Senate
6 November 1912

4^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- SUGAR COMMISSION
QUESTION
- CADET DRILL
PAPERS
QUESTION
- CRUISER “ BRISBANE
QUESTION
- KARRI SLEEPERS
QUESTION
- MAP OF AUSTRALIA
PRESIDENT’S RULING
COPYRIGHT BILL
NAVIGATION BILL
ADJOURNMENT

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

page 5037

QUESTION

SUGAR COMMISSION

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

– Can the VicePresident of the Executive Council tell me when it is expected that the report of the Royal Commission on the Sugar Industry trill be tabled?

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

– The only reply I can give to the question is that the report will be tabled as soon as it is available.

page 5037

QUESTION

CADET DRILL

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister of

Defence in a position yet to give the information I sought to obtain from him the other day as to the truth or otherwise of statements appearing in print to the effect that the Postal Department at Hobart has declined to allow employes there time off to complete their military training?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Reports have been called for in the matter, but they are not yet to hand.

page 5038

PAPERS

MINISTERS, laid upon the table the following papers -

Census and Statistics Act 1905- Regulations relating to return of Trade Union Statistics. - Statutory Rules 1912, No. 216.

Defence Act1903-1912.- Military Forces.Regulations amended - Provisional. - Statutory Rules 1912, No.209.

Lands Acquisition Act 1906. - Land acquired - For Postal purpose -

At Kojonup, Western Australia.

At Granville, New South Wales.

At Cockburn; South Australia.

At Mundijong, W.cstern Australia.

At Gimlet, Western Australia.

At Claremont, Western Australia - For

Defence purposes.

Naval Defence Act 1910-1911. - Universal Training. - Provisional Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1912, No. 210.

Postmaster-General’s Department : Papers relating to Supply under contract of Mailbag Labels.

Public Service Act 1902-1911. - Promotion of C. S. Daley to position of Clerk, 4th Class, Public Works Branch, Ceutr.il Staff, Department of Home Affairs.

page 5038

QUESTION

CRUISER “ BRISBANE

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister of Defence state when the cruiser Brisbane, which is being built in Sydney, is expected to be launched?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– No. The time of construction was 26 months, dating from 1st August last. We are not able yet to indicate any date for the launching of the cruiser.

page 5038

QUESTION

KARRI SLEEPERS

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

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

Will the Minister lay on the table of the Senate all papers in connexion with the adoption of karri sleepers in the construction of the Transcontinental Western Railway, and all reports thereon?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Yes.

page 5038

QUESTION

MAP OF AUSTRALIA

Senator READY:
for Senator Keating

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

What is the present state of progress in the preparation of the official map of Australia, and when is it anticipated that same will be completed ?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

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

The drawing of the map is complete, and proofs will, it is anticipated, be available in about one month, which, when received, ate to be referred to the State Surveyors-General for revision. The completed map. will probably be available early next year.

page 5038

PRESIDENT’S RULING

Debate resumed from 1st November (vide page 5007), on motion by Senator Givens -

That the ruling of the President be disagreed with on the ground that it would be subversive of the due protection of senators, and is not in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Standing Orders.

Senator GIVENS:
[Queensland

.- I do not intend to occupy more than a very few minutes in offering to the Senate-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I forgot that the honorable senator has already spoken on this question.

Senator GIVENS:

– No, sir; you would not allow me to speak, and I handed in my notice of dissent.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Which has been seconded.

The PRESIDENT:

-The honorable senator could have spoken when he handed in the notice of dissent, and before the motion was seconded.

Senator Chataway:

– This is an adjourned debate.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am rather pleased, sir, that Senator Givens has continued the objection which I offered to the ruling of the Chairman, and has given the Senate an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to your own ruling. I have no personal feeling in this matter, but I hold very strongly the view that there should be the same rules for those who sit on one side as for those who sit on the other.

Senator Fraser:

– Is that in order? It is a reflection on the Chair.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not reflecting upon any one, nor have I such a desire. During the debate on Friday, two occasions occurred when I rose and asked for the withdrawal of something which Senator Millen had said, and a withdrawal was refused. While the matter was being discussed in the Senate, Senator Gould, an exPresident, asked that an interjection by Senator Needham be withdrawn, and immediately you turned to Senator Millen and . asked if he desired to have the expression withdrawn, and he having expressed that desire, the Senate had to take action because Senator Needham had refused to withdraw the statement. When the dispute between Senator Rae and the Chairman originated, I asked that Senator Millen be requested to withdraw a statement which he had applied to Senator Rae.

Senator Fraser:

– The matter had lapsed.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Chairman informed me that he could not deal with two matters at the one time, and therefore he was of the opinion that the matter had not lapsed. It appears that the Chairman’s ruling was upheld by the President, because what I should have asked was that the words of Senator Millen be taken down. My contention is that a similar answer should have been given to Senator Gould when he called upon Senator Needham to withdraw a statement. It has become a. custom here that, when an honorable senator uses an expression which any other honorable senator considers offensive, the mere drawing of the Chair’s attention to the use of the offensive language has generally brought about its withdrawal.

Senator de Largie:

– On almost every occasion.

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Gardiner:

– I took the objection whilst you were asking Senator Rae to withdraw his remark.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I - I admit that the honorable senator got up to make an objection, but it was not made when Senator

Millen used the words complained of. If Senator Gardiner had objected to those words at the time they were used, it would have been a different matter. But he did not. I do not believe that Senator Gardiner holds the opinion that bias was shown by the presiding officers.

Senator Gardiner:

– Not bias, but different treatment.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I - I am very sorry indeed that Senator Gardiner should repeat what he said in his opening remarks, that he believed that different treatment was meted out. I am quite content to leave myself in the hands of honorable senators, no matter on which side of the chamber they may sit. As far as I am concerned, different treatment has not been meted out to one side from that accorded to the other.

Senator Rae:

– There ought to be a little more lenient treatment meted out to the Opposition, because they are so weak.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I - I do not think that that has anything to do with the matter. Senator Gardiner’s objection was entirely on the ground that he was not given an opportunity for objection to Senator Millen’s words at the time they were used, and that he took the first available opportunity. I say that I had no option to do other than I did, because Senator Gardiner did not take the proper opportunity of objecting, nor did he ask for Senator Millen’s words to be taken down when they were used. But if Senator Gardiner, or any other honorable senator, can, after an incident has been closed, ask for it to be re-opened-

Senator Givens:

– Senator Gardiner distinctly called attention to Senator Millen’s words when they were uttered. Here is the uncorrected report of Hansard, which shows that positively.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I - I also have read the uncorrected Hansard report, and my recollection is that- it is different from what Senator Givens has said. The report shows distinctly that Senator Gardiner did not take objection at the proper time.

Senator Givens:

– He did. He said -

If a statement is made by one honorable senator, and another honorable senator takes exception to the statement by asking for its withdrawal, do not the rules compel an immediate withdrawal and the acceptance of the disclaimer.

Senator Givens:

– All we ask is that the Standing Orders should be strictly adhered to.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– W - We have either to adhere to the Standing Orders or to dissent from the President’s ruling ; and, in the latter case, the Standing Orders will have to be altered.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [3.36]. - I thought that this matter was likely to pass off with a very little discussion. Senator O’ Keefe has entered into the controversy with a good deal of force, and, perhaps, with more vehemence than was at all necessary.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - I do not think that I imported any feeling into the matter, but I could not allow Senator Gardiner’s charges to pass unnoticed.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– It is not a question of feeling. I do not think that Senator O’Keefe-, seeing that his position is entirely unassailed as far as the question now before us is concerned, need have intervened. My honorable friend, as Chairman of Committees, gave a ruling on Friday against which there was an appeal. You, sir, in the usual manner, in conformity with the Standing Orders, heard that appeal, which was dismissed. Upon that ruling, the present appeal to the Senate was made. That is the whole matter. I do not think, with all due. deference to Senator O’Keefe, that his share in the business is at present in controversy. The whole question is simply whether your ruling, on the facts which were presented to you, is to be upheld. Upon the facta themselves, you had only the report that was presented to you by the Chairman of Committees. The words objected to were not taken down in writing. You had to act upon the report made by the high officer occupying the chair. That report was made to the highest officer in the Senate. Many, of us are not competent to form an opinion upon the facts at all. There is provided by the Standing Orders a method by which words which may be used in debate are to be taken down and placed” upon record. That course was not adopted in this instance. <Many of us are, therefore, entirely in §ie dark in dealing with the question, and coming to a decision upon it. Our knowledge of the course of events, the objections raised, and the order in which they followed or were dealt with we must accept from the Chairman of Committees. Senator O’Keefe had no need to defend himself in the exercise of the duties of his official position. He must deal, and we must assume that he will deal, honestly and fairly as between honorable senators in the discharge of his duties. If we once permitted an inquiry into the facts presented to the Senate, and upon which the President gives his ruling, we should never know where we were. We must act upon the report of the facts communicated to the Senate by the Chairman of Committees.

Senator Barker:

– The facts may be called in question.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– No; the Chairman of Committees may be wrong in his report as to the facts, but the Senate does not sit in judgment upon his report. His statement of the facts is that on which the President and the Senate act in debating the matter. We cannot in the Senate settle the difference of opinion as to the facts between the Chairman of Committees and Senator Gardiner. The question is whether the ruling of the President could be set aside, on the ground stated by Senator Givens, that it is subversive of the privileges of honorable senators, and that it is contrary to the Standing Orders. I do not agree at all with Senator Gould’s proposition that we must accept any ruling from the Chair. We may disagree with it, although we may fully believe that it was honestly and fairly given. It would be a sorry day for the Senate if we debated the ruling of the President on the ground that he displayed favoritism, or an absence of honesty and honour in the exercise of his duty. I disagree entirely with Senator

– The question is, whether I was right in taking a point of order.

Senator PEARCE:

– The offensive words were not directed to the honorable senator, and the Standing Orders do not give him a right to claim protection for another honorable senator.

Senator Rae:

– Another honorable senator raised the point of order against Senator Needham.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator RAE:

– The honorable senator has been reading Hansard more closely than I have done. At any rate, Senator Gardiner did raise the point. It appears to me that if there is any one against whom we should complain in this case it is the lawyers who have intervened in the debate, and who have befogged the mattet with technicalities. The three honorable senators who happen to be lawyers who have spoken on this question have, I think, justified the general distrust of the community in the expensive proceedings in which members of their profession are employed.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator must discuss the question.

Senator RAE:

– I thought I had been discussing it pretty closelv. I wish now to reply to some of the ridiculous legal interpretations put upon our proceedings by the three legal senators - Senator Gould, Senator Symon and Senttor St. Ledger. Senator Gould maintained, practically, that the rilling of the President should he upheld, right or wrong, in order that the dignity of the Chair might be maintained. Senator Svmon claimed that the report of the Chairman of Committees to the Presi dent should be accepted, and that there should be no question whatever concerning the facts as he stated them. I think I

– That also was after the point of order had been taken by myself.

Senator GIVENS:

– The Chairman said that Senator Rae was first.

Senator Millen:

– The Chairman decided that I was correct, and that the point of order was first taken by myself.

Senator GIVENS:

– He stated clearly enough, according to the report, that Senator Rae took his point of order first. I may briefly go over what occurred. Senator Rae made a speech in Committee on a clause of the Navigation Bill. In the course of that speech, he made some reflections upon the magistracy of the country generally, and stated that, although he was one of the unpaid magistrates himself, speaking generally, they were not a very admirable crowd. Senator Millen followed Senator Rae, and, in his usual very clever way, immediately twisted that into a statement by Senator Rae that he was in favour of anarchy, or something to that effect. In order to be perfectly fair to Senator Millen, I shall read from the Hansard proof exactly what he said -

If it serves no other purpose the speech of Senator Une is extremely interesting as being an open and avowed declaration of anarchy.

Senator Millen:

– No point of order was raised on that remark.

Senator GIVENS:

- Senator Rae interjected, “ It was nothing of the kind,” and Senator Millen then went on to say -

The honorable senator has said here, as plainly as words can convey, that if any individual entertained a bond fide genuine disbelief in the integrity or impartiality of magistrates, that was an excuse for him to disregard their decisions.

I listened very carefully to Senator Rae’s speech, and I unhesitatingly say that that is a gross misrepresentation of what he said.

Senator Millen:

– Perhaps the honorable senator will read the following remarks, which show what Senator Rae admits having said.

Senator GIVENS:

– I shall read them-

Senator Rae:

– I did not. I said that distrust of the magistracy had been amply justified, and it is a deliberate falsehood for the honorable senator to say what he said.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator say that he is reading from an uncorrected proof ? The proof handed to me by Hansard does not contain words which he has read into the statement of Senator Rae.

Senator GIVENS:

– This is the Hansard proof that I have here.

Senator Millen:

Senator Millen:

– I rise to order.

Senator Rae:

Senator Rae:

– I will not, because if Senator Millen repeats the statement, I will say that it is not so.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator to withdraw the statement.

Senator Rae:

– I will withdraw from the Chamber, sir, if you like.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator to withdraw the statement.

Senator Rae:

– I will not withdraw the statement, because it is so. With all respect to you, sir, I would sooner leave the Chamber.

Honorable Senators. - Chair, chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order. I ask Senator Rae to withdraw the statement.

Senator Rae:

– No, I will not. I never withdraw anything once I say it.

Senator Gould:

– The honorable senator ought to be made to withdraw from the Chamber, and no doubt the Chairman will take the proper course.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Senator Rae might trust the Chair to take the necessary action to protect him ; but, as a first step, he, in my opinion, must withdraw bis statement.

I think the Chairman was quite right in that. Senator Rae should have obeyed the Chair, and should have withdrawn his statement. He did not do so, and he suffered the consequent punishment. But that did not excuse Senator Millen from non-compliance with the” Standing Orders, or Senator O’Keefe, as Chairman of Committees, for not enforcing upon Senator Millen compliance with- the Standing Orders. Senator Millen was himself the cause of the whole trouble. Senator Rae got into trouble because of language used by Senator Millen, which he considered offensive, and yet Senator Millen gets off scot free. That is what I am complaining of.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - I think another statement was made, and a very strong one, which does not appear in the Hansard report.

Senator GIVENS:

– I am not trusting in the matter to any one’s memory. I have read from the uncorrected Hansard proof the report of what occurred. As showing his willingness to comply with the Standing Orders, I can read the following remarks by Senator Rae -

Senator RAE:

– May I ask, sir, will Senator Millen first withdraw his statement, because, if I withdraw my statement, and he does not withdraw his statement, I shall have to make it again ?

The PRESIDENT:

– J understand that Senator Rae has withdrawn the first statement which he made. A motion for * suspension has been moved. Is it the pleasure of the Senate that the motion be withdrawn ?

Senator McGregor:

– 1 ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator GIVENS:

– I have no more to add. 1 have stated, as fairly as 1 could, the case in favour of the motion. 1 believe that the ruling of the President, if upheld, will be subversive of the due protection of senators, and I do r.ot think that, even bv a straining of the Standing Orders, it can be construed as being in accordance with them, because they are framed to nf? rd senators due protection from offensive or insulting remarks, or expressions or misrepresentations which may be regarded as offensive. If the ruling of the President is to remain, then senators will not have that protection which, I take it, is intended to be afforded to them, both by the spirit and the letter of the Standing Orders. I commend my motion to honorable senators, and 1 hope that it will be decided entirely on its merits.

The PRESIDENT:

– There are one or two remarks which I wish to make before the question is put. 1 do not think that Senator Gardiner meant to apply to myself the remark that honorable senators on the other side of the chamber- are treated differently. I think that I can pass over that remark, because I do not believe that it was intended in the sense in which it would generally be taken. There is no reason why I should take offence at honorable senators generally disagreeing with a ruling, and I trust that no such impression exists. The Chair may, in the opinion of honorable senators, make a mistake, and they are quite justified in taking exception to a ruling. The Chair, T take it, considers the questions which are raised, and decides on the statements of fact, and the representations made by various honorable senators, lt has’ been stated that the practice has not been strictly followed of asking that the words complained of be taken down. I admit that the Standing Orders have not been followed, because the practice has been that, when’ an expression has been used which has been deemed to be unparliamentary, some honorable senator has risen to a point of order, and called the attention of the Chair to the fact that unparliamentary words have been used, and the Chair has asked the honorable senator using the expression to withdraw it. On the other hand, when it has been a personal matter, it has been the practice for the honorable senator who took exception to say that the expression was offensive to him. I should like to point out that an expression mav be used which may be offensive to one honorable senator and not offensive to any other honor.nb’e senator. Consequents, an honorable senator who thought a remark offensive, has risen and said that the remark was offensive, and asked that it be withdrawn, and invariably it has been withdrawn. So far as this general di-bate is concerned, a great deal of extraneous matter has been dragged in. I have nothing to add to the ruling I gave on Friday. I have read very carefully the report of the ruling, and I cannot see that, on the facts which were put before me at the time, or the statements made by honorable senators who were invited to speak, there is anythingI can add to what I then said.

Question - That the President’s ruling be disagreed with - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 15

Majority …. … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 5057

COPYRIGHT BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with an amendment.

page 5057

NAVIGATION BILL

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message resumed from 1 st November, vide page 5007) :

Clause 99 -

The acts specified in Column 1 hereunder shall be offences against discipline, and a seaman or apprentice committing any one of them shall be liable to a punishment not exceeding the punishment set opposite to the offence in Column 2 hereunder : -

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– Senator Guthrie intends to follow up this amendment by another one practically abolishing the monetary penalty. He proposes that the penalty shall be that the seaman’s discharge shall be withheld from bim. That is practically the only penalty that the honorable senator would impose. Senator Guthrie and I came to cross purposes on Thursday last over this matter j and as. Hansard has been quoted to-day, I venture to hope that the honorable senator will look up what he said when the matter was last under consideration. I have taken the opportunity of doing so, and will quote from the discussion that took place. Senator Guthrie said -

The Minister asserted that there is no such provision in the Merchant Shipping Act. I say that it was the Minister who made a wrong statement. The English Act of 1906 provides that if a man fails to join his ship the superintendent may withhold his previous discharge. But there is no penalty.

I was under the impression that the Merchant Act imposed a more severe penalty than this Bill does, and I said -

That is a pretty drastic punishment, is it not?

Senator Guthrie replied

It is not so drastic a penalty as ?20.

Yet the honorable senator is now practically proposing to put in a penalty which, he says, is not so drastic as a fine of £20. When I alluded on Friday to the seriousness of depriving the seaman of his discharge, Senator Guthrie said -

A discharge is not worth a snap of the fingers at the present time. The honorable senator can ship to-morrow as an A.B. or a fireman.

Later on, the honorable senator said -

There are hundreds of men going to sea to-day without a discharge.

Consequently, the honorable senator is now proposing to put into this Bill, as a penalty, the loss of something which he says is not worth a snap of the fingers.

Senator Guthrie:

– At the present time. But this Bill is going to alter all that.

Senator PEARCE:

– There is no provision in the Bill for the cancellation of a discharge, and if a man’s last discharge is held up by the Minister, he can simply go to sea on his previous discharge.

Senator Lynch:

– No; that is always cancelled.

Senator PEARCE:

– It all comes back to the old position. We want men to have a sense of their responsibility and to realize what the signing of agreements entails, and we do not want to give encouragement to the practice of breaking agreements, because we say that that practice gives the crimp his opportunity. It is always in such cases that the crimp comes in. The evidence taken before the Royal Commission shows that crimps actually get seamen to enter into agreements with the intention of inducing them to break them at the last moment, in order to afford them an opportunity of supplying other men. This penalty will deter men from lending themselves to that practice. I ask the Committee to agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives ; and when we come to the next amendment I shall be prepared to ask the Committee to reduce the penalty from£20 to £10.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I have listened patiently to the reasons put forward by the Minister for the insertion of this sub-clause and penalty, and I do not think that the amendment of the House of Representatives would prevent crimping at all. Seeing that a seaman would probably have no goods and chattels, there would probably be as good a chance of recovering the penalty if it were £100, instead of £20. It is very hard to impose a penalty upon a man who refuses to go to sea in a ship because he considers her unseaworthy. The whole question hinges on the words “ reasonable cause.”

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

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - That would be a reasonable cause, under the Bill.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– In reply to an interjection, the Minister said that an expert would decide whether a ship was fit to go to sea or not. I am in the trade, and I remember pointing out that a certain steamer was unfit to go to sea, and a fireman came ashore from that ship half anhour before she left the port. His substitute never returned. He was scalded to death before the ship was out one hour. Experts had definitely stated that that ship was seaworthy, both before and after the occurrence ; and under this Bill a man who came ashore in such circumstances, and who would probably lose his life if he did not do so, might be subjected to a penalty of £20. That does not say much for expert opinion. I say that if a man believes that his life will be in danger on any ship, he should have the right to say that he will not go to sea -in her. With Senator Guthrie, I do not believe in making the breaking of a civil agreement a criminal offence. I shall vote against the amendment of the House of Representatives. I believe that, in regard to the preservation of life, and in the interests of seamen and passengers, the Bill as it left this Chamber was a good measure; but it has come back from another place a complete wreck, and is absolutely useless, so far as the interests of seamen are concerned. No proper consideration was given to these amendments in another place. Their discussion was confined to about half-a-dozen honorable members ; and almost every amendment, no matter in whose interests it was proposed, was accepted in order to get the Bill through. I hope the Committee will disagree with this amendment, though I am not altogether in favour, of the amendment proposed by Senator Guthrie. I think it is an improvement on the proposal of the Minister.

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

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator STEWART:

– I should not object to my few pence being handed over. I do not think it would matter two straws to me if I had a million ; I should still be against the system which produces millionaires. But for that system, there would be no such society functions. Who will be at this ball ? With the exception of a few members of Parliament, invited because of their public position, the whole of the people present will belong to the smart set, the rich people, who have large possessions and who have the. masses in their power. I am speaking now wholly and solely as a member of the Labour party. We are here as a party to secure, if we can, a readjustment of social conditions, and to try to bring about a more equal distribution of the wealth of the country. It is our work to eliminate poverty. I am one who believes that that cannot be done without depriving the rich of a very large proportion of the possessions which they now have. I object to doing anything which will in the slightest degree countenance these functions. I think the question is a most serious one. Indeed, the more

I consider it, the more I am satisfied that we, as representatives of a reform party, of a party which desires to bring about a complete revolution in the existing] state of society, ought to object to everything of this character.

Senator Long:

– We certainly should object to subordinate the business of this Parliament to a social function.

Senator STEWART:

Senator LONG:

– No amount of funny business on trie Minister’s part will excuse him for misleading the Senate; and I am going to prove the assertion that I have just made. When this officer was transferred to London, he was not given any allowance, as were other officers who had been sent Home in a temporary capacity. I pointed that fact out to the Government last session, believing that they would recognise the justice of the officer’s claim, place him on the same footing as other officers, and give him the regular allowance over and above his salary. The Vice-President of the Executive Council told the Senate that there was never any doubt about the permanency of Mr. Savage’s appointment, and that he went Home to the High Commissioner’s

Office in the full knowledge that his transfer was to be, from the time of his arrival, of a permanent character. But what are the facts? In answer to a question addressed to the Government by myself during the present session, it was shown that the facts were as I stated them to be last session. I asked the Government the date of the transfer from Australia of Mr. F. Savage to the High Commissioner’s Office, London, and the date of his permanent appointment to his present position. The Vice-President of the Executive Council replied -

Mr. Savage left Melbourne on the 30th March, 1906, and took up his duties in the Commonwealth office, London, on the 30th April, 1906. His permanent appointment to the High Commissioner’s office dates from 1st April, 1910.

That was almost four years after he had been transferred from the service in Australia. I made the same statement to the Senate when I addressed myself to the question last session, and the facts were denied in toto by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, acting on the advice of the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs. In Hansard for last year, page 4193, Senator McGregor, in reply to a statement of mine, is reported to have said -

The permanency of his appointment is beyond all doubt. Seeing that this gentleman was anxious to go to London and occupies a very good position, and seeing that the ^100 has been granted to him as a solatium, I think that everything that could be done fairly has been done.

Later on, dealing with the statement of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, I said -

I assert again, notwithstanding the contradiction of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, that this officer did go to London with the understanding that the appointment was of a temporary character.

The answer that the Government gave to my question during the present session proves beyond any doubt whatever that Mr. Savage occupied his position in london for nearly four years before its permanency was confirmed. Further, I said, last year -

If there is a possibility of establishing this position beyond the shadow of a doubt from the files of the Department, I am going to have it established, notwithstanding the assurance that the Vice-President of the Executive Council has received from the Secretary of External Affairs.

I direct the special attention of the VicePresident of the Executive Council to the information supplied through him, and to the fact that it has had, and could have,

[I85]-:

– We may leave to honorable senators opposite the privilege of being personal. I shall not mention the honorable senators to whom I refer, beyond saying that they were members of the Opposition. If the Government were short of business to go on with, what in the name of all that is reasonable was there to prevent them giving private members an opportunity to discuss their business this evening? In another place, with the object of bringing the session to a close as quickly as possible, private members’ business has been superseded, and presently, no doubt, we shall have the representatives of the Government in the

Senate commandeering the time allotted to honorable senators for the discussion of private business.

Senator Rae:

– Commandeering the time and guillotining the business?

Senator LONG:

– I thank the honorable senator for that expression. It describes the proposal that is likely to be made, and I say that if such a proposal meets with opposition from this side, the Government will have only themselves to blame for it. There is a number of matters of great urgency and extreme importance on our business-paper which might have been’ dealt with. I do not propose to refer to them now, because I am not anxious to delay the progress of business. I understand that at least eight or nine other honorable senators wish to address themselves to the question, and I shall not detain the Senate at any great length, except to express the admiration I feel for the courage displayed by Senator Sayers, who is the only member of the Opposition who has remained in his place. I am satisfied from what I know of him that the honorable senator will join in the protest against the suspension of business for the purpose which has been referred to so often this evening. I hope to hear his invectives directed at the Government. In order that I may not be accused of being an obstructionist, I shall not longer delay the putting of the question, contenting myself, in conclusion, with the expression of the hope that this is the last occasion on which we shall be asked to subordinate the business of Australia to any social function.

Senator READY:
Tasmania

.- Whilst at first I was opposed to the idea of adjourning for a social function, I am convinced, now that I have heard the speeches that have been delivered during the evening, that much good has come from the morion for the adjournment. The country and the Senate would have been the losers had there not been this opportunity provided for the splendid and scholarly address on the land question delivered by Senator Stewart. The intelligence of honorable senators has been sharpened and invigorated by the speech of Senator Gardiner, who spoke of the need for erecting tents for our accommodation on the Federal Capital site, and added a little homily on the fiscal question. The motion also gave occasion for the striking impeachment of his party which we had from Senator Long. It showed the country that many of us who sit on this side are not subservient to the Caucus, but are able, when the occasion serves, as it does to-night, to thunder forth defiance, bloodshed, and murder at the Government that we support. The country will know, too, that honorable senators are ready to take every opportunity to ventilate every little grievance. I am glad that I have not donned my dress suit and gone to the dance.

Honorable Senators. - Why didn’t you?

Senator READY:

– Well, I did not get an invitation.

Senator McGregor:

– Have you got a dress suit?

Senator READY:

I mentioned a few nights ago, that there was a limitation on the area which could be given away in free grants at the time in question, and I was asked for more conclusive proof of my statement. I shall give it now. According to this work, page 134, the largest grant that would be made to any fresh settler without purchase at that time was 2,560 acres; the smallest 320 acres. Notwithstanding this, we find that many of the forefathers of the present land-holders jobbed and obtained the land on all kinds of pretences from the Government. They practically “peacocked “ the eyes out of little Tasmania. Mr. Melville gives some very striking facts dealing with this matter. I should like to read the whole volume, but I am afraid that even Senator Stewart, interested as he is in this question, would scarcely like me to do so at this stage.

Senator STEWART:

– Is the book to which the honorable senator refers in the Parliamentary Library?

Senator READY:

– It is. Mr. Melville wrote -

The land jobbing system which has been carried on with impunity would astonish, were it possible to be made public; men who ten years* since were almost penniless have by some unaccountable means become land-holders of 10 to 30,000 acres.

At this time, an Ordinance was in force under which no man had a right to acquire more than 2,000 acres. -

Surveyors whose salaries were nominally but trifling, have been most fortunate in the jobbing, and have amassed wealth with a rapidity truly astonishing. What is the most extraordinary portion of the system which has been allowed, is, that the Government surveyors have been permitted to measure their- own land, either granted or purchased - and in a very large grant a few hundred acres, more or less, is of trifling import; it would be invidious to point out any one individual as having so .done, when the system to this day is general. The land jobbing has been carried on from the very highest to the very lowest of Government 06cers, even ‘His Excellency the LieutenantGovernor, besides possessing large funded property, is a very extensive land-holder; and with such an example before him, some of ,his leading friends have outstripped him in the number of acres, if not in the value of the propetty.

In other words, the Lieutenant-Governor himself set an example by being a land jobber of the first water. Upon .the need for small holdings, and the settlement upon them of a healthy rural population, the writer says -

The Home Government has thought’ proper not to attend to the prayers of the land-owners; and yet not a single individual ever talks of abandoning his estate - indeed, were the large land-owners more severely taxed, it would bc advantageous to the Colonies, ‘ it would reduce principalities, iw hereon but a few individuals are maintained, and change those barren and waste principalities to prosperous farms and happy villages. It is beyond dispute, that had the land about Perth and Norfolk Plains been granted in small lots of 500 acres to various industrious individuals, instead of 70,000 acres to one family and 30 to another, there would have now been no scarcity of bread ; for that part of the country alone could grow more wheat than would serve this colony as well as the whole of the Sister Settlement.

I have read sufficient to show that the system of land tenure which obtained in the early history of Tasmania was one which has been rightly described as nothing less than sheer robbery. We are paying the price for that to-day.

In Tasmania, a holding of 20,000 acres is regarded as a big estate, while in New South Wales, that area would probably be called a farm. But in my own State, these areas are a great block to progress. The land tax, which is operative to-day, does not sufficiently penalize the owners of such estates. Nearly every one of them can pay the tax, and look pleasant. In dealing with this question, I may be pardoned for recounting a little experience which I had recently. I was travelling in the train with two Tasmanian land-owners, who were discussing the Federal land tax, and who did not know that I was a member of the Commonwealth Parliament. One of these gentlemen, who contributes a little over £1,000 a year by way of land tax, remarked to the other that the tax he had to ay represented quite a large sum of money, Just then, we were passing along the Hobart Domain, from which the torpedo boat destroyers, the Parramatta and the yarra, could be seen in the offing, and the other gentleman inquired, “ Do you ‘ see those boats?” “Yes,” replied the first speaker. His companion then said, “ Those vessels have been built with our money, and you and I will see the day when those jolly unions will have them. They will then bring them up here, and bombard our lands with them.”

I do not take such a serious view of the position as did that gentleman. But in looking through the land assessments in Tasmania, I find that the large land-holders there are not being penalized to the extent, that I imagined they would be. In a number of the most fertile districts, the land is not being subdivided as quickly as I should like to see it subdivided. In these circumstances, why not ask Dr. Stewart to prescribe .the remedy ? Let us increase the land tax without increasing the rates imposed under it. Let us make the higher rate apply right down, as was proposed by

Senator Givens at the last Labour Conference. The tax would then be effective. At present, a man owning £60,000 worth of land is required to pay the higher rate only upon the last £5,000. Upon the whole estate, the tax would probably work out at about 2d. in the £1.

Senator McGregor:

– On an estate valued at £60,000, it would amount t® only 3d. in the £1.

Senator READY:

Senator McGREGOR:

– There is not the slightest doubt that, in ordinary circumstances, we would have adjourned at about this time. I say, in reply to some ‘ honorable senators who have accused mem-‘ bers df the Government of a lack of diligence, energy, or industry, that such charges cannot fairly’ be made against representatives of the Government in the Senate. At any time in . the past, in the present, or in the future, I have been prepared to sit for twenty-four hours, if necessary, in the interests of the country. I have never shirked a late sitting in the Senate yet ; and, with the help of Providence, I hope I never shall. I am at all’ times prepared to give my very best services to the members of the Senate, and tothe people of Australia*, and so is every other Minister in the Senate. In the circumstances, it is rather mean on the part’ of some honorable senators, who have known the representatives of the Government in the Senate for so long, to insinuate that the Government have any sinister motive in submitting the motion, or that they are in any way inclined to pander to the social customs of the country. I would also say. that it is not becoming of honorable senators, especially on this side, to reflect in any way, or at any time, upon any section or member of the community giving the slightest pleasure to the smallest number of the citizens of Australia. Though I moved the adjournment of the Senate ostensibly to give certain persons an opportunity to attend the function which has been so often referred to, it was for no benefit or pleasure to me. I have enjoyed myself more in listening to the speeches which have been made on the. motion ; andI am willing to sit here as long this evening as honorable senators are prepared to do the business of the country. To speak in the way in which an honorable senator has spoken, of the decoration of any place with the choice flowers of Australia, was, I think, rather mean, and beneath a representative of Labour, because the bringing of those flowers from the different hills of New South Wales, and collecting them here in Melbourne, must have cost a good deal of money; and I would ask, Who benefited by that? Was it better to allow those flowers to die on their stems unseen and unadmired than to pay labour to collect them and bring them down here, even though it should be to give . pleasure to but a few? At almost every. Labour function I have attended, flowers have been freely used in the decoration of the humble places in which those functions were held. On many occasions, I have paid my 2s. 6d. or 5s. to go to those places, and, with othersj have admired the beauties collected there in the form of those natural ‘productions of the country ; but, according to the argument of some honorable senators, because I and other people could afford to pay 2s. 6d. or 5s. to see those things, and hundreds or thousands of other people in Australia could not afford to do so, or . had not an. opportunity of seeing them, those who attended the functions did wrong. I can only attribute such remarks to envy or hypocrisy, and I do not care which alternative honorable senators accept. I wonder whether yesterday’s great demonstration in Victoria in connexion with the famous Melbourne Cup race has had anything to do with the irritability exhibited here to-night? Very few people in Victoria who have ever attended a Melbourne Cup race have not looked with admiration upon the scene exhibited on the lawn at Flemington on a fine Cup day. All the citizens of Victoria or of Australia could not enjoy the scene, though Senator Rae or Senator Long may have been present at the Cup race yesterday, and other senators were . there, they could not enjoy themselves on the lawn, I suppose. They were too democratic to mix with society, and, of course, went on to the poor man’s lawn, and looked oyer the fence to admire this beauty. Their democratic instincts were too keen, and their hatred of society too marked, to allow them to be seen there. There will be another similar gathering to-morrow. Surely they will not attend it, because society will be represented there in all its gorgeousness.

Senator Long:

– The honorable senator will want us to-morrow.

Senator McGREGOR:

– The business of the country will go on, even if honorable senators are absent. I hope that to-night’s discussion may be profitable, but so far as Ministers are concerned, we are at all times prepared to do the business of the country. No one can -Bay that I have neglected the work of my office. On behalf of the Minister of Defence, and in the interests of business, I wish to announce that the first business on the noticepaper for Friday will be the Redistribution of the New South Wales Electoral divisions. I can hardly be’ expected to move the second reading of the Commonwealth Workmen’s Compensation Bill tonight. When I address myself to that measure, I hope for a full attendance of senators, so that the second reading discussion may obviate delay in Committee. If honorable senators desire to stay later to-night, and will negative the motion for the adjournment, I shall be prepared to sit until morning, listening, to the discussion of the motion regarding the Budgetpapers of the Treasurer.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 November 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1912/19121106_SENATE_4_67/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 6 November 1912

QUESTION

SUGAR COMMISSION

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

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

QUESTION

CADET DRILL

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

PAPERS

QUESTION

CRUISER “ BRISBANE

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

KARRI SLEEPERS

Senator ST LEDGER:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

MAP OF AUSTRALIA

Senator READY:for Senator Keating

Senator PEARCE:ALP

PRESIDENT’S RULING

Senator GIVENS:[Queensland

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Chataway:

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator Fraser:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Fraser:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator de Largie:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator McDougall:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Rae:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Givens:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator O’KEEFE:Tasmania

Senator Needham:

Senator McDougall:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Lynch:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Rae:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Givens:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Givens:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Givens:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Givens:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Givens:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Barker:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Givens:

Senator Needham:

Senate
6 November 1912

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

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

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator READY:
for Senator Keating

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator GIVENS:
[Queensland

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

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

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

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

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

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

Senator RAE:
New South Wales