View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
15 August 1912

4^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- WIRELESS TELEGRAPH RATES
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
QUESTION
- WHARFAGE RATES
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL
ROYAL COMMISSIONS BILL
PAPER
NORTHERN TERRITORY :
- Rewardfor Payable Gold or Mineral Field
AUDIT BILL
ROYAL COMMISSIONS BILL
NAVAL AGREEMENT BILL
- Second Reading
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL
- Second Reading
REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL
- Second Reading

The President took the chair at2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2184

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPH RATES

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

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

Has a schedule of rates for wireless telegraphic messages within and from the Commonwealth been adopted or put in force?
If so, upon what date?
If so, by what authority?
What are the rates?
Will the Government introduce a Bill to extend the scope of the present Post and Telegraph Kates Act to embrace charges for wireless telegraphic messages?

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

– The answers to the questions are as follow : -

Yes.
17th August, 1911, subsequently amended 4th July, 1912.
The International Radio Convention and Regulations made under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905.
Ordinary messages- Coast station charge, 6d. per word ; ship station charge, 4d. per word, plus land line charges on ordinary telegrams within the Commonwealth.

Press messages-

amp station : -

Not exceeding 4d. per word, as determined by the ship authorities concerned ;

Plus land line charges for pressmess ages within the Commonwealth.
1. Power is given by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 to deal with this matter.

Senator KEATING:

– Arising out of the answer, may I ask the Minister if the Commonwealth was a party to the Convention to which he referred, and participated in the settlement of these charges ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I understand that to be the case.

page 2184

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator McCOLL:
VICTORIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Has any one of the plans submitted in the world competition for the Federal Capital: City been finally selected?
If so, which plan has been accepted?
If not, is it intended to combine two or more of these plans?
If so, will the combined plan be submitted to an expert Board for consideration?
Before the final determination and acceptance of aplan, will it, with particulars, be submitted to Parliament for approval?

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

– The answers to the questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. The designs for the lay-out of the Federal Capital City have been adjudicated on, and the premiums awarded, but no design has yet been adopted for the purposes of the design of the city. 3 and 4. A Board has been appointed to investigate and report as to the suitability of certain designs for adoption in connexion with the lay-out of the Federal Capital City, and is now engaged investigating.

The suggestion will be considered.

page 2185

QUESTION

WHARFAGE RATES

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Is it true that the Melbourne Harbor Trust is imposing differential charges on Australian and imported green fruits?
If so, to what fruits does the regulation apply, and what are the respective rates?

Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

– The answer to the questions is : - 1 and 2. Since the 8th April, 1912, the Melbourne Harbor Trust has not imposed any differential charge on Australian and imported green fruits. On the date named, the Harbor Trust charges on all goods, whether Commonwealth or imported, were made uniform.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Arising out of the answer, may I ask the Minister why he fixed upon the 8th April, 1912, as the date, since which no alteration has been made?

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is, I understand, the date on which the regulation was made.

page 2185

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives. .

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

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

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I should like the Vice-President of the Executive Council to state whether, if this motion be assented to, it is intended to carry the Bill through all stages at one sitting. It may be that he has merely submitted the motion with the view of getting over what may be regarded as a mere formal stage. If that be the case, I venture to think that the Senate will offer no objection, but if it be the intention, irrespective of what debate may be interposed, to carry through at one sitting a Bill involving an expenditure of nearly £4,000,000, I think that the time has arisen for the Senate to enter more than a formal protest.

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

– I would remind Senator Millen that notice of this contingent motion having already been given,I must move it now in consequence of the position which the Senate occupies at the present time. The first reading of this Bill is a formal matter. In other words, it is not upon the motion for its first reading that discussion takes place. Let us carry its first reading, and then 1 shall be prepared to move that its second reading be made an Order of the Day for a later hour of the day. I have no intention of forcing the measure through all its stages without affording honorable senators the fullest opportunity of discussing its provisions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

page 2185

ROYAL COMMISSIONS BILL

In Committee: (Consideration resumed from 14th August, vide page 2 131).

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 -

Section 6 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words, “ be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding Fifty pounds,” and inserting in their stead the words “ be guilty of an offence.”

Penalty : Five hundred pounds.

Amendment (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That after the word “ amended “ the following words be inserted : -

By inserting after the word “ question “ the words “ relevant to the inquiry “ ;

By omitting the words “ touching the subject-matter of the inquiry, and (c)”

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [2.45]. - This is a very awkward and complex way of effecting an amendment. Before one can understand the proposed amendment, he has to put into the principal Act words which in themselves are unintelligible. Would it not be very much better to repeat the words of section 6 of that Act as it proposed to amend it, in this clause?

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

– I think honorable senators will find that the peculiar circumstances pointed out by Senator Symon in relation to this Bill render the course which we are taking necessary. There is no other way of effecting our purpose. This is. the method which has been suggested by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. It has to be recollected that this is an amendment of an amending Bill, and that when the amendment has been made, these words will not appear as an amendment of the original Act. But when the original Act is brought uptodate the words which are supposed to be struck out of it will be struck out, and the words purporting to be inserted in it will be inserted. So that there will be no confusion in the mind of any person looking at the Act itself.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– It is very comforting to have the assurance of the Vice-President of the Executive Council that there is nothing confusing about the order of the procedure which is submitted for our consideration ; but I invite attention to the fact that it is extremely difficult for anybody to understand the position if he is called upon to take up a Bill to amend an existing Act, and then has thrown on top of it a proposed amendment which is entirely different from that which is contained in the Bill itself. In such circumstances, one is obliged to take the principal Act and to introduce into it the latest amendment for which the Government is responsible. If the clause be amended in accordance with the desire of the Government, it will read as follows : -

If any person appearing as a witness before the Commission refuses to be sworn or to make an affirmation, or to answer any question relevant to the inquiry put to him by any of the Commissioners, he shall be guilty of an, offence.

Penalty : Five hundred pounds.

So that the Government now propose to lay it down that the questions which a witness shall be compelled to answer shall be questions relevant to the inquiry, rather than questions touching the subject-matter of the inquiry. I must admit at once that I prefer the words proposed by the Government. It appears to me that they are introduced in consequence of the criticism bestowed upon this provision in another place. It is a curious fact that the amendment now submitted was proposed in another branch of the Legislature by Representative Sinclair. Senator McGregor admits that the Government sometimes does the correct thing. The correct thing has been done in this case; and I have yet to learn that it is not within my competency to proclaim the fact publicly when I find the right thing being done by this Ministry.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [2.51]. - I quite appreciate what my honorable friend says as to the practice that has been adopted with regard to reprinting Bills. But the method adopted by the drafting authorities is a very, bad one. Some of our legislation, even in these early days of the Commonwealth Parliament, is unintelligible except at the expense of very great difficulty. It is a very hard thing to find out exactly what the statute law is on’ some of the matters which have been subjected to amendment. Those who have before them the original Act will see how very much more simple and clear it would be, and how much subsequent reprinting it would save, if the original section were simply reintroduced with the amending words in it. In point of fact, instead of our amending the original Act, we are, by adopting this method, simply giving direction for an amendment. A person reading, this new Bill - at any rate until the reprint is issued - has to dove-tail the new matter into the old, and it becomes a sort of Chinese puzzle to find out what the Legistire ] intended. May I also say that I donot see the necessity for amending section 5 of the original Act at all, because “touching the subject-matter of the inquiry “ isthe same thing as “ relevant to the inquiry.””

