Senate
12 October 1910

4^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- THE CENSUS
SUGAR BOUNTY BILL (No. 2)
EXCISE (SUGAR) BILL
TRUST FUND ADVANCES BILL
NAVIGATION BILL

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

page 4378

PETITION

Senator VARDON presented a petition from four taxpayers of South Australia, praying the Senate to reject the Land Tax Assessment Bill.

Petition received.

page 4378

QUESTION

THE CENSUS

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, when the revised questions in connexion with the census will be made available?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The census questions are being prepared to be laid before a meeting of the Executive Council which is to be held some time this week. As soon as the meeting of the Executive has been held, the census questions will be put through, and they will be laid upon the table of the Senate as regulations immediately afterwards.

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

– Arising out of the Minister’s answer, I should like to ask whether the Senate will be afforded an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the census questions?

Senator PEARCE:

– The ordinary procedure when regulations are laid upon the table of the Senate is that any honorable senator can give notice to dissent from a regulation, or can move to substitute a new regulation. ‘ If any such motion is tabled an opportunity will be afforded for discussing it.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Census Questions.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following letter : -

The Senate, 12th October, 1910.

Mr. . President,

I beg to state that I propose to-day to move the adjournment of the Senate, with a view of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government after definite promises to afford senators an opportunity of discussing the questions to be asked in connexion with the census of1911.

Yours obediently,

D. Chataway.

Four honorable senators having risen in

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I beg to move) -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until to-morrow at 9.30 a.m.

– The honorable senator will pardon me. Last Friday afternoon, on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, Senator McGregor, as Leader of the Senate, told honorable senators plainly that it was the intention of the Government to withdraw the papers which had been laid on the table, and to table regulations under the Census and Statistics Act, and that when they were laid on the table, an opportunity would be given to honorable senators to discuss them. Section 27 of the Census and Statistics Act reads -

The Governor-General may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all acts and things which by this Act are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.

Under that provision, full power is given to the Government of the day, whoever they may be, to prescribe regulations under the Act. Then section 10 of the Acts Interpretation Act points out the way in which individual senators may proceed when regulations are tabled of which they disapprove, and which they might desire to amend. The section provides that -

Where an Act confers power to make regulations, all regulations made accordingly shall, unless the contrary intention appears -

be notified in the Gazette;

take effect from the date of notification, or from a later date specified in the regulations ;

be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within thirty days of the making thereof, or, if the Parliament is not then sitting, within thirty days after the next meeting of the Parliament.

But if either House of the Parliament passes a resolution of which notice has been given at any time within fifteen sitting days after such regulations have been laid before such House disallowing any regulation, such regulation shall thereupon cease to have effect.

– Only yesterday, in connexion with the Navigation Bill, it was proposed that certain things should be prescribed by regulation. I objected to that proposal, but Senator Lynch was quite prepared to accept it. I would further point out that the Government already monopolize the whole of the time which was previously available for the transaction of private members’ business, and consequently we shall be debarred from objecting to these regulations. I do not see that any other course was open to Senator Chataway than that which he has taken this afternoon. He has embraced the first opportunity which presented itself of protesting against the action of the Government with a view to the Senate being afforded an opportunity to discuss the questions which are to be placed upon the census papers before the regulations are approved by the Executive Council.

Senator VARDON (South Australia) £3.6]. - I feel very strongly that the Government have not dealt fairly with the Senate in this matter. If my recollection be right, it was the Leader of the Opposition who first asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he would lay. on the table of the Senate a copy of the questions which it was intended to include in the census papers, and whether he would afford us an opportunity of discussing them. The Vice-President of the Executive Council stated that he would grant us that opportunity, and in fulfilment of his promise the Honorary Minister gave notice of his intention to move -

That the Senate approves of the questions (as laid on the table on 28th September last) proposed to be asked at the census” to be taken on the 3rd April, 1911

Had that motion been submitted, honorable senators would have been afforded an opportunity of approving the questions which it is intended to place in the census papers before they were embodied in regulations. From the promise which was given, it appears that the Government were then willing to consider any representations which might be made regarding those questions, and, if necessary, to modify them before they were embodied in regulations. Why was the motion of which notice was given by the Honorary Minister withdrawn from the business-paper? At a later stage the Vice-President of the Executive Council declared that, because the Senate did not pass a two months’ Supply Bill without debate, he would reconsider the matter, and withdraw the motion from the noticepaper. So far as we know, that is the only reason why it was withdrawn, and why we are refused an opportunity of approving or disapproving of the questions which it is intended to place upon the census papers. That refusal is the punishment to which we are to be subjected be-1 cause we did not approve of a two months’ Supply Bill without discussion. I repeat that the Senate has not been properly treated by the Government. When a promise is made it should be fulfilled to the letter. I protest against this sort of treatment of the Senate by any Ministry. The Government may have the numbers behind them, but that does not make their action right. The Vice-President of the Executive Council, having made a definite promise, has no right to withdraw it on such a shabby pretext. I strongly dissent from a number of the questions which it is proposed to place upon the census papers, but I will not attempt to discuss them now.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Most of the noise made this afternoon by honorable senators opposite is intended to make it clear that, because the Government have a following in this Chamber, they are in a position to bring down’ regulations which that following must support, irrespective of whether the regulations are right or wrong. That is entirely opposed to my notions of the duties of a Government. This is the first time I have been given to understand that a Government can bring down a set of regulations which must be regarded as sacred, which’ must not be touched, and which they themselves regard as vital. Take the case of the Navigation Bill, which is before the Senate. Presumably its provisions have undergone a great deal of Executive criticism. Its clauses represent a list of Cabinet decisions. But when each clause comes under our review every honorable senator is free to vote yea or nay upon it.

