Senate
23 October 1912

4^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- MANNING OF SYDNEY FORTS
QUESTION
- IMPORTED AMERICAN APPLES
QUESTION
- HIGH COURT
QUESTION
- REFERENDA PROPOSALS
PAPERS
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE: INCREASES
QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYMENT IN MATCH INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- COLONEL WALLACE
QUESTION
- PHOSPHATIC DEPOSITS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL TERRITORY: REPRESENTATION
QUESTION
- STORM WARNINGS
QUESTION
- SIGNED ARTICLES
ELECTORAL DIVISIONS:
QUESTION
- QUEENSLAND
ELECTORAL DIVISIONS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
SUGAR BOUNTY BILL
- Second Reading
COPYRIGHT BILL
- Second Reading
REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT
- Case of Mr. E. A. Harden: Order of Business

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

page 4489

QUESTION

MANNING OF SYDNEY FORTS

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Minister of Defence if the following report in the Sydney Daily Telegraph has been brought under his notice–

An emphatic denial was given by the Minister of Defence to-day to the statement telegraphed from Sydney, that since 1st July it had been impossible, with all the permanent artillerymen that could be mustered, to man the guns at the Heads. “ It is correct,” said Senator Pearce, “ that we have not yet a full complement of gunners, due to the sudden resignation of a number of the Australian Garrison Artillery, but the numbers are being brought up to the full establishment by the transfer of trainees.

If the report has been brought under the honorable senator’s notice, I should like to ask him whether the two statements, which are so much at variance, are correct, and, further, how long he thinks it will take to make a trainee an artilleryman?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Both statements are correct, and are quite reconcilable. The time it will take to make a trainee into an artilleryman will depend first of all on the trainee’s capacity for acquiring training and the facilities given to enable him to acquire the necessary skill.

page 4489

QUESTION

IMPORTED AMERICAN APPLES

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs if he is prepared with a deferred reply to questions which I asked recently in reference to the importation of American apples into Australia?

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

– On the11th of this month Senator Ready asked the following questions -

What quantity of American apples has been imported into Australia during the past four months of June, July, August, and September?
What is the present duty on imported apples ?
What duty does America impose on imported apples?
What is the New Zealand Tariff on apples?
What is the average cost of freight per barrel or case from America to Australia?

The following are the replies to the honorable senator’s questions -

Imports of American fresh apples during Tune, July, August, and September -

2s. per cental.
25 cents, per bushel. 4.1d. per lb. (No duty exceeding1/2d. per lb. to be levied on apples on and from 14th July to and including 31st December of each year.)
Freight from San Francisco or Vancouver to Sydney, 14 dollars per ton measurement. As 24 cases go to a ton, this is equivalent to 2s. 51/2d. per case.

page 4489

QUESTION

HIGH COURT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice: Is it intended to appoint another Judge to the High Court Bench? If not, is it possible to arrange that the work of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court shall be solely apportioned to one of the Justices of the High Court, so as to expedite the work before that tribunal?

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

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is that the matter is under consideration.

page 4489

QUESTION

REFERENDA PROPOSALS

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he can now make an announcement, or, if not, whether he will confer with the Prime Minister with a view to making an announcement, as to the date on which we may expect the proposed Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Bill to be introduced either in this or another branch of the Legislature?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– I understand that the Bill referred to will be introduced to-day. If it is not, perhaps the honorable senator will give notice of his question.

page 4489

PAPERS

The MINISTERS laid on the table the following papers : -

Defence Act 1903-1911. - Regulations, amended, &c. (Provisional) -

Military Forces -

Statutory Rules 1912, Nos. 195, 196, 197.

Financial and Allowance Regulations - Statutory Rules 1912, Nos. 199, 201, 202, 204.

Defence Act - continued.

Universal Training -

Statutory Rules 1912, Nos. 200, 203, 205.

Lands Acquisition Act 1906. - Land acquired at Bondi Junction, New South Wales - For Postal purposes.

Northern Territory. - Ordinance No. 6 of 1912. - Thorngate Estate.

Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1910. - Regulations, amended, &c. -

Statutory Rules 1912, Nos. 168, 169, 173 (Provisional), 186 (Provisional), 187 (Provisional), 188 (Provisional), 189.

Public Service Act 1902-1911 - Appointments, Promotions, &c. -

Prime Minister’s Department - F. Strahan, to be Clerk, 4th Class, Clerical Division.

Department of Home Affairs - J. Orwin, to be Works Inspector, Public Works Branch, New South Wales.

The Acting Assistant Clerk laid on the table the following paper : -

Return to Order of the Senate of 2nd October,1912 -

Lands Purchased or Resumed in Financial Years1910-11 and 1911-12.

page 4490

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: INCREASES

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Have any of the higher-paid officers of the Commonwealth Public Service been recommended for increases on the current year’s Estimates?
If so, how many?
If any of the higher-paid officers are to receive increases, what is their present grade and division?
Have any of the lower-paid employes in the Commonwealth Public Service been recommended for an increase on the current year’s Estimates?
If so, how many?
If any of the lower-paid employes in the Commonwealth Public Service are to receive increases, what is their grade, and in what division are they employed?
Has the Government been recently approached by a section of the lower-paid officers of the Service asking for an increase of salary?
Were they advised to go to the Arbitration Court?
Is the Government going to enforce the provisions of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act?
If so, will they see that the Act applies to the higher-paid employes as well as to the lower-paid employes of the Service ?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

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

Yes.
Taking the higher paid officers to include officers of the Administrative Division, Class E and higher Classes of the Professional Division, and the Fourth Class and higher classes of the Clerical Division, the division and class of those recommended for increases are as follow’ : -

Yes.
9,105-
Including among the lower paid officers, Class F of the Professional Division, the Fifth Class of the Clerical Division, and all General Division officers of the division and grade of the officers for whom increases are provided on the current year’s Estimates are as follow : -

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
The Act does so apply.

page 4490

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN MATCH INDUSTRY

Senator BLAKEY:
VICTORIA

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

Is the Government in possession of any reliable information whether or not the present existing unemployment of several hundred employes in the match-making industry in Victoria is due solely to the existing Tariff on “ Matches and Vestas”?

Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

– The Minister does not consider that this is due solely to the existing Tariff.

page 4491

QUESTION

COLONEL WALLACE

Senator McDOUGALL:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

What certificates in Engineering - civil or military - does Colonel Wallace possess,with marks awarded in the latter?
What percentage of marks was awarded to Colonel Wallace on conclusion of the course of gunnery instruction attended by him in England, and what percentage of marks was awarded other Australian officers attending the same course?
Was the variable percentage of marks referred to in footnote to question No. 7, answered by the Minister on 2nd October, 1912, in operation in England on the date when Colonel Wallace attended for instruction?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

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

In December, 1889, Colonel Wallace obtained a Special Certificate “ Distinguished “ in Fortification and Topography.
. 79.

The only officer at present serving in the Commonwealth Military Forces (General Bridges) who attended the same course as Colonel Wallace was awarded an “ Honours” Certificate.

No. If the variable percentage of marks as indicated had been in operation. Colonel Wallace’s certificate would have been a firstclass one.

page 4491

QUESTION

PHOSPHATIC DEPOSITS

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What is the intention of the Government in the matter of introducing a Bill providing for the payment of a bonus for the discovery and working of phosphatic deposits in the Commonwealth?

Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

– The following is the answer to the honorable senator’s question -

When bringing forward the proposed Bounties Bill, the Government intends to provide for the payment of a bonus for the discovery and working of phosphatic deposits in the Commonwealth.

page 4491

QUESTION

FEDERAL TERRITORY: REPRESENTATION

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Is there any power existing in the Constitution to grant persons resident in the Federal Capital Territory the right to vote on questions submitted to a referendum?
If so, will a measure conferring such right be presented to Parliament?
Can the residents of the Federal Capital Territory be attached for voting purposes, in regard to Senate elections, to an adjacent State?
If not, will steps be taken to provide such persons with some form of Federal representation ?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

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

No. The referendum provided for by the Constitution is a submission to the electors in the States.
Answered by1.
No.
The matter is under consideration.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– Arising out of the answers to Senator Rae’s questions, I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if it is intended by the Government, through Parliament, to make effective provision to enable persons resident in the Federal Capital area, and in other similar areas of the Commonwealth, to record their votes in connexion with any referendum as to a proposed amendment of the Constitution?

Senator McGREGOR:

– The reply to the honorable senator’s question is contained in the reply that I have already given to Senator Rae’s question. The matter is under consideration.

Later.

Senator KEATING:

– Before the Senate passes from the consideration of questions on notice, and in continuance of the question I put to the Vice-President of the Executive Council upon his reply to questions asked by Senator Rae, I should like to ask the honorable senator, if I may do so-

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will not be in order in going back upon the question. He had an opportunity to ask a question arising out of an answer given by the Vice-President of the Executive Council to a question asked upon notice. I understand that he now wishes to debate some matter.

Senator Keating:

– No, sir, I wish to ask a further question arising out of the reply given by the Vice-President of the Executive Council.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator cannot now ask a further question arising out of the answer given to a question asked upon notice.

page 4492

QUESTION

STORM WARNINGS

Senator LYNCH:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Whether the Government has decided on any means for giving earlier warning of the approach of cyclones to the residents of the north-west of Western Australia?
When will the Government put its plan into operation ?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

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

In the event of telegraphic communication with Perth being interrupted, arrangements have been made for the interchange of weather reports between Coast Stations in the North-west; and should indications of the approach of a willy-willy be noted, information will be sent from town to town. Proposals are being considered for the linking up by telegraph of some of the more important vantage points at present without ready means of communication, such as Cape Levique, Cape Bossut, and La Grange Bay, and the State Government are being consulted as to whether they will share the cost in view of the benefit to settlement. Arrangements are also being made for the explosion of bomb signals at various points on the Northwest coast to advise pearlers and others of the approach of a willy-willy.

Senator LYNCH:

– Arising out of the reply given to my question, I wish to ask whether the Federal Government propose to wait to see what the State Government of Western Australia will do towards giving financial assistance in the work of connecting the ports referred to, and whether any action on their part will depend upon what the State Government may decide to do in the matter ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The answer given to the honorable senator’s question states clearly that the State Government of Western Australia are being consulted as to whether they will share in the cost of the work in view of the benefit to settlers. If they decline to do so, it will be for the Commonwealth Government to decide whether they will do the work themselves. We do not propose to consider that proposition until we are up against it.

page 4492

QUESTION

SIGNED ARTICLES

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice-

In view of the decision of the High Court regarding the signing of newspaper articles, reports, &c, dealing with politics between the issue and the return of electoral writs -

Is it the intention of the Government to provide compensation for suburban and country correspondents who, owing to the law, may be deprived of a means towards making a living, while generally engaged in other business?
What provision, if any, will be made to enable a newspaper to publish a report supplied by several reporters, condensed by another employe, and finally cut down to suitspace by yet another, without rendering the report grotesque by reason of the interpolation of reporters’ names and full addresses?
Will the Government issue regulations dealing with these matters?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

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

No. The correspondents referred to should not be ashamed to sign their names to any statements they may forward for insertion in newspapers at a time when it is of the highest importance, not only to a candidate for Parliament, but also to the public generally, that only the truth be published.
It will be a matter for the consideration of the newspaper management as to who shall sign the report and how they shall comply with the law.
It is not at present intended to issue any regulations.

page 4492

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS:

page 4492

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND

Debate resumed from nth October (vide page 4155), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the Senate approves of the fresh distribution of the State of Queensland into Electoral Divisions as proposed by Messrs. W. J. Gall, A. A. Spowers, and W. H. Graham, the Commissioners for the purpose of distributing the said State into divisions, in their report, dated the 22nd day of August, 1912, and laid before the Senate on 25th September, 1912; and that the names of the divisions indicated on the map referred to in the report be adopted with the exception that the name “ Landsborough “ be altered to read “ Lilley.”

– Order! I trust that the honorable senator will not discuss that matter.

Senator STEWART:

– I have nothing more to say on the subject.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4498

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS:

page 4498

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That the Senate approves of the fresh distribution of the State of Western Australia into Electoral Divisions as proposed by Messrs. A. Green, H. F. Johnston, and A. W. Piesse, the Commissioners for the purpose of distributing the said State into divisions, in their report, dated! the 28th day of August, 1912, and laid before the Senate on 25th September, 1912 ; and that the divisions referred to in the report and indicated on the map as A, B, C, D, and E be named as follows : - Division A, Perth ; Division B, Fremantle; Division C, Swan; Division D, Kalgoorlie ; Division E, Dampier.

page 4498

SUGAR BOUNTY BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from nth October (vide page 4184), on motion by Senator Findley -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator VARDON:

– I know that negotiations were begun and suggestions made fully two years ago, with the object of bringing about a satisfactory state of things in the industry. It was suggested by those interested that coloured labour should be done away with altogether. I have here some correspondence which took place on the subject in July, 1910. There is a letter written by Mr. G. H. Pritchard, secretary to the Australian Sugar Producers Association Limited, and addressed to the Prime Minister, in which he says -

I have the honour, by direction, to convey to you the following resolution which was unanimously adopted by the Australian Sugar Producers Association at the half-yearly meeting of their Council held in Cairns on the 21st and 22nd ultimo : - “ That steps be taken by the Australian Sugar Producers Association to have the necessary legislation passed forthwith by the Federal and State Parliaments to absolutely prohibit the production of sugar by coloured men either as growers themselves or by the employment of coloured labour in any shape or form in the sugar industry, and that a copy of Mr. Duffy’s opinion, and of this resolution, be forwarded to the Federal Prime Minister, and the Premier of this State, asking that such direct legislation be passed forthwith, as will give effect to the wishes of this Association.

Twenty-two delegates attended this meeting, representing growers and manufacturers from various sugar districts of the State extending from Nambour in the south, to Mossman - the sugar outpost - in the north, so that you will see that the gathering was thoroughly representative in character.

I have now to formally invite you to consider the advisableness of giving effect to our wishes, as embodied in the resolution, by passing the necessary legislation through Parliament.

I am aware that the opinion is held that the coloured races cannot, constitutionally, be excluded from the industry, but have pleasure in handing you herewith a printed copy of the opinion of Mr. Frank Gavan Duffy, K.C., together with a copy of the case submitted for his opinion, by which you will see that he states, unreservedly, that the Federal Parliament is clothed with full authority to pass the legislation which we desire. As Mr. Duffy is a gentleman who is regarded as being in the front rank of his profession, as a constitutional lawyer, and, moreover, has been selected by the Federal Government to advise and act for them where constitutional questions are involved, we specially chose him to give the opinion in this case. His opinion therefore should be entitled to particular respect.

Further, the language of the section of the Commonwealth Constitution Act upon which he relies is so clear that it does not admit of any ambiguity of construction. I quote the text of it for your guidance and information -

Section 51. The Parliament shall subject to’ this Constitution have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to -

The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.

I am directed to remind you that the members of our Association heartily subscribe to and cordially support, the policy of a white Australia as applied to the sugar industry, and embrace every opportunity which presents itself of letting this be understood. We, however, are emphatically of the opinion that the policy should be carried to its logical conclusion by absolutely excluding the coloured races from participating, in any shape or form, in the production of sugar, and as there is no legal ban to this being done, we trust that we may rely upon you to take the matter in hand with the object of giving effect to our wishes.

Further, I desire to point out particularly, that the absolute exclusion of coloured races from the industry would be the best possible means by which we could most directly, and effectively, deal ‘with the excise and bounty legislation which expires on the 1st January 1913. Your own public announcements, from time to time, have made it quite clear that your chief, if not indeed your only, reason for advocating a continuance of the existing legislation is that if the legislation were allowed to run out, as Parliament has designed that it shall do, the coloured races would be placed upon the same footing as the white races. Permit me, therefore, to strenuously urge upon you the adoption, of the course which our Association have pro.posed and ardently wish for, and so settle this much vexed question in a conclusive and effective manner once and for all.

Commending our proposal to your earnest and best attention,

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

H. Pritchard, Secretary.

On the 12th July, Mr. Shepherd, the Secretary to the Prime Minister, replied to Mr. Pritchard in a letter in which he said -

I have the honour, by direction, to inform you, that the representations of your association will receive consideration.

Then, on the 12th August of the same year - 1910 - Mr. Pritchard again addressed the Prime Minister in the following terms : -

Permit me to invite attention to my letter to you of the 5th ultimo, and to your reply thereto saying that the subject-matter thereof would have consideration. I shall be pleased to know whether we may rely upon you to give effect to our desire to exclude coloured persons from engaging in any shape or form in the sugar industry ? I venture to think that my letter above quoted made a full and complete presentment of the matter to yon, and as you are now dealing with the legislation affecting the industry, it would be the most appropriate time to deal with the whole subject comprehensively and conclusively on the lines indicated in my letter.

In explaining the intentions of your Government you are reported by the press to have said, amongst other things, that “ the arrangements for the payment of bounty and the collection of excise will remain undisturbed on the basis which it occupies this year, lt mill be preserved until a better means of accomplishing our aims has been discovered.” The words which I have underlined made it abundantly manifest that the two amending Bills now before Parliament do not comprise the whole of your Government’s policy in connexion with the sugar industry, and as you have time and again made it plain that your aim is to make the industry a wholly “white” one, it does not seem to me possible to conceive any more direct, effectual, and conclusive manner of accomplishing the end you have in view than that set out in my letter of the 5th ultimo. May I therefore again commend its contents to your earliest and best attention.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

H. Pritchard, Secretary.

On the 1 8th August, the Secretary to the Prime Minister replied -

Your representations on the question of the exclusion of coloured persons from engaging in this industry have been brought under the notice of the Department of Trade and Customs, and will receive full consideration.

I have here the case on which the Australian Sugar Producers Association asked Mr. F. G. Duffy to give an opinion, but I do not intend to read it all. The first question on which he was asked to advise was -

Can a law be enacted to entirely prohibit the employment of coloured labour in the sugar industry, and to prohibit the growth of sugarcane and manufacture of sugar by coloured labour ?

To that query Mr. Duffy replied, “Yes.” The second question on which he was asked to offer an opinion was -

Can there be levied on sugar-cane a duty of Excise so high as to make it financially impossible for sugar to be produced by coloured labour ?

To that question Mr. Duffy answered “ No.” He said-

In view of my opinion expressed above, it becomes unnecessary to answer these questions, but I think the answer to question No. 2 should be “ No,” because, for the reasons relied on by the majority of the Court in the King v. Barger, 6 C.L.R., 41, a duty of Excise, such as that suggested, would be regarded as an incursion into the domain exclusively reserved for State legislation.

At any rate, two years ago it was the desire of these sugar-growers to overcome the difficulty of black labour in this way, and, ap parently, it received some sympathy from the Prime Minister, because I find, from a paper tabled in the other House on 10th October, Mr. Denham, Premier of Queensland, wrote the following letter to him on 5th September of this year -

I have the honour to inform you that my colleague the Treasurer, on his return to Brisbane, communicated to me your expressed opinion that it would make for the welfare of the sugar industry if both excise and bounty were abolished, that you would do your best to influence your colleagues to take the sameview, and, if successful, would next session introduce Bills for the repeal of so much of the excise and bounty sections as applied to the sugar industry. While thanking you for this attitude on the question, I must say I was not unprepared for the information, as I was aware you had on’ former occasions expressed yourself similarly thereon. Whatever co-operation I can ive you in the matter will be cheerfully rendered, for I am fully satisfied that along such lines as you suggest lies the only solution of the difficulties which have to be met. I hope therefore you will be able to prevail on your colleagues to take action in the direction mentioned, and to take it during the current session of Parliament, for delaying it until next year would entail very serious consequences on the industry, and, among other evils, the intensifying of the present feeling of uncertainty and unrest in those connected with it.

If you can give me your assurance on this point, I shall undertake to introduce legislation prohibiting Asiatic aliens from engaging or working in the industry, and compensating such aliens as may be bond fide owners or leaseholders of land now under sugar cane. The people of Australia desire the sugar industry to be a white-labour one, and I gladly give my support to any arrangement which will ensure the realization of that desire. It is also their wish that this industry should pay the white labourer the highest wage consistent with its prosperity, and the better to achieve that end I shall so enlarge the Industrial Peace Bill as to bring sugar workers (both field and mill hands) under Industrial Boards. I think that will be the most effective means of protecting their interests.

I am informed that you have expressed some doubt as to whether the cane-grower would reap any benefit under the altered conditions. On this point Mr. White, M.L.A., assures me he raised the matter at a meeting of the Sugar Manufacturers’ Association held in Bundaberg on the 2nd September, when it was resolved that in the event of the excise and bounty being abolished the millers will pay the ‘growers of cane 8s. 8d. per ton in place of the 6s. 6d. now paid by the Customs. The Treasurer will also give the growers the full benefit of the difference between excise and bounty.

You are aware of the intention of the Government to erect mills under the Sugar Works Act 191 1, three of which have been approved and »ill involve a total expenditure of ,£350,000. Other mills are likely to be pressed upon our attention, but I fear that, in the present unsettled state of the sugar industry, the House will not vote the necessary funds.

I have been favoured by an authority, whose opinion may be implicitly relied on, with the following reasons for the abolition of the sugar excise and bounty : -

That no other primary industry pays excise.

That the abolition of the excise and bounty will place the sugar industry on the same footing as other protected industries in the Commonwealth.

That the reason for the excise on sugar does not now exist, as only about 4 per cent, of last year’s crops was grown by coloured labour.

That the abolition of the excise and bounty will not increase the price of sugar to the consumer.

That the abolition of excise and bounty will create a feeling of security in the sugar industry which does not exist at the present time, and will ensure it vigorous development, whereas the prevalent uncertainty is causing farmers rather to restrict than extend their operations.

That, as regards other Australian industries, our foreign rivals are manufacturers of goods produced by white labour, but the sugar industry has to compete with the sugar grown and manufactured by cheap coloured labour in other parts of the world.

That nearly all the growers throughout the State have dismissed their employees other than those engaged in harvesting the present crop, and as the time for spring planting is at hand, immediate action must be taken if the industry is to be saved from extinction.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

Denham.

Senator Chataway:

– Excuse me, you omitted to mention the mill-owners, between the growers and the refiners.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am much obliged to my honorable friend. I omitted the mill-owners for this reason that sometimes the growers and the mill owners - at any rate in co-operative mills - are identical, and on the other hand equally so, I suppose, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company are interested both as growers and as refiners. These four classes have to be justly dealt with, and if there is consideration shown by this Parliament out of the pockets of the taxpayers towards the industry as a whole, we cannot, in considering the position of, for instance, the growers, eliminate the enormous profits which are made by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. When I recall the efforts which have been made by the Parliament to assist this industry as a whole, and when it is pointed out to me that one of these four different classes engaged in the industry is suffering to some extent, or is not quite so prosperous as is another section, I ask myself whether it would not be better to arrive at some means of diminishing the enormous profits of one section, and allowing a portion of them to percolate down to others who are not so prosperous. We must take the industry as a whole. Until this afternoon, when Senator Vardon rose, this debate was practically a duel between two sets of representatives from Queensland - between Senators Stewart and Givens on the one hand, and Senators Chataway, St. Ledger, and Sayers on the other hand. I congratulate Senators Stewart and Givens - there were various points of vehemence in the speech of the latter - upon what I thought were the very fair, large, and sensible views, having regard to the history of this legislation, which they took of the whole position. In the first session of this Parliament - in 1901 - the Liberal party, led by Sir Edmund Barton and Mr. Deakin, instituted a policy for the repatriation of the kanakas. I opposed that step, because I thought that an immediate repatriation of these Pacific Islanders might inflict hardship and cruelty upon them. But another aspect of the matter was presented by my honorable friends, namely, that if we repatriated these people, and insisted upon effect being given to a White Australia policy in Queensland, white men would be obliged to do work for which they were not fitted, and, consequently, they ought to be paid a very much higher rate of wages. The outcome of that discussion was that, when the Excise Tariff Bill was under consideration in 1902, a provision was inserted for the payment of a rebate in the Excise - which was then 3s. per cwt. - upon all sugar grown by white labour. The object was to assist the growers, who, it was anticipated, would be obliged to pay very much higher wages, in order to give effect to the White Australia policy. But no provision was made to insure that those higher wages should be paid. Their payment was left to whatever machinery was then available. Later on it was found that that rebate would have had to come out of the pockets of the Queensland growers - a position which it was said would have been unjust. Parliament felt that a national policy should be paid for by the genera] community, and, therefore, in 1903, the law was altered by substituting a bounty for a rebate. That bounty was intended to achieve the same object. In the Act of 1903, however, no proper provision was made for the exercise by this Parliament of some control, in order to insure that the White Australia policy should be faithfully given effect to, and that the white men engaged in the sugar industry should be paid a wage commensurate with the additional drain which was being placed upon their vital power and energy. That was the true principle underlying the whole thing. In 1905, when the Deakin Government were in office, a Bill was introduced which contained a provision similar, to a great extent, to that which is now proposed, by which the Minister was enabled to withhold the bounty in any case in which he found that the rate of wages paid by the grower was below the standard rate paid in the district in which the sugar was grown, to similar white labour employed in the industry. At that time I feared that the employment of the term “ standard “ in connexion with the rate of wages paid would prevent us from effectually achieving the object which we had in view. It was too vague. That was found to be the case; and in 1910 we passed a Bill which attempted to remedy that defect, but which did not do so effectively. It provided -

If the Minister finds that the rates of wages and conditions of employment, or any of them -
1. are below the standard rates and conditions of employment prescribed by any Commonwealth or State industrial authority ; or
2. in the absence of any such standard applicable to the case, are below the standard rates payable and conditions of employment obtainable in the locality in which sugar is grown ; or
3. in the absence of any such standard rates and conditions of employment respectively, are, on application by the Minister to the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, declared not to be fair and reasonable by him or by a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State or any person or. persons who compose a State industrial authority to whom he may refer the matter, the Minister may withhold the whole or any part of the bounty payable.”

That is the present state of the law. The provision contained in this Bill is substantially the same, although it appears in a different, and, in my view, a better, form. If this were a court of arbitration whose function it was to determine the rate of wages which should be paid in the industry, a great deal of what has been said would be most important. But it is not. As to the payment of 8s. per day, I think it is a paltry wage, in comparison with the work which has to be done and the conditions under which it has to be done, especially when we recollect what was urged as a reason for the payment of this bounty some eight or nine years ago.

Senator Blakey:

– Does the honorable senator know that quite recently the men had to go on strike for 7s. a day?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I do not wish to enter into a discussion on that matter. I think that the balance of the argument is in favour of what has been urged by Senator Stewart and Senator Givens. But that is not the question with which we are now dealing. We are dealing with a. machinery Bill, which represents another attempt to carry out the declared policy of this Parliament.

Senator St Ledger:

– The question- is not as to the object which we have in view, but as to the means which should be adopted to attain it.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I may tell my honorable friend that, in my humble judgment, this is a very much better measure than is the Act of 1910.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment ; report adopted.

page 4509

COPYRIGHT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26th July (vide page 1339),on motion by Senator McGregor -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I think that the Government are to be commended for bringing in this Bill, because its enactment will be a distinct gain to the Commonwealth. In the British Copyright Act it is recognised that that Act in its entirety may not be applicable to local conditions in the self-governing Dominions, and therefore section 25 provides for alterations being made in case of the Act being adopted by any of those Dominions. It reads as follows : - (1.) This Act, except such of the provisions thereof as are expressly restricted to the United Kingdom, shall extend throughout His Majesty’s dominions : Provided that it shall not extend to a self-governing dominion, unless declared by the Legislature of that dominion to be in force therein either without any modifications or additions, or with such modifications and additions relating exclusively to procedure and remedies, or necessary to adapt this Act to the circumstances of the dominion, as may be enacted by such Legislature.

This Bill is intended, of course, to make such modifications as will make the British Act suitable to our own circumstances. It can be recognised at once from its framework that the British Act is not entirely applicable to the self-governing Dominions. I do not think that sufficient consideration has been given to the fact that large numbers of copyright works produced originally in Great Britain are circulated in selfgoverning Dominions such as Australia. The practice is for the buyers representing local houses to purchase works in London and ship them to Australia for sale. For instance, if the author of a work produced in Great Britain were given by the Act an indivisible copyright for the whole of the British Empire, Australian buyers would be at no disadvantage seeing that they would pay the royalty when they bought the work in London, and that such payment would frank the work over the whole of the Empire. We have to recognise that the copyright granted by the British Act is not indivisible, but may be the subject of partial assignment. For instance, the author of a popular song may assign the Australian copyright to A, the Canadian copyright to B, the New Zealand copyright to C, and so on, while retaining for himself the British copyright. The effect of this provision, if not modified, would be that if a local house ordered 1,000 copies of a song from the publisher in London, and paid the required royalty there, he might find, when the consignment arrived in Australia, that the author had made a partial assignment of the Australian copyright, and the owner of the local copyright might prevent the sale of the copies purchased in England, or , possibly, exact a large royalty. I think that this result has been unlocked for, but it would arise from the adoption of the British Act. That is emphasized, I think, by clause 10 of our Bill, because it provides - (1.) Copies made out of the Commonwealth of any work in which copyright subsists which if made in the Commonwealthwould infringe copyright, and as to which the owner of the copyright gives notice in writing by himself or his agent to the Comptroller-General of Customs, that he is desirous that such copies should not be imported into the Commonwealth, shall not be so imported and shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be deemed to be prohibited imports within the meaning of the Customs Act 1901-1910.

The result of that provision, it seems to me, is to practically give a monopoly to a man who chooses to buy the copyright of a song, so far as Australia is concerned. Take, for example, the importer of 1,000 copies of a popular song. When his consignment reaches Australia, he may find that he can not get delivery through the Customs, and the song will be destroyed as a prohibited import. I do not think it was intended by the amendment of the Copyright Act to create in any way a monopoly. It seems clear that it was intended to prevent pirated goods being introduced into the British Dominions ; for instance, to prevent well known songs, or records thereof, being produced or made in some country where no copyright law existed and brought into the British Dominions in derogation of the rights of the owner of the copyright, and the fact of a partial assignment in. the

Dominions themselves appears altogether to have been overlooked. If some modification is not made to adapt the British Act to the Commonwealth, an opportunity will be offered to persons in the music trade to practically corner the sale of popular music here. As soon as a musical piece has achieved a popular hit in London, a local firm will probably buy, for a small sum, the Australian copyright, and so prevent the sale of that piece in Australia except through that firm, which, of course, in some circumstances, can exact whatever terms it likes. I should like the Vice-President of the Executive Council to consider my suggestion, because it would be a very serious thing, especially with regard to records for gramaphones and instruments of that sort, not to make some modification of the provision in the British Act. I have circulated in print one or two amendments which, I think, may very well be inserted in this Bill. Sub-clause 6 of clause 10 reads -

This section shall have effect as the necessary modification of section 14 of the British Copyright Act.

– Perhaps the greatest country to-day for publications is the United States.

Senator KEATING:

– That may be ; but if the honorable senator agrees with the policy of the United States in this matter, I may tell him that the highest and the best authorities on copyright in that country Copinger and other American authorities - absolutely discountenance that position. If my honorable friend thinks that it is the best position, he is perfectly free to vote against this Bill, and to take up the opposite view. I regret very much that we are not able to make certain provisions which I should like to see. I certainly think that, in the present conditions, the Government are doing very well in making the provisions they have made for adopting the Imperial Act, and getting for Australia the benefit of the International Copyright Convention, and our own special provisions in clauses 15, 16, and 17. I believe that if we adopt the Imperial Act, with the additions and the modifications contained in this measure, subject to one or two amendments of a minor character, Australia will stand out conspicuous to the world as the foremost nation in the domain of copyright legislation.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I have very much pleasure in indorsing many of the remarks made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council in introducing this measure, and subsequent criticisms on it. There is no doubt that the Bill is going to achieve, at any rate, the main objects which are highly desirable; one is the uniformity of copyright with the Imperial Act, and the other is the reciprocity of rights between all those countries which are parties to the Berlin Convention. Another thing which is equally important is that authors are at last coming into their rights. There is no doubt that, in the past, publishers as a rule have had - there are honorable exceptions, of course - much the better of copyright legislation. Authors have materially suffered in the past, and are now being properly and materially protected by this legislation. So far as this scandal with regard to authors had gone, in the United Kingdom, a celebrated author, I think it was Johnson, parodied a line of Scripture with this very apt remark, “ Now there was a publisher, and his name was Barabbas.” That feeling has disappeared, and I congratulate the Government for assisting in both these directions. It is most extraordinary that it should ever have been considered that while the rights in real and personal property should subsist practically for all time, there was a doubt about giving to authors, so far as their works were concerned, anything like a right in property at all. Sergeant Talfourd began the battle in the House of Commons seventy odd years ago when he proposed, at last, to give to authors the right of copyright for sixty years. Unfortunately, Macaulay stood up in that House and for some reason or other which neither Macaulay nor anybody else was able to explain, he put in the period of forty years. That is the origin of the forty years’ right for an author after his death. I make this interpolation to show how this legislation is thrown back upon itself. In this Bill we have come back, as regards the term of the right of copyright, to Sergeant Talfourd of seventy odd years ago. The measure which we are asked to adopt was carefully considered in the House of Commons after conferences at Berne and Berlin. It was introduced early last year by the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Sydney Buxton, who made one or two remarks which I think may be useful in Committee in case of any fears about the general effect of the Bill. First, Mr. Buxton pointed out that the countries subject to this legislation were Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and so on. He mentioned that our representatives at the Conference of 1910 had stated their views, and that those views had been considered very carefully. In moving the second reading of the Bill he used these words -

The House will recognise that as far as the Dominions are concerned we have taken them into our confidence, and they have arrived at a more or less unanimous arrangement. Our first desire was unanimous that the Berlin Convention should be ratified with as few modifications as possible, thus combining national with Imperial uniformity, that there should be as much uniformity of copyright law throughout the Empire as possible…… Any self-governing

Dominions who desired could either adopt the Act in its entirety or adopt it in substantially identical terms subject to modifications and additions relating principally to procedure and remedies or necessary to adopt the Act to the particular circumstances of the Dominion, and such a Dominion would then come under the general operations of the Act.” …” The basis of the Imperial Conference and a Bill founded on its deliberations is that while we leave to the self-governing Dominions liberty to legislate for themselves, we offer to them the greatest possible inducements to accept the Imperial Act as a model, and to differ from it as little as possible by offering reciprocal advantages.”

Further on he said -

The House will see that the Berlin Convention, by proposing uniformity of treatment in regard to this question of copyright, necessarily involves alteration in the laws of respective countries. Every other union country has already before the Berlin Convention and certainly since brought its laws into harmony on most points with the Berlin suggestions, but we ourselves have not done so.

That was the reason why the Imperial Parliament passed the measure which we are now asked to adopt, with certain modifications. I notice that in section 3 the Imperial Act attempts to give, and 1 think it will succeed in giving, to authors a valuable right. It provides that if, after a certain number of years, their works are being published, they may make an arrangement with the publishers to get the royalties which are accruing. That is an excellent provision. If we had had such a law in existence long ago the greatest and most famous of all our authors, Marcus Clarke, and his relatives, would have derived a handsome income. It has been from the want of such a provision that our authors, especially Marcus Clarke, have been robbed, in some respects, of their property. On the whole, I heartily agree with the Bill. Some amendments may be found necessary when we get into Committee.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 -

In the application of the British Copyright Act to the Commonwealth -

the reference in section four to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall be read as a reference to the High Court or a Justice thereof ;

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

– I move -

That paragraph (i) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following new paragraph . -

the reference in sub-section (4) of section nineteen to arbitration shall be read as a reference to arbitration under the law of the State or territory in which the dispute occurs, and the reference in sub-section (6) of that section to the Board of Trade shall be read as a reference to the Governor-General;”

The Department considers that the amendment will have the effect of bringing the Bill more into conformity with the British Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause also verbally and consequentially amended and agreed to.

Clause 10 - (i.) Copies made out of the Commonwealth of any work in which copyright subsists which if made in the Commonwealth would infringe copyright, and as to which the owner of the copyright gives notice in writing by himself or his agent to the Comptroller-General of Customs that he is desirous that such copies should not be imported into the Commonwealth, shall not be so imported and shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be deemed to be prohibited imports within the meaning of the Customs Act 1901-1910. (6.) This section shall have effect as the necessary modification of section fourteen of the British Copyright Act.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

.- On behalf of Senator Vardon, I move -

That at the end of sub-clause (6) the following words be added : - “ but shall not apply to copies which have been purchased or made in some other part of

– No, it does not. The position asked for in the amendment is that the particular provision with regard to the importation of copies shall not be applicable to copies that come from any part of His Majesty’s Dominions to which this measure applies ; and if honorable senators will carefully read through the clause they will find that, unless the amendment be adopted, we may be shutting out importations from Great Britain itself. If the Government like to do that, the responsibility is theirs.

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

– A phase of the question that does not appear to have struck Senator Keating is this : A copyright Bill is a technical business from beginning to end, and looselydrafted amendments are likely to cause a great deal of trouble in the future to those who have to do with copyright. Suppose this amendment were carried, and the owner of a copyright in Canada assigned it to a person in New Zealand. Suppose that the work - it might be a book - was no infringement of the copyright law of New Zealand, and only circulated in that country under an assignment by the original owner. If this amendment were carried, the person in New Zealand could send copies into Australia, where he should have no right to send them.We do not want any business of that description to eventuate in the Commonwealth. I may also point out that, under the British Copyright Act, with respect to works published in countries outside the Copyright Union, the very same words exist as are adopted in this clause. I hope that honorable senators will not accept the amendment.

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

AYES: 5

NOES: 18

Majority … … 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I do not propose to move any amendment upon the clause, but I should like to have a little information from the Minister in charge of the Bill. The clause sets out that a work that is copyrighted in another Dominion, and which is an infringement of a work copyrighted here, may not be imported if the owner of the copyright here goes to the Comptroller of Customs and says that he desires that the infringement of his copyright should be kept out of the Commonwealth.

Senator Keating:

– In other words, as it stands, this is a big blackmailing clause.

Senator LYNCH:

– It appears to me that the owner of a work copyrighted here is to be the sole judge of whether a work which it is sought to import is an infringement of his copyright. If he desires that the work, which he says is an infringement, should be kept out, it is kept out, and there is no more about it. I wish to be sure that under this Bill a person introducing copies of a work copyrighted in another Dominion will be given a fair opportunity if he is challenged to show that it is not an infringement of a work copyrighted in Australia.

Senator McGregor:

– If the honorable senator will read sub-clause 2 of the clause he will find that everything he desires is provided for.

Senator LYNCH:

– The sub-clause to which 1 am referred reads -

Before detaining any such copy or taking any further proceedings with a view to the forfeiture thereof, the Comptroller-General of Customs or the Collector of Customs for the State may require the regulations under this section, whether as to information, conditions, or other matters, to be complied with, and may satisfy himself in accordance with those regulations that the copies are such as are prohibited by this section to be imported.

Senator McGregor:

– So that the owner of a copyrighted work here is not to be the sole judge of whether an imported work is an infringement of his copyright.

Senator LYNCH:

– I see that the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs is given authority to make inquiries which he may or may not avail himself of. I considered that the clause might enable an unscrupulous person to prevent the introduction of copies of a work which did not infringe his copyright by merely asserting that it did infringe it. I wished only to be sure that the clause provided a safeguard against such a thing, and the information supplied appears to me to be satisfactory.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses n to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 -

There shall be for the purposes of this Act an office called the Copyright Office.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– May I draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that clauses 23, 24, and 25 are also margined erroneously, and that, instead of referring to provisions in ‘the English Act, they adopt provisions in our own Act of 1905?

Senator MCGREGOR:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– - I am informed that if the alterations already indicated have been made, these references will be quite correct.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24 -

The Registrar of Copyrights shall have such powers and functions as are conferred upon him by this Act and the regulations.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.56].- On turning to clause 41, I find that -

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters which by this Act are required or permitted to be prescribed or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for giving effect to this Act or for the conduct of any business relating to the copyright office.

We are getting into a very careless system with regard to regulations. Very frequently regulations are laid before Parliament which really go far beyond the purposes of the Act under which they are made. I recognise that very often regulations are necessary for dealing with matters of detail, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that regulations should not be permitted - although they would be ultra vires if tested - to contain any matter which does not come fairly within the provisions of the Act. We are adopting, subject to certain modifications, the Copyright Act of Great Britain in its entirety, but no provision is made in that Act to enable regulations to be made concerning various matters. We, however, find it necessary to take power to deal with matters of detail by regulation. It is possible that not only the present Government, but preceding Governments, have been guilty of attempting to do much by means of regulations which ought to be done by Act of Parliament. This is really a matter which ought to be considered seriously.

Senator de Largie:

– Do you contend that the British Act does not provide for the making of regulations?

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD.- The British Act which is scheduled to this Bill contains no such provision. If it did, I would ask the Minister how far the regulations made under that Act would be binding upon us. Although the regulations made under an Act are laid before both Houses of Parliament, and it is open to any member of Parliament to object to a regulation, we nevertheless sometimes get saddled with provisions which really are not strictly in accord with the law under which they are made, but are acted upon until a decision of the Court is obtained. I hope that the Government will really take my remarks to heart, and see, not only in this case, but in every other case, that no attempt is made by regulations to introduce principles which differ from or override any of the principles which Parliament has enacted.

Senator McGREGOR:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– I appreciate the anxiety of Senator Gould to see that everything is done rightly, and I hope that in the future just as much caution will be observed in the framing of regulations as has been observed in the past.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– I hope that more caution will be observed.

Senator McGREGOR:

– Seeing that only three regulations have been upset in the history of this Parliament, I think that a very considerable amount of care has been exercised hitherto. This Bill will be administered in the Attorney-General’s Department, and his officers will have the drafting of the regulations.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– They are fallible.

Senator McGREGOR:

– Yes, as everybody is. Does anybody imagine that we are all to go through this world without making a mistake? If officers have to make regulations, it is only natural that, sometimes, they may make a mistake. We do not pretend to be infallible. But I can assure Senator Gould that every care will be taken. I would point out to him that when the officers of the Attorney-General realize that any regulations which exceed the powers conferred by this Bill will be ultra vires, they will be all the more careful in drafting them. But even if regulations which were ultra vires passed both Houses of Parliament unchallenged, I can assure the honorable senator that the fact would soon be discovered, and they would be returned to the Department in order that it might frame new regulations which would be in complete harmony with the Act. I know that Senator Gould admits that for the detailed working of any office, such as a Copyright Office, regulations must be framed, and I can assure him that in drafting them every care will be taken.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 - * ‘

Registration of copyright shall be optional, but the special remedies provided for by sections fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen of this Act can only be taken advantage of by registered owners.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– From the marginal note it appears that this clause owes its origin to the extra wisdom of the Attorney-General’s Department. Why it has been inserted, it is absolutely impossible to say. It affirms that the registration of copyright shall be optional. But there is no law which compels a person to copyright anything, and consequently, there is no reason for the appearance of the clause in the Bill. Then we get the marvellous information that the special remedies provided for by clauses 15, 16, and 17 can only be taken advantage of by registered owners. If we turn to section 15 we find that it sets out what a person may not do without the consent of the registered owner. Clause 16 declares what a justice of the peace may do on ‘ the application of the registered owner, and clause 17 relates to the power of the owner of a performing right to forbid a performance in infringement of his right. These clauses, it will be observed, specially mention the registered owner as the person who has particular rights in these matters. Why then should we insert a clause setting out that nobody is compelled to copyright a thing? Why a boy in the second class of a tenth-rate school knows that nobody but the registered owner can deal with these matters. According to the marginal note this clause is not taken from any Act in particular. Registration is purely optional.

Even Senator McGregor cannot be compelled to copyright his own speeches. I would suggest to the Vice-President of the Executive Council that he should consult his officers with a view to ascertaining whether there is any valid reason for retaining the clause.

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

– I think that Senator Chataway’s mind must be a little confused.

Senator de Largie:

– He is strong on marginal notes.

Senator McGREGOR:

– Marginal notes have evidently taken his attention entirely away from the subject-matter of the Bill. He was very earnest in saying that nobody can compel me to copyright my speeches. Nobody can compel anybody to copyright any work. The clause does not deal with copyright at all, but with registration, and there is a very great difference between the two things. Under the Imperial Act, which we are adopting, all the works of an individual are copyrighted without registration. In other words, they are his property without registration. That is where the Bill differs slightly from the Imperial Act. It provides that persons may register their copyrights if they choose to do so. That is the optional part of the Bill. If they are satisfied with the protection which is afforded them under the Imperial Act they will not register. But if they wish to obtain the benefits which will be conferred by clauses 15, 16. and 17, they will register their copyrights. I do not think it would be wise in the interests of many classes of authors in Australia to delete the clause.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

.- Generally speaking, in the countries which have anything in the nature of copyright law, registration is not essential to title in copyright. Publication and publication alone is the ground upon which the right of the individual author to prevent the unauthorized reproduction of his own works, rests. We follow that principle. The provisions to which reference is made in this clause are something in the nature of an innovation in the matter of protecting the rights of - authors and owners. Their effect is to enable an individual, without recourse to any judicial tribunal, to personally injunct others from infringing his rights. In. the clause now under consideration we provide that before he takes these extreme steps - before he avails himself of opportunities such as are extended to him in no other country in the world - he must be the registered owner of the copyright or the accredited representative of the registered owner. I think it is desirable that we should make some special provision for registration in certain cases, and that we should allow that registration to be optional. Take, for example, the production of a play, which may be staged in Melbourne- or Sydney, and which may be attracting large houses. It is conceivable that that play might be taken into the back portions of New South Wales, Queensland, or Tasmania, with the object of staging it under a different title, and a company might be prepared to perform it. Under clause 16 an opportunity would be afforded the owner of the copyright in that play to injunct every individual who was likely to take part in the performance, and to restrain the owner of the theatre in which the performance was to take place from allowing his theatre to be used for that purpose. These are extraordinary remedies which we afford to the owners of copyright, and in no other country in the world are they granted such a power of summary redress. If the owner of a copyright wishes to enjoy that right throughout the Commonwealth, the least he can do is to register himself as the owner of it. The same remark is applicable to copyright in books. Having * given the owners of copyright these rights, we may fairly ask them to register themselves so that they shall, at least, be identifiable. In asking that, we are not asking too much.

Clause agreed to.

– Not by the poor Starving author.

Senator CHATAWAY:

- Senator de Largie made an interjection to the effect that much of the matter sent to the Parliamentary Library is rubbish. That is absolutely true. We have sometimes to destroy hundred- weights, if not tons, of rubbish. If a man issues an advertisement in the form of a pamphlet or leaflet - it may be an advertisement for corsets issued by one of Senator Findley’s friends - a copy has to be sent to this Library. We do not bind such things. After a certain length of time the Chairman of the Library Committee, having inspected the pamphlets and leaflets, authorizes the Librarian to destroy such as it is not desired to keep. But the main point is that we have a right to insist that we shall receive a copy of every pamphlet or book published. Under this clause, while we profess to be copying the Imperial Act, we are not doing what the Imperial Act provides. These great Libraries in Great Britain pay enormous prices for manuscripts and documents, and have been built up as the result of the labour of years. The least we can do in Australia is to follow the example that has been pursued in the Old Country, and recognise that such important public institutions should receive copies of books published within the Commonwealth.

Clause agreed to.

Amendment- (by Senator McGregor) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 40A. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect the existing provisions of any Act of the Parliament of a State which require or relate to the delivery to any specified Public or other Library of the State of copies of books published in the State.”

Clause 41 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the Bill be reported with amendments.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I recognise that in addressing myself to this motion I am taking a somewhat unusual course, but I do so advisedly, and I shall not detain the Committee at any great length. I wish to express my’ sincere regret that the Bill is being returned from this Committee to the Senate in the form in which it now appears.

Senator Needham:

– Is that a reflection upon the Committee?

Senator KEATING:

– If the honorable senator chooses to take it as a reflection it is open to him to do so. We are presumed to have been considering this measure in Committee. Prior to the passing of this Bill we have had in the Commonwealth the most up-to-date copyright legislation, I shall not say in any Englishspeaking country, but in any part of the civilized world. We had two courses open to us, and we have decided to adopt the British Act, with such modifications as we think necessary. We have maintained in -the Bill now before us certain peculiar features characteristic of our own legislation on this subject. I do sincerely regret, however, that the Vice-President of the Executive Council and his colleagues have not seen fit to accept something in the nature of the amendment which, on behalf cf Senator Vardon, I had the honour to submit to the Committee. I point out to the Vice-President of the Executive Council, in all friendliness, the dangers that will beset the people of Australia if the Bill goes through in the form in which the Committee is about to report it to the Senate. I do not wish to re-open the discussion upon clause 10, or to take the unusual course of asking that the Bill should be recommitted for its further consideration, because I feel that the Vice-President of the Executive Council and his colleagues will realize their responsibility. In adopting this legislation we are adopting the British legislation, and honorable senators must recognise that Great Britain is a totally different country from Australia. In adopting clause 10 from “ i and 2 Geo. 5, c. 46, s. 14,” we are adopting a provision made in the United Kingdom to meet conditions with respect to importations of pirated copies, which are totally dissimilar from those which apply in Australia. Briefly, the provision to which we have agreed is that -

Copies made out of the Commonwealth of any work in which copyright subsists which, if made in the Commonwealth would infringe copyright, and as to which the owner of the copyright gives notice in writing by himself or his agent to the Comptroller- General of Customs that he is desirous that such copies should not be imported into the Commonwealth, shall not be so imported and shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be deemed to be prohibited imports within the meaning of the Customs Act 1901-1910.

We follow that with a certain number of paragraphs of consequential legislation. Let me point out that in Great Britain they have not to apprehend for a moment an incursion of the piracies that we have in Australia. If honorable members will read the schedule to this Bill, the English Act which we have .bodily adopted, they will find that copyright in the United Kingdom is divisible. That is to say, that an Englishman who has a copyright or performing right in a particular subject may assign the Canadian right to John Jones, the Australian right to William Smith, the New Zealand right to Thomas Brown, and so on. Having done so, it is quite competent for certain persons here, legitimately and in a bond fide way of business, to ask their agents at Home to buy in England, it may be, films for reproduction, mechanical means for the production of songs or music, moving picture photographs, or anything of that character. Having done so through’ their regular trading agents in London, they may find that some individual in Australia claims to have purchased the Australian rights in those things, and may hold them up at the Customs House. The provision will absolutely prevent such persons as those to whom I- have referred carrying on their ordinary business. I do not ask that the Vice-President of the Executive Council should reply to what I am saying now, but that he should take it into consideration. I have indicated the position in which people in Australia may, and I venture to say will, be placed if clause 10 is allowed to pass as it stands. I hope that before the Senate or another place have finally passed the Bill the possibilities under it of people preventing others from carrying on their legitimate business will be fully realized. The amendment which I submitted on behalf of Senator Vardon provided that, so long as these reproductions were turned out in any part of the British Empire to which this particular measure applies, the provisions of clause 10 should) not be applicable to them. We provide now by the Bill, as it stands, that anybody who claims to have a right to a copyrighted subject in Australia may go to the Comptroller-General of Customs, and ask him to prohibit the importation of certain things. The Comptroller-General is to satisfy himself that the application for the prohibition is bond fide. If, for instance, a certain piece of music becomes a “ craze “ in London, what is to prevent an individual in Australia exploiting it by purchasing the rights for Australia from the owner of the copyright in England? He will buy only the Australian rights. Then a firm carrying on legitimate business in Australia may cable an order to their London agents for 1,500 copies of the piece of music in question, and before they arrive a man walks into the Customs House, and says, “ You cannot land these, because I have the Australian rights.” That is the state of affairs which Senator Vardon sought to prevent by the amendment which I moved on his behalf. I hope that, even if the Bill leaves the Senate in its present form, the Government will realize the seriousness of the situation and the opportunities which clause. io, as it stands, affords- for blackmail. I used that word by inter jecfcion when the matter was being discussed, and I did so advisedly. The’ clause opens the door to blackmail, unless we insert a provision of the nature to which I have referred. I hope that the Government will see their way to do something, either in the Senate or in another place, to secure the insertion of a provision which will obviate the dangers by which I say clause 10, as it stands, is surrounded. I am sure that honorable senators who have been here for -some time take a peculiar pride in our own legislation. I agree that we should make it as watertight as possible, but, while doing so, we should make it as liberal and as just as possible, and we should make the penalties of any infringement of its principle as difficult as possible to avoid.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with amendments.

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

– - Before moving that the adoption of the report be an Order of the Day for to-morrow, I wish to make a statement in reply to a question asked with respect to the cost of the Copyright Office.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the pleasure of the Senate that the Vice-President of - the Executive Council have leave to make a statement?

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear !

Senator McGREGOR:

– I have ascertained that the total cost of the administration of patents, trade marks, designs, and copyrights amounts to£24,000 a year, and of that amount the administration of copyright is responsible for about ^1,000. I move -

That the adoption of the report be an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4527

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment.

page 4527

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator McGregor) agreed to -

That the Senate, at. its rising, adjourn until 3 p.m. to-morrow.

page 4527

ADJOURNMENT

Case of Mr. E. A. Harden: Order of Business

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the- Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I desire to acquaint Ministers with the gist of a matter concerning which I have given notice of a question. I want them to be fully seized of the facts before answering . the question, in order to avoid the possibility of a controversy. It relates to Mr. E. A. Harden, who has been in the employment of the Post and Telegraph Department for a period of from twenty to thirty years. I believe that he has been an excellent officer, and, so far as I know, there is no black mark against him. A few months ago he applied for the usual six months’ leave of absence on full pay, to which he is entitled according to a regulation. My question, I may mention, is simply as to whether the regulation has been repealed. He was informed by Mr. H. B. Templeton that his application was made under a misapprehension. On the 23rd July he wrote to the Deputy PostmasterGeneral at Brisbane the following letter:-

I beg to respectfully inform you that my. request of the 12th inst. for payment equal to six months’ salary was not submitted under any misapprehension of the meaning of regulation 89 of Provisional Regulations under the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902-11, as is understood by every friend without exception to whom I have shown it and myself. My faithful services have continued over twenty and extend to thirty years. I have never had the leave of absence referred to in the regulations above-mentioned, and in retiring from the Commonwealth Public Service I made what I venture to believe is the correct application for the equivalent to tbe leave of absence or furlough alluded to. My retirement has been permitted, and I respectfully think that I am entitled to the grant named in the said regulation. If the reading that I and many persona both in and outside the Commonwealth Service have placed on the said regulation is wrong, let me ask you to kindly advise me in your opinion what should be the correct reading, and I shall esteem it a favour.

On the 2nd August Mr. Harden received the following reply: -

In reply to your communication of tbe 23rd ultimo, I have to inform you that the regulation referred to, which is made under the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1911, does not apply in the case of an officer who voluntarily retires before he reaches the statutory age. It only operates in such a case when the officer is retired by the GovernorGeneral through permanent incapacity or for departmental reasons.

I want to draw particular attention to that reply. It states practically that, unless an officer who has served for twenty years or more is retired owing to incapacity, or has reached the statutory age, which, I believe, is sixty-five years of age, he cannot get the leave of absence which is laid down in the regulation. Now, what is the regulation? Unless it has been altered, it is as follows: - 89. (1) When an officer has continued in the Public Service at least twenty years, the GovernorGeneral may grant to him, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, leave of absence for a period not exceeding twelve months on half-pay, or six months on full pay. Where an officer not having been granted such leave of absence retires from the Public Service after at least twenty years’ service, the GovernorGeneral, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, may grant such officer six months’ pay upon retirement -

I do not wish to embarrass the Government in any way. Here appears to be a perfectly clear case, where a man, without a black mark against his name, has retired from the Public Service, and, although he has done all that is necessary, either ‘the Commissioner or the Department has refused him what it is absolutely laid down in the regulation shall be granted. There is only one other explanation that I can give for this refusal, and that is that this gentleman, belongs to the Post and Telegraph Department. He was largely engaged in the Savings Bank branch - certainly . a State section at that time. He thought fit to retire from the Commonwealth Post and Telegraph Department and take an important position in the Savings Bank business under the State. I throw all my cards upon the table, and ask the proper Minister to ascertain for me whether it is not a fact that Mr. Harden is deprived of his legitimate rights under the Public Service Act because he has thought fit to leave the Commonwealth Public Service and go back into the State Public Service, if you like to call it going back. Apparently he is being victimized to the extent of half-a-year’s salary. My papers are available to the Minister if he wishes to see them, and when he answers my question to-morrow, as I hope he will, I trust that he will bear in mind that I have fully posted him as to the reason why I have made the inquiry. Ishould like the Vice-President of the

Executive Council to tell us what will be the order of business for to-morrow.

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

– The order of business for tomorrow will be the adoption of the report of. the Committee on the Copyright Bill, the third reading of the Sugar Bounty Bill,, and the consideration of the amendment made by the other House in the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Bill. There will also be the consideration of private business, and the resumption of the debate on the Budget-papers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 9.53 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 October 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1912/19121023_senate_4_67/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate23 October 1912

QUESTION

MANNING OF SYDNEY FORTS

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

IMPORTED AMERICAN APPLES

Senator READY:TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

HIGH COURT

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

REFERENDA PROPOSALS

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

PAPERS

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: INCREASES

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN MATCH INDUSTRY

Senator BLAKEY:VICTORIA

Senator FINDLEY:ALP

QUESTION

COLONEL WALLACE

Senator McDOUGALL:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

PHOSPHATIC DEPOSITS

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator FINDLEY:ALP

QUESTION

FEDERAL TERRITORY: REPRESENTATION

Senator RAE:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator KEATING:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Keating:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

STORM WARNINGS

Senator LYNCH:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator LYNCH:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

SIGNED ARTICLES

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:ALP

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS:

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Rae:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Fraser:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator GIVENS:Queensland

Senator Keating:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Keating:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Millen:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Keating:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Keating:

Senate
23 October 1912

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

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

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator BLAKEY:
VICTORIA

Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

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

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator VARDON:
South Australia