Senator Millen:

– Does not the new set of words bring the Bill more into conformity with the amendment adopted elsewhere ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I simply point out that this is an excess of conciliation - that the words “ relevant tothe inquiry “ are put in by way of amendment when we already have the clear words “touching the subject-matter of the inquiry.” But would it not be desirable to put on the face of this Bill the original section of the 1902 Act containing the words “ touching the subject-matter of the inquiry “ ?

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

– I agree with a great deal of what Senator Symon has said, but honorablesenators will understand that this amending Bill was introduced, with an amendment foreshadowed, for the purpose off increasing penalties. It has been found desirable to bring the clause with which we are dealing into uniformity with an amendment made in a previous clause. If honorable senators consult the original ‘ Bill, as amended, they will see that there will be no confusion. In discussing matters of this kind, it is very easy for a misunderstanding to arise. I think it appropriate for me to say a word or two now as to an incident that occurred yesterday. When dealing with Royal Commissions, I stated that Senator Clemons was in Hobart with the Tariff Commission, and acted as Chairman there. Senator Clemons, to the amusement of honorable senators opposite, said that he was not in Hobart with the Commission at all. They all laughed when he said that, like so many hyenas or jackasses. I do not wish to reflect on Senator Clemons, because I am sure that he honestly thought be was not in Hobart on the occasion to which I have referred. I take that for granted. But my reputation depends upon my memory, and I have consulted the proceedings of the Tariff Commission since the incident occurred. I find that Senator Clemons was Acting Chairman of the Commission when it sat in Hobart on the 9th, 10th, and nth August, 1905. He flatly contradicted me yesterday. I know that “he honestly believed that what I said was not accurate, but the records are against him. The sneering laugh that honorable senators opposite indulged in ought to be introspective now. They must laugh at themselves, if at all.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– May I be allowed to make a brief personal explanation?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Inasmuch as Senator McGregor has made a personal explanation, 1 think that Senator Clemons is entitled to do so.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Of course, I at once accept what Senator McGregor has said. He knows perfectly well that when 1 made the remark to which he has alluded I firmly believed that I was not in Hobart on the occasion referred to. I am sure of that. But I will go further, and offer on behalf of every one on this side of the chamber who laughed when I corrected his -statement, an ample apology.

Senator McGregor:

– It is not necessary.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am extremely sorry that I corrected the honorable sena tor’s statement, and if I in any way annoyed him, I apologize for myself, as well as for others on this side.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Upon this clause I propose to test the opinion of the Committee as to whether or not the penalties imposed by this Bill are excessive. I ought to have- submitted an amendment on clause 4, but in the hurry at the commencement of our proceedings I overlooked the fact that that was the proper place in which to move one. Therefore, I do so now. I invite the Committee to consider this question. Without in any way desiring to limit the power of a Commission to compel witnesses to give evidence necessary for the purpose of their inquiry, it will be admitted that there may be an honest doubt as to whether a question asked of a witness is .relevant to the inquiry being made or not. It is not every layman who is competent to determine whether he is under a legal obligation to answer a question put to him. In the circumstances, ^500 is an excessive penalty to impose upon any person, who, without any desire to restrict an inquiry by a Royal Commission, and believing that he is merely asserting his own rights as an individual, tells the Chairman of a Commission that he declines to answer a particular question put to him because he does not believe it to be relevant to the inquiry. I move -

That the word “ Five,” line 6, be left out with the view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Three.”

Senator McGregor:

– There is no intention to destroy any body.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I also took very good care to make it clear that I was just as anxious as the Government were, at the proper time, and under proper circumstances - apart from any feeling of irritation created by the existing circumstances - that there should be more ample powers of examination for the ascertainment of facts by means of Royal Commissions in connexion with monopolies or anything else. When I heard my honorable friend say a few moments ago that honorablesenators on this side, in their fairness towards the-. Sugar Company, took the views which they had been expressing, it occurred to me that the converse of that is true, and that he states his views in his unfairness towards that company.

Senator McGregor:

– No, in my fairness to the general public.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I think it would be a good thing if my honorable friend would abstain from these taunts when he is arguing a simple question. I do not think it matters two pins whether the’ maximum fine is made £200 or ,£300 or £1,000. In that respect, and to that extent, I rather agree with my honorable friend. The introduction of this enormously increased penalty - ten times the amount provided in the Act - is a pointed indication that this legislation is specially directed at the pockets of a wealthy corporation. From that point of view it amounts to an indication to the magistrates, and is an inducement to them to discriminate, and to make this a kind of class punishment, which it ought not to be.

Senator McGregor:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The company consists of something like 2,000 shareholders, the great bulk of whom do not hold more than twenty-five shares each. That, however, is entirely beside the question. I agree that if there is a determination by persons not to give evidence before a Royal Commission, that determination should be broken down. Persons should be compelled to give evidence on matters pertinent to the inquiry. If a witness is asked a question that he does not consider to be relevant, it is proper that a Court should determine whether it is relevant or. not. If it is held to be relevant it becomes the witness’s duty to answer the question, and I would not shield him from any consequences of continued refusal. I point out another peculiar thing with regard to penalties. We find that if a penalty is imposed, and the money is not paid, periods of imprisonment are prescribed, the duration varying according to the amount of the penalty. The period of imprisonment for a penalty over £50 and not more than £100, is three months; for penalties up to £200, six months; for penalties over £200, one year. It is singular that although it is prescribed in one clause that a man who shows recalcitrancy shall incur heavier penalties up to £1,000, the alternative is only three months’ imprisonment. So that the Government have regarded a period of three months’ imprisonment as sufficient to punish a man who refuses a second time to answer questions, and yet a person who does not pay a penalty of £500 for a first refusal, has to go to gaol for a year. Personally, I believe that if a per7 son were taken to Court, and were shown that he must answer a question considered pertinent to the inquiry, a milder form of punishment would be sufficient. We shall find that the law will be regarded as vindictive. I put it to honorable senators that it is undesirable to impose maximum penalties so high that they will have the appearance of vindictiveness, although I quite agree that persons who persist in not answering questions which are relevant, should be subjected tomeasures which will make them do so. I believe that once our people get a decision of the Law Courts they will be prepared to abide by it. If they know that they can be fined for a certain offence they will not run their heads against a stone wall. I believe also that if a man knows that he may be subjected to a fine of £20 if he does not do a certain thing, he will do it as readily as if he knew he might be fined £100.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I said yesterday that I have no quarrel with the penalties recoverable in the Courts for offences against this Bill. I see no reason fo’r the amendment. We have to bear in mind what the maximum penalty of £5°° is provided for. If the clause under consideration be passed as amended,, the section will read -

If any person appearing as a witness before the Commission refuses to be sworn or to make an affirmation, or to answer any question relevant to the inquiry put to him by any of theCommissioners, he shall be guilty of an offence.