Senator Sayers:

– Does the honorable senator say that the Navigation Bill came before this Chamber after it had been passed by the Executive?

Senator LYNCH:

– After it had been approved by the Cabinet. In my view, a Bill and its clauses are superior at any time to regulations. To attempt to elevate a set of regulations to the same plane as that which is occupied’ by a Bill is ridiculous.

Senator Givens:

– Regulations are far stronger than is a Bill. A Bill is nothing until it becomes an Act.

Senator LYNCH:

– We all recognise that the clauses of the Navigation Bill, which had met with Cabinet approval before being submitted to us, have since undergone a very great change. It would be extraordinary if we were told by the Government that these regulations would be treated by them as vital to their existence. I am sure that the Ministry do not expect their supporters to follow them blindly upon a mere matter of regulations. At any rate, I shall exercise my independence in respect to every one of those regulations.

Senator ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [3.13].- From the tone of the debate it seems rather a pity that the Government did not see their way to allow the Senate to debate the motion of which notice was given by the Honorary Minister last week. Had that course been followed we should have been afforded an opportunity to express our opinions upon questions to which we are strongly antagonistic, and it would also have enabled the Government to ascertain the feeling of the Senate. Instead, it is now proposed that the whole of the questions to be placed on the census papers shall be embodied in regulations, and we are told that it will be competent for any honorable senator to discuss those regulations on a specific motion. That statement is quite true, so far as it goes. But as has already been pointed out by Senator Sayers, Government business already monopolizes the whole of our time, so that we may really have no chance of dissenting from any particular regulation. I think that the Ministry ought to afford us such an opportunity.

Senator Pearce:

– I gave a definite assurance to-day that we will do that.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I assumed that the Government would do so. I also wish to point out that the Acts Interpretation Act of 1904 provides that -

Where an Act confers power to make regulations, all regulations made accordingly shall, unless the contrary intention appears -

be notified in the Gazelle;

take effect from the date of notification, or from a later date specified in the regulations ;

be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within thirty days of the making thereof, or, if the Parliament is not then sitting, within thirty days after the next meeting of the Parliament.

But if either House of the Parliament passes a resolution of which notice has been given at any time within fifteen sitting days after such regulations have been laid before such House disallowing any regulation such regulation shall thereupon cease to have effect.

Senator PEARCE:

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is not in order at this stage in making a statement concerning the VicePresident of the Executive Council. He is only entitled to make a personal explanation.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

page 4388

SUGAR BOUNTY BILL (No. 2)

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Pearce) read a first time.

page 4388

EXCISE (SUGAR) BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– In moving -

That this Bill be now read a first time,

I desire, in fairness to honorable senators, to draw attention to the fact that as it is a Bill which the Senate may not amend, honorable senators are entitled to discuss matters in general on the motion for the first reading.

Debate (on motion by Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir Albert Gould) adjourned.

page 4388

TRUST FUND ADVANCES BILL

(No. 2).

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a message from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this Bill.

page 4388

NAVIGATION BILL

/ n Committee (Consideration resumed from nth October,(vide page. 4339) :

Clause 202 -

The Minister may, if he is satisfied that the immediate resurvey of a steam-ship will occasion unreasonable or unnecessary expense or inconvenience, and that no danger to the ship or her crew passengers or cargo will arise from the extension, extend the time for her next resurvey, and the currency of her certificate of survey, for any period not exceeding one month.

Upon which Senator Givens had moved by way of amendment -

That the following words be added to the clause : - “ Provided that no extension of the currency of the certificate shall be granted to enable the vessel to proceed to another port for the purpose of docking or repairs if proper facilities are available for such docking or repairs at any of the ports to which the vessel is usually trading.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [3.57].- I am sorry that the Minister has promised to accept the amendment without further consideration. The honorable senator may be anxious to conciliate the Givens’ party, but I wish the Committee to realize what the proposal really means. The Minister has power at any time to require that a steamship shall be resurveyed. We provide in clause 200 -

