Senate
15 November 1910

4^th Parliament · 1^st Session

CUSTOMS BILL
QUESTION
- LECTURE BY SIR GEORGE REID
QUESTION
- WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY
QUESTION
- HANSARD
QUESTION
- SCHOOL BOOKS
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPHISTS’ OVERTIME
PAPERS
QUESTION
- POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
EMIGRATION BILL
- Second Reading
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL
- Second Reading
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
- Second Reading

The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 6060

CUSTOMS BILL

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– I desire leave to make a statement regarding the introduction of a Bill to amend the Customs Act in certain directions.

Leave granted.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Bill, although non-cent entious, is important, because it deals generally with smuggling, and matters of that kind. I desire to obtain a suspension of the Standing Orders to enable me to get leave to introduce the measure to-day, and move its first reading, with a view to fixing its second reading for to-morrow, otherwise it will not be possible to have the Bill printed and circulated today. I move -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the introduction and passage through all its stages without delay of a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 6060

QUESTION

LECTURE BY SIR GEORGE REID

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the VicePresident of the Executive Council noticed the following cablegram regarding a lecture at Birmingham University by the High Commissioner?

Lecturing yesterday, Sir George pointed out that every nation aimed at maintaining the integrity of its national character. Therefore, without a thought of offensiveness, but with a feeling of genuine respect for the Japanese and Chinese, he maintained that Australians were justified in trying to reproduce a country such as the Homeland.

A world-wide cry was for cheaper meat, and when the barriers were removed, Australia would have the opportunity of supplying millions.

The Commonwealth’s progressive land tax would, he asserted, bring millions of fertile acres that were now locked up into cultivation.

Sir George also eulogized Australia’s manufacturing, industrial, social, and political status, and maintained that she had done more towards the settlement of disputes by means of’ arbitration than any other country.

Can the Minister tell the Senate whether this is a true bill or whether something has gone wrong with the wires?

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I noticed the statement in the newspapers, and, so far as I am concerned, I am willing to believe that it is a true bill.

page 6060

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister re presenting the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Have the contracts for the erection of wireless telegraph stations at Sydney and Fremantle yet been signed by the contractors?
Who are the guarantors for the due carrying out of the contracts, and have the guarantees yet been signed by them?
Is it not a fact that Admiral Poore expressed a decided preference in favour of the installation of the Marconi wireless system as against the Telefunken?

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

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

No.
The guarantors are Hugh Robert Denison and William Norman McLeod. They have not yet signed the guarantee.
No. Admiral Poore, however, before tenders for the Sydney and Fremantle stations were received, advised that from a strategical point of view Marconi’s installation should be fitted, as, owing to the existing contract’ with the Marconi Company, H.M. ships would not be able to communicate with the shore stations . or carry out any trials with a view to testing the installations if any other system were adopted, but in a subsequent communication Admiral Poore advised that the Admiralty were released from the obligation against intercommunication with stations fitted with other than Marconi apparatus, and that the restrictions on H.M. ships from communicating with or carrying out trials with any shore stations fitted with apparatus other than Marconi will, therefore, no longer apply.

In another communication the Admiralty advised that, subject to the system selected being able readily to communicate with H.M. ships and to inter-communicate with any other system in use, the Commonwealth may adopt what system they please, and need not confine themselves to any one system exclusively.

Senator GIVENS:

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

Is it not a fact that the Telefunken wireless system is essentially a short-range system?
Does the Postmaster-General know of any installation of the Telefunken system in the world which is able to maintain wireless telegraphic communication over an ocean range of 1,250 miles - the distance specified for the Australian stations?
Is not the Marconi system the only recognised system which has succeeded in maintaining communication over such long distances?
If, as stated, 40 per cent. of the wireless stations in the world have the Telefunken system installed, how many, if any, are high-power stations capable of transmitting messages over a distance of1,250 miles?
Is it possible for the contractors for the Australian stations to carry out the conditions of the contract with the Telefunken system ; and, if so, how is it possible?

Senator FINDLEY:

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

No.
The Postmaster-General has been informed that there are at least nine such stations.
No.
See answer to 2.
There is believed to be no reason whatever why the contractors for the stations at Sydney and Fremantle should not carry out the conditions of the contract with the Telefunken system.

The PRESIDENT:

– Notice of a question cannot be given now.

page 6061

QUESTION

HANSARD

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister re presenting the Treasurer, upon notice -

The total cost of Hansard for the year ending 1908-1909?
The number of Hansards sold by the Government Printer to each of the States respectively.

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

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

£4,2100s. 8d.

page 6061

QUESTION

SCHOOL BOOKS

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

Is it a fact that free atlases are shortly to be distributed to the schools of Great Britain by the Government of the Commonwealth, and that such atlases will deal only with Australia, and contain more pictures than maps?
Is it also a fact that the Commonwealth Government are also making a collection of all the geography books in common use in the schools of Great Britain and Ireland, with the object of making recommendations which will increase the accuracy of the information given . in the books concerning Australia?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

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

Atlases of Australia are to be prepared for distribution, but the matter of the inclusion of pictures has not yet been dealt with.
Yes.

page 6061

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHISTS’ OVERTIME

Senator KEATING:

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

Is it correct that telegraphists in Hobart and Launceston, in order to receive the latest press cables, are often on duty until 2 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. ?
Is it also correct that, in such instances, they receive no allowance or other consideration for overtime?

Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

– The Deputy PostmasterGeneral at Hobart has furnished the following information : -

Telegraphists are sometimes detained until 2 a.m. and later for press messages. During the past six weeks this has occurred on six occasions.
Yes, it is correct, because the hours worked during a fortnight have not exceeded 88 hours, vide Public Service Regulations.

page 6062

PAPERS

Senator FINDLEY laid upon the table the following papers -

Post and Telegraph Act 1901 -

Amendment (Provisional) of General Regulations - Sunday Arrangements (Postal), Statutory Rules 1910, No. 97.

Amendment (Provisional) of Money Orders Regulations, Statutory Rules 1910, No. 102.

Lands Acquisition Act1906 - Kerang, Victoria ; Rifle Range Purposes - Notification of the Acquisition of Land.

page 6062

QUESTION

POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS

Call of the Senate.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) pro posed -

That Government business, Orders of the Day, Nos.1, 2, and 3, be postponed till to-morrow.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I have no objection to the postponement of business to meet the convenience of the Government in this connexion, but I foresee that if the course proposed be followed, we shall land ourselves in a very serious difficulty. The first Order of the Day relates to a call of the Senate. It will be within the recollection of honorable senators that we suspended the standing order which compels twenty-one days’ notice of a call of the Senate to be given, in order to permit of that call being made for today. The call having been deliberately made for to-day, I hold that we cannot disregard our decision by postponing it till to-morrow. There may be some honorable senators who will be out of reach tomorrow, and I claim that the call of the Senate, if postponed to-day, will not be valid to-morrow. This is. a very important matter. The Bills in reference to which the call has been made relate to proposed amendments of the Constitution, which are vital, and consequently we ought not to incur the slightest risk of rendering invalid any action that we may take. I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to take this question into his serious consideration. Whilst the call of the Senate may be postponed till a later hour of the day, I submit that it will not be valid if it be postponed till to-morrow. Perhaps the Vice-President of the Executive Council may urge that, as we have suspended the Standing Orders in regard to it, a postponement of the call will be valid. But I would remind him that we have suspended the Standing Orders only to the extent of dispensing with the twenty-one days’ notice which is required under them. I believe that the safer course to adopt will be to postpone the call until a later hour to-day. I strongly deprecate postponing it till tomorrow.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I have not the Hansard report of Friday’s proceedings beside me, but I am under the impression that upon that day a request was made by the Leader of the Opposition that an opportunity should be afforded the Senate to postpone the call which had been fixed for to-day until tomorrow, in order to convenience certain honorable senators who may not be present to-day. I quite understand the point which has been raised by Senator Givens that the Standing Orders were suspended to enable the call to be made for to-day. But in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that certain honorable senators may not be able to attend to-day, is it not possible to postpone the call until to-morrow?

Senator Millen:

– I am not raising the objection.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am quite aware of that. Certain honorable senators may be under the impression that the call will not be made to-day. I have no desire to transgress any of our Standing Orders. As a matter of fact, I do not object to the call being made to-day. But it is scarcely fair to blame the Vice-President of the Executive Council for having intentionally disregarded the Standing Orders.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– Honorable senators will realize that the question of a call of the Senate is not a constitutional one. There is nothing in our Constitution which relates to a call of the Senate. Standing order 280 provides -

The Order of the Day for calling overthe Senate on a future day shall be set down as the first Order of the Day for the day so appointed.

Standing order 281 says -

When the Order of the Day for calling over the Senate is read, unless the same be postponed - and that is what is now proposed to be done - or discharged, the names of the senators shall be called over by the Clerk alphabetically.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– This is a matter about which it seems to me there is some little difficulty. Taking a superficial view one might easily come to either conclusion, but I contend that a call of the Senate cannot be treated in the same way as an ordinary motion. It is an intimation to every honorable senator that a call will be made on a particular date. The whole matter in dispute is whether a call can be postponed from one day to another, or from one hour to another, of the same day. Looking into the matter closely I have come to the conclusion that the standing order means to refer to a postponement from one hour to another of the same day. Under the Standing Orders a call of the Senate is to be regarded as the first Order of the Day for which it is made, and it might be found more convenient to postpone it to a later hour of the same day. I know that the Government are relying upon standing order 73, which reads -

After the formal motions and orders have been disposed of, and before the business of the day is proceeded with, any senator may move without notice, that any notice of motion standing in his name, or Order of the Day of which he is in charge on the notice-paper for that day, shall be a notice of motion or Order of the ‘Day for some subsequent day.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I wish to direct the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive Council to standing orders 156 and 157. Standing order 156 reads -

The Orders of the Day shall be disposed of in the order in which they stand upon the noticepaper.

Standing order 157 contemplates an Order of the Day in charge of a private member of the Senate, and reads -

If, at the adjournment of the Senate, any Orders of the Day on the notice-paper have not been called on, such Orders of the Day shall be set down on the notice-paper as business for the next sitting day, at the end of the regular business of that day.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill from being passed through all its stages without delay.

Bill read a first time.

page 6068

EMIGRATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– In the early days of the existence of the Commonwealth this Parliament did all that it possibly could to prevent the influx of undesirable immigrants into this country. I am glad to say that nearly everybody in Australia, and many persons holding high positions in other parts of the world, are beginning to recognise that the policy -which we then adopted is a wise one. But. whilst legislating in respect of immigration, the members of this Parliament did not think that the necessity would ever arise to enact laws in respect of emigration. But from time to time circumstances have arisen which point to the absolute need for something being done to prevent aborigines and young persons of European race from leaving or being taken from Australia without the knowledge of the Government and without the protection to which the citizens of any country are entitled when they go abroad.Upon several occasions the newspapers have emphasized the abuses which have resulted from aboriginal natives and young children being induced to leave the country by plausible stories on the part of certain individuals who wished to make a profit out of them. They have pointed out that when these aborigines and white children have been taken to other countries they have not received that treatment which should have been meted out to them. Owing to these abuses the Government have been compelled, even at this late stage of the session, to introduce legislation for the protection of aborigines and young persons. That is the only reason why this Bill is before us to-day. It merely provides that no aboriginal native and no persons under the age of eighteen years shall be taken from Australia without a permit unless they are in charge of some reputable individual, who will look after their welfare while they are absent. The measure will not debar aborigines or young persons from leaving Australia, but it will compel them to obtain the permission of some Government official, who will see that they are carefully protected while they are abroad. That is really all that the Bill provides, and I hope, in view of what honorable senators already know of this question, that we shall experience no difficulty in passing it through all its stages without delay. I have pleasure in moving -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I do not wish to detain the Senate, because 1 am sure that we are entirely in sympathy with the purpose of the measure. But I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to ascertain as speedily as possible whether this Bill will apply to ships’ apprentices? My first impression is that it will. Under the definition clause - “ Child “ means a child under the age of eighteen years, and later on the Bill provides that -

A child shall be deemed to be under contract to perform theatrical, operatic, or other “ work outside the Commonwealth if any agreement or arrangement exists between the child, or a parent or guardian of the child, or any other person, under which the child is to perform, or take part in the performance of any theatrical, operatic, or other work outside the Commonwealth.

It seems to me, therefore, that the Bill will cover ships’ apprentices, and I do not think it is the intention of the Government that these apprentices shall require to obtain a permit under its provisions. I raise this point now because I recognise that we are endeavouring to dispose of the remainder of the business of the session at something like high pressure, and if I wait until the measure is in Committee, the opportunity of the Vice-President of the Executive Council to confer with his officers upon it will undoubtedly be lost. I ask the honorable gentleman to take notice of the point.

Senator McGregor:

– I am doing so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Definitions).

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I am rather inclined to think that if there be any substance in the point which I mentioned just now, and into which the Vice-President of the Executive Council has undertaken to inquire, it may be necessary to alter this clause.

Senator Keating:

– Why not postpone its consideration until the remaining provisions of the Bill have been considered?

Senator MILLEN:

– I was about to suggest the adoption of that course, unless the Vice-President of the Executive Council will consent to recommit the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 - (1.) The emigration from, or taking out of, the Commonwealth, except in pursuance of a permit under this Act, of any of the following persons is prohibited-

any child who is under contract to perform theatrical, operatic, or other work outside the Commonwealth;
any child of European race or extraction unless in the care or charge of some adult person of European race or extraction ; and

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– This clause seems to act as an absolute prohibition against those who are under the age specified going abroad. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is intended to prevent children from going abroad without permit, even though they travel with their parents? It seems to me that the clause would prevent a child being sent abroad by a parent without the permission of a Government officer.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The clause applies to persons under eighteen years of age. I should not be drawing on my imagination too much if I said that there are men in this Senate to-day who travelled in and out of this country, before they were eighteen years of age, without getting a permit from any one ; and I think that, generally speaking, the Australian who reaches the age of eighteen is quite as well able to look after himself as is any other person. Under this clause, a young man who wanted to go to New Zealand for a trip would have to get the permission of a Government officer. He would have to say, “ Please, sir, may I go abroad for a month?” The object of the Bill is right enough, and honorable senators are disposed to welcome it; but the principle should not be carried to absurd lengths.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator does not wish to reduce the age to five or six ?

Senator MILLEN:

– No; but I do not want to legislate in such an absurd way as to say that a young Australian shall not go to New Zealand without the permission of a Government official. Fancy a young man of eighteen being prevented from going abroad unless in charge of a nurse ! This is going a little too far. If it were a case of persons going out under contract, there might be a reason for supervision, but there is certainly not that reason in the case of young men going out of Australia to look for work - say, to New Zealand, in shearing time. I should think it a piece of impertinence if any one said to me, “ You cannot go abroad without permission.”

Senator McGregor:

– But the honorable senator is over eighteen.

Senator MILLEN:

– Unfortunately, I am ; but there are many people in this country who are not; and it is surely undesirable to bring every one down to the condition that they cannot live or move without the permission of a Government official. As originally framed, the definition of “ child “ was applied to a person “ under the age of sixteen years,” at which age many persons are greatly in need of supervision. But the age was altered to eighteen. The alteration may have been desirable to make it apply to a class of persons who are primarily responsible for the introduction of the measure - young girls going out under contract on theatrical tours. But there is no reason for including those who may merely wish to leave Australia for other purposes, to which I have referred.