Obviously that includes, not merely a bond fi.de refusal on the part of a witness who honestly entertains the conviction that he is not bound to answer ‘a question, or that the question is not relevant, but also the other extreme case - a witness conscious of the fact that the question put to him is relevant, realizing that he is bound by law to answer it, and yet perversely, wilfully, and obstinately refusing to answer it. It is quite clear that the penalties in these ;two cases should not be the same. I have sufficient confidence, at any rate, in our. superior Courts to believe that whether a man be rich or poor, supported by a corporation or standing on his own, if he can establish to the satisfaction of the Court that there is in his refusal to answer a question no wilfulness, perverseness, or obstinacy, but a bond fide assertion of a right which he believes he has, the Court will fine him only a small amount. We might have the case, on the other hand, of a man having the support of a large financial institution to whom a fine, unless it were of a very substantial amount, would be of no great consequence. He might wilfully, perversely, and obstinately refuse to answer a relevant question, and it is necessary that in such a case there should be power to impose a very heavy penalty. It is because these offences may embrace all degrees of guilt that it is necessary to have so extreme a range of penalties, from a nominal penalty of 5s., it may be, up to the maximum of £500. I can quite conceive that in certain circumstances a fine of £500 would not be too much for an offence under this clause, and would not be felt by certain institutions. We have to bear in mind that there are such institutions in our midst, and that their interests may possibly be affected by inquiries conducted by Royal Commissions. We must provide for penalties which will be adequate to deter the authorities of such institutions from committing offences against the law. The object of imposing penalties by legislation is to deter people from disobeying the law, or to compel them to conform to it. The prospect of a fine of £5 might act as a deterrent in the case of a poor man, whilst the prospect of a fine of £500 might not have the same deterring effect upon the representatives of a large financial institution. Holding these views, it will be seen that I am not prepared to support the reduction of the penalty from .£500 to ^300. I believe that in no circumstances will anything like the maximum penalty provided for be imposed unless there is a. flagrant defiance of a Commission, and a refusal without any shadow of any justification or excuse to give the evidence asked for. I direct the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive Council to the fact that in clause 10 provision is made for the prosecution of an offence, and an alternative procedure is provided for. In the case of an offence which is not an indictable offence, and the offences we are now considering are not indictable offences, a prosecution may be instituted by action, information, or other appropriate proceeding in the High Court by the AttorneyGeneral in the name of the King, or, alternatively, it may be instituted by information or other appropriate proceeding by any person in a Court of summary jurisdiction. If the Attorney-General takes action, he must do so in the name of the King, and in the High Court, but if any private person chooses to take action, he may prosecute the accused person on information or other appropriate proceeding in a Court of summary jurisdiction. I really think that we ought not to invest any two Justices with the power to impose penalties up to ^500. I hope, therefore, that before we come to clause 10 the Vice-President of the Executive Council will consider the advisableness and practicability of submitting a provision to the effect that Justices, in imposing penalties for offences under this Bill, shall be limited to a certain maximum of, say, £50. If it is desired to impose a penalty of more than £50, the only Court that should entertain the information should be the High Court. Certainly, a Court of summary jurisdiction should not, in respect of these offences, have the same power to impose penalties as the High Court. If the course 1 suggest were adopted, minor offences would naturally be prosecuted before Justices, whilst the graver and more serious offences, in which it was proposed to establish bad faith and wilful, perverse, and obstinate conduct on the part of the defendant, would be taken to the High Court. I think that where there was reason to assume that a person charged with an offence under the Bill was actuated by proper motives, and not by a desire to wilfully flout a Royal Commission, or to disregard the law, the prosecution should take place in an inferior Court, where the costs, in the event of a conviction, would be proportionately small. But, if there is a wilful and flagrant abuse, and a contemptuous attempt on the part of the individual to disobey the law, he might be dealt with in the High Court; any defence he might have could be sifted, analyzed, and determined upon by our highest tribunal, and the penalty imposed upon him, in the event of conviction, such as would be adequate to meet the offence. It would naturally follow, also, that, in such a case, the costs involved would be very much greater than in the case of a minor offender prosecuted in the Courts of lower jurisdiction. 1 hope that the VicePresident of the Executive Council will recognise the anomaly which will exist in the Bill if we pass clause 10 as it stands. If we had some assurance from the Government that Courts- of lower jurisdiction would not be empowered to impose the maximum penalty provided for, there would not be so much need to discuss whether the penalty under this clause should be £500 or a lesser amount..

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I cannot assent to much of the reasoning of Senator Keating. I hold that very severe penalties are not in accord with the tendency of modern legislation. If a witness obstinately and persistently refuses to answer a question which is pertinent to the issue which a Royal Commission is inquiring into, there is not a single member of the Committee who would not agree that he ought to be punished. If the matter inquired into by a Royal Commission affects wealthy trading corporations, they may not care whether the penalty provided under this Bill is £1,000, £10,000, or .£50,000. When the Standard Oil Combination was before a State Supreme Court of the United States of America, a fairly heavy penalty was inflicted upon it, but does any honorable senator believe that the Standard Oil Company cared one straw about the penalty? Does any one here believe that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company would care one straw whether the penalty provided was £25 or .£506? That is another reason why honorable senators should not rely upon the efficacy of severity of punishment.

Senator Clemons:

– They will make the fine ,£5,000 if you argue in this way much longer.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I am not responsible for any misuse which the Chamber may make of my argument. In the case of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, the position seems to have been that one of the witnesses thought that he had a bond fide reason why he should not answer a question in the circumstances in which it was put to him, and that he, on behalf of a powerful corporation, was not thinking sp much of defying the Commission as of testing the question as to whether he was fairly dealt with. I think that this consideration largely influenced the company. At first, they thought they were right, and took the risk of a fine being imposed. But now that a magistrate has inflicted a fine, and it is clear that their representative had broken the law, the company will obey the law.

Senator Chataway:

– They have said so.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– It is not the severity of the punishment which will affect a big corporation or strong men, be they rich or poor. I protest against the dangerous tendency of increasing the severity of the punishment unless the strongest reasons are given, because, just as Parliament is influenced by public opinion, so commercial and industrial concerns are subject to the same pressure. If public opinion is fairly against a company or corporation, that is a more powerful influence than is any penalty or imprisonment. I support my leader’s amendment, because i* is consistent with that principle.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 1 -

After section six of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - “ 6a. Every witness who has been summoned’ to attend a Royal Commission shall appear and’ report himself from day to day until he is released from further attendance by the President or Chairman of the Commission.”

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

– It will be noticed that it is proposed in this clause to insert in the Act a number of new sections, to follow section 6. I propose to meet the argument of a great many parliamentary representatives and others that a jury should have a say in the decision as to the guilt or innocence of offenders. Beginning with proposed section 6j, and ending with proposed section 6n, I shall be prepared to introduce the word “indictable” before the word “offence.” That will do away with any objection which may be in the minds of any honorable senators with respect to offenders being dealt with without the benefit of a jury to try their cases. In all these provisions, a heavy imprisonment is prescribed’.. The Government think that, in cases where imprisonment of a serious character is provided, the offenders should have the benefit of trial by jury. I, therefore, ask you-, sir, to submit the clause in parts.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I shall put the clause in parts. The first question will be that proposed section 6a, with the introductory words of the clause, stand part of the Bill.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– - The proposed section provides that a witness must be in attendance day by day until he is finally told by the Chairman that he need not come any more. With the desire of improving the Bill, I ask the Minister to insert the words “ unless excused, or “ before the word “ until.” If this amendment be made, the Chairman of a Commission may say to a man, “ I will excuse you from attending for two or three days, as you will not be wanted.” But as the provision stands, he will only have the option of releasing the man when he is finished with him, though, obviously, a week or a fortnight may elapse before the witness is wanted. I hope that the Minister will accept my suggestion ; but if it is not acceptable to him, I shall not press it.

Senator McGREGOR:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– I do not see any very serious objection to the amendment, which I will accept, if it is moved by the honorable senator with the addition of the words “ by the President or Chairman.”

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– The Minister can put in the additional words if he likes, but they are really in the provision now.

Senator Pearce:

– No; those words refer to a release by the President or Chairman.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I doubt whether it is necessary to add the words ; but if the Minister prefers to repeat the expression I do not mind, though it will make the provision a little redundant. I move -

That after the word “ day,” second occurring, line 5, the words “ unless excused by the President or Chairman of the Commission, or” be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.-

Proposed new section and covering words, agreed to.

Proposed new section 6b - (1.) If any person served with a summons to attend a Royal Commission as a witness fails to attend the Commission in answer to the summons, the President or Chairman may, on proof by statutory declaration of the service of the summons, issue a warrant for his apprehension.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– In my second-reading speech I expressed “the view that it would be a great hardship if no provision was made in the Bill to defray the expense§ of a person who was summoned to attend a Commission, perhaps, in another State. It is immaterial to me what form of words is used, so long as provision is made that a witness shall be tendered reasonable expenses. A resident of Melbourne can afford to attend a Commission sitting in this State; but witnesses may be summoned from Queensland. A man in Queensland cannot always afford £1$ or £20 to come down here, and he will fail to attend, because of the want of money. I thought of asking the Committee to insert after “ witness “ the words “ after reasonable expenses have been tendered “ ; but I am willing that the amendment should be made wherever it may be thought advisable. I do not wish to cavil or haggle over the matter. I shall be satisfied if the Minister will make the amendment in any shape he likes.

Senator McGREGOR:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– If Senator Sayers will refer to proposed new section 6g, he will see that it provides for the payment of a witness’s expenses. This question has already been raised with respect to the tendering of travelling expenses to witnesses who may live at some distance, and the AttorneyGeneral has given an emphatic promise that, in the regulations which will be made under that provision, the matter will be taken into consideration, and no witness will be required to come from any distance without these expenses being tendered. I may point out to the honorable senator that if expenses were not tendered to a man in Brisbane, it would be a reasonable excuse for his failing to attend here, and he could not be punished. If honorable senators will refer to proposed section 6g they will see that the question of expenses will be dealt with by regulation, and where no regulation exists, the Chairman of the Commission may authorize the payment of such sum as he deems reasonable. It is only by means of a regulation that it can be decided what are “ reasonable expenses,” and a scale will be framed which will suit every circumstance. I think it will be seen that, unless we put a very long schedule in the Bill, we could not provide for every contingency such as Senator Sayers has indicated. I know that he is taking this action because he does not desire that any person in the Commonwealth shall be put to inconvenience, or run the risk of being arrested or punished for a thing which he really could not help. I can assure honorable senators that that promise, having been given by the Attorney-General, it will be faithfully carried out.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.25].- Under this proposed new section the only condition which has to be fulfilled before a warrant can be issued, is to satisfy the President or Chairman of a Commission, by statutory declaration, of the service of the summons. No provision is made in regard to the tender of expenses. Turning to the clause under which the expenses may be prescribed, I find the following words -

Any witness appearing before a Royal Commission shall be paid a reasonable sum for the expenses of his attendance in accordance with the prescribed scale.

– - Senator McGregor practically says to us, in regard to Senator Keating’s amendment, “Regulations will prescribe what you desire, but for the Lord’s sake do not put it in the Bill !” It is not a matter of conflict between the AttorneyGeneral and his advisers and the legal senators. The conflict is one of common sense. We are told that we should not make a hard-and-fast rule. How is it that the law of the land has made it a hardandfast rule that every person who is brought as a witness to give evidence in a Court shall have his expenses tendered to him? Otherwise. *you cannot touch him if he disobeys a subpoena. That is an inflexible rule. Every citizen in the land is entitled to be protected by it. A man can refuse to give, evidence on the ground that his expenses were not tendered to him. If I, as counsel in a case, called a witness, that witness could walk into Court and stop dead at the witness-box, where he could say, “ I decline to go into the box, because my expenses have not been tendered to me.” In such a case, the Judge would say, “ Yes, I cannot compel the witness; the law says that he is to be paid expenses for coming, for staying here, and for going back home again.” All that Senator Keating is asking for is that we should make it clear that the law as it now applies to witnesses before all our

Courts shall apply to witnesses summoned to attend a Royal Commission. There is in this amendment no deep-laid scheme designed to weaken the provisions of the Bill. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has said that the matter can be provided for by regulation, but why should we not put it beyond all doubt by the insertion of the simple words proposed by Senator Keating !

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– I thought the amendment so reasonable that the Government would at once accept it. I have known witnesses to be put to a great deal of trouble to attend ordinary Courts. I remember one case of cattlestealing “which was tried at Roma, and most of the evidence in that case had to te obtained from witnesses who had to be brought from South Australia. Without this amendment, witnesses may be very hardly treated. We have been told by the Vice-President of the Executive Council that what Senator Keating desires can be provided for by regulation, but Senator Keating, on the other hand, tells us that the Bill does not empower the Government” to do what he desires by regulation. Surely it is not too much to ask that the Bill should provide for the tendering to a witness of his reasonable travelling expenses before he can be arrested under a warrant for non-attendance. If we make that provision in the Bill, as Senator Keating proposes, the Government will be able by regulation to say what, in different circumstances, will be regarded’ as reasonable excuses. In the ordinary practice of our Courts, it is sufficient to tender a shilling as expenses to a man whose evidence is desired, and who is within the precincts of the Court. The Government might, by regulation, deal with such matters. They might provide that, within a certain radius of the place at which a Commission sits, the tender of a shilling as expenses shall be sufficient, and that if a witness has attended from a distance of 50 miles, or 500 miles, he shall be paid so much for travelling expenses. I believe that a witness who refuses to give evidence before a Royal Commission should be punished, and punished severely. I have no wish in this matter to protect any corporation that may be doing an injustice to the public. But I do think that any witness whose evidence is desired by a Royal Commission should be tendered his reasonable travelling expenses before he can be arrested for nonattendance. I have often said that I do not believe in government by regulation. There has been a tendency of late years to give too much power to the Government of the day to make laws by regulation. There has already been a considerable outcry against this tendency. It is the duty of Parliament to make the laws, and the duty of the Government to administer them. Nowadays, the practice is for Parliament to pass -a skeleton Act, and leave everything else to the Government to be decided by regulation. The intention of Parliament may be defeated by this practice. A strong Government may become arbitrary if wide powers of administration by regulation are allowed them. I do not blame the present Government any more than any of their predecessors for this tendency to make laws by regulation, but I am entirely against it. It seems to me that the Government are assuming a very great responsibility in this matter, and if we allow this proposed new section to go without such an amendment as has been proposed by Senator Keating, the result may be great hardship to many persons summoned as witnesses before Royal Commissions.

Senator Guthrie:

– In ordinary business, we do not pay a man before he does his work.

Senator SAYERS:

– In the ordinary Courts, of law, no witness can be arrested under a warrant unless his travelling expenses have been tendered to him. I am sure that if honorable senators ‘opposite were on this side, they would readily support the amendment. I have not the very great respect for Royal Commissions which honorable senators opposite appear to have developed lately, though I can remember the time when they were as ready to condemn them as I have been. If a R0y .1l Commission requires the evidence of a certain person, it is not unreasonable to provide that he should first be tendered his travelling expenses. Senator Guthrie desires that the matter should be left to regulation, but I am quite sure that he will not in every case approve of government by regulation. I again express my surprise at the refusal of the Government to accept the amendment.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 17

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Proposed new section agreed to.

Proposed new section 6c agreed to.

Proposed new section 6d -

Nothing in this Act shall make it compulsory for any witness before a Royal Commission to disclose to the Commission any secret process of manufacture.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– A highly technical matter is involved in this provision. Those who know something about the working of woollen mills and tobacco factories are aware that there are certain chemical secrets or methods of chemical control, and so forth. I suggest to the Government that they can make the meaning of this provision clear without impairing its strength. The expression “ any secret process of manufacture” is not very clear, and for that reason I ask the Minister to agree to the addition of the words ‘ ‘ or the results or records of technical or chemical control of manufacture.” I worked in a raw sugar mill for a considerable time, and, therefore, I know how the chemists in the mill checked their work from time to time, how the sugar of one mill managed to get an advantage over the sugar of another mill in the market, and how they improved the methods of cheapening production. I move -

That the following words be added : - “ or the results or records of technical or chemical control of manufacture,”

Senator VARDON:

– Some of these manufacturing processes are oftentimes very simple, though known only to the manufacturer himself. In connexion with the manufacture of cotton, I recollect that, some years ago, in a certain place, one operative was very much more successful than any one else. When somebody inquired of him the secret of his success, he replied : “ Chalk your bobbin.” That was a very simple thing, but it enabled him to get very much better results. Why ‘ should a man like that be compelled to reveal his methods for the benefit of his competitors? It does seem to me unreasonable for the Government to say, “ We will not accept any amendment no matter whether it would have a beneficial effect or otherwise.” The amendment suggested by Senator Chataway would not weaken the Bill in any way, and I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Proposed new section agreed to.

Proposed new sections 6dd and 6e agreed to.

Proposed new section 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 is relevant to the inquiry, or take extracts from them.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– The Parliamentary Witnesses Bill, which will shortly be brought under our consideration, gives a certain amount of protection to witnesses who are required to disclose their private affairs. But. in this instance, a Royal Commission is given power to inspect documents, books, or writings produced before it, and to detain them for such period as it thinks fit. There are only three or four words in the proposed new section to which I take serious objection. I object to the power sought to be given to a Commission to order the production of books, documents, and writings, and retain them indefinitely. A Commission may call for a man’s ledgers, and may retain them for, perhaps, two or three months. How is a man to carry on business when his ledgers are in the possession of a peripatetic Commission? It is obviously impossible. The clause may be amended in a comparatively simple way, which will leave it just as effective for all legitimate purposes. I need hardly remind the Committee that it was sworn in evidence by Mr. Hall, in Sydney, that evidence taken some six weeks previously had not yet been written up and sent to the printer by the shorthand-writers. Under this provision it would be possible for a Royal Commission to send for a business man’s books and papers, and retain them until extracts from them could be copied, checked and forwarded to the printer. They might remain in the possession of the Commission for six or eight weeks. That is unreasonable and unfair. I therefore move -

That the proposed new section be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following : - “ 6f. A Royal Commission may inspect any writings, books, or documents produced before it, and may have access thereto while in the custody of the owner, and may make copies of such matter as may be relevant to the inquiry.”

Question put The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 16

Majority … ..5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– This seems to me to be a very severe provision, and I think we might amend it in an important respect.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We have just taken a vote on the question that the proposed new section be struck out, and it has been decided that the words shall stand as printed. It will now be in order for an honorable senator to move an amendment to add words, but not to omit any.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Previously, in proposed new section 6d, we decided that only a partial security should be given to a witness as to the disclosure of secrets. I wish to insert words here to provide that, whilea Royal Commission shall be entitled to get all the information it can, a witness shall have an assurance that evidence as to his professional secrets, trade profits, and financial position shall not be made public. Is that asking too much?

Senator McGregor:

– Yes. It would defeat the object of such inquiries as those conducted by the Harvester, Sugar, and Tobacco Commissions.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am astonished to hear that. In the Parliamentary Witnesses Bill there is a provision which leaves it optional for a witness to have his evidence taken in private and to be kept private. To tell me that it will defeat the object of a Commission to respect the trade secrets and private affairs of a business man is to set up a bogy. By what principle of equity or justice can we demand from a man information of a private or secret character, and make it available for every newspaper reader? I am surprised that the Minister should have thought” this to be a matter which might be dismissed in such a ready fashion. I move -

That the following words be added to proposed new section 6f : - “ Oral evidence touching the trade affairs or profits or financial position of any person and the examination of books, papers, and documents touching the same matters shall, if the witness or person so requests, be taken in private. Such oral evidence and the contents of such books, papers, and documents shall not, without the consent of the witness giving the evidence or producing the books, papers, and documents or of the person affected be communicated by any commissioner except to the GovernorGeneral in the Commission’s report, but the subsequent publication thereof shall be in the discretion of the Governor-General.

An amendment of that kind, whilst securing from general publication evidence given regarding secret, professional, or trading affairs, would not prevent its becoming known to the members of a Royal Commission. The only restriction upon the Commission would be that, instead of publishing the information, they would take the evidence in private, forward it with their report to the Governor-General, and it would then be for the Governor-General to determine whether it was desirable or not to publish it. This, I consider, is the least we can do if w.e wish to extend justice and fairness to those whose trade secrets we intend to probe to the bottom.

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

– - I hope that these words will not be added. If some of the particulars referred to in the amendment were kept from the public, the object of the appointment of Royal Commissions might be altogether defeated. Is it the object of a Royal Commission to take evidence for its own benefit, or for the benefit of the Government? It is appointed in the public interests. All the evidence taken by a Royal Commission should be’ taken in public. A witness should only be given protection when asked to disclose secret processes of manufacture. There is no other matter in connexion with which any one is entitled to refuse to give evidence. Why should an individual or a company, supposed to be making exorbitant profits at the expense of the public, be allowed to refuse to give evidence to enable the community to discover whether the general suspicion with regard to his or their operation is justified ? If we were to hamper Royal Commissions in the way proposed by the amendment, the object of their appoint.ment would, in many instances, be defeated, and their effectiveness for the protection of the public interests destroyed. I hope the majority of the Committee willrecognise the danger of accepting such art amendment as Senator Millen has proposed. The publication of evidence taken by a Royal Commission may be left to the good sense of the Commission, but to bind them down in the manner proposed by Senator Millen would not be in the interests of the community.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [6.0].- The Vice-President of the Executive Council must admit that, under the amendment, the publication of any evidence taken by a Royal Commission would still be left in the hands of the Governor-General. A Royal Commission would not itself have the right to make public information given concerning the matters referred to, but the evidence taken would be sent on with the report of the Commission to the GovernorGeneral, and he would decide whether, in the interests of the public, it should be published or not. Ample protection would be afforded the public in the responsibility of the Government of the day. If they saw fit to decide that the evidence taken by a Commission should not be published, they would have to justify that decision if any attack was made upon them. If, on the other hand, they felt that, in the interests of the public, the evidence of this kind secured by a Royal Commission should be published, all they would have to do would be to authorize its publication, and it would at once become public property.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator desires to throw the responsibility, upon the Government

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD.- I remind Senator McGregor that the Government assume the responsibility of appointing a Royal Commission in the first instance.

Senator McGregor:

– Does the honorable senator think that it is fair to spring all these amendments upon the Government without notice, and without a hint of them during the second-reading debate?

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - The Vice-President of the Executive Council might very easily have the matter postponed for further consideration. He must be aware of the feeling in both Houses of this Parliament against making any man’s private affairs public property, unless in the interests of the public they should be known. I do not think that in the circumstances the honorable senator can regard this amendment as having been sprung upon him. The Government might very fairly have expected some amendment of this character, although I admit that it would have been better if it had been printed, and time had been given for its consideration before it was proposed. Surely the Government will not say that because notice of this amendment was not given, they will refuse to consider it. It is a very reasonable amendment. I can imagine business people objecting very strongly to it, although it is a material modification of the proposed section. If agreed to, it would make the Bill a little less objectionable than it is to many people,, and the Government might consider that, it is just as well to induce people outside to believe that they are getting at least a fail deal in the legislation carried in this Parliament.

Senator VARDON (South Australia) [6.5]. - It should be borne in mind that this Bill will apply to all Commissions that may be appointed in the future, and not merely to a particular Commission already in existence, and inquiring into the affairs of a particular company. This clause provides that a Royal Commission may not only call upon a man to produce books and documents, but may retain them. I mentioned, on the second reading, that, after the word “ retain,” ‘the words “ under seal” should be inserted; but, through a misunderstanding, I have been unable to propose the insertion of those words. I have no desire to justify what may be done by any trust or combine, but I point out that a man may be asked to produce his books, and must leave them with the Com mission. This may be very inconvenient to him, as he may require the books in carrying on his business. That, however, is not the only difficulty. The books left with the Commission will be open to inspection at any time, and the owner of them should be given some protection. When his evidence is taken, and extracts are made from his books, there should be a seal put upon the books, which should be broken only when the Chairman of the Commission calls for them again. As I have not the opportunity to propose the amendment NI have referred to, I am inclined to support the amendment submitted by Senator Millen.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– If I thought there was the slightest chance that the amendment would be carried, I should be inclined to press its acceptance. I do not know whether the Vice-President of the Executive Council has the slightest notion of my reason for. supporting the amendment. If there are in Australia any commercial institutions preying unfairly on the public, I yield to no one in my desire to lay the hands of the law upon them. So far, we have nothing more than a suspicion against them. There is not much evidence against any one of them, and there is certainly nothing which could be called proof that they are dealing unfairly with the public. The object of this Bill is to provide machinery to investigate the question whether these predatory companies exist or not, and if they do. the conditions under which they are operating, and how far the public may be affected by their operations. I do not say that we should not begin to be vigilant in providing machinery for inquiries in that direction; but I certainly differ from the Government as to the Court which shall be given the use of that machinery. I object to give any of these powers to a Royal Commission. I say they should be intrusted to a judicial tribunal. The necessary machinery should be included in Acts of this Parliament, the administration of which will be left to the ordinary Courts of law. That is my main objection to the powers of a Royal Commission which are so widely extended by the provision as it stands. We ask for a guarantee that when a Royal Commission is conducting an inquiry it shall be limited, to a certain extent, on the lines on which inquiries are limited in a Court. When such inquiries come bofore a Court they are, so to speak, under judicial surveillance. I object strongly to the general tendency of this provision. This is, and ought to be, a matter under the direct control of the Law Courts after we ha%’e legislated. I think it is a reasonable request that all financial operations which a company regard as secret should, up to a certain limit, be’ held sacred. That is not to exclude them from the region of the inquiry. If the Commission get evidence of a financial character under a sort of seal, they are not limited in their general findings. Without wading through the evidence taken by a Royal Commission, every one of us turns first to the findings. The amendment of my leader in no way affects, or could affect, the finding of a Commission, which is almost like the finding of a jury. When the finding of a Commission comes to be examined, or to be the subject-matter of certain action, if the Parliament desires to find out whether it is well, founded, the evidence can be produced, and the public, through Parliament, are amply protected. If this kind of inquiry be forced into important matters of finance, such as operations and private arrangements, there will be a temptation to defy the Commission, and probably the Commission may be put to a great deal of trouble, and the Government to an enormous expense. If, however, this limit be put in, every representative of a company can be told that, so far as its financial or private matters have hitherto been regarded as more or less sacred, they will, up to a certain extent, be guarded. That will remove one very great objection to producing documents and giving explanations. There is going to be trouble over the provision. The Government may congratulate themselves upon getting this power, but they are almost challenging trouble. There are some persons who are never happy, but are always, looking for trouble, and the Government’ will prepare trouble for themselves if they do not accept some modification of this kind.

Amendment negatived.

Proposed new section agreed to.

Proposed new section 6g - (i.) Any witness appearing before a Royal Commission shall be paid a reasonable sum for the expenses of his attendance in accordance with the prescribed scale. (2.) In the absence of a prescribed scale, the President or Chairman of the Commission, or the sole Commissioner, may authorize the payment of such sum as he deems reasonable.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– In my second-reading speech, I pointed out how this provision differs from the corresponding provision in the Parliamentary Witnesses Bill. Clause 20 of that Bill reads -

Every witness appearing before either House or before a Committee to give evidence shall be entitled to be paid such witness fees and travelling expenses as the President, Speaker, or Chairman, as the case requires, thinks fit to allow in accordance with a scale prescribed by the Governor-General.

The present Bill provides that a witness before a Royal Commission shall be paid a reasonable sum for the expenses of his attendance. Apparently a man appearing before a Royal Commission can only get his expenses, but a man appearing before a Select Committee can get his witness fees and his expenses. I am not going to press the matter.

Senator Pearce:

– Do you not think that it is the same thing?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Why deal with the matter differently, then? The Government ought to endeavour to use the same phraseology. If the two Bills do not harmonize in other respects, at any rate they might be made to harmonize in this matter. It ought to be provided that the man who is hailed from Melbourne to Thursday Island to give evidence before a Pearl Shelling Commission shall get not only his ordinary expenses, but, like a witness before a Select Committee, what are called witness fees. This is only a blunder in the drafting, I admit. I hope that the Minister will think it worth while to consider my suggestion. On the last occasion when I moved an amendment, no Minister had the civility to get up and reply to me. I hope that the Vice-President of the Executive Council will have the civility to take a note of these remarks, and have them brought before the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place.

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

– I am sure that there has been no suggestion made to which I have not paid attention. There are suggestions which the Government have taken notice of, and probably will give effect to. Every other suggestion will be reported to the AttorneyGeneral, who really is the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Proposed new section agreed to.

Proposed sections 6h and 61 agreed to.

Proposed new section 6j -

Any person who practises any fraud or deceit, or knowingly makes or exhibits any false statement, representation, token, or writing, to any person called or to be called as a witness before any Royal Commission with intent to affect the testimony of that person as a witness, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty : Imprisonment for two years.

Amendment (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the word “indictable” be inserted before the word “ offence.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– For a very long time the Opposition have been labouring with some persistency, not merely with regard to this measure, but with regard to others, to delete some of their most obnoxious principles. Our efforts have not generally met with any measure of success. It is satisfactory that on this important matter, to which attention has been drawn by several speakers on this side, as well as in another place, the Government have at last thought well to depart from their obvious desire to break down the principle of trial by jury. I am naturally pleased that even at this late hour they have hesitated to carry out the proposal which was evidently in their mind. I hope that by adopting the suggestion of the Opposition they will make it clear that in the future there will be no attempt to put in the hands of a single Judge that power which hitherto has been regarded as properly vested in a jury, and a jury alone.

Senator McGregor:

– Hear, hear.

Amendment agreed to.

Proposed new section, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new sections 6k to 6n similarly amended and agreed to.

Proposed new sub-section 6(O) agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2209

PAPER

Senator PEARCE laid upon the table the following paper : -

Public Service Act 1902-1911. - Promotion of F. A. Piggin to position of Clerk, Third Class, Accounts Branch, Central Staff, Department of Home Affairs.

Sitting suspended from 6.28 until 8 p.m.

page 2209

NORTHERN TERRITORY :

Rewardfor Payable Gold or Mineral Field

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

.- I move -

That, in the opinion of the Senate, it is advisable that a reward should be offered for the discovery of a payable gold or mineral field in the Northern Territory.
That this resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives, with a request for their concurrence.

I believe that the motion will meet with the approval of nearly every honorable senator. All it seeks to affirm is that a reward shall be offered for the discovery of a payable gold or mineral” field in the Northern Territory. Experience teaches us that if, as the result of offering a substantial reward, a payable gold or mineral field were discovered there, it would do more to attract population to that Territory than would anything else which we could devise. We know that the discovery of gold at Gympie practically saved Queensland from a great financial trouble. That State would have been benefited if it had paid almost any sum for the discovery of that field. Then Chatters Towers and the gold-fields in the Palmer district were opened up, and these attracted thousands and thousands of people there. I recollect one period when there must have been 30,000 or 40,000 in the Palmer District and in Cooktown, all drawn there by that magnetic attractor - gold. Then I need scarcely point to what the gold-fields have done for Western Australia. They have raised it from a State which was comparatively unknown to one of great prominence. I venture to say that if we offer a substantial reward for the discovery of this precious metal, there will scarcely be a square mile of the Northern Territory which will not be prospected. I do not wish to lay down any hard-and-fast lines in this connexion if the Government will accept the motion. But my own idea is that we should offer a reward of£10,000 to be paid at the end of one year after the discovery of a payable gold or mineral field, if there be 1,000 people then upon it; and that if at the end of two years there be 2,000 inhabitants upon it, we should grant the successful prospectors an additional sum of £20,000. In these circumstances we should not be required to pay away any money until it had actually been earned. The dutiable articles which would be consumed upon such afield would return far more in revenue than would be represented by the reward, in addition to which the country would be opened up. Unless a mineral field of a payable character were discovered, the Commonwealth would not be called upon to part with a single penny. The Government might also offer smaller rewards for the opening up of fields of less magnitude. I merely ask the Senate to affirm the principle which is embodied in the motion, because I am convinced it is one to which the people of Australia will cheerfully subscribe. I know quite a number of persons who would be prepared to go into the Northern Territory and prospect it thoroughly if a substantial reward were offered for the discovery of a payable gold or mineral field there. If the Government choose to offer a larger amount than I have suggested, I shall raise no objection. It is not always the discoverer of a gold-field who derives the greatest benefit from it. Very often persons come after him who do better than he has done. The offer of a substantial reward would induce any number of young men - good bushmen - to go out and prospect the Northern Territory. All I ask is that, in the event of their search proving successful, the Government should grant them substantial recognition. I have no desire to labour this question, because I am informed that time is precious. I recognise that the proposal is one that does not call for the delivery of long speeches. I hope that the Senate will approve it.

Debate (on motion by Senator McGre gor) adjourned.

page 2210

AUDIT BILL

Bill received from House of Represen tatives, and, on motion by Senator McGregor, read a first time.

page 2210

ROYAL COMMISSIONS BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed, vide page 2209) :

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Application of Act).

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I desire to ask whether the VicePresident of the Executive Council has considered the suggestion which I made at an earlier stage, namely, the desirableness of limiting the amount of fine or penalty that justices may impose? It will be seen that, for any but indictable offences, two methods are open for dealing with the transgressions of an offender. Proceedings may be taken by the Attorney-General before the High Court in the King’s name; and the other method is by information, or other appropriate proceedings, by any person in any Court of summary jurisdiction. Some of the penalties run up to £500 as a maximum. I suggest that, as far as prosecutions before justices are concerned, a limitation should be imposed as to these penalties. If a person has committed a grave offence, for which there is no shadow of justification, the High Court might be invoked by proceedings instituted by the Attorney-General. But it is highly undesirable that justices should have equal powers with the High Court in the punishment of such offenders, especially when the penalties run up to such large amounts as they do under this Bill. An offender who had transgressed inadvertently, or in perfect good faith, on the belief and assumption that he was entitled by law to resist either attending or answering a question, might aptly be cited before justices, where the penalty would be lower, and where the costs would be much lower, than if he were brought before the High Court.

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

– This question has already been discussed, and I have intimated that the suggestions made will be brought under the notice of the Attorney-General. Up to the present the Government have endeavoured to accede to the wishes expressed by some honorable senators regarding the amendment of this Bill. The matters as to which we have not been able to agree to amendments will be considered by the Attorney-General.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– Before the Bill is reported, I desire to say that during the second- reading debate a good deal was said on the subject of contempt. It is a very important matter in relation to this Bill. At this stage, I shall content myself by saying that some of the provisions are most undesirable. We have made repeated attempts to amend the Bill, with some success, I am glad to say; and as the Vice-President of the Executive Council has intimated that he has gone as far as he can go in respect to accepting amendments, I shall notobject to the report stage being taken, but express the hope that the honorable senator will bring under the notice of the AttorneyGeneral the criticisms made in respect of the point to which I have alluded.

Bill reported with amendments.

Standing Orders suspended, and Bill passed through its remaining stages.

page 2210

NAVAL AGREEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This is a Bill which seeks the ratification by Parliament of two alterations in the Naval Agreement Act 1902. It is practically a measure to ratify an agreement which has been arrived at by the Admiralty in regard to the Squadron, by which the second-class cruiser Encounter becomes available to us for the purposes of a training ship on the Australian station. Negotiations with the Admiralty have been proceeding for some time with a double purpose in view. We have been asking from time to time for a considerable number of specially trained men, petty officers and others, for the manning of our training ships, and the Admiralty have acceded to our wishes with great liberality, especially as we have been, to some extent, inconveniencing them. On the other hand, we had no up-to-date ships - with the exception of the destroyers, which are not suitable for the purpose - in which to train crews, so as to have men available to man the Fleet Unit. There was some difficulty in carrying out the arrangement for the training of crews under the old Naval Agreement. That difficulty arose from the fact that a different rate of pay was given to our men serving in the ships from that given to the men under the British naval ratings. This led to friction and dissatisfaction, and it militated very considerably against recruiting. It became obvious that if that system were continued we should not have anything like a substantial number of men to put into our ships when they arrived in Australia in 1913. His Excellency the Naval CommanderinChief originated the idea that we might obtain a loan of one or more ships of the Australian Squadron in which to carry on recruiting for ourselves. We should thus have the full crew of a ship paid at the one rate, and it was thought that this would possibly have the effect of stimulating recruiting. With that end in view negotiations were continued, and the Admiralty asked that certain vessels on the Australian station, which were tied up here under the Naval Agreement, should return to England, and intimated that they were willing to hand over to us the secondclass cruiser Encounter, with officers and a nucleus crew, with the understanding that we should be entitled to deduct from the naval subsidy the proportion represented by the upkeep of the vessel. They asked that the Challenger and two of the thirdclass cruisers should be returned, and we asked that a ship which the Admiralty had on the China station should be returned to the Australian station. This constituted the official agreement arrived at between the two parties, it being understood that the agreement on our part was made subject to the ratification of Parliament. Honor- able senators are aware that I have circulated an amendment which I intend to propose, which reads -

The provisions of this section shall extend to authorize any arrangement already entered into for any of the purposes mentioned in this section.

It will be seen that the Bill makes provision to authorize the making of further arrangements if necessary. That has been decided upon because it is obvious that the Australian Fleet, now building, will not come out here as a unit, but in sections. The intention of the Government is that the cruiser Melbourne shall come out first. The battleship Australia, and the cruiser Sydney, will afterwards come out together, making a call at South Africa on the way. The two submarines will probably come out via Suez at a still later date. The desire of the Admiralty is that as our ships arrive the Australian Squadron shall be correspondingly reduced. We do not believe that Parliament has any desire to hamper either our own arrangements or those of the Admiralty, and in order .to meet the convenience of both parties we are seeking the approval of Parliament for a reduction of the Australian Squadron maintained by the Admiralty on the Australian station as our own Australian ships come out to take their place.

Senator Clemons:

– From time to time on these lines?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. The idea is that when the Melbourne arrives one of the second-class cruisers now on the station shall return to England, and when the battleship and the cruiser Sydney arrive other ships of the Australian Squadron will be returned, and in this way the Squadron will be gradually reduced. On the completion of the negotiations the Admiralty expressed their appreciation, and said tha* our action in releasing the Challenger had been a great convenience to them. These ships contain a large number of highlytrained men. It takes many years to bring men up to a high state of training, and as the Admiralty are turning out new ships they require to have in each a nucleus of these highly-trained men. The arrangement which has been come to has been of substantial benefit to both parties. Ir has enabled us to secure the Encounter, and we now have some 200 recruits on board that vessel. We are taking other recruits into the Williamstown Depot, the idea being to keep them there for a few months, and then send them on a training cruise in the

Encounter. We shall have fresh drafts from time to time trained in the same way, and we shall be able by the adoption of this course to secure a. far larger number of men to man our own ships when they arrive than we should have been able to secure under the old Agreement for the training of men in the ships of the Squadron. In the circumstances, I am sure a very few words are needed from me to obtain the hearty ratification of this Agreement by Parliament.

Senator Millen:

– Has there not been some re-adjustment of the financial part of the Agreement?

Senator PEARCE:

– I have already said that we are entitled to deduct from the naval subsidy payable under the old Agreement the proportion represented by the upkeep of the Encounter. This is estimated at £25,000.

Senator Millen:

– We practically get the ship for nothing.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is so; but we relieve the Admiralty of the payment of the officers and nucleus crew, whom we pay at Australian rates of wages. I think that the new Agreement is a satisfactory one, and I trust it will meet with the hearty concurrence of the Senate.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I do not desire to detain the Senate for more than a moment or two in referring to this Bill. The arrangement which the Minister of Defence has outlined is one which will commend itself to honorable senators, but there is one aspect ofthe matter to which I should like to direct attention. I think it is well to say that this is another instance of the very great consideration which the Imperial authorities are extending to Australia in her efforts to start upon a naval policy of her own. I do not think it should pass without notice. I am sure that honorable senators will recognise it, but I should like to place it upon record, and to show that this further act of kindness does not pass without official notice as far as the Senate is concerned.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear !

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

The Governor-General may, from time to time, arrange with the Imperial Government for the reduction of the Naval Force to be provided under the Agreement on the Australian station, and for any reduction in the amount of the subsidy payable under the Agreement by the Commonwealth, and for any alteration of the Agreement to give effect to any such arrangement.

Amendments (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That the following words be inserted at the beginning of the clause: - “The Naval Agreement Act 1903 is amended by adding, after section 3, the following section : - 4 (1).”

That the following words be added to the clause : - “ (2) The provisions of this section shall extend to authorize any arrangement already entered into for any of the purposes mentioned in this section.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Standing Orders suspended, and Bill passed through its remaining stages.

page 2212

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Second Reading

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clauses 1 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 -

Part VIII. of the Principal Act, including sections 35 and 36, is repealed, and the following part and sections are inserted in its stead : -

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.20].- Under this clause, a return of expenses in connexion with a referendum is required tobe made. I do not know what value there can be in having a return of expenses as to the matters mentioned here. What is the value of the proposed new section regarding returns to be furnished by newspaper proprietors? It is proposed that the proprietor or publisher of a newspaper shall snake a return setting out the amount ‘/f matter in connexion with any referendum inserted in his newspaper in respect oi which payment was made, the space occupied by such matter, the amount paid 4o him, or owing, and the names and addresses of the associations authorizing the insertion of the matter. Inasmuch as there is no limitation of expenses in connexion with a referendum, I really do not see why these returns should be required. If some weal benefit were to be obtained, there might be some object in it. Suppose that some association spends ,£20,000 in sustaining * certain attitude in regard to a referendum. There is no law to prevent that feeing done.

Senator Findley:

– It would be very interesting to know whether certain combinations spend £20,000.

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

– Suppose the Australian “Workers Union spent £20,000 on a referendum campaign. Of what earthly use would that information be to the Pastoralists Union? It is undesirable to place these restrictions on individuals, where there is no necessity to do so. It can only ;gratify a certain amount of curiosity.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– This clause iis identical with a section in the amended ^Electoral Act. It has to be remembered that the next referendum will be carried out -at the same time as the general election, –and it is to be presumed that the parties on either side will be identical. The value of the clause in regard to a referendum is arguable, but seeing that we have it as applied to elections, we require it here for the -sake of uniformity.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

-There is a good reason for the clause in regard to elections, because the expenditure of candidates is restricted. .

Senator PEARCE:

– That was not the only reason. The other reason was that party newspapers, under the guise of news, published matter to assist a candidate in his election, at his expense, and that expenditure did not appear in the ordinary returns sent in by candidates. Under the amended Electoral Act, that expenditure must, in future, be declared, and it seems to me to be logical to apply the same rule in the conduct of referenda. There is nothing new, therefore, in this proposal”. The question whether such a provision should :be included in the Electoral Act is arguable, and there is a difference of opinion upon it ; but as such a provision is con,tained in the Electoral Act, it is, I think, logical that it should be applied to referenda.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERTGOULD (New South Wales) [9.26].- I fail to recognise the logic of the Government’s proposal. Where we say that a candidate for election shall not spend more than a given sum in contesting a seat, it is. necessary that we should be in a position to verify his statement of his expenses by records obtained from other sources. If it be true that newspapers publish paragraphs which are paid for as advertisements, there should be some method of ascertaining the amount which a candidate expends in that way. But there is no limit to the amount which may be expended in connexion with a referendum. Political parties or organizations may spend as much as they please in connexion with the referendum without invalidating the result. But if a candidate for election spends more than he is permitted to spend under the Act, that will invalidate his return. That is a direct reason for such a provision in the electoral law which does not apply to the taking of a referendum.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– It is very well known that I am utterly opposed to this clause, and also to the corresponding section of the Electoral Act. It appears to me that it can in neither -case serve any public purpose, “how.ever useful it may be for purposes of plat-i form oratory. I indorse what has been; said by Senator Gould, but I should like to put forward this view: If the Government have pledged themselves, as I think they have, to a class of legislation with regard to our ordinary electoral machinery which is a monstrous interference with the’ ordinary decent rights of citizenship, and serves no public purpose, it does appear to me that they are bound to introduce the same hardship and absurdity in the legistlation under which ‘ referenda are’ to be taken. There would otherwise be a considerable amount of confusion as to What people will have a right to do. In the popular mind, there is a close relation between a vote cast at a polling-booth for the election of a member of Parliament and a vote cast in connexion with a referendum. I admit the force of the contention that there may be some reason for the corresponding section of the Electoral Act, inasmuch as a limit is put upon the candidate’s expenses. There is no* such limit in connexion with a referendum. But I decline to recognise that this provision is introduced in either case for any purpose at all, except it be to harass the press. The Government, having set out to do that in the Electoral Act, are certainly logical in seeking to enact a similar provision in the legislation for the conduct of referenda. Although 1 am utterly opposed to this provision, I admit that the Government are consistent in their course of folly and injustice in reproducing in this Bill a provision which they have already inserted in our electoral law.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Standing Orders suspended and Bill passed through its remaining stages.

Senate adjourned at 9.34 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 August 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1912/19120815_senate_4_65/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate15 August 1912

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPH RATES

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

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

Senator KEATING:

Senator FINDLEY:

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator McCOLL:VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

WHARFAGE RATES

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator FINDLEY:ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator FINDLEY:

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

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

ROYAL COMMISSIONS BILL

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

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Millen:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

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

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator McGregor:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

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

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

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

Senator Millen:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Millen:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Millen:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Givens:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Millen:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Givens:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator ST LEDGER:Queensland

Senator McGregor:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator McGregor:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Keating:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CLEMONS:

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

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Millen:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Givens:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator GIVENS:Queensland

Senator Clemons:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Millen:

Senate
15 August 1912

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

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

Senator McCOLL:
VICTORIA

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

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

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

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

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

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

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

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

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

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

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

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

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

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

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

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

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

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

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator McGREGOR:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

Senator McGREGOR:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

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

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland