aspect of the case, says -

Even if there is gross default on the part of the employer, if certain precautions have been neglected by him, if stringent provisions of the law have been flagrantly violated, still, if the workman knew these acts of omission or violations of the law, he is presumed to have waived any remedy.

That being the case, it will easily be understood that the law, as it existed, did not offer much substantial satisfaction to injured workman. A comparatively recent judgment in a case of this kind, by Lord Brampton, summarizes the position as it existed up to the time at which the judgment was delivered. I propose to quote it as showing the opinion of this eminent lawyer as to what the law really meant, so far as the workman was concerned, up to the time of the delivery of the judgment in 1902. Speaking of the position existing prior to the passage of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, his Lordship said -

In the first place, there was no available process known to the law by which such redress could be recovered, except by action at law, or by proceeding under the Employers’ Liability Acts; but no such action or proceeding could be successful unless the workman was in a condition to prove, by legal evidence, that his injury was due to actionable negligence or other misconduct or default of the person from whom he sought to recover, or some other person or persons for whose negligence he was responsible. Compensation without proof of such negligence was unheard of, and such proof was often hard to discover. Moreover, it was often extremely difficult, even when the facts were ascertained, to determine who was the person liable to be sued in the action, and to avoid such difficulties many persons were often made defendants in actions who were under no legal liability. Added to these obstacles, the law itself was for the most part too uncertain, too dilatory, and far too expensive ‘for an ordinary workman to embark in. Having regard to this unsatisfactory state of things, it was, as I have gathered from a study of the Act, felt by the Legislature that it would be but just and right to confer upon a large class of workmen, whose necessities compelled them to seek employment in certain specified dangerous occupations, in the course of which accidents, not always possible to be guarded against are of frequent occurrence, some partly casual, others no doubt attributable to negligence or default of fellow workmen, whom it would be idle to sue, or others whose identity could not be established, a right to claim compensation to a moderate and limited amount in respect of the loss of such wages as they were incapacitated from earning in consequence of accidental injury, upon mere proof of the accident and its resulting loss, irrespective of its cause. Another object was to impose the obligation of providing such statutory compensation upon those to whom good sense would naturally point as the fittest persons to’ bear it, and to define for the convenience of injured workmen seeking compensation the persons from whom they are entitled to claim it. And, further, to provide a simple proceeding entailing comparatively trifling expense by which such compensation might, if necessary, be enforced. To carry out these very laudable objects the Act of 1897 was passed.

That was the statement made after the passing of the Act of 1897, and before the Imperial Parliament had amended it by the Act of 1906. As that judgment shows, the scope of previous Acts was limited to certain specified trades which were called “dangerous.” But the later Imperial Act was extended to practically all trades in Great Britain, including that of seamen. It also made other very important amendments, the effect of which was to render it more definite and speedy in its operation.

Senator Turley:

– That Act also applies to domestic servants and farm labourers.

Senator MILLEN:

– The difference between the Act of 1906 and that of 1897 is that the latter applied only to persons engaged in specified trades, whereas the former applies to all workmen, except those engaged in a few trades, which are specified. Senator Guthrie has said that most of the States have laws of this kind in operation. That is so, but I am unable to derive from that statement the satisfaction which appears to animate my honorable friend. I have looked through the various State Acts, and I find that Queensland was the first to bring forward a measure, which, so far as I am able tojudge, approximates to the British Act. I admit that New Zealand has legislated much on the same lines.

Senator Walker:

– In the Employers’ Liability Act.

Senator MILLEN:

– No; all the States have an Act of that kind in operation. But I am speaking of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which is quite distinct in its underlying principle from the Employers’ Liability Act. So far as New South Wales is concerned, I regret to say that there legislation of this character is extremely defective. In that State, it is true, seamen are covered by the Employers’ Liability Act, but the Act applies only to seamen working in port orwithin a limited distance thereof. To that extent its usefulness is very limited, and I am not aware that any great advantage has been taken of it.Following upon the Act passed in Great Britain in 1897 a Commission was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into its working, also to ascertain how far it might be advisable to extend its operation, and especially whether its operation ought to be extended to seamen. I have turned to that Commission, as one would naturally do who wishes to make himself familiar with the last word upon the subject to date. I find that the Commission finally reduced the subject matters of its inquiry to a series of questions, some of which I should like to read. The first question which the Commission set itself to answer reads -

Have these Acts in their operation been unduly productive of litigation? If so, to what causes can this result be attributed, and how far can the evil be mitigated?

The answer which the Commission returned to that question reads-

On the whole, we come to the conclusion that the amount of actual litigation produced by the Workmen’s Compensation Acts of 1897 and 1900 has been very small when compared with the great number of cases settled by agreement without recourse whatever to legal aid, or to proceedings in Court.

The next question which the Commission asked themselves was -

Have they imposed, or are they likely to impose, any undue burden on the employer?

Their answer to that question reads -

Summing up the whole of the evidence with regard to the operations of Mutual Insurance Companies which have been formed or adapted to protect employers of particular industries against the risks imposed on them, by the Workmen’s Compensation Acts, we think the general inferences to be drawn are -

That hitherto the pecuniary burden imposed by the Acts upon the employer has not been excessive.
That that burden tends to increase especially in consequence of the rapidity at which claims are growing and the burden which is necessarily imposed by the increasing number of

Permanent cases, and that the Act of 1897 has not been sufficiently long in operation to permit of any really trustworthy estimate being formed of the limits which this increase will ultimately reach.

That if this last inference is well founded, the greatest caution is required before the personal liability already imposed by the Act on the employer is materially increased, especially by any legislation which may add to the indefiniteness and uncertainty of that liability, unless there are paramount reasons for the suggested change.

Another question which they asked themselves was -

Has their operation on the whole been beneficial to the workman ?

Their answer was -

Turning now to the question whether the Compensation Acts of 1897 and 1900 have conferred substantial benefits on those classes of workmen who are in a position to take advantage of them, we think that the general answer must be decidedly in the affirmative. Previous to the coming into operation of these Acts it is no exaggeration to say that the whole burden of the loss occasioned by industrial accidents fell upon the workmen, subject to the numerous exceptions where the burden was alleviated by the generosity of the employer, either by help afforded immediately to the injured workman, or by contribution to sick or accident funds. … It seems right and necessary to make by law systematic provision for relief from the consequences of industrial accidents. In this way alone can some degree of uniformity be obtained, and workers in the industries within the law of compensation and those dependent on them, have reasonable security for obtaining substantial relief from the consequences of industrial accident, and that, in the great majority of cases, without litigation, delay, or expense.

One other question which the Commission submitted to themselves - and I am sure the answer which they gave to it will be received with a great deal of approval by all sections of the Senate - reads -

Under what conditions have the Acts operated most beneficially ?

The reply was -

The formation of new associations of employers belonging to particular industries, to deal with cases arising under the Act or the adaptation of associations previously existing for that purpose, has already been referred to at considerable length. A natural consequence has been that it has become a general practice for all claims for compensation on behalf of any member of a trades union to be dealt with by the secretary to the union. The trades union official enters into communication with the secretary or other official of the Employers’ Association. As has already been seen in dealing with the question of litigation, the result is that in the great majority of cases there is no dispute either as to liability or amount; in some cases where there is some dispute at first the questions are settled between the officials; in a comparatively small number the assistance of a solicitor is called in, and the case is settled after some correspondence, and, of course, at some cost. In a very small minority it becomes necessary to have recourse to the County Court, and of this last class again, a small number raise questions of difficulty which are carried to the Court of Appeal, and in some cases, in English (not Scotch) cases, to the House of Lords.

The evidence leaves on our minds the impression that it is where the organization of the associations, both of employers and workmen, is most complete that there is the least amount of litigation and the greatest satisfaction with the settlements reached.

Far greater difficulties appear to arise where there is no trade organization. The workman who has no organization to resort to for advice and assistance in such matters is comparatively helpless, or has to call in legal assistance. Costs are at once incurred, and the dangers above pointed out attending litigation are much more likely to occur.

– I shall deal with that matter at a later stage, when I present information regarding the rates at which this liability can be covered with various companies. As the result of the investigation of the Commission, to which I nave referred, the Imperial authorities brought forward a Bill which extended the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to all trades in Great Britain, and also to seamen. One of the best known writers on the subject thus referred to the Act’ as -

A revolution in the branch of law which concerns the legal relationship between employer and workman in the occupations to which the Act applied, for it established a liability in the master to pay compensation to an injured workman, or to the dependants of one who had been killed, although there had been no wrongful act or omission on the master’s part or on the part of any one employed by lum. Liability is imposed, upon the employer who is blameless, equally with him who has been guilty of negligence. The workman is not called upon to prove negligence as a condition precedent to success, and he loses his right to compensation by nothing short of his own “ serious and wilful misconduct.”

I have quoted that extract because it accurately summarizes the main principle of this Bill. Following upon the report of that Commission and the passage of a Bill, the matter was dealt with by our own Navigation Commission. I do not propose to quote the finding of the Commission, but merely to state that it expressed some surprise that seamen had hitherto been shut out of the scope of Acts, the benefits of which had for some time been enjoyed by land workers. The Imperial Navigation Conference similarly dealt with the matter, and passed this resolution -

That the adoption of uniform legislation is desirable, with a view to extend the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Acts to Seamen, as has been already done in the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

It will be seen that the matter has been gradually working up to the point at which it now stands, of being ready for discussion here. I ask the indulgence of honorable senators while I describe the more important provisions of the Bill. Clause 2 contains this provision -

This Act shall commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

Obviously that is a convenient provision to have in a Bill of this kind. The object, of course, will not be to delay the bringing of the Act into operation, but as there will be some regulations to be prepared, and other matters to be attended to, it is certainly desirable that the measure should contain a provision for expediting, or, if necessary, slightly delaying the time when it shall become active law. As regards clause 3, which deals with definitions, I propose only to refer to the meaning of the term “ dependants. ‘ ‘ I specially invite the attention of the Senate to the definition, because in the majority of cases the dependants will be the claimants for compensation. The definition reads in this way - “ Dependants” means such of the members of the seaman’s family as were wholly or in part dependent upon the earnings of the seaman at the time of his death, or who would, but for the incapacity due to the accident, have been so dependent.

It also includes the parents, grandparents, children, dependants, and even extends, as I think it ought to do, and as I hope the Senate will think too, to children which have had the misfortune to be illegitimately born. Clause 4 relates to the class of ships whose seamen are entitled to the protection or benefits of the Act. The seamen who will be covered by the Act are those employed -

On any ship registered in the Commonwealth when engaged in the coasting trade or in trade with other countries;

I break off there, in order to refer io subclause 2, which dennes coasting trade i<.r the purposes of the Act. It reads as follows : -

A ship shall be deemed to be engaged in the coasting trade, within the meaning of this section, if she takes on board passengers “or cargo at any port in a State, or in Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth, to be carried to and landed or delivered at any port in the same State or Territory, or in another State or Territory.

– I do not think that the shipping companies will be able to take the amount from the workmen.

Senator Pearce:

– I have had to suffer a reduction from my wages under a similar law.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– That was in the ancient days.

Senator MILLEN:

– Turning now to the question of the possible obligations thrown upon the industry, I have had the greatest difficulty in ascertaining the rates of insurance for seamen. That difficulty is due largely to the fact that Compensation Acts applying to seamen are quite new. They have been in operation in Great Britain only since 1906, and in Queensland for about the same period. The result is that the insurance companies have not had a sufficiently long experience to be able to give me quotations of rates at which they would be prepared to write business. But proceeding with what I admit at once to be a rather indefinite inquiry, I have ascertained these particulars. The Accident Insurance Company of London, in giving evidence before the Commission to which I have referred, stated that the rates ran from as low as 2s. per ^100 of wages to 25s. There was no indication as to the particular industries to which those rates applied. The General Accident Insurance Company, Perth Office, Great Britain, quoted 3s. 6d. for operatives in the woollen industry up to 60s. for stevedores. The

Association of Offices quoted 16s. 8d. for builders working under 50 feet anc? 47s. 8d. for stevedores. I turn to New Zealand, and I find in the last issued pamphlet dealing with the State InsuranceOffice, these two paragraphs -

In such a business the rates charged must necessarily be of an experimental nature for a considerable time, but so far they have proved’ to be on the average equal to the strain imposed upon them.

That relates to workmen’s insurance. The pamphlet goes on to say -

The premiums are assessed on the wages, and’ vary from 3s. and 4s. per ^100 of wages for the lightest occupations to 20s. per cent, for building trades, 45s. per cent, for coal mines,, and 85s. per cent, for bush-felling.

page 1414

ADJOURNMENT

Misrepresentation of Labour Party - Proofs of Ministers’ Speeches - Old-age Pensions.

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator HENDERSON:

– No. I quote the last few sentences : -

In Tasmania,2 ,000 have been received and 600 granted, and in Western Australia1,057 have Deen received, and only 18 granted. The total number of cases dealt with throughout the Commonwealth was 47,996. Up to the present 41,676 pensions have been granted.

Senator Vardon:

– There must besome mistake in those figures.

Senator HENDERSON:

– So it seems to me, and I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he will be good enough to find out whether the statements published in this report are absolutely correct, and, if not, whether he will supply honorable senators with a correct statement as to the number of applications for old-age pensions, the number granted, and, if possible, the reasons why there is such a discrepancy between the number of applications and the number granted.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– If Senator Henderson will be good enough to leave the paragraph from whichhe has quoted with me, I shall endeavour to obtain for him and for the Senate as much information on the subject as I can by the time we meet to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before submitting the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, I desire to say, with regard to the request made by Senator Pulsford, that it will not be possible to have corrected proofs of the second-reading speeches of Ministers issued to honorable senators in the morning. It will be possible to supply only rough proofs of those speeches. Ministers have expressed their willingness that honorable senators should be supplied with those proofs, and already instructions have been given to have them sent to honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.12 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 July 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19090721_senate_3_50/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate21 July 1909

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator WALKER:NEW SOUTH WALES

QUESTION

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH TRAWLER

Senator VARDON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Turley:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

COMPULSORY ADULT TRAINING

Senator CLEMONS:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

PAPERS

QUESTION

SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

FISHER GOVERNMENT

Senator FINDLEY:VICTORIA

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator de Largie:

Mr PRESIDENT:

Senator FINDLEY:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator FINDLEY:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator FINDLEY:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator FINDLEY:

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TOLL SYSTEM

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

SENATOR SYMON’S SPEECH

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

QUESTION

POSTAL NOTES

Senator McGREGOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

EXCISE ACT

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

LAND SETTLEMENT, VICTORIA

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

ADVERTISING AUSTRALIA

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator MILLEN:

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION ACT

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator CROFT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

QUESTION

PACIFIC CABLE

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

UNIFORMS AND HORSES

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator GIVENS:

Senate
21 July 1909

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator VARDON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator CROFT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator STEWART:
Queensland