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I am sure that Senator Millen does not mean all that he says. When some honorable senators see anything in print, they take it in at a glance, and object to it straight away. The clause does not mean what the honorable senator imputes. We know perfectly well that an Australian young man or woman is usually just as well able to take care of himself or herself as any one else.. But there are young people whom we do require to protect, and it is for their protection that the age has been fixed at eighteen. The majority of young men and women in Australia could be trusted to go to any country in the world, but it is desired to protect the few who are unfortunate enough not to be so strong minded, or so well developed physically, that the clause is designed. Legislation of this class is not intended to apply to the great majority of people. It is proposed for application to special instances, where wrong or fraud may be attempted to be committed on those who are not well able to protect themselves. I can imagine no officer or Minister in the Commonwealth who would administer . a measure of this description- as one of general application. It will be administered for the protection of aboriginals and white children for whose protection, at present, we have not sufficient power. It is in their interest that the Government desire that no alteration shall be made in the age of eighteen contained in the definition clause. As far as relates to apprentices on board ship, I have ascertained from the Attorney-General that in his opinion the Bill will not apply to them. When the Navigation Bill is under consideration, all the protection that apprentices require will be extended to them.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I move -

That after the word “Act,” line 3, the words “or of the written assent of the parents or guardian “ be inserted.

There is a definition of “ guardian “ in the Bill, but there is no definition of “ parent,” and I do not think that is necessary. Should the amendment be made, sub-clause 1 of the clause would read -

The emigration from or taking out of the Commonwealth, except in pursuance of a permit under this Act or of the written assent of the parents or guardian, of ‘any of the followingpersons is prohibited.

– Had that been the law in Scotland, I might not have been able to get away from that country when I did.

Senator MILLEN:

Senator GARDINER:

– Why should that be necessary? That is really what 1 object to. In attempting to deal with one evil the Government run the risk of causing great inconvenience to persons desiring to travel. It is quite possible to deal directly with wrongdoers without inconveniencing persons who have no desire to do wrong. The Minister’s arguments have convinced me more than ever of the desirability of striking out the provisions.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– A few moments ago I had the opportunity of conferring with Senator Keating, who agreed with me that his amendment has been moved in the wrong place, because it will cover any aboriginal native or those engaged for alleged theatrical but quite other purposes. He is not in the Chamber at present, but assuming that his amendment is defeated, I shall move to insert the same words in paragraph b unless the Minister is prepared to delete it.

– That is to say, that every person would be at liberty to leave unless the Minister stepped in ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes. Under such a provision I think that we should secure a careful administration of the Act. But my experience is that if the public wish’ to obtain satisfaction, Commonwealth Departments are the last places to which they will go. Take the case of a man who has engaged as an under-steward on board ship. What officer in the Government Departments would look after his interests and grant him a permit at short notice ? Let us deal with the evil which the Bill aims at suppressing, and not endeavour to create further trouble.

Senator Millen:

– Such an arrangement as the honorable senator refers to would be kept secret, and the Government would ne%’er be told about it.

Senator RAE:

– If the persons concerned had to go before a Government authority it would be possible, but not probable, that what they proposed to do would be discovered. The extreme cases for which this legislation is proposed will in almost every instance affect females ; and if the amendment be defeated I shall be inclined to move that the word “female” be inserted before the word “ child,” in paragraph b of sub-clause 1. Such an amendment would, I believe, meet the objections which have been urged to the clause better than would the amendment proposed by Senator Millen.

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I appeal to Senator Vardon and other honorable senators, who, I believe, have every consideration for the young people of Australia-

Senator Vardon:

– Surely that may be said of every member of the Senate.

Senator McGREGOR:

– I shall have great pleasure in acceding to Senator Gardiner’s request. If his amendment be adopted, I would suggest that the Government should regard it as indicative of the desire of the Committee that they should recommit the definition clause with a view to making one amendment cover the whole Bill. It is only possible to obtain the sense of the Committee by submitting some such amendment as that which has been outlined by Senator Gardiner. I ask leave to temporarily withdraw my proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– If the amendment which I intend to move in this clause be carried, I think that the definition clause should be recommitted.

Senator Millen:

– Why not insert the word “ female “ before the word “ child”?

Senator GARDINER:

– Would not the insertion of the word “ girl “ in lieu of “ child “ make the paragraph equally clear ?

Senator Millen:

– When the age limit has been altered the honorable senator will see the difference.

Senator GARDINER:

– Possibly. In the circumstances I move -

That in paragraph a of sub-clause 1, after the word “ any “ the word “ female !i be inserted.