The Minister may at any time, for the purpose of survey, require a steam-ship at the expense of her owner to be taken into dock, or to have her cargo discharged, or her boilers or machinery opened out, or her fittings removed as far as is reasonably necessary.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– If the honorable senator wishes to talk nonsense, let him do so outside. I do not wish him to talk nonsense here when a matter of serious moment is under consideration. Honorable senators must recognise that every additional burden that we impose upon the shipping industry will, inflict another hardship upon our primary producers. I do not wish to prevent any class of the community from embarking upon the shipping industry, but I do say that, to prevent a ship-owner from getting his vessel to her home port for the purposes of resurvey, simply because a little peddling industry has been established at some other port, would be ridiculous. The amendment, I repeat, would inflict hardship on the ship-owners, and would further shackle an industry which we ought to make as free as possible.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I think that the Minister has acted wisely in accepting the amendment, and I am rather astonished at the attitude which has been taken up by Senator Gould. So far as the provisions of this Bill are concerned, great liberality in the matter of the survey of ships has been extended to the ship-owners. In most of the States the law provides that all ships shall be surveyed every six months. But this measure provides that ships under five years old shall undergo only an annual survey. The amendment submitted by Senator Givens is an eminently reasonable one. The Bill declares that a certificate of survey shall be issued in respect of all vessels every six or twelve months. Consequently, the shipowner is in a position to arrange that his vessel shall be in a certain port when the period for her resurvey comes round. But in order to prevent him from suffering unnecessary expense or inconvenience, he has the right to apply to the Minister for an extension of one month. That provision has hitherto been operative in our State laws, and has been largely availed of. With’ what result? By repeatedly securing an extension of one month, the ship-owner has obviated the necessity for one survey every six years. If a vessel be trading to some port where docking facilities do not exist, her owner can always represent to the Minister that it is inconvenient to bring her away for the purposes of survey at the prescribed time. When he has secured a month’s extension, he may approach the Minister and say, “ I want another month’s extension to enable me to take my ship to a port where she can be surveyed.” The amendment will prevent that being done. Hitherto owing to the want of uniformity in our legislation shipowners preferred to send their ships to certain ports where the legislation was not quite so strong as in other States. But hereafter no matter at what port it may take place, the survey will be absolutely uniform, and so far as the Government are concerned, the cost will be uniform. Are we to permit an owner to hold back his ship until after her certificate has expired, to call for tenders for. the cheapest docking place, and then for the purpose of getting to that place to grant him an extension of time for the survey? Senator Gould has not looked at this proposal as fully as he might have done, otherwise he would have recognised that it will only serve to do a considerable amount of justice. If, however, the Minister can show that it is likely to do an injustice to the shipping industry, I am prepared to reconsider my position. In the meantime I shall support the amendment.

-The Merchant Shipping Act only requires a survey of a passenger steamship to be made once in twelve months, and I do not see why we should place an additional restriction on ship-owners. I shall certainly oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 203 agreed to.

Clause 204 - (2.) The owner, master, or agent of a steam ship shall not take payment of the passagemoney of any persons intending to become passengers in excess of the number allowed by the certificate.

Penalty : One hundred pounds, and also an additional penalty not exceeding Five shillings lor every person on board above the number allowed by the certificate. (3.) Any penalty under this section may be sued for and recovered by any person and retained by him for his own use.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.31].- I think that, as the law stands, the penalty for the overcrowding of a steam-ship is £20, and, if I mistake not, that penalty ‘ is also prescribed in the Merchant Shipping Act. It would be only reasonable to reduce the penalty in this clause from £100 to £20. It might frequently happen that, although the master would be legally responsible for the fact, it would be an overcrowding over which he had no practical control. Surely a penalty of £20, and an additional penalty of 5s. for every passenger in excess of the prescribed number, ought to meet adequately the offence which it is proposed to guard against. I, therefore, move -

That the words “ One hundred “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Twenty.”

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– This clause deals with a most serious offence, and also one of the most difficult offences to detect. On some steamers it has been the practice - I have seen it done - to rush on passengers after the Customs officer has gone ashore. It is necessary to impose very stiff penalties, in order to deter owners and masters from acting in that way. Not only does overcrowding lead to discomfort, but it leads to positive danger, especially in the case of river and bay ships. The penalty prescribed in the clause is none too large. The only trouble I feel about the provision is that it is a most difficult one to enforce. I trust that the Committee will not accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.24].- I move -

That sub-clause 3 be left out. lt is entirely novel to allow a person to become an informer with regard to the overcrowding of a steam-ship. It may be that, without the cognisance of the master of a ship, there may be an excess number of passengers on board, and moneys may be received from the passengers by some individual who may subsequently become an informer, and thereby obtain the benefit of the penalty inflicted, whether it be large or small. Unless this amendment is made, many a man may be induced to have recourse to a method which would be anything but an honest one for the purpose of getting a large sum out of his employer or the captain of a ship. In no other State is a similar provision to be found. It is undesirable to enact a provision which must tend to breed a race of informers. One of the worst things we could do would be to legislate in that direction. Unless this sub-clause is omitted, many persons may commit the offence of overcrowding in conjunction with somebody else, and then may go and lay an information against the owner or master. So far. does the law disregard such evidence that, in ordinary criminal procedure, the evidence of an approver has to be corroborated in some important particulars before it is considered worthy of credence. Suppose that a man is employed in selling tickets, or admitting persons on board a steam-ship, and he finds that there are three or six persons in excess of the prescribed number. Under this clause he can become an informer against his employer. It must have a tendency to create disloyalty amongst employes. However desirable it may be to avoid overcrowding on ships - and we all admit that that is very desirable - I do not think it is advisable to enable an employe to give information for the purpose of procuring a very heavy penalty out of the pocket of his employer. I believe that a spirit of fair play and justice as between man and man will commend the amendment to honorable senators as a reasonable one. There are officers appointed by the Government whose duty it is to guard against overcrowding on ships. I would not say a word against a Customs officer or a police constable performing the duty for which he is paid by the State ; but I do not believe in encouraging employes to become informers as against their employers. It has been shown in many cases in Sydney that there has been a larger number of passengers on board a ferry boat than the master was aware of. I trust that the Minister will see that my proposal is a reasonable one, particularly as there is no precedent to encourage him to adhere to the clause. Whether it was contained in the Bill of 1908 or not, I am not aware; but certainly it appears in no Act in any portion of the British Dominions, and 1 hope that it will not be insisted upon.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– I do not think that the provision is unnecessary. On the other hand, for the reasons I gave in a previous speech, I think it is necessary. It is a most difficult thing for a single officer to check the number of passengers going on board a ship. Honorable senators who have done much travelling by sea know what an amount of bustle and hurry accompanies the sending of a ship to sea, and how difficult it must be for an officer of the Government to find out whether the number of passengers allowed to be carried has been exceeded.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

Does not the honorable senator see that it will be just as hard for the officers in charge of a ship to determine whether the statutory number has been exceeded?

Senator VARDON:

– There is no excuse for the master of a ship taking any excess passenger on board even after he has accepted his fare. Clause 279 also provides that no person shall -

fail to quit a ship forthwith, after he has been ordered to do so by master or any officer, on account of the ship being full, before she has left the place at which he went on board; or
travel in a ship without first paying his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof ;

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– We should be much more likely to have an honest prosecution if the informer did not pocket the fine.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I would not say that a person lodging a complaint under this clause was dishonest. Senator Gould has practically accused the Senate of being dishonest.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– I did not.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– At any rate, honorable senators opposite have stated that the Senate is lending itself to dishonest legislation, which would manufacture dishonest citizens.

SenatorFraser. - That is the effect of the clause.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Honorable senators opposite have been indulging in mock heroics. They have concentrated their criticism upon the word “ informer,” but their real desire seems to be to protect the steam-ship owner against the citizen, irrespective of the fact that the steam-ship owner may cause his vessels to be seriously overcrowded. The attitude of the Opposition is that they would allow the dishonest ship-owner to be immune, whilst the innocent passenger is made to suffer.

Question - That the sub-clause proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Gould’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 15

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 205 agreed to.

Clause 206 (Foreign certificates).

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I have some doubt regarding the effect of this clause. A reference is made to certificates “ recognised by the Board of Trade.” I have no objection to take cognisance of a certificate issued by the Board of Trade. I remind the Committee that under the Board of Trade no certificate of survey is required for British ships that do not carry passengers. Such ships may trade upon our coasts and handicap our own ship-owners. At the Imperial Conference, at which we were represented, the following resolution affecting this matter was adopted-

That it should be a suggestion to the Board of Trade that they should provide for the issue of a survey certificate in the case of nonpassenger vessels, and that standards as to hull, machinery, boilers, and life-saving appliances established by the Board of Trade and testified by current certificates should be accepted for British ships in Australian and New Zealand waters, the Board of Trade certificates’ to be accepted as of the same effect as the local certificates.

That would be all right, but, unfortunately, up to the present, the Board of Trade has not provided for the issue of survey certificates for non-passenger vessels. The use of the expression “ or recognised by the Board of Trade “ leads me to believe that these vessels, which are not required to have survey certificates, may be allowed to enter into competition with our own ships, which, under this Bill, must be surveyed every six months or twelve months, as the case may be. The decision of the Navigation Conference was that we should recognise the British standard, but, as I have said, up to the present time no action has been taken by the Board of Trade to require survey certificates for non passenger vessels. I should like to know from the Minister whether it is intended under this clause that we should recognise non-passenger British ships without survey certificates ?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– This clause is an extension of a similar clause appearing in the Bill of 1908. That Bill provided that -

A steam-ship in respect of which a certificate of survey granted by the Board of Trade of the United Kingdom has been issued, shall, whilst that certificate remains in force, but subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, be exempt from survey under this Act.

The clause then set out the requirements. The provision has been extended in this Bill by the insertion of the words “ or recognised by the Board of Trade.” Senator Guthrie says that the Board of Trade does not require survey certificates for nonpassenger ‘ ships, but it recognises Lloyd’s certificates of surveys, and Lloyd’s recognise the certificates of other institutions, such as the Norwegian Bureau Veritas, which has a similar standard to Lloyd’s.

Senator Guthrie:

– But some of these vessels may have no survey certificates.

Senator PEARCE:

– The fact that Lloyd’s recognise the survey certificates of these other institutions shows that they conform to their own requirements. That is why we propose in this clause that if the Board of Trade issues certificates, we shall recognise them, and that if the Board of Trade recognises certificates, we also shall be prepared to recognise them.

Senator Guthrie:

– There is no law compelling the Board of Trade to recognise these certificates.

Senator PEARCE:

– It is the usual practice of the Board of Trade to recognise them. It seems to me that the clause represents a fair and equitable proposal.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 207 agreed to.

Clause 208 - (1.) All steam-ships registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade shall, if required by the regulations, be divided by transverse water-tight partitions in the prescribed manner, and have water-tight false bottoms. (2.) The master and owner of any such ship which goes to sea without compliance with this section shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty : One hundred pounds.

Senator. Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [5.55]. - I move -

That the words “and have water-tight false bottoms “ be left out.

The marginal note to this clause is very misleading, unless the intention is to suggest navigation laws which do not contain such a provision. I have no objection to the first portion of the clause requiring that transverse water-tight partitions shall be provided. That appears to me to be a very wise provision. But I do take great exception to the provision for water-tight false bottoms. I point out that there is no provision requiring these water-tight false bottoms in either the New South Wales Act of 1 90 1, or the New Zealand Act of 1903. There is a strong objection to insisting that water-tight false bottoms shall be provided in ships registered in Australia and engaged in the limited coast-trade. The provision would very materially interfere with coast-trade ships trading to ports in which there is only a light draught of water to be obtained. In the case of such vessels every ounce of unnecessary weight, and every cubic foot of unnecessary space demanded, must add to the inconvenience and loss of the ship-owners. When I referred to the matter on the second reading of the Bill, I gathered from interjections made by Senator Guthrie that he believed this provision would not materially interfere with the construction of vessels. I think the honorable senator was not correctly advised, because a water-tight false bottom must add to the weight of the ship, and so must reduce her carrying capacity.

Senator de Largie:

– This applies to all ships registered in Australia or engaged in the limited coast-trade, and the trip between some ports on the coast is often as bad as any oversea voyage.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I am prepared to admit that at once. I say that the extra weight of the water-tight false bottom would materially reduce the carrying capacity of the ship. I take it that the false bottom would cover the whole of the bottom of the ship, and would have to be raised above the true bottom of the ship. It must therefore restrict the space which would otherwise be available for the stowage of cargo. I have here a letter from the Superintending Engineer of the Newcastle and Hunter River Steamship Company to the manager of the company. He writes -

I have the honour to draw your attention to Division No. 208 in reference to water-tight false bottoms.

This will be detrimental in adding weight to the hull and consequently increased draught of water when light, and less carrying capacity when loaded.

Besides this, double bottoms in vessels of small tonnage will necessarily be so confined that they will almost be inaccessible for cleaning and cement washing and through want of attention tank tops, filters, and reverse bars will be shortlived.

– There are manholes to permit of that being done.

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I suppose that if there is one State in Australia in which such a provision is necessary, it is New South Wales. I do not think it is necessary in many of the other States. It is certainly not required for safe navigation in Western Australia. According to the marginal note, this clause was taken from the New South Wales Act of 190 1. It is a very wise precaution to take to insure the safety of navigation in the case of bad bar harbors. In the absence of such a provision, captains would take the liberty of going out when there was not sufficient water on the bar, and incur a very great risk both to the ship and to the persons on board. It is unreasonable to expect the Government to go back on such a wellestablished principle as is embodied in the provision.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia.

.- I . admit that in the case of small craft this provision, if enforced, will increase her draught, but that will not interfere with her going over a bar. Senator Gould has not to take into consideration any additional weight which may be given to a light ship. It is only, a question of the difference between putting down thin steel plates and wooden planks from 2 to 3 inches thick. There is a bottom now in the case of every ship, and the whole question is whether it shall be watertight or not. Under Lloyd’s rules a ship may run five or six surveys before the cement in the watertight bottoms is repaired or renewed. The cement keeps in good condition for a considerable number of years. The clause provides for the making of regulations where required, and we may reasonably assume that this power will be exercised with discretion. The Government must followvery largely on the lines of Lloyd’s, because unless its requirements are complied with’ there can be no insurance on a ship or cargo.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

-t-I remind the honorable senator that ships trading on the coast have Lloyd’s certificates, but have no false bottom such as is suggested by this provision.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Some of them have.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

Not those engaged in the trade on rivers with bar harbors.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Many ships belonging to .the North Coast Steam-ship Company and the Illawarra Steam-ship

Company have such false bottoms. I think it will be perfectly safe to leave this matter to regulation. I feel satisfied that the Department will not go much further than Lloyd’s do in the matter of their surveys.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– This clause practically gives a direction to the Minister that certain things shall be done, and nobody can complain if he frames a regulation to carry them out.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– There are, I know, certain vessels in which a false bottom would not be required, so far as insuring safety is concerned, but where it is required the Minister ought to have the power to make a regulation on the subject. The clause goes no further than that, and Senator Gould will be well-advised in withdrawing bis amendment, as he may rest assured that the Department is not likely to overstep the requirements of Lloyd’s register.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [6.26].- I would point out that at present, in order to obtain a Lloyd’s certificate these steamers, certainly the smaller vessels, do not require to be provided with watertight, false bottoms. If we make this amendment there will, at any rate, be an assurance that, so far as any ships are concerned, these requirements will not be necessary unless, of course, Lloyd’s sees fit to .impose them. All these ships are registered at Lloyd’s; they all have to get its certificate. That, I have no doubt, is looked upon, and very . properly looked upon, as a very great help to the Department in dealing with vessels of this kind. But if we know that Lloyd’s gives a certificate in certain cases without requiring a watertight bottom, why should we enable the Minister to prescribe such a requirement, and impliedly tell him that in- our opinion it :.s a reasonable thing to do? If this provision is passed it will be an intimation to the Minister that Parliament contemplates that it is desirable that a vessel should have not only transverse watertight partitions, but also watertight false bottoms. Nobody can object to the provision for transverse watertight partitions, as ships are divided into watertight compartments. I think it would be wise for the Committee to eliminate the words in view of the class of ships which are engaged in the coasting trade, and also in view of the fact that all such ships have a Lloyd’s certificate of the first class when they come to Australia.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

. -I know that this or a similar provision was contained in the New Zealand Act of 1903. I am informed, but I am not able to verify the information, that a section to this effect in the New Zealand Act of 1903 or 1908 was repealed by a section in the Act of 1909. I have looked through the Act, but I have not been able to find such a provision. Perhaps the Minister will kindly consult his officers on the point. After the present amendment has been dealt with I intend to submit an amendment which has been circulated. I have received information that if this clause is enacted a large number of the coasting-trade vessels of Australia will go out of commission. I do not know what is the value of the statement, but I admit that it is interested in the sense that it comes from the shipping quarter. I should like to refer to another portion of my proposal, but I promise the Minister that I shall not detain the Committee after the dinner adjournment. I shall simply move the amendment.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.0].- I do not know whether the Minister will be prepared to accept an amendment which Senator St. Ledger has circulated, providing that the clause shall not apply in the case of ships built, or in course of construction, at the time of the passing of this measure, and also a proviso to the effect that the condition as to watertight false bottoms shall not apply to limited coast-trade ships not exceeding 500 tons gross register.

Senator Guthrie:

– This has been the law of New South Wales since 1901.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Pardonme ; there is not a single word in the New South Wales Act to this effect.’ I have taken the trouble to look the matter up. It is true that the provision as to transverse watertight partitions is in the New South Wales Act, but not that with regard to watertight false bottoms. If the amendment circulated by Senator St. Ledger were accepted, I might see my way to withdraw my amendment, leaving the clause applicable to ships of larger tonnage.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I think we ought to leave the clause as it stands. It contains the words, “ if required by the regulations,” and I prefer to leave the matter to be dealt with by regulation. I do not think that it is wise to exclude from the operation of the clause all ships built before the passing of this measure. I am not even prepared to say that we should exclude ships under 500 tons gross register. A great deal depends upon the trade in which they are engaged. For instance, there are trading round the north-west coast of Western Australia vessels which, owing to the limited population, are necessarily small. But they go right out to sea, and work upon a rocky coast that is insufficiently charted. It might be necessary to require that a vessel trading on such a coast should have a watertight false bottom.

Senator Guthrie:

– The greatest danger occurs in the case of small ships which dodge along the coast.

Senator PEARCE:

– It is much better to leave the matter to be covered by regulation. We may depend upon it that the Minister, in framing the regulations, will give consideration to the point raised by Senator Gould and Senator St. Ledger.

Amendment negatived.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I move -

That the following words be inserted after sub-clause 1 : - “ Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in the case of ships built or in course of construction before the passing of this Act.”

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– I have given this matter serious consideration, and I think that honorable senators had better leave it to be dealt with by regulation. Although these ships are limited to a radius of 400 miles, they go to sea very often, and they are ordinarily engaged in a trade which takes them into tidal rivers, in nearly every one of which there is a more or less dangerous bar. Vessels, at times, run considerable risk of striking these bars, and, in the circumstances, it would not be safe to exempt from this proviso ships engaged in the limited coast-trade. The Minister, before enforcing this provision, would take into consideration the nature of the trade in which a ship is employed. If a ship is employed in what is obviously a dangerous trade, he would be justified in insisting that she should have these double watertight False bottoms. To my own knowledge, there are cases in which the Minister might, with safety, exempt vessels from complying with the provision, but it is much better that we should make the provision here, and leave it to the Minister, by regulation, to meet the circumstances of each case. If we were to accept the amendment, the result might be that ships that ought to be compelled to comply with it would be exempt from what is a very necessary provision in certain circumstances.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.21].- I understood Senator Guthrie to say that this provision for water-tight false bottoms was recommended by the Navigation Commission.

Senator Guthrie:

– No ; I said that evidence was taken by the Navigation Commission as to the necessity for it.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Honorable senators will find the following reference to the matter in the Navigation Commission’s report -

The evidence further shows that one of the chief dangers to which modern vessels are exposed is that of collision. While not undervaluing the importance of life-saving appliances, your Commissioners strongly recommend that all ships built after the passing of the proposed Navigation Act shall not be regarded as seaworthy unless divided by properly constructed water-tight compartments.

There is no reference there to water-tight false bottoms. It is all very well for Senator Guthrie to say that evidence was given as to their necessity, but we ought to be guided by the report of the Commissioners, who considered all the evidence. We do not propose to interfere in any way with the provision for water-tight partitions, which are required under the existing law. I assume that every ship at present trading on the coast is supplied with transverse water-tight partitions. In the summary of recommendations by the Royal Commission I find die following -

That all vessels (including ferry steamers) constructed after the passing of the Navigation Bill be fitted with water-tight compartments.

Honorable senators will see that the Royal Commission were clearly of opinion that it is only abstract justice that ships already in commission, or constructed before this Bill becomes law, should not be expected to comply with the additional requirements provided for in this Bill. In the circumstances, I cannot see why the Minister should object to the amendment, though I can understand that he might have some objection to the amendment which I proposed. The amendment now under consideration would carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission in exempting from this provision vessels already in commission and holding certificates of seaworthiness. The Minister might have some justification for objecting to a proviso exempting from the operation of this clause ships of 500 tons burden, but I hope he will agree to accept the amendment now before the Committee.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– We appear now to be in a difficulty similar to that in which we have found ourselves on several occasions in dealing with this Bill. We are trying to frame a law which will be applicable to a whole continent and cover many varying conditions. If there is any meaning in the Constitution, we cannot differentiate between one port and another in Australia. We cannot do it by regulation if we cannot do it by an Act of Parliament. On the eastern coast of Queensland there is a large number of vessels trading within a radius of 150 to 200 miles. There are vessels trading between Rockhampton and Townsville, and calling at the ports of Broad Sound, Mackay, and Bowen. These are small vessels of perhaps 300 tons register, and. similar vessels are employed trading between Townsville and Cairns, going through Hinchinbrook Channel, and calling at Ingham and other small ports on the way. If this provision is to be applied to such vessels, the result will be to destroy a large amount of pioneering trade that is now being carried on. It should not be forgotten that the big steam-ships trading on our coasts are fed by these little steamtenders or lighters that run in and out of the small ports, and bring hides, tallow, sugar, and other produce to the larger ports, from which they are taken by the larger steam-ships. If these little vessels trading between the small ports are to be dealt with in the same way as ocean-going vessels, the effect will be to destroy a certain amount of trade now being carried on. The adoption of the clause will have the effect of stopping this pioneering trade’, which is conducive to settlement. If the Government are prepared to do that, they must accept responsibility for their action.

– Are not punts chiefly used to bring the sugar to the big ships?

Senator SAYERS:

– No. It is brought down to those vessels by small steamers. At Proserpine, there is a bar harbor which it is difficult to enter. The same remark is applicable to Mackay. If the clause be strictly enforced, what will become of these steamers? I have no objection to vesting this power in the Minister in the case of vessels which may enter the trade in the future. But to enforce such a provision at the present time would impose a great hardship upon our producers. Western Australia would be similarly affected.

Senator Lynch:

– There are no coral bars there.

Senator SAYERS:

– There are no coral bars in Queensland. The bar at Brisbane is a sand bar. I hope that the Minister will not be too stubborn in this matter. I have no desire to worry him, but- I do ask him to take my representations into his favorable consideration, seeing that the matter is such a serious one to the State which I represent.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator St.

Ledger’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 17

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Senator St. Ledger) proposed -

That the following words be inserted after subclause 1 : - ” Provided that the provision in this sub-section prescribing water-tight false bottoms shall not be applicable to limited coast-trade ships not exceeding 500 tons gross register.”

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.49].- I do not know whether the Minister in charge of the Bill intends to accept the amendment or not.

It does not follow, because we have done one foolish act, that we should do another.

Senator FINDLEY:

– We do not admit that we have done so. We shall not accept any amendment in the direction indicated by the honorable senator. We desire that this clause shall be passed as it is.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– The Government will not allow the Committee even to dot an “ i “ or cross a “ t,” I suppose.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 209 to 211 agreed to.

Clause 212 (Compensation for unnecessary detention).

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– - I rise, not to propose an amendment, but to ask for information. On comparing this Bill with the last one, I find that two clauses have been omitted. It does not contain clause 207 of the last Bill, dealing with the case of a master who takes to sea a ship which has been legally detained before such ship has obtained a release.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– That appears as clause 213 in the present Bill.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Then the order of the clauses has been altered. Clause 208 of the last Bill appears to have been dropped, or placed elsewhere in this Bill. As I said, I did not rise to move an amendment, but to point out that, apparently, two clauses of the last Bill have been dropped.

Senator Findley:

– We are not discussing dropped clauses, but the Bill before the Committee.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– The honorable senator’s colleague has explained to us at considerable length the way in which the Bill has been built up year after year by means of Royal Commissions, and all that sort of thing, and claimed that it is supposed to be the acme of perfection. If I think that some provisions have been omitted from this Bill, I have a reasonable right, without a sneer from the Honorary Minister, to ask why they have been dropped. I am quite willing to accept his statement, if he makes it, that clauses 207 and 208 of the last Bill appear in another part of this Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 213 agreed to.

– Senator St. Ledger has asked whether there is a similar provision in any existing Act, and has suggested that there is not. The honorable senator ought to have been sure of his ground before snaking such an extraordinary assertion. I direct his attention to sections 105 and 106 of the Victorian Act of 1890. Section 106 reads -

Where a ship proceeding to sea takes to sea when on board thereof in the execution of his duty any officer authorized to detain a ship the owner and master thereof shall each be liable to pay all expenses of and incidental to the officer being so taken to sea and also a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds until the officer return or until such time as will enable him to return to the port ‘from which he is taken, and such expenses may be recovered in like manner as the penalty.

One of many reasons for the insertion of the clause is that it is considered essential to prevent ships going to sea while an officer is on board.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– The section in the Victorian Act seems to be part of a comprehensive scheme, but such is not the case with the clause with which we are dealing. The clause seems to stand by itself, and the reasons given for it are entirely inadequate.’ However, we have to, accept them. No doubt strange things do happen at sea.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 215 agreed to.

Clause 2 16 ‘(Security for costs).

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– This clause differs from the New Zealand section, and from the section in the Merchant Shipping Act, especially in regard to the proviso. In the Merchant Shipping Act, section 461, the words used are - “ Provided that not less than onefourth of the crew being not less than three.” This clause, however, reads - “ Provided that where the complaint is made by two or more of the seamen.” The meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act is that the complaint that a ship is unseaworthy has to be made by one-fourth of the crew, that proportion of the whole being not less than three. The reason of that is evident, because two seamen might mala fide bring a complaint.

Senator Givens:

– Could not three do the same?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I admit that they could. But the greater the number included the more easy it is to detect mala fides. I should like the Minister to give some reason for the departure in this clause from the provisions appearing in the Merchant Shipping Act and in the New Zealand Act requiring that the complaint shall be made by one-fourth of the crew and not less than three before security for costs is dispensed with.

Senator Turley:

– What size crew would the- ship be carrying ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– The honorable senator is better able to advise the Committee on that point than I am, but I should imagine that the vessels trading on the coast of New Zealand would be no larger than those trading on the coast of Australia, and the New Zealand Act follows in this matter the provision of the Merchant Shipping Act. The Minister has given no reply to my question, and I think I am entitled to the courtesy of a reply. I should like to know why the Government propose this departure from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act and the New Zealand Act?

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– The. honorable senator appears to have been searching all the Statutes he can find, and wherever he has noticed a section in any Statute which he cannot find in this Bill he asks me to get up and explain why it ‘is not here. I have to tell the honorable senator - and I hope he will accept this explanation as applying to all similar cases - that in this case the Government are satisfied that they are right in making the departure proposed. We believe that if two or more members of the crew of a ship make a complaint which obviously is not a frivolous one, security for costs should be dispensed with. That is all that is provided for in this clause. It is not necessary that we should rigidly follow the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act in every case.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 217 to 220 agreed to.

Clause 221 -

Every ship shall be permanently and conspicuously marked with lines, in this Act called deck-lines and load-lines.

This provision shall not apply to -

limited coast-trade ships under fifteen tons gross registered tonnage

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.23]. - I wish to ask the Minister why it is considered necessary to fix the registered tonnage of limited coast- trade ships to which the provision is to apply at 15 tons, in view of the fact that under the Merchant Shipping Act it is fixed at 80 tons ? This provision is applied under the Merchant Shipping Act to every British ship proceeding from a port in the United Kingdom except ships under 80 tons register employed solely in the coasting trade or ships employed solely in fishing. I should like to know the reason for the considerable reduction in the tonnage of the vessels to which this important provision is to apply.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

Senator Turley:

– Sub-clause 3 of clause 223 deals with that matter.

Senator Pearce:

– We intend to follow the Board of Trade load-lines.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 222 - (1.) Deck lines shall be not less than twelve inches in length and one inch in breadth, and shall be painted longitudinally on each side amidships, or as near thereto as is practicable, and shall indicate the position of each deck which is above water. (a.) The upper edge of each of the deck-lines must be level with the upper side of the deck plank next the water-way at the place of mark ing, and the deck-lines must be white or yellow on a dark ground, or black on a light ground. (3.) In this division “ amidships “ means the middle of the length of the load water-line, as measured from the fore side of the stem to the aft side of the stern-post.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I move -

That in sub-clause 2 the word “ upper,” line 8, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ lower.”

– That applies to finding the free-board. To measure the freeboard afterwards is another matter. The deck-line is only used for measuring the free-board, for showing the free-board on the side of the ship, for use on the ship’s articles, and so on. If you shift that mark as you build up the deck you will lift the Plimsoll mark and put people’s lives in jeopardy all the time.

Question - That the word “ upper “ proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Guthrie’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 11

Majority. … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question’ so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 223 - (1.) The owner of every ship shall . . . mark upon each of her sides … a circular disc. ….. (2.) The centre of the disc …. shall indicate the maximum load-line in salt water to which it shall be lawful to load the ship. (3.) The position of the disc shall be fixed in accordance with the tables in force in the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act

Provided that, in ships laden with coal, the position of the disc shall be, at all seasons of the year, not higher than that prescribed, by the Hoard of Trade Regulations, for the Winter load-line.

Amendment (by Senator Guthrie) proposed -

Thatafter the word “ coal “ the words” or deadweight cargo” be inserted.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 October 1910, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1910/19101012_senate_4_58/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate12 October 1910

PETITION

QUESTION

THE CENSUS

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator GIVENS:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator CHATAWAY:Queensland

Senator Givens:

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator Findley:

Senator ST LEDGER:QUEENSLAND

Senator Findley:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Findley:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Givens:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Lynch:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sayers:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator FINDLEY:Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator Chataway:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Chataway:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Sayers:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Vardon:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Lynch:

Senator Sayers:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Chataway:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator SAYERS:Queensland

Senator Pearce:

Senator SAYERS:

Senator Pearce:

Senator SAYERS:

Senator Lynch:

Senator SAYERS:

Senator Lynch:

Senator SAYERS:

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator Sayers:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Givens:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator ALBERT GOULD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator Pearce:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senate
12 October 1910

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP