4th Parliament · 3rd Session
The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1951
Appointment of Administrator
asked the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -
Gasette with reference to the appointment of an Administrator for the Northern Territory? If so, on what dates?
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -
Gilruth was not one of the applicants. The honorable member may see the tile which is in the Department of External Affairs.
page 1951
Motion (by SenatorLt.-Col. Sir Albert
Gould) agreed to -
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Walker for two months on account of ill-health.
page 1951
Motion (by Senator Keating, for Senator Sayers) agreed to -
That there be laid on the Table of the Senate a return showing -
page 1951
Report adopted.
page 1951
Debate resumed from 1st August(vide page 1545), on motion by Senator McGregor -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
SenatorLt. -Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - As President of the Sugar Commission, the gentleman to whom I have referred is not a Judge. The Bill makes provision for giving very strong powers to a President or Chairman of a Commission who is a Judge of a Supreme Court and I wish to show by a reference to statements made by the President of the Sugar Commission how dangerous it would be to place such autocratic powers even in the hands of a Judge as Chairman of a Commission.
– I am of opinion that Senator Gould was strictly in order. He was commenting upon the powers to be given to a Royal Commission in the event of a Judge being Chairman of the Commission. When a Judge steps off the bench, and takes his place as Chairman of a Commission, he should be no more free from criticism than any other citizen who may be appointed to preside over an inquiry by a Commission.
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - I find that one of the new powers proposed to be conferred by this Bill is set out in this way -
If the President or Chairman of a Royal Commission or the sole Commissioner is a Justice of the High Court, or a Judge of the Supreme Courtor County Court or District Court of a State,he shall, in relation to any offence against sub-section (i.) of this section committed in the face of the Commission, have all the powers of a Justice of the High Court sitting in open Court in relation to a contempt committed in face of the Court, except that any punishment inflicted shall not exceed the punishment provided by sub section (i.) of this section.
Sub-clause i provides that -
Any person who wilfully insults or disturbs a Royal Commission, or interrupts the proceedings of a Royal Commission, or uses any insulting language towards a Royal Commission, or by writing or speech uses words false and defamatory of a Royal Commission, or is in any manner guilty of any wilful contempt of a Royal Commission, shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty : One hundred pounds or imprisonment for three months.
I say that when it is proposed to place such powers in the hands of the President of a Royal Commission, even though he be a Judge of a Supreme Court, it is well for us to examine the history and conduct of the particular Commission now under consideration, and the conduct of the President of that Commission.
– While the case is still pending?
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - While the case is still pending this Bill has been brought forward to clothe that Commission with the most plenary powers. In the absence of a measure of this description the position would be very different. Had the Commission completed its inquiry, and had it submitted its report to Parliament, it would then have been competent for honorable senators not merely to criticise its finding, hut to debate the way in which that finding had been arrived at, and incidentally to discuss the conduct of the Commissioners. The Chairman of that body, I admit, was subjected to a certain amount of annoyance, and no doubt he felt very indignant at the action of one witness, who. instead of answering the questions that were put to him, insisted upon reading a statement which he had prepared, and declined to accept the Chairman’s dictum that he should first give evidence. Next day the -Chairman of the Commission accused that witness of having told “ a deliberate lie,” but when certain matters were subsequently placed before him he retracted the statement, and said that had he been aware of the circumstances he would not have made it..
– It was a lie all the same, but the Chairman said that the witness did not know it was a lie.
– Any Judge of the Supreme Court who would designate a witness a liar is unworthy of his position. Our Judges are supposed to hold the scales of justice so evenly, and to have Such judicial minds, as to forbid the idea that they would jump to hasty conclusions-
– It was a lie all the same.
– The witness whose honour was impugned occupies too high a- position in the esteem of the people of this country, both rich and poor, to be prejudicially affected by the statement that he was a deliberate liar.’ Like everybody else, he may make a mistake. But even if the Chairman of the Commission had ground for the conviction which he entertained, his remarks evidenced an unfitness for the position which he occupies.
– I would not put anything beyond the Sugar Combine.
– Suppose that the remark was an indiscreet one, is the Chairman of this Commission the only Judge who has been guilty of an indiscretion ?
– We know that there have been Judges in whom the public had no confidence. That time, however, is happily past. Here is another illustration of the way in which the inquiry of the Sugar Commission has been conducted. A witness, Mr. E. Barclay, of Innisfail, was being examined as to the cost of maintaining a wife and four children, when the Chairman, coming to the item of “ Newspaper,” said, “What about his newspaper ? “ The reply of the witness was, “ My man cannot read,” to which the Chairman retorted -
When I ask you for an answer I do not expect impertinence. I will not permit rudeness. If you cannot answer the question, don’t. I will leave literature at nothing.
Is that the attitude which the head of this Commission should adopt towards a witness? Another witness, Mr. Drysdale, a mill-owner at Ayr,- said -
With regard to the price of cane, I hope you will look round the district and see what state it is in.
The Chairman replied -
Will you kindly answer the question? We will come to other matters later. The Commission are quite capable of knowing their own business and carrying it out.
– Quite right.
– This witness merely said, in effect, “ If your Honour will look round you will see that what I have told you is correct.” Yet that innocent remark called forth the reply which I have quoted. In another instance, in connexion with the application of a Customs regulation to field hands, the Chairman asked a witness -
Do you mean to tell the Court the meaning of that regulation is that the men are to be paid only w.hen working in the wet?
The answer of the witness was -
I mean to say that regulation means a man is to be paid for wet weather if he works.
The Chairman then inquired -
Only if he works?
To which the witness replied “ yes.” The Chairman then added -
My opinion is either you are a lunatic or a perjurer.
Thereupon the witness said -
I am not here to be called names.
The Chairman replied -
Absurd !
Witness added -
I do not like being insulted.
To which the Chairman retorted -
You are insulting the common sense of the Commission.
Is that the sort of conduct that we expect from the Chairman of this Commission?
– It is the most disgraceful conduct that I ever heard of.
– Yet we are asked under this Bill to arm a gentleman possessed of such a hot temper with these plenary powers. I presume that the language of the witness whom I have quoted would be regarded by him as insulting to the Commission. The dignity of that body would be hurt because the witness made a simple reply to the Chairman’s question. Are we going to say that in such circumstances the Commission should have power to send that man to gaol for a period of three months? Are we to vest autocratic powers in such a man ? If we do so we shall not be dealing fairly with the people’ of this country. Members have to go to the electors now and again for a renewal of their confidence ; and the latter will want to know that they are getting a square deal.
– The people of the Commonwealth are clamouring for justice.
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD.- -Clamouring for a reasonable administration. They have no desire to go back to the days of Judge Jeffries.
– The community are not safe while such combines as the Colonial Sugar Refining Company are in existence.
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - In the Bill as originally introduced it was proposed to give Commissions the power to deal with contempt committed outside their hearing. But let me remind my honorable friends that the Judges are not immune from criticism - that under certain circumstances it is competent for the public to criticise their actions. To-day T am happy to say we believe that men possess certain inherent lights of which no autocratic power should rob them. Honorable senators opposite talk of reactionaries. But who are the reactionaries? They are to be found on the opposite side of the Chamber, among the supporters of this Bill. A reactionary is a man who desires to go back to the old days when little or no freedom was permitted to the individual. When I spoke of the penalties imposed under this Bill, one honorable senator replied. “ If a man does not do wrong he will not he liable to those penalties.” Need I point out that less than a century ago a man who stole a sheep, or even 5s., was liable to he hanged ?
– -If he stole a shilling he was liable to that penalty.
.- A century ago the reply which I have quoted might have been given with equal justification in the case of a man who stole a shilling. Rut the tendency since then has been towards mitigating the punishment for offences, whilst making that punishment more certain. In the old days the little liberty which was enjoyed was enjoyed only by a section of the community.. When we impose excessive penalties for offences we exhibit vindictiveness, but we do not render punishment more certain.
– We have to make it effective.
– We cannot do that by inflicting enormous penalties. Quite recently in the prosecution of a witness before the Sugar Commission in Sydney, the magistrate inflicted a fine of £25.
– I - It would pay the Sugar Trust to pay a fine of ^500 rather than give evidence before the Royal Commission which is inquiring into that industry.
.- I know of no Sugar Trust that is in existence in this country. But if there be one, and if its operations are to the injury of the people, it is the duty of the Government to take action. I hold no brief for the Colonial Sugar Refining Company ; but I recognise that, like other companies, it started operations in a small way, and that, as the result of careful management, it has built up a big industry. All honour to such a company which can do that, so long as it does not do it at the expense of the community.
– Why should it be brow-beaten without a trial ?
– I have heard a good deal at various times about the Tobacco Trust, but I believe that my honorable friends opposite are quite willing to leave that trust untouched. They had an inquiry into the tobacco industry some time ago, but what have they done since? Is there any body which can deal with that matter other than this Parliament?
– W - Will the honorable senator vote in favour of nationalizing it?
– No. I will not give a vote to nationalize any great industry, because I have less confidence in Government administration in such matters than I have in private enterprise. I do not want to be led off on to a by-track by answering questions about nationalization. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company has not attained” its present position without having had to struggle in the early days of its existence. Have not nearly all those who have made money had their early struggles, and why should they be’ pulled down when they have become successful ? If honorable senators advocate the nationalization of this industry, I reply that we have only to look at the unsatisfactory results of nationalization in other parts of the world, and at the unsatisfactory manner in which Government enterprises are carried on in many ways.
– The honorable senator must not enter into the question of nationalization.
– I admit that I was going a little bit out of the way ; but I was drawn off by the interjections of honorable senators. In legislating we must abide by broad principles, and avoid unduly interfering with the private affairs of individuals. Why is it that the Government, in giving power to Commissioners to punish witnesses for not answering questions or producing documents, have been oblivious of the necessity for protecting _ witnesses ? It may be that, in the opinion of the Government, in the present instance, the witnesses do not deserve consideration. But this Bill is not designed solely for the present case. It may operate on any individual in the community. Any honorable senator may be summoned by a Royal Commission to appear, be examined, and produce books and documents considered material to the matter under consideration. The broad principle is that, when an inquiry is ordered to be made, a person summoned is bound to answer any material question. But now it is proposed that that power is to be enlarged, and a witness is to be compelled to answer every question put to him, whether material or otherwise. We are abandoning the safe principle by striking out the word “ material,” and making a witness subject to a penalty if he refuses to answer any question. Questions most remote from the subject of an inquiry might be put to a witness. When you omit the word “ material,” you are entering upon the unknown, and are bound to get into difficulty and danger. The only protection given to a witness is that he has not to answer any questions with regard to any secret process of manufacture. But questions affecting his profits, his manner of conducting his business, the payments he makes to his employes, and the work they perform, have to be answered, although such questions may be absolutely remote from the subject of the inquiry.
– A working man who appears before a Wages Board, or Ar bitration Court, has to answer questions as to what he does with his money.
– But in cases of that kind, the information obtained cannot be disclosed without the authority of the person who has given the evidence. The object of the provision to which the honorable senator refers is that the body that has to determine shall be placed in possession of the fullest possible opportunities for coming to a conclusion. Would it be necessary, in connexion with this sugar company, to ascertain such particulars as I have indicated, in order to enable the Commission to find out whether there was an organization working injuriously to the public, or whether the company secured an undue advantage from the bounty paid by the Federal Government for the growth of cane?
– The Commission could not find out unless the witnesses answered necessary questions.
– An inquiry into such particulars, held in public, would give a man’s trade rivals an opportunity of finding out the particular things which enable one industry to be a success, whilst another, in the same line of business, conducted equally honestly and fairly, is, comparatively speaking, a failure. Then, again, a witness has no option under this Bill but to produce his books when they are demanded. He may say that his books do not relate to the matter of the inquiry. Nevertheless, the Commission can say,” We intend to go through your books, and decide for ourselves what is material and what is not.” Suppose that a trade rival happens to be the Chairman of the Commission? Under this Bill, he would have an opportunity of examining the books of his rival. Is it a fair thing that, an individual engaged in business should be prevented from having the particulars of his industry kept secret, unless they happen to be matters of public concern? I admit the value of Royal Commissions. I admit that they should have reasonable powers to enable them to obtain material evidence. But I decline to intrust the President or Chairman of a Royal Commission with the powers of a Judge of the High Court. Complaint is made of the long time taken to decide the case regarding the Sugar Company in Sydney recently.
– The Commission may blame itself for that.
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - We. will assume, for the sake of argument, that a question had to be determined as to whether a witness who had been summoned had a reasonable excuse for not attending to give evidence.
– Would the honorable senator have excused any one concerned in the Titanic wreck inquiry if he had refused to give evidence before the Commission?
– Any person who could give evidence that was material to the inquiry should do so.
– This company is wrecking interests in Australia.
– What was the cause of the delay in this case? In the first place, it was said that a witness who had been summoned ought to have been allowed to put in a statement before being examined in the ordinary way. The person primarily concerned was not allowed to adopt that course. The Commission said that he must answer the questions put to him forthwith. As to whether the action of the witness was right or not, I offer no opinion just now.
– He was found guilty of breaking the law.
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - Has not a man who believes in law and order a right to justice as well as the honorable senator who, I assume, disbelieves in both? I do not wish to shelter any man from the results of his actions. Whether he be a wealthy or a poor man, an influential or an uninfluential man, when he appears before a tribunal of his country, even-handed justice should be meted out to him.
– W - Would the honorable senator allow the law to remain as it is?
– I am informed that there have been eighteen Royal Commissions in the Commonwealth, and this is the first in connexion with which any serious difficulty has been experienced.
– There have been plenty of difficulties. The Harvester Commission had some.
– Why were not proceedings taken, if there was a disinclination on the part of witnesses to do their duty?
– There was not a Labour Government in power.
– I do not disassociate either Labour or Liberal Governments from their responsibilities in matters of this kind.
– D - Does not the honorable senator think that the fact that this difficulty has occurred shows the necessity for giving greater powers?
– No, and I will presently tell the honorable senator why. Complaint has been made about the long duration of the proceedings in the case in question. If this Bill had been an Act the proceedings taken before the Court would probably have been of exactly the same duration. It being the first case, many objections were raised which had to be determined. First, objection was taken to the scope of the Commission ; next as to whether there was reasonable excuse for not attending because somebody had been treated as a defendant unfairly. These matters had to be looked into. If honorable senators have read the reports of the fights that went on day after day, they will know that the respective counsel, Mr. Lamb and Mr. Bavin, were as much responsible for the prolongation of the proceedings as any one. Naturally they were doing their best for their clients. Eventually the proceedings came to an end. The result was that the magistrate considered that there had been no reasonable excuse, and inflicted a penalty of £25 upon the defendant, who has not been called upon to give evidence since then. If he had been, and still assumed the same attitude - if he had said, “ I do not mind if I am fined£50 every time; the Court may fine me as often as it likes “ - I admit that there would have been some cause for saying, “ We cannot stand this flouting of the authority of a body constituted under the law, and we are going to punish the individual who commits that offence drastically, in order that people may learn that they cannot do as they like.”
– The defendant asked for a stay of proceedings.
– An individual has a right to appeal to Court after Court until he gets a final decision, as long as the law permits appeals to take place. The delay was a natural incident of the first prosecution. If the Magistrate had been enabled to inflict a fine up to a maximum of he might not have imposed a heavier penalty than the £25.
– Does not the honorable senator think that if afine of £500 had been permissible it would have made people more cautious?
– I do not think it would have made the slightest alteration in the attitude of this particular witness. I am not defending the action of the witnesses against whom the complaint has been made. I assume that they will accept the decision of the Court and obey the law. An honorable senator has asked, “ What is a fine of £25tothe company ?” If it is the great, powerful corporation which honorable senators talk about what would be a fine of£500?
– I - It would pay the company to be fined£5,000 if they could get out of giving evidence before the Royal Commission.
.- That is not correct. The statement which Mr. Knox desired to place before the Commission reviewed the history of the company, and went into full particulars, in order to enable them to deal fairly and justly with the company. The penalties provided for in this Bill are too heavy. It shows a tendency to go back to old times, and it is unjust. This is a Bill which bristles with pains and penalties. Honorable senators have not any evidence to justify them in saying that the law as it standsis insufficient to vindicate or protect the powers and rights of a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into any matter.
– It has shown its strength.
SenatorLt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - It has shown its strength so far ; for, notwithstanding the vigorous and determined fight which was put up, the law has come oat of the contest triumphant. This gentleman has been adjudged by the magistrate to have committed an offence against the law, and he has been punished. If the maximum penalty had been fixed at£500, he might possibly have been fined . £250; but for the value or effectiveness of the fine, it is useless to make it any heavier. If the gentleman who was convicted the other day and fined £25 would not give evidence then, probably, if he had been fined£250, he would not give evidence now. However much honorable senators may feel incensed against the action of the witnesses, let them sot do an injustice to anybody, as they pro pose to do. 1 have here an interesting extract which is taken from a work entitled Dictionary of Political Economy, by Palgrave. Alluding to commissions, the writer says -
A tribunal established to deal with a special class of cases is often the readiest instrument of injustice or oppression.
According to this writer’s view this Commission was one of the readiest instruments of injustice and oppression. He continues -
Everybody is interested in the impartiality of a Court, before which he may appear as defendant. But many, unfortunately, will applaud partiality in a Court where defendants belong exclusively to an unpopular class. As compared with Judges who are also jurists Judges who have had no legal discipline are less likely to deal with causes in a severely judicial spirit, to consider sufficiently the consequences of making a precedent, or to uphold that stringency of procedure which, tedious as it may seem, is the best safeguard against passion or carelessness. Hitherto the predominance of the regular Courts of Justice has protected us from most of the evils which might have been feared from Commissions armed with judicial power. But the multiplication of extraordinary tribunals and of special procedures would break down this predominance, and, with it, the old English principle of submitting to a regular Court foradjudication in the regular way, every question which can be formulated in terms of law, a principle always precious, and always difficult to maintain, but in an age of popular Government especially invaluable, and yet specially liable to be overthrown.
I ask honorable senators if every word of these extracts is not applicable to the position of affairs in the Commonwealth with regard to Royal Commissions?
– Taken from the lawyer’s stand-point, yes.
– It is none the worse for that.
– I think it is.
– The honorable senator wants to give to a Judge special powers, which he will deny to a layman.
– Nothing of the sort.
– The Bill which the honorable senator supports denies these special powers to a layman, while giving them to a Judge. Everyword whichI have quoted, whether it emanates from a lawyer or not, is worth considering.
– The bulwark of the profession.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT
GOULD. - I ask the honorable senator how often have the people of the community owed their liberty and privileges to the legislation of gentlemen who were members of the legal profession?
– And they have taken their money.
– That is not a fair statement to make. If I were to ask the honorable senator to do any work for me in his line of business, he would expect to be paid for his services. In the other Chamber, many of the objections to the Bill were summed up in a very brief amendment which was submitted. I do not propose to allude to the debate in any way, but the Votes and Proceedings which have been placed before us show that the following amendment was moved to the motion for second reading -
That all the words after the word “That” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ while prepared to further endow Royal Commissions, according to the needs of each inquiry, with full authority to investigate all matters of public importance, this House protests against the excessive and unprecedented powers proposed to be conferred upon the President or Chairman of a Commission, against the absence of adequate protection to witnesses, and against improper attempts to stifle fair verbal or written comment.”
That amendment sums up many of the objections which may be taken here to the Bill. I have made this quotation to show to what extent honorable members in another place were prepared to go in apposing the measure. We should not be less direct in our opposition here. There is one matter to which I have not yet alluded. I have referred to the unfairness of giving these excessive and unprecedented powers to the President or Chairman of a Royal Commission, and to the absence of adequate protection to witnesses. The Bill does not shield or cloak a witness with any protection at all. When a witness goes into a Court of justice, it is the duty of a magistrate to afford him a certain amount of protection, more especially if he has no one to look after his interests. But when a man goes before a Royal Commission, he may be, in many respects, ignorant. He may not know that he has any protection, but may think that as soon as the Commission utter a word he must obey them, and they may browbeat him as they please. Some protection should be given to a witness. When a Commission say to a witness, “ You must answer the question, whether it is material or not,” they treat him very unfairly. When they say to a witness, “ You must produce your books, whether they appertain to the inquiry or not ; we will find out if they do,” they treat him very unfairly. A refusal to answer any questions of this kind may be treated by a Judge, if he thinks fit, as a matter of contempt. If I go before a Royal Commission, a Judge may ask me a question which I recognise is not material “ to the matter under consideration, while it may be very material to me that I should not give an answer. If I decline to give an answer he can say, “ You are liable to a fine of £100, or three months’ imprisonment.” Having taken that course, he can put the same question to me again, and if I take the same attitude, he can impose the penalty. Is that a protection to a witness? Again, if a witness is prosecuted for not having produced a document, the onus of proof is thrown upon him to show that it was not material to the inquiry, and- that, therefore, he did not produce it. Should it turn out in the end that he was right in his view, he will have been very severely punished, because he will have lost his time, and probably a great deal of money, in putting up his defence. He will not be recouped for the loss of his time, or for a great portion of the money which he has spent. Simply because a witness has stood up before the Commission, and taken an honest and fair position, he is to be penalized by being subjected to heavy costs and a waste of his time. Then, if a man or a newspaper says outside that it is a partisan Commission, or makes any statement which would have a tendency to bring the Commission into contempt, the individual, or the newspaper, may be haled before a Court, and if convicted the individual is liable to a pecuniary penalty or to imprisonment, while the newspaper is liable to a pecuniary penalty ; or, if he can be got hold of, the editor may be sent to prison. This is the punishment to be inflicted where a man has made a fair and just comment on a public affair. On the platform we debate public matters and public men, and although the criticism is often very unpleasant to the individual, and frequently very unfair, still it is always regarded as being in the interests of the community that there shall be no “gag” placed on the mouth of any individual when he is commenting on public affairs and confining himself to that. I might comment upon an act of a Minister of the Crown in a most drastic way; but if I said that he was a thief, or ought to have been convicted as a thief, he would have a right of action against me, and very properly so. But if I said that he had administered the affairs of the country in such an unfair and unjust way that the people were suffering, and being deprived and robbed of sustenance and power, I would be within my right of criticism. It would be for. the public to judge whether my words were worth heeding, or should, be treated as an idle breath. Our nation has been built up on the principle of freedom for the people to follow their pursuits, to express their views on public affairs and public men, with no restriction except that they should not defame a public man in his private life and affairs. If we pass this Bill, it will not do any credit to this Parliament. It will be held up to the public as an attempt to pursue one set of people with a vindictiveness that is almost criminal, and when no good reason has been shown for its enactment. If the Act had broken down, or the magistrate had said that it did not enable him to punish the witness who was charged, honorable senators might say, “ We are now taking such steps as we ought to take in order to make sure that the will of the people as expressed by the Commission is carried into effect.” I urge honorable senators even now to try to disabuse their minds of the feeling that there is any party interest to be considered, or that a company not popular with them is being dealt with, and to do what is right between man and man by holding the scales of justice fairly and impartially. lt is necessary to make provision for a full and fair inquiry into every public matter, but the power of punishment should not be abused. Reasonable punishment, and the reprobation of the citizens of the Commonwealth, will always have a better influence than the infliction of vindictive or excessive punishment, or the placing of a particular class in the community under any special disadvantage. Since the commencement of Federation, we have had, I think, eighteen Royal Commissions appointed. I took the trouble to ascertain what we have spent upon them, and 1 find that Royal Commissions have cost us, so far, upwards of ^55,000. The Sugar Commission has cost, up to date, upwards of ,£7,000, and I believe that there is a further £3,000 on the Estimates to cover the probable future expenditure in connexion with that Commission, It would, in my opinion, be very much better if Ministers were to allow this Bill to stand aside, at any rate, until we know the effect of the decision given recently in respect of witnesses who have declined to give evidence. If we find that witnesses are still recalcitrant, and refuse to obey the law, it will be time enough then to provide these drastic powers to compel ‘their obedience. We might then proceed with a measure such as this, but we should, even then, take care that the questions put to witnesses by members of a Royal Commission, and the documents demanded, shall in every case be material to the issue under consideration. We should thus be protecting the interests of the public at large, whilst recognising the right of every man, to the utmost freedom within the limits of the law, to pursue his own avocation as he pleases. We should be careful also to enact no provision intended to penalize the press or persons who venture to say >a word derogatory to the Royal Commission. We should be able to justify the passing of such a measure as I suggest. Honorable senators opposite would be wise if they declined to give the Opposition the opportunity to contend that the present Government are supported by people who do not like criticism, and are always impatient under it. We should not prevent the press from making public what really takes place. The Government have recently initiated a policy the tendency of which is to gag the press, which has always been regarded as one of the most potent instruments for securing and retaining the liberties of the people. To say that affairs shall be conducted in camera or in the presence of only a few people, and shall not be subject to criticism, or be brought under the notice of the public, is to undermine the liberties and rights of our citizens, and to reduce them from the position of free men to that of serfs. It is wrong for the Government to propose a measure to punish people who do not agree with them in opinion, if not by fine or imprisonment, at any rate, by interference with their business and ordinary avocations.
. - We have heard this morning some unfortunate statements with regard to the operations of trusts and combines, and certain accusations, chiefly by way of interjection, against certain members of the Senate that they hold briefs for trusts and combines. Although I do not think that I shall be accused of that, I intend to offer some criticism upon this Bill. The Government are adding some drastic provisions to our criminal code, and proposing penalties which, so far as I am aware, are not provided for in any measure dealing with Royal Commissions in any other part of the world. I do not wish to lay too much stress upon that, but I do think it is most important to point out that the Government are making it possible for this legislation to be administered by persons who are wholly unfit to administer it. My chief criticism of the Bill is not so much as to what it contains as it is to the wide opportunities it affords to men who are utterly unfit to give effect to its provisions. Clause 3 says that a Royal Commission may be issued to any one, and we know that it may he formed of members of Parliament. It is a matter of common history that members of Parliament who have been appointed as a Select Committee have subsequently been constituted members of a Royal Commission, because the Select Committee has been unable to conclude its work before the end of a session. It will still be possible to follow that practice. I do not hesitate to say that if such a thing should occur again while this measure remains unrepealed, the effect must be disastrous to the administration of justice by this form of court. The tendency which has been exhibited in the Federal Parliament to create various courts and tribunals invested with powers is one which honorable senators on both sides would do well to carefully consider, and which, from my point of view, we should check. By way of illustration, I ask what have we done in connexion with the Conciliation and Arbitration Court? We call it a court, but it is not a court at all. It does not exercise the functions of a court, but it does exercise the functions that we are accustomed to exercise in Parliament, and which only Parliament should exercise. In that case, we have used’ the name of a court to designate a body consisting of only one man, that is exercising parliamentary functions. In this Bill, the exactly opposite course is proposed. Under it, one or three members of Parliament may be constituted a Royal Commission, and we practically turn those members of Parliament into a court. That is exactly the reverse of the course we have followed in connexion with the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. I think that it is a serious and vital mistake to take either of these courses. If we intend to give to Royal Commissions the powers provided for in this Bill, it is absolutely incumbent upon us to limit the persons who may be appointed to Commissions to mert trained to carry out the duties which will have to be performed. It is quite wrong to expect that we can, from this Parliament, or from any body of ordinary persons, appoint members of a ‘Commission competent to administer this measure as it ought to be administered. However, the Government are prepared to do that. The penalties provided for are severe, but what I fear most is that the power to impose them will be placed in the hands of men who are not competent to decide the full value of the evidence, or the extent to which offences under this Bill have been committed. Something has been said about impugning the honesty of members of Royal Commissions, but it is not a question of honesty at all. It is a question of fitness, of habit, of thought, perhaps, more than anything else, and that is a matter of training. All these qualities should be demanded of any men who may be appointed to a Royal Commission under this Bill. The Bill leaves it open to Parliament or the Government to appoint any men to carry out duties which should be carried out by men possessing special knowledge. I do not wish to refer to the work of the Sugar Commission, but Senator Gould this morning read some statements :by the President of that Commission, and I say that no one could hear them read without feeling great regret that the gentleman who made them should preside over the deliberations of a Royal ‘Commission. I do not care to make accusations against any one because I am a member of this Parliament and he may be somewhere else. But, without pursuing the subject much further, I say that the reading of these remarks by the President of the Sugar Commission should be sufficient to induce us to hesitate and consider seriously the risks we shall run in granting powers such as are provided for in this Bill to persons who may be appointed members of a Royal Commission. We must remember that it is a very difficult matter to remove any member of a Commission after he has been appointed. But. in view of the provisions of this Bill, we are bound to consider the possibility of removing men from Royal Commissions and the extreme latitude given to the Executive to appoint them. Whilst the Bill is repugnant to me in many ways because of its drastic provisions, I say that it could only he made acceptable hy limiting the persons who may be appointed as members of Royal Commissions. I could welcome the measure, and believe that it would be of infinitely more use to Australia, if such a limitation were provided for. I do not hesitate to say that the only persons to whom Royal Commissions should issue under this Bill are Judges of the Supreme Courts of the States or of the High Court. I should not intrust the powers of this Bill to persons below that standard. I suppose the Bill will pass, and that Royal Commissions will be appointed in future, possibly, consisting wholly of members of Parliament. I wonder which member of the Senate, whether a trained lawyer or not, would accept the enormous responsibility which would be imposed upon him in conducting an inquiry under the provisions of such a Bill as this. 1 say, unhesitatingly, that nothing would induce me to accept a position on a Royal Commission under this Bill. We may have Judges in embryo in the Senate, but, until a man had proved himself on the Bench, I should feel that he was not fitted to administer this measure, and that no member of the Senate could, with self-respect, accept a position in which he would be compelled to do so. 1 do not wish to debate the Bill further. I feel very strongly that it_ will give rise to a great deal of irritation and a rankling sense of injustice. It will produce that sense of injustice, though the Commissioners themselves may be just. I do not suggest that unjust men will be appointed, but Commissioners will be appointed who, notwithstanding their own strict sense of justice, will administer the Act wrongly, because it will demand from them the exercise of qualifications which they do not possess. I make no reflection upon those who have already held appointments on Royal Commissions. I was a member of a Commission which lasted two and a half years, and, with a full knowledge of what happened upon it, I say it would have been most disastrous if we had been working under this Bill. Attention would then have been strongly directed to the unwisdom of placing in the hands of ordinary persons who constitute Royal Commissions such a powerful weapon as this Bill will afford.
-Colonel CAMERON (Tasmania) [12.2]. - I desire to say only a word or two upon this measure. Senator Clemons has put the position as clearly as it can be put, and in as unbiased a way as is possible. The Bill will place a dangerous weapon in the hands of any person who may be appointed to a Royal Commis sion, unless he is fully qualified to exercise the very wide powers which will be intrusted to him. That is my view of the matter, and even at this late stage I would urge upon the Government the desirableness of withdrawing the Bill. May I remind Senator McGregor that he will not always be in power to administer it. We may be able to trust him, but we may not be able to trust some other people. The Bill will place in the hands ot future Commissions a weapon which is an exceedingly dangerous one, and for that reason I would appeal to the Government and their supporters to think seriously over what they are doing. If once these powers be given to Royal Commissions, is it likely that they will forego their exercise? The Bill will arm those bodies with a weapon which is particularly dangerous to the poorer classes of the community, whom my honorable friends opposite profess to represent. Consequently,0 I would urge them to withdraw it.
.- A A layman does not like to follow a member of the legal profession in discussing questions of a legal character. But it seems to me that some of the objections raised by Senator Gould in his long deliverance, and by Senator Clemons in his more moderate speech, were somewhat overdrawn. We may approach this question by asking whether it is not reasonable to assume that any Commission which may be appointed in the future will be constituted of persons possessed of common sense? I am willing to admit that a member or the Chairman of a Commission may, in the past, have said things which will not be upheld by the general public. We may take it for granted, however, that members of Commissions will be possessed of ordinary common sense, and that they will approach their duties with a keen appreciation of the necessity for being thoroughly impartial.
– For example?
– I - I do not think that the honorable senator could be impartial, because he views matters’ too much from a party stand-point. Senator Gould, in putting a suppositious case, referred to clause 5 of the Bill, which reads -
It shall be a defence of a prosecution under this section for failing, without reasonable excuse, to produce any documents, books, or writings if the defendant proves that documents, books, or writings are not relevant to the inquiry.
The honorable senator stated that even if the Commission wanted to probe unnecessarily into the private business of a witness, the witness possessed that safeguard. But, he added, the onus of proving the irrelevancy of the question will lie on the witness. Senator Gould then went on to say that even if the witness proved that the question was not material to the inquiry, and therefore need not be answered, he would, nevertheless, have lost his time and money, and would be without the means of obtaining redress. But I would ask whether the same disabilities do not apply to every member of the community in connexion with our criminal laws? I have in my mind the case of a man in Tasmania who, as the result of an official blunder, was placed upon his trial for murder, only two or three years ago. He was compelled to bring a number of witnesses from one end of that State to the other, and was absolutely ruined as a result of that charge. Yet he was not called “upon to prove his innocence, because at the last moment the prosecution was abandoned. He has been able to secure no redress. As a proof that this is so, I may mention that in two or three successive sessions a member of the State Parliament has moved that a certain sum be granted to him to reimburse him for his out-of-pocket expenses. But the Government of that State have persistently opposed the motion. They affirm that the individual in question was the victim of a police blunder, to which any citizen is liable. Under this Bill no citizen can be placed in a worse position than he is liable to occupy under our common law.
– Under this Bill the burden of proof will be shifted.
– . - Was it not incumbent on the accused to prove that he was innocent ?
– No. It was for the Crown to prove his guilt.
– I - It amounts to very much the same thing. I admit that under clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill there is an opening for injustice to be done to any citizen. But no honorable senator can point to any law which renders it impossible for some member of the community to be victimized.
– Do not make victimization easy.
– Wha What will this Bill achieve more than does the original Act?
-That was exactly what was said in justification of the Star Chamber.
– Eve Every honorable senator opposite knows perfectly well that there is no desire to inflict injustice upon any member of the community. The Bill is merely designed to’ insure that no citizen shall refuse to give evidence before a Royal Commission. I am thoroughly satisfied that when, by the swing of the pendulum, the present Government retire from office - and I do not expect them to remain in power for ever, although I believe they will remain there for a few years - no citizen will suffer injustice if this Bill is then the law of the land. Too much stress has been laid upon the prosecution of a witness in Sydney, who declined to give evidence before the Sugar Commission. It was inferred by Senator Gould that that was the only reason for the introduction of the Bill. Will honorable senators opposite say that when an Act is put into operation and found to be ineffective to do what is intended, it should not be amended? Will it be said that the present Royal Commissions Act is effective to do what is intended ? When it was put into operation, one of the witnesses absolutely flouted the Commission. Very soon after the Act began to operate, its weakness was discovered. The penalties were too small.
– Is it the honorable senator’s position that with an ordinary normal Chairman the Act is sufficient, but that with an abnormal Chairman, another Act is required?
– No, No, it is not so. My position is that with any kind of Chairman, the existing Act is ineffective. The maximum penalty of £50 would have no effect upon some trusts and combines.
– Would £500 be effective in such a case as that?
– P - Probably it would pay some people to submit to a fine °f £5<000 rather than give certain information ; but to the extent that £500 is ten times £50, this Bill is ten times more effective than the existing Act. Reading between the lines of the speeches which have been made in opposition to the Bill, and reading the articles which have been published in newspapers against it, one can see the true grounds of opposition to it. There is a strong desire on the part of some members of this Parliament, and several writers in the press, to make the powers of a Royal Commission as ineffective as they can be, or, at all events, less effective than they ought to be.
Believing that, in the interest of the community at large, it is not desirable that a small section should have so much consideration, I shall have much pleasure in supporting every line of the Bill.
Senator SAYERS (Queensland) [i2.2o”. - I generally listen to Senator O’Keefe with the feeling that he understands his subject ; but I have been much disappointed with his defence of this Bill. He started by mentioning a case in Tasmania where a man was arrested for murder. There is no comparison between that illustration and this Bill. In the first place, under this Bill a person has to prove himself inno-cent ; but a man arrested for murder has to be proved guilty. It a most notorious man happens to be Chairman of a Royal Commission, a witness may be threatened and bullied until he hardly knows where he is. In one recent case a man who had been examined as a witness told me that the Chairman of a Commission turned to him and threatened him that he must answer certain questions ; and when the man said that he knew nothing about the subject, the Chairman retorted, “Unless you answer that question, 1 shall deal with you as far as the law gives me power.” Is that the way in which a witness in the box ought to be treated? That man told me that before he left the box he would have admitted anything to get out of it. He was not an uneducated man, either. He was a clerk in a sugar mill. He said, “ I was never bullied and bounced so much in my life. T really did not know how to answer the question, and yet I was threatened with being sent to gaol if I did not.” We do not know who may be Chairman of a Royal Commission. We have known a member of this Parliament to make an exhibition of himself all over the world. He would hang a man if an Act gave him power. Fancy an individual like that being Chairman of a Royal Commission and exercising the powers given by this Bill. It is inconceivable that in a free country such a measure should be submitted to Parliament. The Star Chamber was abolished long ago in Great Britain, but it is to be reestablished in this new country. I am surprised that honorable senators who believe in a reasonable amount of liberty being enjoyed should support a measure of this kind. Let us look at some of the provisions. Under clause 7, if a witness who has been summoned does not attend day after day until released by the Chairman, a warrant may be issued for his apprehension.
– What is wrong with that?
– In the first place, a man may not have the means to attend. A person living in South Australia may be summoned to attend a Royal Commission sitting in Queensland.
– H - He will get his expenses ; read paragraph 6 g.
– That paragraph reads -
Any witness appearing before a Royal Commission shall be paid a reasonable sum for the expenses of his attendance in accordance with a prescribed scale.
But what is the use of telling a man that a reasonable sum will be paid to him after he has attended ? If a Royal Commission is sitting in Victoria, and the witness is summoned from Western Australia, he may not have the means to attend. When a person is summoned to give evidence in a law Court, a sufficient sum of money is tendered to him with the subpoena.
– I - In a case like that, the expenses might be tendered to the witness by administrative order.
– But I want it in the Bill. We do not want any of this administrative business. If the Bill provided that a reasonable amount should he tendered to a witness to cover his expenses, it would be less objectionable; but many a man is not able to put his hand into his pocket and produce £10 or £15 to pay his expenses. Nevertheless, a person who fails to do so may be treated a.s a criminal, and brought over under a warrant.
– If he were brought over under a warrant, it would cost him nothing.
– Would the honorable senator like to be brought over by a policeman under a warrant? It appears to me that the object of this Bill is to give the Government carte blanche to do what they like. There will be such an outcry the first time the measure is put in force that the next Government that comes into power will be compelled to repeal it. In fact, I believe that honorable senators themselves will say that it should be repealed. What reason is there for this procedure? A fair number of Royal Commissions have been appointed under the Commonwealth ; but it seems that we have now reached a situation in which the powers which may be exercised under the existing Act are not sufficient for somebody. Then a Bill is brought down which is, I believe, one of the most drastic measures that have ever been presented to a House of Parliament. In times past in Venice there was a little place into which a letter was put and very soon a man disappeared off the face of the earth. At one time in Great Britain there was a Star Chamber in which persons were tried privately. For certain reasons - we have not had them all put before the Chamber - we are asked to pass this Bill. Like Senator O’Keefe, a great many persons outside Parliament are reading between the lines, but I feel sure that they are doing so altogether differently from my honorable friend.
– Would you characterize a Royal Commission, appointed on the lines of this Bill, a Star Chamber?
– Exactly. The Bill gives the most arbitrary powers to the Chairman of a Royal Commission, though he may be the most incompetent man on the face of God’s earth. We know what men who have been members of Parliament have done in other places. Unfortunately, a man of that type might be the Chairman of a Royal Commission.
– The Star Chamber had nothing to do with incompetency.
– Yes, a great deal, though I admit that the members of the Star Chamber were not so incompetent as are a great many of the men whom we find on Royal Commissions, because they were clever men. Take any Royal Commission which has been composed of members of both Houses. Has there ever been a man on a Commission who was fit to be intrusted with the arbitrary powers which are given in this Bill?
– Which Royal Commission ?
– Any Royal Commission which has been composed of members of both Houses. I say without hesitation that every Royal Commission is a partisan one.
– No.
– Every one of them is a partisan Commission. I do not believe in Royal Commissions at all. I do not make any accusation against the present Government, because they have only followed precedent ; but every Royal Commission contains a majority who are strong supporters of the Government of the day. It is not an impartial body.
– Where are you going to get these impartial men?
– I do not believe in Royal Commissions composed of members of this or the other House who are steeped, a great many of them, up to the eyes in party prejudice. They are not proper persons to be appointed to conduct an inquiry of this kind.
– O - On that line of reasoning you do not believe in Royal Commissions at all.
– I do not believe in Royal Commissions, especially because of the way in which they have been formed. If a Royal Commission has to be appointed, it should be composed of men outside of Parliament, and beyond parliamentary influence. If a Commission is required to inquire into a mercantile affair, surely, in the length and breadth of Australia, the Government can pick three men who have had a large experience in commerce, and nothing to do with politics. But the position is different when the Government pick men who have shown bias and party feeling, because it is hard for any man to sit in a chamber and not get imbued with bias.
– Oh !
– The Honorable senator who says “ Oh “ would be the strongest partisan if he were appointed on a certain Commission.
– Where did you get your Chief Justice - from politics?
– My whole case stands in the eyes of the public. What will happen if this Bill becomes law? Outside men will express their opinion and criticise a Royal Commission, and we shall have half of the people of the country in gaol.
– Where did you get your Judges from - out of Parliament?
– A Judge is appointed to interpret the law as it has been laid down by Parliament ; but in this Bill there is no law to be interpreted. The Chairman of a Commission can say to a man, “ I require you to answer the question,” and if the witness says, “I cannot, because I do not know anything about the matter,” that is not a sufficient answer. He is on his oath, and he may be bullied or browbeaten by the Chairman or other member.
– Or by any lawyer.
– Yes. If a lawyer is in Court, and exceeds a certain limit, the
Judge will not allow a witness to be broweaten by a lawyer if he thinks it is being done for a bad purpose.
– I am afraid you have in your mind the case of a man who does know and will not say.
– I have in my mind the arbitrary powers which honorable senators opposite want to give to the Chairman of a Royal Commission. These absolute powers are to be exercised, not only by a lawyer, but also by a layman who does not understand the law.
– D - Do we not give larger powers to a Iavman in other cases?
– No. In this Bill we give to a layman, who may be proved later to be wrong, the power to commit a man to gaol, or to break into his house. We give these extraordinary powers to a layman who may be appointed by a political party, and who, in my opinion, is not qualified to act on a Commission. When a Royal Commission is composed of members of both Houses, and one reads the names of the Commissioners, he can safely say that the Government have taken every care that they shall have a majority on the Commission. Very often we get a report which has been carried by the majority, the minority reporting in the other way. What sort of evidence can be taken by such a body? These men know, although they are not told so in so many words, that they are expected to take up one. side.
– They are picked because of their known opinions.
– Yes. Every Government acts in this way. Royal Commissions stink in the nostrils of the people of Australia. No more notice is taken of them than is taken of a dog barking. The public see what is going on, and they say, “ Look at the Royal Commission ! Who are they ? Why, the Government have a majority there. The Royal Commission can go whatever way the Government like.”
– Will you object in the future to the appointment of Royal Commissions ?
– I have always objected, because I do not believe in Royal Commissions, especially when they are composed of members of Parliament. I admit, however, that it may sometimes be necessary to appoint a Royal Commission to find out something with regard to commerce or our daily life. But let it be composed of men who are not known to have preconceived political opinions.
– Where are they to be found?
– It would be a bad job for Australia if there were not three or four men outside of Parliament who could be trusted to conduct an inquiry for the Commonwealth.
– You would appoint Badger on a Tramway Commission!
– Nothing of the kind. The honorable senator must be very low-minded, because he imputes to others his own ideas.
– Is it in order, sir, for Senator Sayers to say that Senator Blakey is low-minded?
– If Senator Blakey takes exception to the term, I hope that Senator Sayers will withdraw it.
– Coming from the source it does, sir, I take no notice of it.
– I think I was quite in order, sir, in saying that Senator Blakey was low-minded in imputing his own ideas to others. He imputed a certain thing to me, and I remarked that in doing so he was low-minded. He interjected that I would appoint Mr. Badger to a Tramway Commission. I would do no such thing, because I do not believe in appointing Royal Commissions. It has been proved here, and in another place, that, prior to their appointment, some members of the Sugar Commission had expressed opinions in the press, and stated in public, that they were opposed to certain things. Yet they are sitting on a Commission to report on the sugar industry.
– Which members of the Commission?
– I do not intend tomention any names.
– You might let us know who they are.
– I shall do so if I think fit.
– A gentleman connected with the Jam Combine, Mr. Anderson.
– Who is he?
– The honorable senator pretends that he does not know.
– Order ! Senator Sayers has a right to be heard in silence, without all these interjections being made. When an interjection is made, the honorable senator replies, and then another honorable senator complains of the reply. I think it is- better to .allow the speaker to proceed without interruption.
– The public have no confidence in Royal Commissions as they have been constituted. It is well known that Royal Commissions have been given to men who have never had anything to do with the industry on which they were asked to report. They could not tell one how to do the simplest thing in connexion with the industry, though they might have seen the article growing. Naturally ,the public comment, and ask “ What does this man know about the industry?” The public want to know, when a man is appointed to a Royal Commission, that he understands the subject-matter of the inquiry. That is one of my objections to the present system of making these appointments. Of what use would it be to ask a man who has been mining, or bullock-driving, or following some other occupation all his life, to report on the sugar, or arrowroot, or other highly technical industry, which a farmer has to learn by experience how to carry on. Of what use, for instance, would it be to put me on a Royal Commission to go out west and to report on cattle-breeding or sheepbreeding, and what is the best system to adopt for that country?
– You might sit on a Commission, but you could not give evidence.
– I would be part and parcel of the Commission which was appointed to bring in a report, and that is what I complain of. I would possess no knowledge of the subject.
– You are too modest.
– No ; I am a little more modest than is my honorable friend. I do not profess to know anything about this industry, because I have never had anything to do with it in my life. If the party to which I belong were in power, I might be appointed as a member of a Royal Commission, and receive so much a day to go to Western Australia to iiispect land there, and see whether it was suitable, - in my opinion, for this or that breed of sheep.
– T - The honorable senator would not be put on a Commission to give evidence, but to listen to evidence.
– Have I any knowledge which would enable me to say whether the evidence was right or wrong?
– T - The honorable senator has ordinary common sense.
– If we all had ordinary common sense we should never have a Bill like this before us. It is because of the lack of ordinary common sense that this Bill is introduced.
– Has the honorable senator any sense at all?
– Common or otherwise ?
– The position is that when honorable senators on this side get up to express their views they are met with nothing but abuse from the moment they stand up. They are met with nothing but insulting remarks.
– If the honorable senator hears any remark which he considers insulting, the Chair will endeavour to protect him, and will see that insulting remarks are withdrawn.
– It is too late for me, sir, to call your attention to them when you allow honorable senators opposite to make them. They appear in the press and in Hansard.
– Order !
– You heard the remarks as well as I did.
– Order ! I did not hear any remark made which I thought out of order. If there was such a remark made, it was the honorable senator’s duty to mention the fact, and I would see that the remark to which he objected was withdrawn.
– I say that it is your duty to protect me when I am standing on the floor of this chamber.
– Order ! I have asked honorable senators on my right not to interject. I cannot prevent honorable senators interjecting. The only thing I can do is, when an honorable senator complains of interjections, to see that the honorable senator who has made interjections which are regarded .as insults shall withdraw them.
– “Have you any sense at all?” was the interjection.
– Is that an insult or is it not? You heard it, sir, and so did every honorable senator present hear it.
– Order ! I did not hear it.
– I shall not be insulted in this way.
– I did not hear an interjection to that effect, and the honorable senator never mentioned it. If I had. heard it I should have asked the honorable senator who made it to withdraw it.
– I ask Senator Needham to say whether he did not call it out across the floor of the chamber so that every honorable senator could hear it. His remark was supported by the VicePresident of the Executive Council immediately afterwards. Am I to put up with that kind of thing?
– I asked honorable senators not to interject. I did not hear either Senator Needham or Senator McGregor make the interjections complained of, and Senator Sayers made no complaint about those interjections being made.
– As my name has been mentioned, I may be allowed to say that I did interject. I asked had the honorable senator common sense or otherwise.
– Those were not the honorable senator’s words. But I shall get my proof of what occurred from Hansard, and shall show it to you, sir.
– The honorable senator must not make imputations against the Chair.
– It seems that remarks may be made to me and to other honorable senators on this side, and we must make no reflections.
– The honorable senator has often made interjections himself.
– I will leave the matter now, and to-morrow, when I get my Hansard proof-
– The honorable senator will have it put in.
– No, I never try to have anything put in, though the VicePresident of the Executive Council may try to have something taken out.
– Order ! I ask honorable senators on my right to refrain from interjections. They lead to all this recrimination. Senator Sayers wishes to be heard in silence, and he has a right to be so heard.
– I shall draw my remarks to a close by saying that such a Bill as this is not called for. If the public had a voice in the matter I am sure that they would repudiate it. I know as well as that I am standing here that the Bill will be carried, ‘but I hope that when the people hear what has been said about it, and see, as they probably will, extracts from the Bill published in the press, they will be wise enough to say that any Government that could introduce a Bill of this nature is not worthy to occupy the Treasury benches. Next year the people will have a chance to say that. All that we can do on this side is to do our best to prevent the measure finding a place on the statute-book. When it does reach the statute-book, I hope that before very long the people will say that it must be removed, because it is a disgrace to the fair name of Australia.
– I am not surprised that honorable senators opposite should put up so strenuous a fight in the interests of the companies, trusts, and combines they represent in this House.
– I thought that we were here to represent the people, not combines.
– We are not here to represent a chartered bully.
– Who is he ?
– Judge Gordon.
– I rose chiefly to deal with the aspect of the question introduced by Senator Gould. It is to be regretted that honorable senators opposite should feel called upon to prevent the passage of any legislation which will compel rich companies and combines to conform to the laws as ordinary people are required to do.
– Do you say that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company is a combine ?
– I regard that company as the most powerful combine in Australia.
– Then why do not the Government put the anti-trust law into operation against it?
– Senator Millen knows perfectly well that under the antitrust law as it stands, we cannot deal with the Sugar Combine.
– Why not?
– I am not going into that, but Senator Millen knows very well that we cannot. We have a Bill before us to increase the penalties which may be imposed on witnesses who refuse to give evidence before a Royal Commission. Senator Gould, if he were speaking with a fuller knowledge of the facts, deliberately made statements which were a gross reflection upon the Chairman of the Sugar Commission. They were statements which could not be borne out by reports of what transpired at the meetings of the Commission. I took exception’ to the honorable senator’s criticism. I considered that Mr. Justice Gordon is still a Judge, although he is a member- of the Sugar Commission, and I thought it most unfair that Senator Gould should say that as a member of the Commission, Mr. Justice Gordon called one of the witnesses who came before him, a deliberate liar.
– So he did.
– Here we have Senator Millen repeating the statement. I say that no such thing happened, and’ I intend to prove that from the reports which appeared in the Sydney newspapers.
– Senator Millen would not call Mr. Justice Gordon “ a chartered bully “ outside this chamber.
– I have done so.
– Let us consider what really happened at the meetings of the Commission. Officials of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company were given four months’ notice of questions they were to be asked. The Commission held a sitting in May, and the first question put to Mr. Knox was : “ Are you Chairman of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company?” Instead of answering the question, the wit-, ness proceeded to read a statement. The Chairman of the Commission then remarked in the most gentlemanly way that at that stage of the proceedings the witness should not read a statement, but that if he had any facts or any statement to submit after he had given his evidence in the ordinary way, the Judge would take it, as he had done in other cases, and if it were admissible would have it placed before the members of the Commission. The Chairman of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company was again asked a question, and instead of answering, persisted in reading his statement. As he continued to do so, and persisted in his unruly and ungentlemanly conduct, the Chairman adjourned the meeting of the Commission. When the Commission met on the following day, and the Chairman took his seat, be had before him a letter in which there was a misstatement of fact. In reading the letter he characterized this misstatement of facts in plain langauge as a deliberate lie. There was no bullying and bouncing of a witness in connexion with the matter. I can support this statement by a quotation from the report of the pro ceedings of the Commission which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald.
– If I tell the honorable senator that what he is saying is a deliberate lie is that not tantamount to saying that he is a deliberate liar?
– There is a great deal of difference between a man, when reading a letter which he has before him, characterizing a statement in it as a deliberate lie, and a man calling a witness a deliberate liar.
– The difference is that in this case it is done in cold blood, and not on the spur of the moment.
– Before the Chairman of the Commission there was a statement in writing which was a deliberate lie. There can be no question about that. I feel sure that the Leader of the Opposition cannot be aware of the facts.
– I am quite aware of them, and also of Judge Gordon’s admission that he was wrong.
– Then I shall have to follow up that’ statement also, and show that the Judge expressed regret for the expresson he used, and followed that up by saying that the statement contained in the letter was baseless.
– A statement may be baseless without being a deliberate lie.
– The only extent to which the Judge admitted that he was wrong was that, although he held that the statement was still a deliberate lie, he recognised that the Chairman of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company was not aware that it was a deliberate lie when he wrote it. In my opinion, Mr. Justice Gordon was justified in describing the statement in plain language as a deliberate lie. When I have read a quotation from the Sydney Morning Herald I shall expect Senator Millen to recognise that he. is doing an unfair and an unmanly thing in trying to twist the report of what occurred at the meeting of the Commission in the way he is doing. The Sydney Morning Herald report, of Mr. Justice Gordon’s remarks is this - “ I desire to explain that at every sitting of the Commission - after I excluded Mr. Mitchell, a gentleman learned in the law, has been attended by a bevy of gentlemen representing the C. S. R. Co.” - His Honor mentioned Messrs. Braund (solicitor), Smith (a- chemical expert), and two shorthand writers–” These were at each place where the Commission sat where there was a company’s mill augmented by the manager of the mill.”
Mr. Justice Gordon is reported further to have said -
The next statement Mr. Knox makes is that it is not possible for him to do anything yet in the direction of replying to evidence, because I had refused to carry out certain arrangements. 1 think we have reached to that stage at which a little plain language will not do any harm, and I characterize that statement as a deliberate lie.
There is the statement which Senator Gould twists, and on the strength of which be says that the Chairman of the Commission offensively called Mr. Knox a deliberate liar.
– So he did. If I tell the honorable senator that he is telling a deliberate lie, do I not call him a deliberate liar?
– The Chairman of the Sugar Commission had a letter in his hand, and he said that some excuse contained in it was a deliberate lie. Senator Gould, I am sure, is fair enough to admit that he has made a grave mistake in saying that Mr. Justice Gordon characterized one of the witnesses who came before him as a deliberate liar.
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30.p.m.
– When the sitting was suspended, I had just read an extract from a newspaper report which showed conclusively that the statement of Senator Gould that the Chairman of the Sugar Commission had used offensive language to Mr. Knox was not true. As the reports of the proceedings in the Sydney press clearly show the Chairman of that body merely characterized a statement which was contained in a letter forwarded by Mr. Knox as a deliberate lie. I now propose to read what Mr. Justice Gordon said when the Commission resumed its sittings a few days afterwards.
– That expression in itself was more or less a discredit to the Chairman of the Commission.
– There was a time when I would have taken some notice of what honorable senators opposite may think is the correct thing to do or to say, but in view of the language which the Leader of the Opposition applied this morning, to the Chairman of the Commission, I hope that for the sake of their own credit they will not attempt to establish a standard of ethics in this connexion. The party opposite still persist in attacking the Chairman of the Commission-
– And the honorable senator’s party persist in attempting to shield him.
– I intend to put the actual facts before the Senate with a view to showing that both Senator Gould and Senator Millen should be ashamed of the statements which they have made. When the Commission resumed its sittings on Monday, 6th May, the Chairman said -
Before we proceed to the business of the Commission this morning I desire to make a few observations. At the last meeting of the Commission, held on the 2nd instant, and at the very moment of my taking the chair, I was handed a letter from Mr. Knox, the general manager of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company; which gave a number of reasons for his disobeying a summons to attend before this Commission. Among these was the statement that at the outset - that means at the outset of the Commission’s labours - the Chairman refused to carry out an arrangement he had authorized for the reporters to supply us with their transcript.In my not unnatural indignation at this unfounded charge being launched against me thus publicly and suddenly in respect of an incident which happened in November last year, and as to which no complaint had ever been made to me, I characterized it in terms which I now withdraw, and for which I express regret. I do so because since the meeting referred to Mr. Knox has published two statutory declarations, made by officers of his company, from which it would appear that he believed that he had grounds for his accusations. Therefore, assuming that belief, it cannot fairly be said that he deliberately intended to make an untrue statement. But I cannot, in justice to myself and to the Commission, leave the matter there, because, whatever Mr. Knox’s belief may have been, the charge was baseless.
– He who excuseth himself accuseth himself.
– The Opposition have not merely attacked the reputation of the Chairman of the Commission,but they have used language which would be a discredit to a Domain orator - language which would be a disgrace to any section of the community. Yet they have the temerity to stand up here in their places, and accuse the Chairman of that body of having done certain things which he should not have done. I say that he never used offensive language to any witness.
– In his apology, he admits that he did.
– He does nothing of the kind. Honorable senators opposite apparently wish to prevent witnesses from being compelled to give the evidence which they should give before a Royal Commission. They appear to favour the introduction of American methods, where powerful trusts-
– The honorable senator means that this Bill is the result of the American methods of Tammany Hall.
– I know that the party opposite have to make a valiant fight on this matter because they recognise where their support comes from. They will use all the opportunities which present themselves to justify their positions as the representatives of the big trusts, the big combines, and the big monopolies of this country. To begin with, we have the most offensive statement of the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Chairman of the Commission’. We also have the usual charge of bias levelled against the other members of that body. If we are to accept the statement made by Senator Sayers, we have already arrived at the position that when any outsider is appointed to any prominent office by the present Government, he must necessarily be biased. What more vindictive bias could be exhibited by honorable senators opposite than has been evidenced during this debate? The Chairman of the Commission, upon reading in a letter an unfounded statement characterized it as a deliberate lie. But Senator Gould declared that he called the witness a “ deliberate liar.”
– So he did.
– Now we have the Leader of the Opposition persisting in that statement.
– If I tell the honorable senator that what he is saying is a deliberate lie, would he not regard it as a personal challenge of his veracity?
– If the honorable senator said that my statement was a deliberate lie, he would be called to order. But if he read a statement which I had sent to the Chairman of a Royal Commission, and the honorable senator characterized that as a deliberate lie, he could not be interfered with, clearly showing that there is a vast distinction between the two positions. Senator Millen is simply endeavouring “to bolster up the big combines which he represents by putting the Chairman of the Sugar Commission in a false position.
– I do not care a straw either for Mr. Justice Gordon or the Colonial Sugar Refining Company.
– It is a strange circumstance that the most serious things may happen in this country, and not a word of protest will be uttered by honorable senators opposite. But if legislation be placed before us for the betterment of any section of the community outside of their own, we d?. not find them using all the powers of Parliament to hasten its passage. Yet the moment it affects the rich shareholders of this enormously powerful sugar refining company-
– Why does not the honorable senator be specific ?
– I wonder why? It is glaringly apparent to every honorable senator that there is a party in this Parliament which is prepared’ to fight every piece of legislation which affects the wealthy trusts and combines.
– If I were to say that that statement was a deliberate lie, I should be called to order.
– Senator Millen has declared that the Chairman of the Sugar Commission is a “chartered bully “ on the bench.
– I do not see why Mr. Justice Gordon should have a monopoly of language of that kind.
– I do not see why the Leader of the Opposition should make that statement unless he has evidence of his bullying.
– The evidence is there.
– The report of the proceedings shows that the Chairman of the Commission put up with an amount of annoyance to which no Chairman of a similar body was ever subjected before. Not only did he submit to annoyance at the hands of Mr. Knox, but he submitted to it in a kindly and gentlemanly way, and when Mr. Knox persisted in his refusal to give evidence, he actually adjourned the Commission. It was only the following morning, when a letter was placed in his hands containing a deliberate untruth in justification of Mr. Knox’s conduct, that he characterized that statement as a deliberate lie. After reasoning with Mr. Knox for some time, I find that one daily newspaper reports the proceedings thus -
– You are the managing director of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company?
Mr. Knox persisted in reading the statement.
– Do you refuse to answer the question ?
Mr. Knox kept on reading.
– I put the question to you once more, “ Are you the general manager of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company?
Mr. Knox. I was told last October that I would be given every facility to give evidence, and I prepared the matter fully. I have it all here. I dc not refuse to answer any questions.
T.lie Chairman. - Do you intend to persist in your attitude, Mr. Knox? Mr. Knox persisted.
– Then this Commission is adjourned until to-morrow morning.
Mr. Knox continued to read his statement as the members of the Commission rose in a body and left their seats.
Tn order to make his action clear, the Chairman then announced the adjournment while the members were standing up.
The proceedings only lasted a few minutes. There were present a number of witnesses who were asked to appear the following morning.
Here was ihe Chairman of a Commission appointed by this Parliament- r
– A political commission appointed by a political party for a political purpose.
– That statement is a deliberate untruth.
The PRES. DE NT.- Order! I must ask the1 Vice-President of the Executive Council to withdraw that statement.
– All interjections are disorderly, and according to the decision of a previous President, any reply to them ought not to 1% considered.
– I must ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to withdraw the statement. It is such statements that, give rise to disorder in the chamber. Senator Millen was certainly out of order in interjecting, but unless it is understood that there are to be no interjections whatever, it will be impossible for the Chair to maintain order. I must ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to withdraw the statement that the interjection of Senator Millen is a deliberate untruth.
– I withdraw, and say that it is incorrect.
– May I express my regret that by breaking our Standing Orders, I, to some extent, contributed to a further breach of them by my honorable friend.
– If If the witness before the Sugar Commission had been as reasonable as Senator Millen and the VicePresident of the Executive Council, there would have been no trouble. But he was face to face with another gentleman who was acting under His Majesty’s commission. If the trade unionists of this country had refused to give evidence before that Commission, they would have been branded, as disloyalists.
– The Bill would not be passed if that were the case.
– The Chairman of that Commission, I venture to say, went to lengths to which Senator Millen would not have gone in order to conduct the inquiry in a gentlemanly way.
– I think that he is foolish.
– Personally I am only familiar with the press reports of the proceedings of this particular case. But I have no hesitation in saying that a man who could prefer a charge of bullying against the Chairman of that Commission is not very careful of his own reputation for truthfulness. The whole desire of the Chairman of that, body was to be as obliging as he could to the witnesses who came before him. The very questions which this great concern, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, was called upon to answer were placed in the hands of its representatives months before. They had opportunities of preparing their answers. No question affecting the business of the company was sprung upon them suddenly. The question which the first witness refused to answer was, “ Are you the Chairman of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company?”
– Was not that a test question?
– Exactly ; but this illustrates the methods of these rich companies. On a simple question they have held up the work of the Commission for three months. Surely it was a natural question to be put to the witness. It is a question such as must be put to any witness. Then, again, the case before the magistrate lasted three months. Of course, the company were exercising their legal rights, and I do not question them. But the point is that this company was able to prevent an inquiry which the Government of the Commonwealth had ordered to be made.
Senator St. Ledger__ Why was Sir
Normand McLaurin, and not Mr. Knox, prosecuted ?
– I cannot answer the question from authoritative information ; but Sir Normand McLaurin was the first witness who refused to answer the summons. I take it that, for that reason, he was the first to be prosecuted. Although Mr. Knox refused to answer questions, he did appear, and the test prosecution took place in the case of the witness who refused to appear at all. The person prosecuted was one holding a title from His Majesty the King, and he set the example of flouting the King’s Commission. I venture to say that when this Bill becomes law it will be a little more difficult for gentlemen in that position to do the same sort of thing. I recognise that a fine to a great and wealthy institution like the Sugar Refining Company is not a serious matter. An increase of Jd. per lb. in the price of sugar would be sufficient to cover whatever fine was imposed. The company can make the residents of this country pay whatever penalties are inflicted. But I believe that there are sufficient powers under this measure to compel corporations of the kind to divulge the means by which they make enormous profits by imposing taxes upon the people. It is because honorable senators opposite are aware of this that they are fighting the measure so vigorously. They know that if legislation of this kind goes through, it will be made more difficult for these persons to evade their responsibilities. Senator Millen, the Leader of the Opposition, actually referred to the Chairman of the Commission as a “chartered bully.” I do not expect much consideration from the other side when they are facing the opponents of the big trusts and combines ; but I do not know that there is anything to show that the learned Judge in question is an opponent of trusts. I do not know that he is not as fair-minded a man as ever sat on the Bench. I do not know that any one is able to say a word against the manner in which he conducted the proceedings of the Commission. The whole trouble was due to the fact that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company find it more profitable to hold up the Commission and refuse to give evidence than to let the public know how these huge profits are made. They want to stave off legislation. Consequently, their endeavour was to delay the work of the Commission. In the meantime additional profits will go into the pockets of the company. Senator Gould twisted the language of the Chairman of the Commission in order to place him in a false position. It is almost inconceivable that a gentleman in Senator Gould’s position, who may some day be on the High Court Bench himself, should make use of his opportunities in this Chamber to do that in regard to a Judge in Sir John Gordon’s position. Senator Millen, aided by his chief lieutenant, Senator St. Ledger, has also been trying to create a false impression of what happened. These gentlemen know that newspaper files cannot easily be consulted by the great .bulk of the people, and they hope that their misrepresentations will be believed when they are repeated outside. But I trust that the public will realize that honorable senators opposite have constituted themselves the defenders of the rich combines, and that they, by their efforts, are helping the trusts which are plundering the country.
– I think it is a pity that, in the discussion of this subject, accusations should be made such as have been hurled across the chamber by the speaker who has just sat down. He has represented that one party is here simply to promote all kinds of injustice, and that the other party is trying to prevent them. That kind of criticism is neither fair nor creditable to the Senate.
– Is it creditable to call Mr. Justice Gordon a “ chartered bully “ ?
– No. I regret the reference that was made to Sir John Gordon. Senator McGregor, Senator Guthrie, and myself have been associated with him in the South Australian Parliament, and 1 have had relations with him in a good many other matters. 1 do know that Sir John Gordon is one of the most courteous, kindly-hearted, and honorable gentlemen that one can have to do with.
– And an eminent lawyer.
– Of course, he is a prominent lawyer, also. I do not wish to excuse any rude remark he may_have made to Mr. Knox.
– He did not make one.
– But I think it ought to be said in palliation that Sir John Gordon at that time was ill. His weak state of health was generally known. I dare say that his nerves were unstrung. I know that if I am in ill-health, I become exceedingly impatient, and, perhaps, say things which I would not say if I were in a normal condition.
– When a man makes such statements, he must expect retorts.
– I am quite certain that, under ordinary circumstances, Sir John Gordon would have exercised a great deal more patience and forbearance than he did.
– With a recalcitrant witness ?
– I am not excusing the witness. I think it is only just to say this concerning a man with whom I have had a good deal to do at various times; and 1 am very sorry that he was referred to as a “ bully,” because conduct which that word would describe is altogether contrary to his disposition and character.
– The honorable senator properly reprimands his leader.
– I do not wish to reprimand anybody. I make this explanation because I think it is fair to the man himself. I do not like the measure now proposed to us, because it aims at legislating for a particular occasion. No legislation, in my opinion, ought to be framed in that spirit. Legislation should be on broader lines, and should lay down principles. This savours of panic legislation.
– It applies to all combinations.
– We have had eighteen Royal Commissions since the establishment of the Commonwealth, and this is the first occasion on which a difficulty of the kind has arisen. Immediately we are faced with drastic legislation.
– The same difficulty was experienced by the Harvester Commission, and the Navigation Commission.
– It is curious that we did not hear of the difficulty before. The Bill seems to me to be unnecessarily severe. I do not uphold any one who refuses to give evidence before a Royal Commission. Certainly I would not shield any combine or trust. I am looking at the broad effect of this legislation.
– When an Act is found to be ineffective, is it not a proper thing to propose to amend it?
– Of course it is; but it is a question whether the Act is altogether ineffective. When the Bill was introduced in another place, two reasons were given for it. One was to compel the attendance of witnesses. Has not the law already been vindicated in that regard? Has not the recalcitrant witness been prosecuted and fined?
– The difficulty may happen again.
– Then the witness can be prosecuted and fined again. The mere fact that he has been once fined does not relieve him in any way from responsibility for attending when summoned again.
– The fine was a trifle to the big Sugar Trust. A fine of $6,000,000 did not frighten a big trust in the United States.
– We used to hear a good deal in the Senate at one time about the iniquities of the Tobacco Trust ; we have not heard so much about it lately. I remember that some years ago the Tobacco Trust was denounced as one of the most horrible evils in Australia ; its nationalization used to be advocated. We do not hear of that now.
– As soon as we get the power the honorable senator will hear of it.
– I say again that the law has been vindicated in the case of the witness who refused to attend. He might be fined a hundred times if he refused to attend a hundred times. I feel sure that even the Sugar Company would get tired of paying fines and costs. At any rate, the prosecution that has taken place proves that it was not necessary, for the first reason given, to amend the law. The second reason was, to insure that witnesses shall answer questions. I have no objection to that. Certainly any man who is summoned before a Royal Commission ought to answer questions. In this particular case, I read the Police Court evidence - pages and pages of it - until I grew sick and tired of following the proceedings. I believe that the secretary of the Commission admitted in evidence that some witnesses who were called produced written statements. That was proved in the proceedings before the Police Court. I understand that Mr. Knox took up exactly, the same position - that if others had been allowed that privilege it should be extended to him. I think that the same treatment should be extended to every witness. Perhaps it would be better to lay down the exact procedure, so as to make it clear and distinct whether a witness has the right to make a statement before he gives his evidence, or whether he must give his evidence first and make a statement afterwards. But I do not see any provision of that kind in the Bill. We might have the same trouble arising over and over again if witnesses think that they are not receiving exactly the same treatment as others have received. I do not excuse in any way a witness who refuses to answer questions or to give evidence, but I hold that we ought to put all witnesses on exactly the same footing. If a privilege is given to one witness, it should be extended to all witnesses. This Bill would have met the position if it had made quite clear what the privileges of a witness are, and what he can do when he is put in the box and called upon to answer questions. There are some peculiar parts of the Bill to which I wish to refer. Clause 2, for instance, amends section 2 of the Act, which gives power to the President or Chairman of a Commission to summon a person - to give evidence and to produce any books, documents, or writings in his custody or control, material to the subject-matter of the inquiry.
That seems to me to be very reasonable, but it is now proposed to delete the words “ Material to the subject-matter of the inquiry,” and to substitute the words “ which he is required by the summons to produce.” That may be something altogether different. A witness may be asked to produce documents which are not at all material to the subjectmatter of the inquiry.
– Yes; but they must be relevant to the inquiry.
– Where does it say so?
– Amongst his papers the honorable senator will find an amendment to that effect to be proposed by the Minister.
– All that I have now is the Bill. Lower down I see an alteration of section 5, which provides that if a witness does not produce the books he shall “ be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding £50.” It is proposed to delete the words I have quoted, and to substitute the words, “he shall be guilty of an offence.” That is followed by another alteration, and the penalty is put down, not at £50. but at . £500. Section 5 of the Act is also to be amended by the addition of the following sub-section -
I am sorry to say that, over and over again in our legislation, we have adopted this rule, which has always been looked upon as the exact opposite of the British maxim that a man shall be considered innocent until he is proved guilty.
– That is to be found in more than one Act.
– I am sorry that it is.
– Are you sorry that it is in the Customs Act?
– I am sorry in almost every case. There may be one or two cases, perhaps, in the Customs Act where the only proof can be produced by the defendant himself. In this Bill we find a provision requiring a man to prove that the books and documents asked for were not relevant to the inquiry. Why should not the old British rule be maintained, and proof be required that the witness refused to produce books or documents which were relevant to the inquiry? It is only just that a man should be placed in that position. It is bad in principle to put the onus of proof on a man who is under prosecution.
– S - Suppose that the Commission believe that the books will show that the question is material; how can they prove that it is unless the witness is made to produce them ? Have they not a right to call for the books?
– Clause 6 inserts the following provision in the Act - 6f. A Royal Commission may inspect any documents, books, or writings produced before it, and may retain them for such reasonable period as it thinks fit, and may make copies of such matter as isrelevant to the inquiry, or take extracts from them.
I confess that I do not like the idea of a man having to leave his books and documents in the hands of people like that.
– -Why ? Do you not leave your papers and books with the Judge of a Court?
– If I were a member of a Royal Commission inquiring into the business of the honorable senator, and I were a competitor with him, would he like me to be in a position to go through his books, and to furnish my mind with all sorts of information?
– But you are now assuming something which will not occur.
– Am I ?
– Do you mean to tell me that books deposited with a Judge are open to any person to secure information from ?
– This appliesto a Chairman other than a Judge.
– He is in the position of a Judge.
– I do not see a reference to a Chairman or a member of a Royal Commission. It provides that a Royal Commission may inspect documents, and as a Royal Commission is composed of so many persons, any member of it has the right to inspect books and documents, and to take extracts therefrom. I do not know the members of the Sugar Commission, but
I am told that the business of one Commissioner is considerably affected by the inquiry, and that is the chairman of a jam company which uses a quantity of sugar. When the books of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company are handed over to the Commission, is it right for him to peruse them and take extracts from them?
– D - Do you mean to say that he would break his oath?
– There is no oath to be broken.
– E - Every man on the Commission is sworn to do his duty.
– The provision simply says that any member of a Commission has the right to inspect books, to take extracts, and treat them, in any way he likes.
– There is no such thing as a rival in the jam trade.
– I said that a member of the Commission, who is chairman of a jam company, and, therefore, largely interested in sugar, will have an opportunity under this clause to go through the books of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company and take extracts. It is not fair that he should be allowed to do that. The members of a Royal Commission should be altogether impartial. No member of the Sugar Commission should be connected with sugar or the sugar industry. The Chairman, who is a Judge, should be able to get the necessary evidence to enable the Commission to arrive at a conclusion.
– You have admitted that the Chairman of the Sugar Commission is a man of honour.
- Sir John Gordon is an impartial man, who could extract the evidence and present it to his colleagues, and the Commission could bring up a report founded on the evidence. But when you get men on a Commission who are biased from the start - and, whether it is true or not, that is the complaint which has been made with regard to some members of the Sugar Commission - we are not likely to get justice. It is not fair to put a biased man in a position in which he can examine books and documents in regard to a business which would give him information.
– We hear that accusation of bias hurled at nearly every magistrate on the Bench.
– Order !
– Even the books which a witness is bound to produce under this Bill may contain his trade secrets and methods of doing business which ought to be held sacred to him, and ought not to be interfered with by anybody These are matters in which, I think, the Bill goes a little too far. Of course, I know that it provides that the secrets of a man’s trade shall not be revealed; but they are certainly revealed when the members of a Commission have access to his books and take extracts.
– Only a secret process ; not his financial secrets.
– A man’s books may reveal his financial position, and that will be bad for him. There is another provision which seems to be pretty drastic - 6 o. - (1) Any person who wilfully insults or disturbs a Royal Commission, or interrupts the proceedings of a Royal Commission, or uses any insulting language towards a Royal Commission, or by writing or speech uses words false and defamatory of a Royal Commission, or is in any manner guilty of any wilful contempt of a Royal Commission, shall be guilty of an offence.
If evidence is given in a public way it may be reported in the press, and if it is com- *mented upon in any way insulting to the Commission, it may give offence, and if the Commission thinks that it is wrong, what is to happen? Is the person concerned to be taken before a Court? No. The Chairman of the Commission, if he is a Judge of the Supreme Court, or a Justice of the High Court, has the power to deal with the matter straight-away.
– If the words are false and defamatory, why should they not be dealt with?
– If a man has been guilty of an offence, why should he not be put on trial before his peers, or before a Court in the ordinary way ? A Judge may be sensitive sometimes, and think that he has been insulted, or that something offensive has been said, and then he will have the power of immediately dealing with the witness.
– Why should he mot ?
– Because he is not in a position to do it.
– Cannot witnesses deliberately do this for the purpose of holding up a Court to ridicule?
– If they do, who is to try the cases? The Chairman himself, who has already made up his mind.
– Should he not be clothed with power sufficient to maintain the dignity of the Court?
– I reckon that any Chairman ought to be able to uphold the dignity of the Court. If a man is adjudged to have been guilty of the offence of insulting, or using words false or defamatory of, a Commission, he ought to have the same right to be tried as has another man. The Bill provides that -
If the President or Chairman of a Royal Commission or the sole Commissioner is a Justice of the High Court, or a Judge of the Supreme Court or County Court, or District Court of a State, he shall, ‘in relation to any offence against sub-section i of this section committed in the face’ of the Commission, have all the powers of a Justice of the High Court sitting in open Court in relation to a contempt committed in the face of the Court, except that any punishment inflicted shall not exceed the punishment provided by sub-section i of this section.
I have known Supreme Court Judges to be so touchy and peppery that one could hardly say a word to them without getting into trouble. I have known Judges in my own State so exceedingly sensitive and impatient that if a man offended them in Court they would be tempted to punish him almost immediately.
– Justices may punish for contempt in the lower Courts.
– I understand that Senator Barker has sat on a Bench for a great many years, and knows all about the procedure. If he were Chairman of a Commission and thought a witness guilty of contempt, he would, no doubt, be ready to fine him or send him to prison.
– He could not think iti The contempt would need to be obvious.
– Of course, if Senator Barker said something was contempt, it would be contempt, but men might differ in opinion as to what is contempt of Court. Is it necessary by the introduction of all the proposed new sections included in clause 6 of this Bill to scare people by making provision for these fearful penaltie’s? Under this Bill, a fine of ^500, or imprisonment for a year, two ‘years, or five years, ‘may be imposed. I repeat that the Government appear to have got into a panic in connexion with this matter.
– The penalties stated in the Bill are maximum penalties.
– The Vice-President of the Executive Council appears to have the word “ maximum “ on the brain. Every one knows that these penalties are maximum penalties, and that, although a fine of ^500 is provided for in one case, the Chairman of a Royal Commission may impose a fine of only 500 pence if he thinks it well to do so.
– The Industrial Peace Preservation Bill, at present under consideration in the Queensland Parliament, makes provision for a fine of £I,000 for a less offence than many dealt with in this Bill.
Senator VARDON. That settles it, and it must be right. Why is not a penalty of ^1,000 proposed in this Bill. Senator Barker would have us believe that the Government are exceedingly lenient in the penalties they have provided in this Bill for the punishment of offenders against the law. I see no need whatever for frightening people by making provision for these maximum penalties.
– There is an easy way to avoid them - obey the law.
– I am very much obliged to Senator Long for his interjection. I was always under the impression that the law was for the doer of evil, and for the praise of those who do well. I have known the law to be appealed to in connexion with some industrial matters, and have heard some of my honorable friends in such cases say terrible things about the law. Provision is made in this Bill that it shall be retrospective. It is to apply to Royal Commissions appointed .before it will come into force, but it is, at the same time, provided that it shall not apply to offences committed before that time. I doubt whether it is a good thing to make this kind of legislation retrospective in any way whatever.
– Does the honorable senator believe that any person, no matter how exalted or wealthy, should be allowed to flout a Royal Commission?
– I do not ; but I say that this drastic legislation has been introduced under the influence of a panic, and because something has happened in connexion with the proceedings ‘of a Royal Commission which never occurred in connexion with the proceedings of sixteen or seventeen other Royal Commissions that have conducted various inquiries. It is held that a certain trust has flouted* the Sugar Commission. That may be true, but honorable senators should not forget that the provisions of this Bill will apply to the most innocent people in the world, as well as the trust which has been referred to.
– It should apply to them if they adopt the same methods.
– 1 take it that, generally, the people who will be brought before Royal Commissions will be honest people, prepared to give their testimony in an honest way, and I therefore think there is no necessity for legislation of this kind.
– If they are honest, they will have nothing to fear from legislation of this kind.
– I have already said that those who obey the law have no need to fear it. Trouble may arise somewhere, and a proposal may be made under the law to enforce the law, and, if Senator Long be right, there should be no outcry about it.
Senator -Long. - No, there should not be.
– If the law is Tor the protection of the just man, and is intended to deter the man who would do wrong, let the principle be applied generally, and I shall be quite content. I believe that our Royal Commissions should be invested with all the powers necessary to enable them to secure the information they are appointed to obtain. I say further that if any one deliberately flouts a Commission he should be punished for doing so. But if there is some other Royal Commission appointed after the Sugar Commission has completed its labours, and some one commits an offence in the face of that Commission, I hope we shall not have another Bill introduced to make provision to meet that offence. That is the course which has been followed in this case. If the Government intend to introduce an amendment of the Act to meet every new offence committed before a Royal Commission, we shall have more panic legislation. I say that the law should be laid down broadly enough to cover all offences that may require to be dealt with, and we should not pass special legislation to meet particular cases.
– I wish briefly to give a general support to this Bill. ‘ From the Opposition we have had a good deal of talk about panic and drastic legislation. I am prepared to admit that this measure is very drastic, but I believe it to be absolutely necessary. I am not quite sure that we have not very nearly reached the panic stage, demanding legislation of this kind, in view of the modern developments of industry. I was looking over some statistics this morning which might justify that opinion. I find that the average wage paid to males employed in the whole of the factories of Victoria is £102 per year. Eliminating youths and young men from fourteen to twenty years of age, the average wage earned in Victorian factories by adult males, most of whom are married men, is from ,£110 to £112 per year. I say that, in such circumstances, and remembering that the cost of living has increased by about 25 per cent., it is not too much to say that we are up against a condition of things which excuses panic and justifies panic legislation. If we are to legislate effectively with respect to modern industries, we must ascertain the facts connected with them chiefly by means of inquiries made by Royal Commissions. I assume that the object of appointing the Sugar Commission was to have an inquiry into the general working of the sugar industry, that we might be in a better position to legislate with respect to the sugar bonus and the conditions which should apply to millers, growers, and workers generally in the industry. This Bill is not intended specially to deal with a particular case. It will be necessary for us in the future to appoint many Royal Commissions to inquire into the conditions of industries. Royal Commissions, in the past, may have been very successful in securing all the information they were appointed to obtain, but the conditions prevailing in trades and industries, ten or twenty years ago in Australia cannot be compared with the complex conditions, of industries which it is necessary to inquire into to-day. In days gone by, most industries were not so organized that it would* have been profitable to those conducting them to pay a considerable amount of money in. fines in order to hold up the proceedings of a Royal Commission. But to-day certain industries have become so concentrated in the hands of a few persons that it pays, them to defy the law for the purpose of securing delay, because, in the meantime, they are levying a heavy toll upon thepeople.
– Why do not the Government put the Anti-Trust Act in operation then?
– I am not an authority upon the law ; but I understand that most persons agree that there are limitations to that Act, and that it can be applied only to a few industries.
– So far as it has. been tried, it has proved fairly effective.
– I need not quote the opinion of the Attorney -General of the late Deakin Administration to the effect that there are only three or four industries to which it can be specifically applied. I am not aware that the sugar industry is one of them.
– Mr. Glynn said that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company was not a combine, whereas the honorable senator declares that it is. If it is, the law is applicable to it.
– I am not aware that I have made the statement which the honorable senator attributes to me, although I do believe that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company is a combine. If it is not, why should its representatives have any reluctance to give evidence before a Royal Commission?
– I have heard it culled a monopoly.
– Whether it has reached the monopoly stage or not, the fact remains that the cost of living has increased to such an extent that it is undoubtedly the biggest question before Australia to-day. Most honorable senators affirm that the increased cost of living is the result of the operation of trusts and combines. In any case, we require to arm Royal Commissions with the most drastic powers to enable them to ascertain the exact cause of the present high cost of livings so that this Parliament may be able adequately to legislate upon that subject. Recently, although the law has been vindicated, it has been conclusively proved that existing legislation is not sufficient to prevent exasperating delays in the conduct of a. Commission’s inquiries - delays which are not in the best interests of the community. I shall support the Bill ; and I trust that when it becomes law it will secure for us that information which is so necessary to enable us to frame legislation which we shall require to enact in the near future.
– At the outset of my remarks, I should like to clear some of the ground which has been covered during this debate. Some matters have been imported into the discussion which, while perhaps illuminating it, are not essential to our deliberations upon this Bill.- Repeated reference has been made to the action of the Chairman of the Sugar Commission in relation to one of the witnesses who appeared before him. It would be the grossest exhibition of ostrich sense for honorable senators to pretend that we can entirely divorce our criticism’ of the Bill from those actions. I wish that the two things could be dissociated. I believe that the measure has been submitted for our consideration, simply because of certain incidents in connexion with the inquiries of that Commission.
– Suppose that it has been. What harm is there in that?
– There is certainly no harm in my criticising it. In my judgment, the trouble is entirely due to the foolishness exhibited by the Chairman of the Commission. The incidents connected with the relation of the Chairman of that body to one of the witnesses who appeared before it on behalf of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company have already been dwelt upon by honorable senators, and the action of Mr. Justice Gordon has been severely criticised. In this connexion, I am irresistibly reminded of some very profound remarks which were made by the Judge who tried a certain case in which I happened to be engaged some time ago. The trial was a protracted one, and counsel upon both sides were extremely anxious to keep back the major portion of their hands. When the proceedings had reached a crucial stage, it became necessary to call a certain individual as a witness, and to produce certain documents. The witness appeared in the box, and the Judge asked him what certain documents meant, and why he had made certain statements. The man replied, “ To the best of my ability I have given the information which I thought ought to be given ; and there has been produced on my behalf documents which 1 thought were sufficient for the purpose.” The Judge at once replied. “ 1 believe that you are an honest man, and that, within what you deem to be your legal rights, you have behaved as an honest man ; but I say that your opinion of what constitutes honesty and fair play does not accord with the conception of most honest and fairminded men.” Applying that incident, I have no hesitation in affirming that Mr. Justice Gordon’s conception of impartiality and fair-mindedness does not accord with what ought to be the conception of any man who is ‘called upon to fill the responsible position of Chairman of a Royal Commission. I think it is only fair that I should have said so much with regard to the relations between the Chairman of the Commission and the witness, whose conduct caused so much trouble, and has led to the introduction of this measure. I accept Senator Vardon’s statement with regard to Sir John
Gordon. I retorted, while he was speaking, that the very excuse which the Chairman of the Commission made was a strong accusation against him, bearing in mind the well-known proverb, “He who excuseth himself accuseth himself.” There was nothing to warrant the Chairman telling the witness that he had told “ a deliberate lie.” No matter what the circumstances were, no Britisher, however humble he may be, is expected to abide quietly by a charge like that.
– What about Sir John Gordon’s almost abject apology?
– The Chairman of a Royal Commission should not allow himself to get into such a position. He should not use expressions insulting to a witness. I have had some experience of all classes of Courts, and I have never heard a Judge allow himself to use such an expression to a witness in the box. I have heard Judges, in summing up to juries after evidence was concluded, express strong opinions about persons or matters. But, as a rule, Judges do not allow such expressions as “ deliberate lie “ to fall from their lips, until they have heard the pros and cons of the case. The whole trouble, in this instance, arose out of the fact that a witness desired to make a statement, and that the Chairman of the Commission insisted that he should first answer questions put to him. I believe that a whole series of questions, seventy or eighty in number,had been submitted to the witness, and that he was required to go categorically through them before he made his statement. Every one who has had experience of Law Courts knows that, both in civil and criminal cases - especially criminal cases - when a witness goes into the box and says, “ I should prefer not to answer counsel’s questions until I have made a statement,” it is usual not to refuse his request. In my professional experience, it has happened, over and over again, that counsel on both sides could not get what they desired out of a witness, because the witness wanted to take that position. I have heard the Judge say, “ Let the man make his statement first.” Sometimes that has happened in civil cases, also.
– Did that happen before the name of the witness had been obtained ?
– That is a technical objection. It was Sir John Gor don’s weakness that he relied too much on his technical powers, and thereby, unfortunately, caused unnecessary friction and confusion At this stage I ask leave to continue my remarks at the next silting.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1981
Assent reported.
page 1981
Assent reported.
page 1981
Senator McGREGOR laid upon the table the following paper : -
Public Service Act 1902-11. - Promotion of J. N. Silk to position of Examining Officer, 4th Class, Landing Branch, Department of Trade and Customs, New South Wales.
-laid on the table -
Return to Order of the Senate of 9th August, 1912 -
Transferred Properties - Value of, and Interest on.
Senate adjourned at 3.57 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 August 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1912/19120809_senate_4_65/>.