Clauses 4 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 -

The master, owner, or agent of any vessel who has reason to suspect that any passenger or intending passenger by the vessel for any place outside the Commonwealth is a prohibited emigrant, shall, before the departure of the vessel, give notice in writing to the Collector ‘or other principal officer of Customs at the port where the vessel is, stating the name of the passenger or intending passenger and his reason for suspecting that the passenger or intended passenger is a prohibited emigrant.

Penalty : Twenty pounds.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– This clause seems to me to be altogether useless. How is it possible to prove that the master, owner, or agent of any vessel “ has reason to suspect “ that a passenger is a prohibited emigrant? If the captain of a ship takes his vessel away with a prohibited emigrant on board, how is it to be proved that he or the owner or agent had “ reason to suspect “ ? It appears to me that the clause cannot possibly have any effect, and, indeed, cannot be worked. It is not the duty of a ship’s captain to look after such matters.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I hope that the Government will consent to the elimination of the clause. Who on earth is going to determine whether the master, owner, or agent had “ reason to suspect “ ?

Senator Keating:

– It is merely a “ fault in draftsmanship.”

Senator ST LEDGER:

– It may be so, but we do not want to commit faults in legislation. How can any one prove “ reason to suspect “ ? Some people think that when a tooth falls out the proper thing to do is to sprinkle salt on it and to throw it in a certain direction, when everything will be all right. This clause is like salt on an old tooth. But surely we have got beyond that sort of thing nowadays.

Senator McGREGOR:
South AustraliaVice President of the Executive Council · ALP

– Before honorable senators come to the conclusion that this clause is of no use, I should like to point out that a similar provision is contained in the Immigration Restriction Act as well as in other similar measures. I may as well tell those who are always endeavouring to protect somebody from danger that exists only in their imagination that the clause is for the purpose of preventing collusion between any one who wishes to get a young person away from Australia and the master of a ship. When such a provision is inserted in an Act of Parliament the master of a ship knows that it is his duty, if he has reason to believe that he has a prohibited emigrant on board, to report the fact to the authorities. Does Senator Vardon mean to say that under certain circumstances the master of a ship will not have reason to believe that there is something wrong which he ought to report? I am quite sure that all honorable senators desire to put an end to such a traffic as we have in view, in the interests of the children of this country.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 (Power of officer to remove child or aboriginal native from vessel).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I should like to direct the attention of honorable senators, who were so shocked at the amendment to this Bill which I suggested a little while ago, to the fact that this clause gives the Government all the drastic powers with which I said they ought to be invested. I wish those who expressed astonishment at what I suggested to realize what they will be doing in agreeing to this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 16, and title, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Amendment (by Senator Findley) agreed to -

That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 2.

In Committee (Recommittal) :

Clause 2 -

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Child “ means a child under the age of eighteen years;

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– There was a general agreement as to an amendment which should be made in the definition of “ child “; and, to meet the wishes of the majority of the Committee, I move; -

That after the word “ years “ the words “ in the case of a female child, and sixteen years in the case of a male child “ be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

page 6084

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

Second Reading

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I wish to state the reason for the introduction of the Bill and its objects. In November, 1907, a subscriber to the Newcastle Telephone Exchange complained that the name of a livery-stable proprietor had been placed opposite his telephone number in a telephone list published, and that, in consequence, he and his wife were subjected to much annoyance and inconvenience. Inquiries made by the Department showed that the complaint was well founded. As a result, they sought the opinion of the Crown Solicitor, in order., if possible, to prevent the publication of unauthorized lists. He gave it as his opinion that the Department had no power under the Post and Telegraph Act, or any regulation thereunder, to prevent the issue of such lists, and he went on to say -

The matter could, in my opinion, be dealt with by a regulation framed for that purpose, or by registering each list as it is issued, by the Department under the Copyright Act of 1905. In my opinion, however, an appropriate regulation would be the better way of dealing with the matter.

Following upon that advice; a regulation was drafted by the Crown Law authorities, and received’ Executive approval in 1908. This was the regulation drawn up and circulated -

Printing of Telephone Lists. - 126A (1) Any person who, without the authority of the PostmasterGeneral, prints, publishes,or circulates, or authorizes the printing, publishing, or circulating of any list of all or any of the subscribers connected with any telephone exchange shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding Ten pounds.

All lists published in contravention of this r egulation shall be forfeited to the Postmaster- General, and shall on demand in writing be de- livered up to him.

– The elimination of advertisements from the official directory would not stop the publication of telephone directories by private individuals. Whether advertisements appear in the official directory or not does not in any way affect my line of reasoning. What we want to see is that no unauthorized person in any part of the Commonwealth shall be permitted to print, circulate, or distribute a telephone directory. The numerical list which formerly appeared in the official directory was to me very convenient indeed. I have been inconvenienced very much at times on being told that such and such a number rang up, and that no name was given. Formerly one was able to look at the numerical list in addition to the alphabetical list. The Government have under consideration the advisability of restoring the numericallist.

Senator Millen:

– Why did you not say that an hour ago?

Senator Sayers:

– If he had done so it would have stopped this discussion.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not think that anything would have stopped the discussion. It was considered at one time that if the two lists were continued the directory would become so bulky that complaints would be made that the expense was not justified. In the circumstances I hope that the opposition which has been shown to the measure will not be manifested by a call for a division on this motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Amendment of section 97).

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– Do the Government really intend to prohibit the issue by private individuals of such telephone directories as are correct? I can quite understand their desire to prevent the issue of inaccurate lists, but is if their intention to prevent the publication of accurate lists?

Senator Findley:

– We intend to prevent the issue of any unauthorized telephone lists.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– That is not an answer to my question. If a private telephone list be correct, will the Government prevent its publication?

Senator Findley:

– Yes.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– It is just as well that we should have that point made clear. I regret that in the matter of the issue of telephone directories the Government intend to do what no railway depart- ment in the world has done in the matter of the issue of railway time-tables.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

.- Assuming that a large business house has twenty or thirty departments, and that a telephone is installed in each department, will the Government permit it to issue a list of those telephones for its own convenience and for the benefit of its customers ?

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– The Bill is not intended to apply to such cases as that cited by the honorable senator. I do not know of any business firm which has twenty or thirty distinct telephones installed on its premises, but such a firm would only post the numbers of its telephones in its various departments for the convenience of its employés. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent the publication of such a list. The measure is intended to prohibit unauthorized persons from publishing telephone lists throughout the Commonwealth for commercial purposes.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– I am very glad to learn from the Minister that the measure is not intended to apply to such a case as that which I have cited. It would impose great hardship if it were.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 6095

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I am afraid that a measure dealing with the preservation of Australian industries has come to be regarded as a sort of hardy annual. So far pur attempts to legislate for the suppression of monopolies and trusts has not been very successful. Honorable senators will doubtless recollect that from the outset the members of the party, with which I am associated viewed that legislation somewhat sceptically, and certainly our experience since the parent measure was placed upon the statute-book has not tended to strengthen our confidence in its efficacy.

In one brief sentence we may sum up the net result of anti-trust legislation in Australia. It has been nil.

Senator St Ledger:

– Is that the fault of the legislation?

Senator PEARCE:

– I think so. There are two causes for it. First, defective legislation, and, secondly, the restraining influence imposed by certain sections of the Constitution which hamper the powers of the National Government. In regard to the legislation which we have enacted, there have been some fifteen or twenty inquiries into cases in which requests have been made that prosecutions should be instituted. But out of the whole of those cases there have been only two prosecutions, the final result of which was that two sections of the principal Act were declared by the High Court to be ultra vires of the Constitution. That is not a very encouraging record. The Government, however, take up the attitude that there has been an undoubted demand on the part of a large section of the people that a restraining influence should be exercised on monopolies. That wish has been voiced by various sections in Parliament, and we are prepared to give our anti- trust legislation a full and fair trial. With that end in view we have introduced this Bill, which is designed to give the Commonwealth further powers - powers which are declared by the Crown Law officers to be absolutely essential if any effective steps are to be taken to prevent monopolies and trusts in Australia from doing things which are detrimental to the public interest.

Senator Sr Ledger:

– Will the Minister tell us where the existing law is defective?

Senator PEARCE:

– I shall endeavour to do so. One provision to which the law officers of the Crown, point as a source of great weakness is section 4 of the principal Act, which reads - (1.) Any person who, either as principal of as agent, makes or enters into any contract, or is or continues to be a member of or engages in any combination, in relation to trade or commerce with other countries, or among the’ States -

with intent to restrain trade or commerce to the detriment of the public; is guilty of an offence.

That section contemplates two things which it is almost impossible to prove. In the first place, it declares that it is necessary to prove intent to restrain trade - not merely the act of restraint, but intent to perform it. Secondly, it provides that it shall be necessary to prove that the act of restraint is detrimental to the public welfare. It has been found impracticable to establish these two things. Moreover, in this legislation we are endeavouring to copy, to a large extent, the legislation of the United States. Although our legislation inthis connexion has very largely followed the Sherman Act, judgments have been given in the United States - I have them here, but I do not intend to quote them unless I am asked to do so because they are somewhat lengthy - the result of which has been to extend the operation of that Act beyond the limits conveyed by its actual wording. If honorable senators will read them, they will find that the amendments which we now seek to make in the law, follow those judgments. In this Bill we proposeto take away the obligation to prove that restraint of trade is to the detriment of the public, and we seek to enact that the commission of the act shall be held to prove intent. That is to say. we intend to make the subsection which I have just quoted, read -

Any person who, either as principal or as agent, makes or enters into any contract,or is or continues to be a member of or engages in any combination, in relation to trade or commerce with other countries or among the States -

in restraint of or with intent to restrain trade or commerce, is guilty of an offence.

– They could have been taken before. Could they not have been used ?

Senator PEARCE:

– They could have been taken under the existing law, but they could not have been used in evidence.

Of course the object in giving power to take such documents was that they might be used in evidence. But still, it has been held that they cannot be used, and so under this Bill we are taking power to use them. It is the opinion of the Crown law officers that the provisions of this Bill are necessary in order to enable us successfully to deal with combinations where they are illegitimately restraining trade and doing injury to the public. Therefore the Government trust that this Bill will pass, and that prosecutions instituted under it will be conducted with the object of carrying out what was intended under the principal Act - not to break up combinations, not to try to turn the hands of the economic clock backwards, but simply to enable the Government to institute prosecutions and sheet home convictions when combinations’ are doing wrong.

Senator St Ledger:

– There is a case which is sub judice at present. Does this Bill affect that case?

Senator PEARCE:

– Surely the honorable senator does not expect me to give advice on that question. I take it that if this Bill is passed the provision as to fines, except with the limitation to which I have referred, will apply.

Senator St Ledger:

– Would it apply to the case that is now sub judice ?

Senator PEARCE:

– That is a question of law, and I can only give an opinion with diffidence. My opinion cannot be worth much, but it seems to me that if the Bill becomes law the Crown law officers will be entitled to use the law.

Debate (on motion by Senator Millen) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 9.50 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 November 1910, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1910/19101115_senate_4_59/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate15 November 1910

CUSTOMS BILL

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

LECTURE BY SIR GEORGE REID

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator GIVENS:QUEENSLAND

Senator FINDLEY:Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator GIVENS:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Keating:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator FINDLEY:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

HANSARD

Senator SAYERS:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

SCHOOL BOOKS

Senator ST LEDGER:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHISTS’ OVERTIME

Senator KEATING:

Senator FINDLEY:ALP

PAPERS

QUESTION

POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS

Senator GIVENS:Queensland

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

Senator Givens:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Long:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator O’KEEFE:Tasmania

Senator Millen:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Givens:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator McGregor:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Rae:

Senator McGregor:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator KEATING:Tasmania

Senator Givens:

Senator KEATING:

Senator STORY:South Australia

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator McGregor:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Keating:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Keating:

Senator STEWART:

Senate
15 November 1910

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator STORY:
South Australia

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator LONG:
Tasmania

Senator McGREGOR:
South AustraliaVice President of the Executive Council · ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator BARKER:
Victoria

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales