View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
17 June 1914

5^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

MEAT EXPORT TRADE COMMISSION BILL
QUESTION
- POINT NEPEAN WRECK
ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION
- Circularto Electors - Objections : Removal of Names - Number of Electors Enrolled - Claim Cards
- Norton, Eileen Catherine M., Wandearah
- Brown, Edward H., Port Pirie
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL ACT
QUESTION
- STATE RAILWAY MATERIAL
QUESTION
- DEFENCE FORCE
QUESTION
- DOUBLE DISSOLUTION
QUESTION
- WIRELESS STATION, KING ISLAND
QUESTION
- COMPULSORY TRAINING
QUESTION
- LIGHTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT’S FINANCIAL POLICY
QUESTION
- CHILDREN’S FARES
DOUBLE DISSOLUTION
QUESTION
- POSTAL LINEMEN’S AWARD
QUESTION
- NAVIES IN THE PACIFIC
QUESTION
- BRITISH TREATY WITH JAPAN
QUESTION
- BANANA INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
PAPERS
ADJOURNMENT
- Contract for Carriage of Sleepers - Absent Voting: New Regulation - Electoral Rolls : Objections : Removal of Names

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

page 2139

MEAT EXPORT TRADE COMMISSION BILL

Assent reported.

page 2139

QUESTION

POINT NEPEAN WRECK

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister of Defence been called to the following statement in yesterday’s Argus by the captain of the ship which was wrecked at Point Nepean -

While most grateful for tha kindness which both I and my men received from almost every one, I cannot help feeling resentfulat the treatment meted out by the officer at the gate of the fort to the five sailors who escaped in the “ pram,” and were trying to make their way to that refuge of sailors - the lighthouse.

When they reached the fort one of the men was clad only in a singlet and underpants, while the others had no coats, and all were wet, shivering, and almost physically exhausted. The gate was opened when they knocked, but the officer,finding that he could not understand theirspeech, apparently took no note cf their forlorn condition, and after making some curt remark, closed the door in their faces, and they had to seek the chill shelter of a shed on the pier. Surely that officer should have had sufficient acumen to realize tha’t foreigners in that condition had been wrecked, and failing that, kindness of heartshould have impelled him to report their condition to a superior officer.

Will the Minister make inquiries to see if one of his officers at the fort was guilty of such conduct to shipwrecked sailors?

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Defence · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I shall certainly make inquiries, if only in justice to the officer whose conduct has been called in question.

Senator Needham:

– That is what I meant.

page 2140

ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION

Circularto Electors - Objections : Removal of Names - Number of Electors Enrolled - Claim Cards

Senator OAKES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive Council been drawn to a circular which has been extensively distributed in New South Wales, at any rate, and which contains these attacks on the Electoral Office-

Police are taking names off the rolls, hut will put nono on. 75,000 Labour voters disfranchised.

You may be fined £2 if you do not see to your enrolment at once.

– I shall be glad to send a communication asking for the desired information, but I do not think that

I can obtain a reply in the time indicated by the honorable senator. The Electoral Office is overtaxed with work just now, and I am very doubtful whether an answer can be secured within the period stated. However, I will make the inquiry.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am in possession of authentic information that, up till January last, more than 61,000 names had been struck off the rolls in New South Wales. That is a large proportion of the 75,000 names mentioned.

Senator Oakes:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the honorable senator has asked for information, notwithstanding which ho is now supplying it himself.

The PRESIDENT:

– I confess that I was not following the honorable senator closely.

Senator Millen:

– He made a request first, and supplied information afterwards.

The PRESIDENT:

– I understood that the honorable senator was asking for information. I have already stated that I was not following his remarks closely at the time.

Senator GARDINER:

– I merely wish to say that I am in possession of information to the effect that, up till January last, 61,000 names had been struck off the electoral rolls in New SouthWales, and I desire to know how many have been struck off up till 1st May of the present year. It is important that we should have this information, seeing that a statement has been made that in New South Wales 75,000 names have been struck off the Tolls.

Senator Oakes:

– By whom?

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

– The statement was read by the honorable senator. I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he will immediately get into communication with the Chief Electoral Officer in New South Wales with a view to ascertaining the exact number of names thathas been struck off the rolls of that State between 1st July last year and 1st May of the current year ?

Senator McCOLL:

– I have already told the honorable senator that I will endeavour to get the information.

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he will communicate with the Electoral Officer for the division of Cook, in New South Wales, asking him if it is a fact that 11,000 names have been struck off the roll for that division, thus imposing upon him the necessity of sending out 11,000 notices?

Senator Millen:

– The names of those electors cannot have been struck off the roll if notices are being sent out to them.

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I understood the VicePresident of the Executive Council to say that the statement in a certain circular, relating to 75,000 names alleged to have been struck off the rolls, was a fabrication.

Senator McColl:

– He said that they were struck off by the police.

Senator RAE:

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether his attention has been called to this portion of the circular -

The Senate Labour six - Gardiner, Grant, McDougall, Rae, Smith, Watson.

Does the honorable senator consider that that part of the circular is a fabrication?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– Will the Vice-President of the Executive Council make inquiries into the following cases, and let me know who objected to the enrolment of the electors referred to, and whether the 5s. deposit was made in connexion with each objection. I have here the notice of objection sent to Patrick Gleeson, of Middle Head, labourer, of Mosman, “ that you do not live in the division, and have not lived therein for at least one month.” I have also the sworn declaration of Mr. Gleeson that he has not been out of his house for one night in the past two years. I have notices of objection also in the cases of Mr. and Mrs. White, of 34 Bullanaming-street, Redfern, who have resided in the same house for twenty-five years continuously, and have never been out of it for one night; and in the case of Mrs. Dorey and family of six, of 24 Bullanaming-street, Redfern, who have resided continuously in the same house for twenty-five years. I wish to know who lodged the objections to the names of these people, and whether the deposit was made in each case.

Senator McCOLL:

– I shall be very glad to make inquiry into the cases mentioned.

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to bring under the notice of the Vice-President of the Executive Council the fact that objection has been taken to enrolment in the following cases, at Port Pirie : -

Norton, Eileen Catherine M., Wandearah

Harris, Thomas, 4-mile Block, Port Pirie.

Scheffers, Harinus J., Port Pirie - eleven years’ resident.

Baldock, Alfred E., Port Pirie - twenty years’ resident.

Brown, Edward H., Port Pirie

Burke, Martin, Port Pirie - fifteen years’ resident.

Margett, Benjamin A., Port Pirie - old resident.

Naulty, Peter, Port Pirie - old resident.

Naulty, Bridget, Port Pirie - old resident.

Those are a few who have lived in the same houses for years.

Will the Minister make inquiries as to the persons who lodged the objections in these cases, and whether the deposit of 5s., as required by law, was made in each case?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– I shall make inquiries into the matter.

Senator RUSSELL:

– As I understand that the lists of names of persons seeking enrolmentha ve been closed at the various registrars’ offices for the forthcoming print of the rolls, I ask whether the VicePresident of the Executive Council will let the Senate have an approximate estimate of the number on the rolls to-day as compared with the number at the date of the Federal election in 1913.

Senator McCOLL:

Senator Millen:

– Honorable senators opposite want dirty rolls.

Senator RUSSELL:

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council when and where Parliament, at the instance of the late Government, struck out of the Electoral Act the provision requiring a deposit of 5s. to be lodged with each objection ?

Senator SENIOR:

– I wish to call attention to the statement of the Minister of Defence that honorable senators on this side of the Chamber “want dirty rolls.”

Senator Rae:

– Make him withdraw it. Fie knows that it is false.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the Minister of Defence, in accordance with the usual parliamentary practice, to withdraw the statement.

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– I withdraw it, but I would point out that day after day I have to listen to accusations of corruption against the present Government. Honorable senators who are so sensitive when I make an interjection ought to have a little consideration for their own reputations, if not for my personal feelings, in the matter.

Senator McCOLL:

– Several questions relating to electoral matters have been recently asked, and to these I am now prepared to give replies. Senator Blakey raised a question with regard to an objection lodged to the name of James Patterson, of Penshurst. The answer is as follows : -

The following names appear on the Penshurst roll : - 885 James Patterson 886 James Andrew Patterson

The name of James Patterson, bootmaker, has been objected to on the ground that the elector does not live in the division, and has not lived therein for a period of at least ona month. The Registrar properly acted on information supplied by the police, and there is no ground for believing that the information so supplied is incorrect.

The name of James Andrew Patterson, labourer, has not been objected to. He is probably the person referred to by Senator Blakey.

The question asked by Senator Russell with regard to the number of names objected to on the Swan Hill roll has also been inquired into. The honorable senator made the statement that in a population of less than 2,000 no fewer than 500 objections had been lodged. The reply to that is as follows : -

The enrolment for the subdivision of Swan Hill is 3,304. The number of objections which have been lodged since 2nd April last is .164.

The ground of objection in each case was that the person concerned had ceased to live in the division, and had so ceased to live for a period of .at least one month.

Senator Millen:

– Fifty per cent, exaggeration in one case and 60 per cent, in another.

Senator Russell:

– Is that statement in order? I simply quoted the letter and took no responsibility, but asked the ordinary courteous question of the Minister .

Senator Millen:

– I made no reflection on the honorable senator. The statement I made can be verified by a simple sum in arithmetic. I did not charge the honorable senator with any responsibility for the allegation which he quoted.

Senator McCOLL:

– Another question was asked by Senator Long with respect to the difficulty experienced by the electors of the divisions of Franklin and Wilmot in getting claim cards to insure enrolment. The reply is as follows: -

Your telegram, statement of Senator Long, shortage claim cards, post-offices. Further urgent instructions on subject issued to officers concerned. Only one ease of shortage has ooma under notice, and supply forwarded immediately. Between 30,000 and 40,000 cards distributed recently, largely in excess of possible requirements.

page 2144

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT

Contributions by Candidates.

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– Another matter was raised by Senator Keating in the following terms -

Will the Government take steps, as a previous Government did, to make the public more familiar than they appear to be with the fact that there is a provision in the electoral law, making it illegal for candidates, for a certain period before an election, to contribute to the funds of certain organizations and associations ?

I have here a copy of section 206b of the Electoral Act. Extracts containing a copy of the section will be printed, and copies may be obtained by any honorable senator who desires them at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth.

page 2144

QUESTION

STATE RAILWAY MATERIAL

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

– Referring to the question I asked on Thursday last about the amount of Customs duties paid on railway material by the States, can the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs give me any information to-day?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– I have obtained a reply to the question, but it is not complete, because records for 1911 were not kept by several States. The reply refers to 1912 and 1913 only.

Senator Maughan:

– That will do for my purpose.

Senator McCOLL:

– Does the honorable senator desire to have the figures read ?

Senator Maughan:

– I am quite willing to take it as read. I presume that it will go in Hansard, sir ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Not unless it ig read.

Senator Maughan:

– As it is of importance to Queensland, I would like the Minister to read the reply.

Senator McCOLL:

– I’j reads as follows : -

page 2144

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE

Horse Allowance : Alleged Supply of Drink to Trainees

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister of Defence tell me whether the Military Board has yet arrived at a decision in reference to the horse allowance which has been withheld from three warrant and non-commissioned officers in South Australia ?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– The honorable senator submitted a question in similar terms to me last week ; and, if I remember aright, the answer was that the Military Board was to consider the matter on Monday. As I only returned from Sydney an hour or so ago, I am not yet in a position to say what the Board has done in my absence.

Senator Story:

– I shall repeat the question to-morrow.

Senator McGREGOR:

– Arising out of that question, I have an additional memorandum, which I present to the Minister of Defence, and ask if he will give it consideration?

Senator Millen:

– Certainly.

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister of Defence whether his attention has been directed to a letter which appeared in the Age of 13th June, signed “ Heidelberg, 1913,” in which there appears the following statement: -

Not long ago it was shown that a senior officer had been drunk, and had given junior trainees intoxicating liquor at camp. The Ministerhas rewarded that officer with promotion whilst the officer who reported the occurrence has had to resign his commission.

Has the Minister seen the letter referred to? Did such an occurrence take place? Was it reported? Has the officer who reported it since been asked to resign his commission, and has the officer who is said to have been implicated in the affair been promoted?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have not seen the letter referred to, but if the honorable senator will place it in my hands, T shall endeavour to obtain the detailed information which he seeks.

page 2145

QUESTION

DOUBLE DISSOLUTION

Senator McGREGOR:

– Last week a motion was carried in the Senate to the effect that the full text of the request and the reasons for the simultaneous dissolution of both the Senate and the House of Representatives should be laid on the table of the Senate. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is the intention of the Government to lay those papers on the table, and, if so, when ?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– I would remind Senator McGregor, and the Senate, that, before the carrying of that motion, speaking on behalf of the Government, I announced that it was not intended to make those papers public. I have nothing to add to that statement now.

page 2145

QUESTION

WIRELESS STATION, KING ISLAND

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

– I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he is able to give honorable senators the information which I sought the other day in respect to the purchase of the wireless station at King Island? I wish to know whether the Government has yet arrived at a decision as to whether they will make the purchase or not.

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– I have received the following letter, dated 12th June -

With reference to the question asked in the Senate on the 11th instant by Senator Long, relative to the proposed sale to this Department of the wireless telegraph station at King Island, I am directed to inform yon that no determination has yet been arrived at in the matter. The residents have not stated whether they will accept the conditions under which the Department offered to instal a wireless station on KingIsland.

Senator LONG:

– I am very thankful to the Minister for the information he has supplied, but may I beg of him, in justice to the people of King Island, to say definitely whether the Government propose to purchase the station at the very much reduced offer? I am sure that the people would be very glad to be relieved one way or another. I think it is the very least they can expect from the Government, in view of the fact that this matter has been before the Minister for six months.

Senator McCOLL:

– The honorable senator’s remarks will be conveyed to the Department.

Senator Long:

– You promised that you would shake them up.

page 2145

QUESTION

COMPULSORY TRAINING

Punishment of Cadet: Solitary Confinement

Senator RAE:

– Is the Minister of Defence aware that the description of the cell furnished by his officers as that in which the lad Roberts was confined after being sentenced to solitary confinement, and as having a certain liberal allowance of window space, was really that of a cell or guard-room in which the boy was confined during a period prior to undergoing the sentence of solitary confinement? Is he also aware that with regard to the statement that the door was left ajar and merely fastened with a chain to keep it from being quite open, the chain was not fixed or the door kept ajar until after I had raised the question in the Senate ? As I interjected something about a conspiracy amongst his officers or some of them to mislead him, is the Minister not aware that in these and other ways by stating half truths those responsible for what has occurred in this case were not acquainting him with the full facts of the case ‘<

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– I am certainly not aware that the officers who reported to me were stating only half truths, lt was quite obvious to me from statements read here by Senator Rae that those who were prompting him in the matter were not only not stating even half truths, but were wilfully misrepresenting the facts.

Senator Rae:

– How do you know’)

Senator MILLEN:

– For instance, the statement that the boy was on bread and water was a deliberate falsehood, and that statement was made in a letter written by the father of the boy and read out at a public meeting in the city.

page 2146

QUESTION

LIGHTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

Senator MAUGHAN:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs been drawn to the following paragraph which recently appeared in the Melbourne Herald: -

Lighthouses to be built. Schooners leave for scene. Active constructional work on the Queensland coast is about to be entered upon by the Federal Lighthouse Branch. The schooner Alcairo, 75 tons, recently purchased by the Federal authorities, leaves Williamstown to-day for Sydney, to be altered and repaired, prior to being employed in lighthouse building in the north. The Forbes Brothers, another schooner, takes her departure from Sydney today on a similar mission.

Does the honorable senator know anything about this business? Has the newly-appointed Inspector of Lighthouses recommended the purchase of these schooners for the purpose ? Having regard to the character of the work, will the honorable senator ask the Minister of Trade and Customs whether steamers, instead of sailing vessels, should not have been purchased by the Government ?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– I shall be glad to make, inquiries and let the honorable senator know the result.

page 2146

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT’S FINANCIAL POLICY

Senator RAE:

– Has the attention of the Minister of Defence been called toa leading article entitled “ The Federal Surplus,” appearing in the Sydney

Morning Herald-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The practice of quoting from newspapers isdistinctly contrary to Standing Orders. No honorable senator is entitled to quote from newspapers, in asking questions, unless he is prepared to vouch for their accuracy. The rules of practice and procedure are direct and emphatic on that point. I have allowed quotations to be made hitherto for convenience, so that honorable senators might question Ministers about the exact details of matterswhich they wished to bring under notice, but the practice has been growing so much that I am afraid I shall not be justified in allowing it to continue at such great length. An honorable senator maydirect attention to the leading facts reviewed in an article, and ask for information in that way, but to quote the wholeof an article as has been done in thepast is distinctly contrary to the usual practice, and I am afraid I shall have tocurtail the privilege which honorablesenators have enjoyed, unless the Senate sees proper to alter the Standing Ordersin that direction.

Senator RAE:

– I have no desire to quote at any. length from the article. I simply wish to call attention to a. statement in it and ask a question on it. So far I have simply read the titleof the article. I merely wish to ask, sir,, whether the Minister’s attention has been called to this passage in the article -

But carrying out sound Liberal policy many outlays have been made from revenue that would in ordinary circumstances have been charged to loans which, while weighing heavily on the immediate Budget, will in future tell in favour of succeeding Treasurers, and prove to the benefit of the country at large. It is, for instance, pleasing to learn that the land which has been acquired by the Federal Government for rifle ranges has been bought out of current revenue instead of out of borrowed money, upon which posterity would have had to pay interest for all time. This is sound policy so far as it goes, and should be persevered in.

I wish to know whether the Minister will inform the Senate why, when the Loan Bill was going through this country, the alleged Liberal party bitterly opposed that course of action?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– It is well known, at any rate in the confines of this chamber, that the Bill was brought in by myself on behalf of the Government, and represents the policy of the party.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Tasmanian Mail Contract : Fares and Freights

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to announce that I have received from Senator Ready to-day a notice that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, ‘ ‘ The proposed increases in steam-ship fares and freights as affecting the State of Tasmania and Australia.,T

Four honorable senators having risen in their places-

Senator READY:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 2 p.m. to-morrow.

– That is clear enough to the thinking public. Owing to the continued and persistent representa tions of the representatives of Tasmania, both here and in another place, the Government were forced - not that they wanted to do so - to put the following clause in the agreement -

That the contractors will not without the approval of the Postmaster-General increase the rates of freight and of passage money existing at the date of the execution hereof Provided however that subject to the approval of the PostmasterGeneral the rates of freight from Burnie to Melbourne on ore and other special lines which in the past have been subject to special arrangements may be increased and Provided further that in the event of the mail services hereinbefore referred to resulting in a loss to the contractors from any cause or causes including strikes quarantine lockouts or stoppage of collieries the rates of freight and passenger money may subject to the approval of the PostmasterGeneral be revised for such period as the Postmaster-General may approve Such approval either as to rates or periods shall not be arbitrarily withheld.

We have reason to believe that the Government may accede to the request of the Shipping Combine for an increase. It is rumoured amongst business people in Tasmania, that in the near future we shall be subjected to very heavy fares and freights on our sole line of communication with the mainland, because, as an insular State, we depend entirely on sea transport. Here is a paragraph which appeared in the Launceston Examiner of Saturday, 30th May; and when I mention that this is a leading Fusion newspaper in the north of Tasmania, it will be seen that the information comes from a friend of the Government -

The references in the Senate to the matter of steam-ship fares, as reported in yesterday’s Examiner, naturally came in for a fair share of local attention. The means and the cost of transport between Tasmania and the mainland are a subject of prime importance to the people of this State. The interest consequently is easily understood.

Although no information of a definite character is yet locally available, there is reason to believe’ that before long there may be an increase in the fares and freights between the ports of Tasmania and those of the mainland…… The new Tasmanian mail contract was mentioned in the Senate on Thursday. Senator Findley inquiring whether any provision was made in it to safeguard citizens against any increase of fares. Senator McColl asked that notice be given.

That is his usual course.

Locally it is understood that the new contract contains a provision that there shall be no increase unless it has the approval of the Postmaster-General; but, it is pointed out on behalf of the companies, that if they can prove to the Postmaster-General that their expenses have been heavily increased, and particularly when that has been done by one of the Commonwealth’s own Courts, it is very reasonable to suppose that he would allow such extra charges as might be shown to be required to give the contractors a fair profit. So far, the announced increase applies only to the mainland coastal trade, but it will be a pleasant surprise if Tasmania escapes. Up to the present Mr. Crumond, the local manager of the Union Co., has not been advised of any contemplated alteration. The local manager of the Huddart Parker Steam-ship Company Ltd. (Hon. J. W. Evans) left yesterday on a visit to Melbourne. He goes on the company’s business, and will be absent a fortnight.

That goes to show that there is a distinct impression in the minds of the best informed people in Tasmania that in the near future an increase will be asked for and granted by the Government. The Vice-President of the Executive Council, in speaking on the AddressinReply, made some reference to this matter. He said, amongst other things, that he had looked through the freights and the fares obtaining between the mainland and Tasmania, and thought that they were on a par with, and in some cases lower than, those existing between other States. He made that statement, which I contradicted at the time.

I propose to show now how ill-informed the Government are. I intend to quote the fares and some of the freights and prove, not by a mere bald statement, that Senator McColl’s information, whether intentional or not, was decidedly misleading. Eirst, let me take the fares between Tasmania and the mainland, and compare them with the fares existing between the other States, and that is the only fair way of comparison. On the Melbourne to Sydney trade there is a heavy volume of traffic, and that cannot be alleged to be the reason for the cheap fares maintained between those ports. For a distance of 564 miles, the firstclass return is £4 4s., and the second-class return, £2 12s. 6d. ; the former working out at7/8d. per mile. On the Melbourne to Adelaide trade, the volume of traffic is also heavy; for a distance of 508 miles the first-class return fare is £4 4s., and the second-class return, £2 12s. 6d., working out at1d. per mile. Let us now look at the fare between Burnie and Melbourne, a distance of 215 miles. The deck cabin fare is £3 2s. 6d. ; first-class return, £2 12s. 6d.; steerage or secondclass return, £1 12s. 6d., that is1¾d. per mile for a deck cabin, or1½d. per mile for an ordinary first-class fare. And I will give some more figures to show how Tasmania is being penalized. I admit that the greater volume of the traffic between the mainland and Tasmania goes from Launceston to Melbourne. On this route, a distance of 277 miles, the deck cabin fare is £3 2s. 6d. ; first class return, £2 12s. 6d. ; the second-class return £1 12s. 6d., working out at1¼d. per mile, which is considerably over the fares between South Australia and Victoria, and between Victoria and New South Wales. Now, let me take the Melbourne-Hobart route and see how unreliable was the information furnished to the Senate by Senator McColl. For a distance of 457 miles, the first-class return is £4 8s., and second-class return £2 15s., which works out at1½d. per mile. There, again, considerably higher fares are charged than those pertaining between other States. The only cheap fares we have in Tasmania is where the volume of tourist traffic is relatively small. Between Sydney and Hobart, a distance of 623 miles - the route that Senator McColl was very careful to quote - the first-class return fare is £4 8s., which works out at 7/8d. per mile. This fare is on a par with the fares prevailing between the other States, and it is the only one that is. On the other three routes the rates are from 50 to 75 per cent. more than the rates pertaining for the two larger States.

Senator O’Keefe:

– There is a special reason for a difference being made between Sydney and Hobart, because on a portion of that route there is competition.

Senator READY:

– That is so. The shipping combines have to meet the competition of outside vessels, which they have not to do on the north-west coast of Tasmania. When I was last dealing with this matter an honorable senator interjected about a comparison with railway freights. A first-class return ticket by the Sydney express for a distance of 1,153 miles costs £6, working out at13/8d. per mile, so that the railway fares are very little higher than the steamer fares between Tasmania and the mainland. And railway fares, it is generally acknowledged, should be higher than water fares. So much for fares.

Let me now deal with the freights, as I want to show how unreliable the Minister’s information is. From

Devonport, the principal port on the north-west coast of Tasmania, the freight on chaff to Newcastle, a three days’ journey, is 23s. 6d. a’ ton, while the freight on chaff from Adelaide to Newcastle, a four days’ journey, is £1 a ton - that is, 3s. 6d. cheaper. Yet Senator McColl told the Senate that the freights and fares to and from Tasmania are on a par with those obtaining between other States. From Devonport to Sydney the freight on chaff is 18s. per ton, as against 12s. 6d. a ton from Adelaide to Sydney. These freights are not much on a par, but the freight from Devonport is 50 per cent, higher than the freight from Adelaide to Sydney. If we take a different route from Hobart to Sydney and Brisbane, we shall find that freight at the rate of 17s. 6d. per ton is charged on Tasmanian fruits between Sydney and Brisbane, whilst the boats bring back Queensland fruit from Brisbane to Sydney at a freight rate of 9s. 9d. per ton. It is clear from these figures that Tasmanian fruit-growers and producers are being highly penalized by the shipping companies. We now have a cool proposition put forward that, with the consent of the Postmaster-General, the shipping monopoly conducting the trade with Tasmania may be allowed to again increase their fares.

I shall deal briefly with the profits made by these people. The statement is made that, owing to the increased wages we are called upon to give waterside workers, it is necessary that they should increase freights and fares. The Union Steamship Company, which is about forty years old, two years ago made their shareholders a present of 200 shares, besides paying them a dividend. They watered their stock to the extent of 200 shares.

Senator Senior:

– What was the total number of shares?

Senator READY:

– I have not the figures with me at present, but the increase represented a big percentage. The year before last Huddart Parker and Company asked for £250,000 in the shape of new shares, and they received almost at once offers amounting in value to £2,500,000. One big business man in Tasmania told me that in the first week he made an application for 2,000 shares, and could not get a single share. I propose to quote from an interesting circu lar by Joseph Palmer and Sons, of Sydney, who, I believe, send the circular regularly to honorable senators. Dealing with steam-ship shares, they say in their monthly report -

Steam. - Howard Smith remain steady at 76s. 9d., and we recommend the purchase. Last year the profit, after paying dividend on preference shares, was about £125,000, or equal to 50 per cent, on the ordinary shares. The dividend was 20 per cent., but it is expected that 25 per cent, will be paid this year; if so, the yield will be 6J per cent, at present, and there is talk of a new issue of shares on liberal terms to ordinary shareholders.

Referring to the Union Steam-ship Company, they say -

Union improved to 26s., but are now a little easier, the interim dividend being only at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum. However, it is the practice of this company to pay a bonus in November, and we are hopeful that the full distribution for the year will be 6 or 7 per cent.

Some of the supporters, even of the Government, have advocated a prosecution of existing trusts. Mr. Mcwilliams, the honorable member for Franklin, has hurled every adjective in his vocabulary at the Steam-ship Combine. If the Government take any notice of Mr. Mcwilliams, they will be very chary of the combine, and will hesitate about permitting them to increase their fares and freights. It does not appear that the Government take very much notice of Mr. Mcwilliams, or that that honorable member is very sincere in what he has said on the subject, because if he desired to do so he might have prevented the agreement to the m ali contract by the exercise of his vote in another place. The electors of Franklin may yet call him to account in that connexion. The point I wish to make is that the. shipping combines, securely entrenched behind their privileged positions, have increased their rates for the mainland trade, and though increases have been made the rates in that trade are still less than the existing rates in the Tasmanian trade.

Senator Oakes:

– Senator Guthrie, a member of the honorable senator’s party, says that the Tasmanian rates are the cheapest in the world.

Senator READY:

– I am glad to have had that interjection, because it enables me to say that Senator Guthrie was referring to the freights between Hobart and Sydney. Those freights are not cheaper, but are on a par with the mainland freights. I believe that Senator Guthrie would have told the honorable senator, if he were asked the question, that he was under the impression that the fare between Hobart and Sydney is %d. per mile, whereas it is d. per mile. With a proper system of control, the companies would be obliged to pay for their increased wages out of their accumulated profits.

Senator Oakes:

– Why did not the Labour Government deal with them during their three years of office?

Senator READY:

– The Labour Government did what they could in the matter. They let a short contract and announced their intention to establish a Commonwealth line of steamers. If they had remained in power I have no doubt that those steamers would be now >building on the stocks. When the present Government go out of office, and that will be before very long, an attempt will be made to establish a “Commonwealth” line of steamers, and to relieve us from the contract by which we have been bound to the heels of the shipping companies for the next seven years.

In view of the fact that a rise in fares and freights has taken place all over Australia, and that even now they are lower than the rates prevailing between the mainland and Tasmania, I ask every representative of Tasmania in the Senate to support me in asking the Leader of the Government in this Chamber to give an assurance that no further increase of fares and freights between the mainland and Tasmania will be permitted by the Postmaster-General. That is a fair request to make, and I should be lacking in my duty to the people of Tasmania if I failed to make it. I hope that the re- ° quest will be put before the Cabinet as early as possible, so that before the Senate is dissolved we may have a distinct promise that the company will not be permitted to rob the people any more than they are doing at the present time.

I can assure honorable senators that residents of Tasmania and others having to travel between the mainland and Tasmania continually complain of the heavy fares and freights they are charged. Travellers between Launceston and the mainland protest every time we cross the Strait against the company extorting from them £2 12s. 6d. for a first class fare for a ferry service over a comparatively short distance. I hope that before the matter is finally disposed of by the Senate the representative of the Government in this Chamber will promise to give it careful and prompt consideration with a view to protecting; the interests of the people of Tasmania ?

Senator LONG:
Tasmania

Senator STEWART:

– And probably more than she deserved. Under the Labour Government Australia prospered as she had never done before.

Senator Oakes:

– There never was a greater time for the combines.

Seuator STEWART.- And the combines have been making money hand over fist. Everybody, from the combine down to the youngest labourer in the land, has been better off than was ever the case before.

Senator Pearce:

– When the dog is fat, the fleas fatten also.

Senator STEWART:

– That exactly states the case.

Senator Oakes:

– The combines live, but the Labour party went down.

Senator STEWART:

– The Labour party went down to come up again, as the honorable senator will find to his surprise and chagrin before many months are over. It went down only in another place, but even there the Government’s miserable majority of one is very little to boast about. When I think of the twentynine Labour senators who sit here, and the seven Liberals who do not sit opposite, I feel proud of the Democracy of Australia. I believe that, in the near future, there will be a handsome majority on our side in another place. We do not want there such a large majority as we have here, but we do want a majority sufficiently large to enable us to do something to help the producers. I was pointing out the difficulties under which the people of Tasmania labour owing, in a large measure, to the ravages of the Shipping Combine. I understand that some time ago an inquiry took place into the fares and freights between Tasmania and Australia and Tasmania and the Old Country. Mr. G. Finlayson, who was connected with a large engineering firm in Devonport, gave the following evidence : -

Are they reasonable or excessive? - They are very excessive.

How do you arrive at a standard of comparison ? - The charges from the Old Country to Melbourne, for instance, are sometimes less than from Melbourne to hero on heavy lifts.

What would you call a heavy lift? - Anything over six tons. The present charge for a six-ton lift is £35 from Melbourne to Devonport.

What would the charge be from the Old Country? - About 50s. to 60s. per ton; it varies slightly.

And you find this a disadvantage in your trade ?- Undoubtedly.

According to that evidence, this gentleman could get a six-ton lift from the Old Country for £18 freight, but had to pay £35 to get it from Melbourne to Devonport.

Senator McCOLL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · LP

– The honorable senator who moved the motion did not pay me the courtesy of notifying me of his intention to bring the matter forward, and I have, therefore, no information to give to the Senate regarding it. A clause was put in the agreement, through the energy of Senator Keating, compelling the companies to approach the Department for permission to make any increase in freights or fares; but I have not heard that any application has been made to the Department in that direction. If the matter is as Senator Keating stated, it will have the closest and keenest attention on the part of the Government.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I had hoped that the Minister would make a fuller and more satisfactory reply. Senator Ready brought the motion forward as a matter of great moment to the citizens of Tasmania, and asked for the co-operation of both sides of the Chamber in order that no injustice should be done to them. I go further, and say that it is a matter of moment to every citizen of Australia. Tasmania, unfortunately, is not a self-supporting State. It depends more than any other State on the tourist traffic from the mainland, and if the number of tourists is restricted by oppressive fares charged by the combination at present in existence with the consent of the Government, the matter becomes of serious moment, not only to Tasmania, but also to thousands of people in different States who periodically make for the island State to recuperate. When Senator McColl speaks as a responsible Minister in this chamber, his statements are likely to carry more weight than if he spoke as an ordinary member. The other day he said he had gone into Senator Ready’s allegations that the freights and fares between Tasmania and the mainland were excessive. He said, “ I have had an opportunity of going through the freights, and I think they are reasonable. In some cases they are on a par with, and in some case lower than, freights to other States.” That statement of Senator McColl’s is incorrect. Recently, a commission agent named B. T. Clemons, who does a very large business at Devonport, gave some evidence before a Select Committee which was appointed by the Tasmanian Assembly to inquire into the effect of freights between Tasmania and the mainland on business men and business generally -

Do you consider them unreasonably high? - Yes; compared with those on the mainland.

Will you institute any comparison? - To give you one clear instance, the freight from Devonport to Newcastle on chaff is 23s. 6d. a ton, and from Adelaide to Newcastle it is only £1. lt is a four-days’ journey from Adelaide to Newcastle, steaming all the time, and yet the freight is less than from here; consequently our quotations have to be from 5s. to 7s. under the mainland price to get the business.

A difference of one day in the steaming, but a difference of 3s. 6d, a ton in the freight ! When Senator McColl went into this matter, did he see the evidence which was tendered by Mr. Clemons, and if he did, I am sure that he did an injustice to Senator Ready and to the traders of Tasmania when he said, as a responsible Minister, that the freights and fares to Tasmania are on a par and in many cases less than those between other States. It is characteristic of a shipping combine that every time they get an opportunity to increase fares and freights they do it, and ofttimes do it without the slightest justification.

Senator Oakes:

– Do not the workers do the same thing?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am dealing with the Shipping Combine. When the small-pox scare was on in New South Wales the shipping companies increased their fares and freights, and when questioned on the subject by the merchants they replied that they were doing it in consequence of the small-pox in Sydney effecting their business. On the 5th July, 1913, the Argus, which is recognised as the official organ of the so-called Liberal party, published an article headed, “Inter-State Freights; increase of 15 per cent.,” and containing this passage -

Merchants and manufacturers are complaining of a further increase in Inter-State freights by the steam-ship companies. In the past the practice has been to make small advances of 5 per cent, or less, but this latest jump is one of 15 per cent., making a total of 20 per cent, in the last six months. Business men regard the increase with alarm, and state that it will seriously affect the Inter-State trade. Even if it does not lead to the curtailment of imports and exports, it will necessitate higher prices being charged for goods, with a corresponding upward tendency in the cost of living.

Commenting on the increase, a merchant in Melbourne made use of the following words : -

This will mean a large addition to our expenditure, but what are we to do? The companies have the monopoly of the Inter-State trade, and appear to have an “ understanding “ regarding freights and fares which does away with competition. Therefore we are wholly in their hands. We recognise that during the last few years they have been compelled to pay large increases in wages to their crews, but an Increase of 5 per cent, was made to cover that. However, as they have seen fit to charge en additional 20 per cent, for the carriage of goods, we must pay it, and pass the increase on to the public.

A Melbourne merchant said that the shipping companies, in consequence of awards made by the Federal Arbitration Court and other industrial tribunals, were forced to increase the freights and fares by 5 per cent. In consequence of improved industrial conditions 20 per cent, has been passed on to the consumers, and this Melbourne merchant says that this was done because the shippers and consumers of Australia are wholly in the hands of a huge shipping combination ; that competition has been entirely eliminated. It is the opinion of other merchants, and it is the opinion of every Labour man in every part of Australia, that, although our friends say that there is no monopoly in the shipping business to-day, it is an absolute fact that competition does not exist as we understand competition. In the days that have gone there was competition between shipping companies, and very acute competition indeed; but throughout Australia to-day, although on paper it would appear that there are in existence individual shipping companies, they are one and the same institution. The fares and the freights are the same with respect to all shipping companies, and it is commonly stated that there is an arrangement between them with respect to the profits which do not go altogether into the coffers of particular companies. They have an arrangement amongst themselves which makes them nothing short of one of the biggest combinations we have in the whole of Australia. This is a very serious matter indeed, because what is being attempted in respect to the Tasmanian Shipping Combine might, should the present Government come back to power, which is not likely, be repeated in regard to other shipping companies. Surely Senator McColl does not want notice of such a motion as this to be able to tell us what the intentions of the Government are! The Tasmanian mail contract specially provides that there shall be no increase in fares and freights unless with the consent of the Postmaster-General. It ought to be an easy matter for Senator McColl, representing the PostmasterGeneral here, to get in touch with him and give an assurance that the Government do not intend to accede to any demand made by the steam-ship companies. I think it is up to him to do that in justice to Tasmania, and to the State which I happen to be representing.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– It has been truly stated that this is a matter of importance not only to Tasmania, but to all residents on the mainland, no matter in which State they may live. Of course, it is of greater importance to Tasmania than to other States, because Tasmania is shut off from the mainland by water, and is completely dependent upon the working of the Shipping Combine for its means of water communication with the mainland. While all the residents of the Commonwealth are to some extent affected by the high passenger fares ruling, and would be, of . course, affected even more by an increase in the fares, it is the producers of Tasmania who are more directly concerned, owing to the fact that they have no other means of getting that produce to the mainland market than the ships belonging to the combine. In four at least of the other States in the Union there is railway communication linking up at least some portion of the States. Right from far north in Queensland down to Victoria, and into at least a portion of South Australia, there is direct railway communication, so that there is competition for passenger traffic between the railways and the steamers. But in Tasmania there is absolutely no competition, and no means of getting any competition, because the whole of the shipping trade with the mainland is in the hands of a combine. It was officially recognised as a combine by the Government in accepting a tender for the carriage of mails between Tasmania and the mainland - that is, a joint tender from the Huddart Parker Shipping Company and the Union Steamship Company. Prior to the acceptance of this contract, Tasmania was paying; £13,000 a year for the carriage of mails. When the combine were asked to improve the then existing service, and it was a very defective one indeed, they said that they would do so if £2,000 a year extra was paid for the carriage of mails. The price of mail carriage was raised from £13,000 to £15,000, and to that extent the Commonwealth Government control the conditions of the contract, which runs for seven years from the date of acceptance.* The improved service will not come into operation until next year. Although it is unthinkable that the clause in the contract for which Senator Keating claims credit should be broken even with the consent of the PostmasterGeneral in any circumstances, certainly it is even more unthinkable, if that was possible, that any increase in fares and freights should be sanctioned by thePostmasterGeneral until such time as wegot an improved service. We do not knowwhen we are likely to get the improved service, and the increased price is the condition for supplying the improved service. If the companies approach the PostmasterGeneral to obtain his consent to an increase of fares and freights, the Minister should not listen to such a request for a moment. He should say, “ If you do not like the contract, ask us to release you from it. Do not ask us to sanction the breaking of a clause in the agreement which says that you shall not increase fares and freights.” It is all nonsense for the companies to maintain that they are justified in seeking the sanction of the Postmaster-General to increase fares and freights because of any recent awards of the Arbitration Court, because any increase in the working expenses of the shipping companies . brought about by awards of the Arbitration Court was anticipated before those awards were made. There have been two or three separate increases in fares and freights within the last year or two. As Senator Findley has stated, the shipping companies made the dislocation and decreases of trade due to the outbreak of small-pox in Sydney the excuse for a 15 per cent, rise in fares and freights throughout Australia. When trade assumed its normal proportions, the companies did not say to their customers, “ Now that trade lias assumed its normal proportions, we propose to reduce fares and freights by 15 per cent.” The 15 per cent, increase remains, and it was in addition to an increase of, I think, 5 per cent, which was made some time previously. Tha Postmaster-General may very well meet any request that he should sanction an increase of fares and freights by telling the shipping companies, “You are doing very well. Although the award of the Arbitration Court may have added to the expense of conducting your business, it was -anticipated by increases in fares and freights made before it was given.” The State of Tasmania is specially concerned in this matter. In the mainland States, with the exception of Western Australia, the shipping companies are brought into some competition with the railways. Even in the case of Western Australia, the Inter-State shipping companies have some competition with the ocean-going steamers for the passenger traffic, although I believe there is an “honorable understanding” between them to maintain passenger fares at a certain rate. In view of the position which Tasmania occupies, no PostmasterGeneral would be justified for a moment in sanctioning an increase of fares and freights. Immediately he is requested to do so by the company, he should say, ““If you do not like your contract, apply to the Government to have it annulled. We shall not sanction the breaking of the clause in the agreement preventing you from raising fares and freights.” This would put the Government in a position to call for fresh tenders for the mail service, and it would also give them an opportunity io substitute a line of Commonwealthowned steamers for those run by the Shipping Combine. Public opinion is rapidly changing on this question, and I am satisfied that a Commonwealth-owned line of steamers will in the near future be regarded as an absolute necessity. I make bold to say that if the electors of Tasmania were polled to-morrow on the subject an overwhelming majority of them would be found to be in favour of a Commonwealth-owned line of steamers trading between Tasmania and the mainland. The Minister representing the Postmaster-General was not in a position to give some information which was asked for to-day, but before Parliament is dissolved we should have an announcement from the Government that the PostmasterGeneral will not in any circumstances sanction a request from the shipping companies carrying out this contract to be allowed to” increase their fares and freights.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I support the action of Senator Ready in moving the adjournment of the Senate to call attention to this matter, because while it may be said to be a Tasmanian matter, it is one with which the Commonwealth has to deal, and in all matters of that kind the affairs of one State are the affairs of all. There is a reason why I take a special interest in this subject. During the first Parliament of the Commonwealth, Senator Keating moved for a Select Committee to consider the question of communication between Tasmania and the mainland, and I had the honour to be a member of that Committee. We made certain recommendations which afterwards bore fruit, and resulted in the Loongana being placed on this trade route. That arrangement is beginning to show decided signs of wear. One of the weaknesses of the position is that there is no competition. That is admitted on all hands. Honorable senators on this side representing . Tasmania gave the Government fair warning of the difficulties they would get into in dealing with this question. I think that Senator McColl said that Senator Keating was responsible for the clause in the contract agreement which prevents the shipping companies raising fares and freights. It was most unjust to give the credit for that to Senator Keating. I am going to show that it was unjust. I have here the Hansard for last session, when the contract was under consideration. I can only find one place in the volume where Senator Keating touches the question at all. At page 14 of Hansard for 1913 the honorable senator spoke on the subject; but he never mentioned the question of fares and freights. The only thing he referred to was the substitution of another steamer of the Loongana typo for the Rotomahana. It will be found throughout the volume that Senators O’Keefe, Ready, and Long, before the agreement was entered into, warned the Government of the position in which Tasmania would be placed under it. I find, at page 622, that Senator Ready raised this very question. Referring to Senator Clemons, he said -

He knows that quite recently an intimation appeared in the press of Australia that the fares of the steam-ship companies throughout the Commonwealth, with the exception of Tasmania, were increased. 15 per cent. The increase was to apply to every other route except the Tasmanian passenger trade. If we, by means of our mail contract, give the shipping companies the right for seven years to impose what fares, freights, restrictions, and conditions on Tasmania as they liked, clearly we shall have the Tasmanian faresand freights increased at perhaps a greater ratio in the near future. It is clearly courting the inevitable if we give them a contract.

That was before the contract was entered into, and it was the first time the matter was raised during the proceedings of last session. It was raised by Senator Ready, and not by Senator Keating. Senator Ready again raised the question in a most direct fashion at page 1102, when he asked the following question : -

I wish to ask the Minister of Defence -

Whether the agreement in respect of the Tasmanian mail service which is now being drafted provides for -

an increased subsidy;

a seven-years’ contract; and

any restrictions of freights and fares ?

Will the Government give the Senate an opportunity of considering the agreement before it is ratified ?

In the light of these quotations, I say it was most unfair for theVice-President of the Executive Council to give Senator Keating the credit of having raised this question. It was never raised by him at all. It was raised by Senator Ready, and in sufficient time before the signing of the contract to have the question of restrictions and conditions looked into. I have not had time to go through all the speeches on the subject that were made last session; but I know that Senators O’Keefe and Long delivered speeches on the same lines as those delivered by Senator Ready. In the circumstances, the

– And the question raised by Senators O’Keefe, Long, and Ready was raised while the contract was pending, as will be seen by reference to Hansard, page 1041 -

Tasmania will be paying a pretty dear price, and to some extent those on the mainland who do business with that State will also pay a pretty dear price, for the improvement of the service if a long contract is entered into, unless” there is a very stringent clause in the agreement binding the companies down to certain fares and freights, not more than the present ones.

Senator MAUGHAN:

– In many parts of Queensland the same cry is raised, the producers having been crippled by the exactions of big shipping interests and combines. In the Age of May 30th, 1914, appeared the following tabular statement, affording a comparison between rates then existing and the new rates to operate from the following Monday : -

I venture to say that such passenger fares for so short a distance cannot be beaten in any part of the world.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– How long does it take from Melbourne to Cairns?

Senator MAUGHAN:

– I suppose about a week.

Nothing has been decided regarding an increase ineither fares or freights to Launceston or Hobart, but it is probable that the rates to these ports will bc also advanced in the near future.

page 2162

QUESTION

CHILDREN’S FARES

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [5.58]. - As several honorable senators have pointed out, the matter under discussion is one which does not affect Tasmania alone. The little island is the general summer resort of tourists from all parts of Australia. The famous apple trip, for instance, has become quite an institution. Apart from general trade, those interested in the tourist traffic are concerned in preventing the raising of fares and freights between the mainland and Tasmania. There is a provision in the contract with the .steam -ship companies that there shall be no increase in fares and freights unless a case is made out for such increase to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General. I compliment the representatives of Tasmania upon having secured the insertion of such a provision in the contract. In other States, Fusion Governments have not been so solicitous for the welfare of the public as to provide such a safeguard in contracts with shipping companies for the carriage of mails. There are steamers carrying mails across Spencer’s and St. Vincent’s Gulf in South Australia, but the State Government has made no provision to prevent the shipping companies running those steamers charging . whatever fares and freights they please.

Senator Ready:

– We should not have had such a provision in the contract with the Union Steam-ship Company if we had not agitated for it and forced the hands of the Government.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

.- 1 think that is very likely. Senator Ready quoted figures to show that fares and freights in the Tasmanian trade are very much higher than in the trade on the coast and the mainland, but in the Gulf trade in South Australia between isolated places the rates charged are much higher than even the exorbitant rates charged in the Tasmanian trade. A man has to pay a passenger fare of £1 for a little trip of three or four hours crossing from Wallaroo to Cowell, a distance of 40 or 50 miles. The rates charged in connexion with many ports in St. Vincent’s Gulf are exorbitant, because the shipping companies have no competition. The Liberal Governments, who ruled Tasmania for many years, never had the foresight to propose such a provision against the charging of exorbitant rates by shipping companies carrying South Australian mails, as is very properly included in the mail contract with the Union Steam-ship Company, as the result mainly of the persistent efforts of honorable senators on this side. I feel sure that the result of this debate will be put to the Government, and the Postmaster-General in particular, on their guard against permitting any increase in fares or freights in the service between the mainland and Tasmania without due consideration. When the matter was being discussed last year, Senator O’Keefe made a short speech, from which it would appear that he almost foresaw the difficulties that might arise in connexion with the contract, and he particularly warned the Government concerning them. I find that at page 1533 of Hansard for last year he is reported to have said -

Even at the eleventh hour I desire to appeal to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral to afford the Senate and the other House an opportunity of discussing the proposed agreement which, I understand, is to be entered into between the Commonwealth and the Union Steam-ship Company and Huddart Parker and Company in reference to the carriage of Tasmanian mails. It is stated that the agreement is to operate for five years. I think it would be only fair, not only to Tasmania, which is vitally interested, but also to the Commonwealth generally, that we should have an opportunity of insuring that reasonable freights and passenger fares are provided for.

He emphasized that particular point, and representatives of Tasmania, particularly on this side, insisted that a provision of that sort should be inserted. Senator O’Keefe went on to say -

We ought not to place ourselves in such a position that within a few years it will be shown that the freights and fares are absolutely out of all proportion to the cost of maintaining the service.

That is the danger with which, according to the speeches of several honorable senators on this side, we are threatened at present. Judging by the Tasmanian and Melbourne press - and they are generally “in the know” - there is a design to increase freights and passenger fares, and it behoves those interested in the traffic to see that this design is frustrated by directing early and particular attention to the proposal, so that they may be met and defeated. Senator O’Keefe further said -

The Government should not depart from

Hie usual practice of affording Parliament an opportunity of discussing contracts of this kind.

That was a very proper suggestion. When a contract is entered into between the Government and the shipping company, any proposal to increase the burdens of the people by increasing fares and freights should be brought before Parliament, and an opportunity should be afforded to discuss any proposed increases in the charges levied upon the public. The honorable senator further said -

The matter is one which is of interest to the whole Commonwealth, and I feel strongly that we should have an opportunity of considering the agreement before it is ratified.

Senator READY:

– Some little time ago I asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council a question in regard to an increase in freights and fares, and he replied -

If the honorable senator has information as to the existence of a shipping combine he should place it before the legal authorities, and allow them to ascertain whether it is correct or not.

That is the kind of evasive reply which I receive to my questions. Not only did I quote statements by Mr. Mcwilliams, who is a supporter of the present Government, against the Shipping Combine, but I had intended to call the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive Council to some of the sworn evidence given before the Fruit Commission by Mr. W. McDonald, the general manager of the Australian Shipping Company. That gentleman was asked -

We have in evidence elicited that there is an arrangement between the various shipping companies relative to freight charges. Is that so?

The reply given was -

Yes. We have an arrangement of our own at fixed rates of freights and fares. That arrangement was arrived at after a very grave consultation in conference. The rates were fixed at that conference.

– No; we have a perfect “right to ask oversea companies to comply with the conditions which we at tempt to make the Australian shipping companies observe. I fail to see why we should give any preference to black labour crews. Our Australian mercantile marine is sufficient for Australia, and the fact that it is managed at present for the benefit of the companies and not for the people does not alter the ethics of the question. The great Liberal party advocated a reduction in the cost of living. It must be patent to every honorable senator that freights and fares when” increased immediately increase the cost of marketable articles, because the extra charge is at once added.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.0 p.m.

Senator READY:

– When the waterside workers or the seamen’s union or the stewards organization or any other industrial body connected with shipping desires an increase in wages it is forced to appeal to an Arbitration Court. Its members cannot get it summarily at any time or under any conditions. Nearly all these bodies are federated industrial unions, and are therefore unable to strike in order to obtain better conditions. The only method they can adopt is to cite a case for arbitration. That is the reasonable and practical course usually followed by an industrial union. It has not only to wait and waive its right to strike, but often has to take exactly what the Judge or the Court cares to give it. It is not the dictator of its own terms. It is bound entirely by the conditions which the Court may impose.

The newspapers of the Commonwealth raised a great outcry when the waterside workers demanded better pay and better conditions. It was an awful thing, and we read striking headlines in the press about it. It was going to. strike at our commerce and shipping, and therefore it was objected to, and the men were called unreasonable and unfair. It was only owing to the efforts of Mr. Hughes, Mr. Laird Smith, Senator de Largie, Senator Guthrie, and other leading members of this political party that the union did not strike. This party saved the strike, urging the adoption of the method of submitting the case to a tribunal. Our friends on the other side approve of that, and yet on the other hand we have a combine, not of the many, but of the few, who are interested in shipping companies, able at any time and in almost any circumstances to stick up the whole of the trade and commerce of Australia, and demand, practically at the point of the bayonet, higher freights and fares from every person who uses theirvessels.

As I am reminded by Senator Findley, they can rob the community, and no appeal can be made against their decision. That is what has happened in the case that has been so fully debated this afternoon. A combine of the few is able to exploit the people. There are no conditions. They do not have to submit their case to any tribunal. They say the freights shall be so-and-so, and they are so-and-so. The newspapers do not object. Senator Oakes and his colleagues do not object. Only the worker is objected to when he demands a living wage for his toil. The rich man or corporation can ask for anything at any time, and the party opposite are silent.

– I think it is interesting to hear me on any side. Senator McGregor will not expect me, as a member of the Government, to support the action he is taking. I do not expect a very lengthy debate on this matter, but I think that honorable senators will see that it is simply impossible for any member of the Government to give assent to this motion.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 3

Majority … …18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That an Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, praying bini to allow of the publication of the communications between His Excellency and His Excellency’s Advisers relating to the simultaneous dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament.

The PRESIDENT:

– As I understand the motion, it is a question first as to the Senate affirming that an Address should be presented to the Governor-General. It will be a question afterwards for the Senate to say what the Address shall be.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 22

NOES: 3

Majority … 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Address brought up, and, on motion by Senator McGregor, read by the Clerk of the Senate, as follows: -

To His Excellency the Right Honorable Sir RonaldCranford Munro Ferguson, a Member of His Majesty’s Most Honorable Privy Council. Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor-General andCommanderinChief of the Commonwealth of A ustralia.

May it please Your Excellency: -

On Friday, 5th June, the Prime Minister made the following announcement in the House o f Representatives : - “ A day or two ago I tendered certain advice to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, which hehas been pleased to accept, and I have to announce to the House that His Excellency has decided to dissolve simultaneously both Houses of the

Parliament so soon as the ordinary provision has been made for the conduct of the Public Service during the time of the election,” and the Representative of the Government in this Chamber on the same day repeated in substance the above statement.

Subsequently the Prime Minister read a statement to the House of Representatives setting forth the substance of his interview with Your Excellency. The Prime Minister explained that the exact terms of his conversation and Your Excellency’s reply thereto were set forth in this statement. The Prime Minister did not supply the House with the reasons advanced by him which induced Your Excellency to accept his advice and grant a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses.

On behalf of his party, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives requested - and Senator McGregor, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, made a similar request of Senator Millen, Representative of the Government in this House - that these reasons, together with all communications between Your Excellency and the Prime Minister and any other of Your Excellency’sAdvisers relating to the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution and any action to be taken thereunder, should be made available. But this the Prime Minister refused to do, on the ground that all communications between the Prime Minister and the Representative of the Crown were and ought to be confidential.

With this view we do not agree. The Prime Minister’s contention is not supported by facts. For in this, as well as in other of the selfgoverning Dominions, such communications have frequently been made public; and we respectfully submit a like course should bc followed in the present case.

In support of this request we beg to direct Your Excellency’s attention to the cases set forth in New Zealand Parliamentarv Papers 1877- A. 7, 1878- A. 1, p. 3; A. 2, p. 14; New Zealand Cassette 1878, pp.911-14; Rusden, New Zealand, iii. 278 seq. And also to the following: -

In 1896, the Governor-General of Canada addressed a minute to Sir Charles Tupper upon the position in which the general elections had placed his Government, and this as well as the Further correspondence between the Prime Minister and the GovernorGeneral was made public.

In1888, the Government of Sir Thomas McIlwraith (Queensland) became involved in a dilference with the Governor of Queensland on what the latter termed “the question whether the Royal Prerogative is to be exercised by the Governor or by the Colonial Secretary for the time being.” It involved the resignation of the Ministry, and all correspondence was placed before Parliament.

In 1904, in Tasmania, the correspondence between the Premier and the Acting Governor, arising out of a request for a dissolution hy the Premier and the reply of the Acting Governor, who went very fully into the reasons which actuated him in refusing to grant a dissolution, were published. Similarly in 1009, the communications between Mr. Earle, the Premier, and Sir Harry Barron, Governor of Tasmania,were published.

In 1907, in Western Australia, the reasons for dissolving the Upper House were embodied in the Governor’s Speech, in which the members of the Lower Housewere informed of His Excellency’s intention, and relieved temporarily from their duties by prorogation in order that the elections for the Council might take place.

We desire to particularly direct Your Excellency’s attention to a long memorandum by the late Governor of Victoria (Sir T. Gibson Carmichael), in which His Excellency sets out in full detail the reasons for his decision (Victorian Parliamentary Papers, Vol. I., p. 211, 1900).

We respectfully submit that these cases, which could be added to without difficulty, bear directly upon the point we desire to make, viz., that there is no rule, as the Prime Minister suggested, which makes communications between the head of the Government and the representative of the Crown confidential; but that, on the contrary, whenever any matter qf constitutional importance or of interest to the people is at stake, publicity is the rule rather than the exception.

The present decision to dissolve simultaneously both Houses of the Parliament, wo respectfully venture to contend, has created a situation in which matters of such grave constitutional and public interest are involved as to justify the publication of the reasons given to Your Excellency in support of the advice tendered by the Prime Minister, on which Your Excellency has been pleased to dissolve simultaneously both Houses of the Parliament, and all correspondence relating thereto - including that relating to section 57 of the Constitution - between Your Excellency and Your Excellency’s Advisers.

In support of this contention we desire to respectfully point out that -

States as such may be represented, and clothed this House with coordinate powers (save in the origination of Money Bills) with the Lower Chamber of the Legislature. These powers were given to the Senate in order that they might bc used; but if a Senate may not reject or even amend any Bill because a Government chooses to call it a “ test “Bill, although such Bill contains no vital principle or gives effect to no reform, the powers of the Senate are reduced to a nullity. We submit that no constitutional sanction can be found for that view, which is repugnant to one of the fundamental bases of the Constitution, viz., a Legislature of two Houses, clothed with equal powers, one representing the people as such, the other representing the States.

And we respectfully submit that the dissolution of the Senate ought not to follow upon the mere legitimate exercise of its functions under the Constitution, but only upon such action as makes responsible government impossible, e.g., the rejection of a measure embodying a principle of vital importance necessary in the public interest, creating an actual legislative dead-lock and preventing legislation upon which the Ministry was returned to power. These conditions do not exist in the present case.

The measure upon which the Prime Minister advised Your Excellency to grant a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses is one which, in our opinion, the Senate had constitutional authority to reject, and was amply justified in rejecting. Its passage is not necessary to give effect to the policy of the Government, because the Government has already given effect to the principle contained therein, and by administrative act prohibited preference to persons employed in the service of the Commonwealth. If the Bill became law, no change would be effected. How then can the rejection of such a measure affect the policy of the Government as declared to the electors at the last election, and create a deadlock within the meaning of section 57 of the Constitution?

The so-called “dead-lock” was deliberately created by the Government for party purposes. There is not, nor has there been, any dead-lock caused by the action of this Chamber. In proof of this, we respectfully call Your Excellency’s attention to the following statement : -

Holding these opinions, and in view of Your Excellency’s decision and the gravity of the constitutional and important public issues involved, we venture to respectfully beg that Your Excellency will allow immediate publication of the reasons given to Your Excellency in support of the advice tendered by the Prime Minister, on which Your Excellency has been pleased to dissolve simultaneously both Houses of the Parliament, and all correspondence relating thereto - including that relating to section 57 of the Constitution - between Your Excellency and Your Excellency’s Advisers.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the Address, as read by the Clerk, be adopted.

Excellency the Governor-General must undoubtedly be to make His Excellency a storm centre in the coming contest.

Senator Senior:

– Who has been more responsible than has the Minister himself for sweeping His Excellency into that storm centre?

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not wish to discuss the matter, because I admit at once that in doing so I might initiate a debate which, I think, would be unseemly at this stage. I have told the Senate the view I take of this matter, and whether it adopts that view or not I venture to say that there are many listening to me now who will admit that the words I have uttered have some substance in them.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

SenatorGARDINER. - We are moving along with the deliberate pace of men who have always known the direction in which they are going. We know exactly the goal to which we are marching, and we have been marching towards it ever since we entered this Parliament. I rose simply for the purpose of recording ray protest against the attempt of the Leader of this Senate to shift the responsibility which rests upon his own shoulders and those of the Government. The Opposition are taking what is obviously the right course by seeking to remove the King’s representative in the forthcoming contest from even the shadow of a suspicion, by having the whole of the facts connected with the request of the Ministry for a double dissolution placed before us by His Excellency himself. If there be nothing to hide, what wrong can be done by allowing us to see the whole of the correspondence? I am sure there is nothing the Governor-General would desire to cover up, but there may be something the Government have put forward that it would not pay them to have dragged into the storm centre of a keenly contested party fight. If there is anything that they are afraid to have placed before the country, we can understand their actions; but, if they permit the two Houses to go into a fierce party contest without the King’s representative being cleared from the suspicions even of the most wicked-minded, they will be deliberately doing an injury to the people of the Commonwealth, and to that gentleman himself.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Country, and who ought not to be brought into the bitter party fight which must take place in the near future. If the Government were alive to their responsibilities in this connexion, they would free the Governor-General from any possibility of inclusion in the coming party struggle. At the present time people are saying that the Governor-General has acted improperly in deciding to dissolve both Houses of this Parliament simultaneously. We, of course, say that His Excellency was constitutionally bound to accept the advice tendered him by his responsible advisers. We believe that he has so acted. I think that he has been misled by the Government.

Senator Rae:

– Deliberately.

Senator LONG:

– Yes; I say, without any qualification whatever, that I believe the Government of the day have deliberately misled the Governor-General into taking the action which has brought about the present crisis. I say that because I have some knowledge of the tactics of the present Administration. A Government that would continue to occupy the Treasury bench, and attempt to direct the affairs of this country under the conditions which have characterized their occupancy of office during the last fifteen months, are capable of misleading the Governor-General or any one else. The Governor-General has already announced, through his Private Secretary, Lord Blackwood, that he did not make arrangements with the Government to keep these documents secret. I am confident, therefore, that he will have no objection to their publication. He will be prepared to allow the people to see for themselves the precise conditions upon which the simultaneous dissolution is to be brought about. Ho will be prepared to give them an opportunity to judge the merits or demerits of the case, and they will mete out to the Government the punishment they richly deserve for misleading the. GovernorGeneral into what I believe is a huge constitutional blunder. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and his right-hand man, the Attorney-General, in their interview with His Excellency assured him that both parties in the Federal Parliament were satisfied that the present position was unworkable, that the constitution of parties made it impossible for the work of the country to be carried on, and that both parties were satisfied also that the only solution of the political difficulties was a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses. Possibly the GovernorGeneral replied to the effect, “ If both parties take the view you have placed before me, and you can assure me that you can obtain the necessary Supply to carry you over the period covered by a general election, then I shall dissolve both Houses.” That would be a perfectly proper view of the matter for the GovernorGeneral to take, assuming that such advice as I have suggested was tendered to him. If advice of that kind has not been tendered to the GovernorGeneral, what has the Government to fear? I suppose they would not mind making public the reasons which the Prime Minister tendered to the GovernorGeneral in support of his request for a double dissolution after Parliament is dissolved. But Parliament is not likely to be dissolved this week, and by the end of the week the Governor-General will be in a position to make his reply to the Address to be presented to him upon the resolution passed by the Senate this evening. Possibly that reply will enable all the facts connected with the Prime Minister’s application for a double dissolution, and the absolute terms of His Excellency’s answer to the request, to be placed before the people of Australia.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I rise to say a few words in connexion with the uncalled for remarks of Senator Millen in his criticism of the proposal of the Opposition. Perhaps I had better say nothing strong, but at least it was most unfair for Senator Millen to say that the Labour party by their action seek to drag the Governor-General into the dispute, and to make him the “ storm centre “ of the coming fight.

Senator Oakes:

– They were well chosen words.

Senator MULLAN:

– Nothing could be further from the mind or desires of the members of the Labour party. If any party is responsible for the GovernorGeneral being the storm centre it is the Government party. Did not the members of the Government party, through their leading politicians and their scurrilous press, try from the moment the test Bills were mentioned to induce the people of Australia to believe that a double dissolution would be granted ? From their platforms, and in their press, they made no secret of their anticipation of what the Governor-General would do.

Senator Long:

– It was more instruction than criticism.

Senator MULLAN:

– As Senator Long has said, they practically instructed the Governor-General from their platforms, and through their press, that they expected him to grant a dissolution of both Houses. They went further, and when Lord Denman resigned, it was openly stated in the Conservative press, of Queensland, at all events, that a change was desired, inasmuch as Lord Denman was, to some extent, compromised by his previous association with a Labour Cabinet. What did that mean if it did not mean that these men desired, if they could do it - I do not say that they could - to exercise influence upon the present Governor-General. If Mr. Cook did not wish to drag the Governor-General into the arena of politics, he would not have made the meagre statement which he did make to the House of Representatives when telling the members of that House that he had the double dissolution in his pocket. The statement he made on that important occasion was so meagre that he was obliged himself to admit that he was wrong. That is proved by the fact that a few days later he had to amplify the statement, and instruct the representative of the Government in the Senate to make the fuller statement here. In the very near’ future, the public of Australia will be called upon to decide grave issues. The Government and the Opposition will be placed on their trial, and the people should be given an opportunity to record their verdict. A very important feature of the trial will be the evidence on which the people will be called upon to decide, and a most important portion of that evidence is to be kept from the people if the Government refuse to let them know the reasons which they submitted to the GovernorGeneral in asking for a double dissolution, and the full text of His Excellency’s reply. It is quite possible that the Government deliberately set themselves out to mislead the Governor-General in order that they might succeed in the object they had in view, and secure a double dissolution. This would not be the first time that such a thing was done in the history of Australia. In 1877, the

Fysh Ministry, on being defeated in Tasmania, went to the then Governor, Sir Frederick Weld, and asked for a double dissolution.’ A big rumpus was raised over the dissolution, which he granted, and eventually a memorandum setting forth the reasons upon which he acted was placed before the Tasmanian Parliament, and the House gave it as its opinion that the statements upon which the dissolution was founded were inaccurate, and that consequently the dissolution was entirely wrong. It is quite conceivable that the present Government have done likewise - that they have misled the GovernorGeneral. This is a very serious situation. The decision of His Excellency to grant a double dissolution transcends in importance any interpretation which has yet been given to the Constitution, even by the High Court. The rights of all the smaller States have been swept away - rights which were guaranteed as a special inducement to them to enter the Federation, and without which they would never have entered it. The status of the Senate has been lowered, and the whole Federal character of our Constitution has been changed by that decision.

Senator Rae:

– Destroyed.

Senator MULLAN:

– Exactly. Is it not right, therefore, that we should be made acquainted with the reasons why this great change has been brought about ? The people will have to approve or disapprove of the advice tendered by the Government to His Excellency, and they should be afforded an opportunity of arriving at a decision upon it. They cannot do that if the evidence is withheld from them. The Ministry must be ashamed of the advice which they tendered to the Governor-General, or they would not be afraid to let the people know exactly what it was. I submit that government should not be carried on in this Star Chamber fashion. To-day, thanks to the Labour party, the very humblest citizen at the forthcoming election will have an opportunity to express his view upon this issue. But in order that a just decision may be arrived at, the reasons presented to the GovernorGeneral in favour of a double dissolution should be made public. If the Government desire to release His Excellency from this dispute, they have it in their power to do so. The Leader of the Opposition will have no objection to with- drawing the Address if ths Minister of Defence will release the GovernorGeneral from his present position by offering to place the whole correspondence between the Government and His Majesty’s representative on the table of the Senate.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– It is a pity that the Government party in this Chamber is not larger, as it is somewhat monotonous to address only one or two honorable senators. Personally I am glad that this Address^ has been brought forward. I am surprised that the Leader of the Government iti the Senate should have spoken in a shocked and reverent voice of the possibility of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral being dragged into the impending conflict. It has been said by previous speakers that the Government alone are responsible for that. I wish to say that the factors which have brought about the present situation were bound to produce a storm. Personally I am not particular where the storm centre is so long as I am near to it. It is time that we did have a storm, because it will clear the political atmosphere. I repeat that I do not care who is the storm centre. I do not know that anybody occupies such a deified position that he should be entirely free from the troubles which affect others. I want the people of the Commonwealth to know who are responsible for the Star Chamber methods of the present Government. As soon as I heard the Prime Minister refuse to disclose the reasons submitted to His Excellency the Governor-General in support of the Ministerial request for a double dissolution, I remarked that his action was entirely opposed to the essential principle of Democracy, namely, that publicity should be given to all public actions in order that the people might be able to pronounce judgment. When Senator Oakes, who has not the courage to defend the position taken up by his chief, contents himself with making puerile interjections, I would remind him that his statement that reasons were not made public when Labour Ministers advised a dissolution of Parliament is quite beside the question, and is probably on a level with his intellectual attainments in other directions. I am not surprised that he does not understand the difference between the cases he has cited and the present position.

Senator Oakes:

– Will the honorable senator tell me what is the difference?

Senator RAE:

– I am quite willing to act as the honorable senator’s mentor. The difference is that where a dissolution was not granted the public could not be interested in the reasons advanced iu favour of it. The reasons which have produced the most serious crisis that has arisen in the history of this Parliament are immeasurably more important than are reasons which produced an entirely negative result. But, as a matter of fact, I am not aware that in the one case those reasons were asked for, whereas in the present instance they have been asked for. My contention is that it is opposed to the basic principle of Democracy that we should be governed by Star Chamber methods. When Senator Oakes asks what we shall do, if, resenting as we do the action of the Government, we meet with a similar refusal at the hands of the GovernorGeneral, my reply is that it will be time enough for us to deal with troubles when we meet them. We are speaking on behalf of the electors of this country - on behalf of the sovereign people who are greater than honorable senators, greater than Governors-General, greater even than Kings - the people who elect this Parliament, and who have a right to know how it acts. When they decide that they will know what is being done, Senator Oakes may make his mind easy that they will find the means to accomplish their desire. I have no apprehension as to what will be the result of the presentation of this Address. But if it be not effective we shall know what to do. This, however, is not the time to canvass the methods which will be employed. When Senator Oakes talks about those who demanded a division on the so-called test measure - the Government Preference Prohibition Bill - and secured its rejection, urging objections as to what has since transpired, I would point out that he has been persistently making known in his own sorrowful tones his deep regret at the result. He has constantly regretted that his recent entry into this Chamber is likely to be of such short duration. I think that, embodied in this Address, are all sufficient reasons why the Governor-General should accede to our petition. I believe that it will be one of the historic documents of this Parliament to which future parliamentarians will look back with feelings with pride as marking an attempt to secure to them that knowledge which is theirs by right. Who are the members of this Government that they should arrogate to themselves the right to cloak their nefarious conduct under the guise of confidential conversations with His Excellency the Governor-General? One of my colleagues said just now that it was quite conceivable that the Government may have attempted to mislead His Excellency. I go further than that. Knowing some of the gentlemen who comprise the Ministry as well as I do, I say that it is almost inconceivable that they have not endeavoured to mislead him. They would be acting quite contrary to their inmost natures, and in opposition to their whole political careers, if they did not attempt to do so. Failing that candour which we have a right to expect amongst the leaders of a great party, we have no option but to approach the GovernorGeneral with a view to ascertaining whether he will be more amenable than the Government to reason and common sense.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the President present the Address to His Excellency the Governor-General.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is hardly necessary to move that motion, as the Standing Orders provide for that course being adopted. Standing order 364 says -

Addresses to the Governor-General shall be presented by the President, unless the Senate otherwise order.

However, I will put the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2184

QUESTION

POSTAL LINEMEN’S AWARD

Senator O’KEEFE:
for Senator Ready

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

When will the award given by the Federal Arbitration Court in the case of the Commonwealth Postal linemen be brought into operation?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– The award referred to came into operation on the 14th instant.

page 2184

QUESTION

NAVIES IN THE PACIFIC

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Will the Minister for Defence lay on the table of the Senate a return showing the relative strength (giving gun power, &c.) of the navies of the various Powers now stationed in the Pacific?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– I am having a return, as desired, prepared, and it will be tabled as soon as possible.

page 2184

QUESTION

BRITISH TREATY WITH JAPAN

Senator MAUGHAN:

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

Will the Minister be good enough to lay upon the table of the Senate a copy of the treaty recently agreed to as between Great Britain and Japan?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– My colleague informs me that he has only one official copy of the treaty, which, however, is published in Hertslet’s Treaties, obtainable in the Library. Under the circumstances, the honorable senator may not desire to have a copy laid on the table.

Senator MAUGHAN:

– Arising out of that answer, I shall be glad if the Minister will be good enough to have a copy of that treaty incorporated in the proceedings of the Senate.

Senator MILLEN:

– I would point out to the honorable senator that the treaty may be seen in the Parliamentary Library attached to this building. To table it here merely for the purpose of again having it printed would incur quite unnecessary expense. It is already a public document, and is obtainable in the Library a few yards distant from this chamber.

Senator Rae:

– But an honorable senator cannot obtain a copy of it.

Senator MILLEN:

– He can obtain a typed copy of it. It would involve unnecessary expense to duplicate public documents that are already available.

page 2184

QUESTION

BANANA INDUSTRY

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

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

Will the Government give consideration to the advisablenoss of applying the system of bounty and Excise to the banana industry of the Commonwealth ?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– It is not considered necessary or advisable to set up a system of bounty and Excise in connexion with the banana industry of the Commonwealth.

page 2184

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator RAE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice - 1.Referring to the reply on the 10th June to a question by SenatorRae regarding-the progress on the Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie railway, is it a fact that the plate-laying machine is capable of laying sleepers and rails at the rate of a mile every working day?

If so, does not the Minister’s statement, that 12 miles 554 chains, laid between the 30th April and the 30th May, is the greatest length ever covered in any one month on this line, prove that this costly machine is lying idle more than half its time?
Is there any difficulty in finding sufficient labour to keep the work of formation reasonably well ahead of the plate-laying?
If not, why is such labour not obtained?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– The answers are -

Yes.
Yes; but it must be remembered that until comparatively recently the only locomotives available were the low-powered second-hand engines which were not very suitable for tracklaying purposes, being more adapted for shunting. 3 and 4. If the country had merely to be levelled off there would be no difficulty in employing the requisite number of men to keep the formation sufficiently far ahead to keep the track-layer fully employed, but where, in country not well provided with water, cuttings and embankments have to be made and bridges and culverts built, it is not practicable to employ sufficient men to permit of continuous plate-laying.

page 2185

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lands Acquisition Act 1906- Land acquired under, at

Sherwood, Queensland - For Postal purposes.

Toowoomba, Queensland - For Defence purposes.

Unley, South Australia - For Postal purposes.

page 2185

ADJOURNMENT

Contract for Carriage of Sleepers - Absent Voting: New Regulation - Electoral Rolls : Objections : Removal of Names

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

.- Can the Vice-President of the Executive Council say whether the Commonwealth has entered into a contract with, Inter-State shipping companies or. others for the carriage of sleepers from Western Australia to Port Augusta. If so,will he tell the Senate what freights have been fixed, and what conditions are attached to the contract?

Senator McCOLL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · LP

.- I shall do my best to get the informationfor the honorable senator as early as possible.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [9.59].- The Minister of Defence told the Senate distinctly and emphatically that nothing would be done with regard to any proposed new regulations dealing with absent voting until both Houses were informed. We have had no information on the matter; yet I find, from this evening’s Herald, that a regulation has been formulated with directions as to how absent voting is to be conducted in the future. If the statement as published in theHerald is correct, a grave injustice will be done to members of the Railway Department, commercial travellers, and others who leave their cities early in the morning, and are away for, perhaps, a week. The statement published in the Herald is as follows : -

The new regulation confines the privilege of absent voting to those who have not been within a mile of a polling booth in their own subdivision on polling day.

– It is happening all over the country.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator will spread it all over the country regardless of whether there is an atom of truth in it or not. Let me take another statement which can be clearly refuted by a reference to public records. Senator Russellsaid that at Swan Hill, with a population of 2,000 people, no fewer than 500 objections to enrolment had been lodged. That is the kind of statement which has been thrown broadcast about this country.

Senator Maughan:

– That is correct, with the exception of the substitution of “and” for “nor.”

Senator MILLEN:

– That, I understand, has been approved of by Mr. Fisher.

Senator McGregor:

– That portion.

Senator MILLEN:

– The Government! instead of putting a man in a position to declare that he is not or would not be in his subdivision, have given him the area within a mile of it to roam over. To that extent we have liberalized the old regulation, and made things a little easier for the elector, who might not know his exact boundaries, but would know them within a mile.

Senate adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 June 1914, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1914/19140617_senate_5_74/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate17 June 1914

MEAT EXPORT TRADE COMMISSION BILL

QUESTION

POINT NEPEAN WRECK

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:Minister for Defence · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator Needham:

ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION

Circularto Electors - Objections : Removal of Names - Number of Electors Enrolled - Claim Cards

Senator OAKES:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McCOLL:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · LP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator OAKES:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator Oakes:

Senator McGREGOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McCOLL:

Senator RUSSELL:VICTORIA

Senator McCOLL:

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McCOLL:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Oakes:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Millen:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Oakes:

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

Senator McCOLL:

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Millen:

Senator RAE:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McColl:

Senator RAE:

Senator McDOUGALL:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator SENIOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Norton, Eileen Catherine M., Wandearah

Brown, Edward H., Port Pirie

Senator McCOLL:LP

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator OAKES:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator Russell:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator Millen:

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator SENIOR:

Senator Rae:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MILLEN:LP

Senator McCOLL:

Senator Millen:

Senator Russell:

Senator Millen:

Senator McCOLL:

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT

Senator McCOLL:LP

QUESTION

STATE RAILWAY MATERIAL

Senator MAUGHAN:QUEENSLAND

Senator McCOLL:LP

Senator Maughan:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator Maughan:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Maughan:

Senator McCOLL:

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE

Senator STORY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:LP

Senator Story:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Millen:

Senator STEWART:QUEENSLAND

Senate
17 June 1914

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Defence · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator OAKES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McCOLL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · LP

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:
VICTORIA

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McCOLL:
LP

Senator MILLEN:
LP

Senator McCOLL:
LP

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McCOLL:
LP

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
LP

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
LP

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

Senator McCOLL:
LP

Senator MILLEN:
LP

Senator McCOLL:
LP

Senator MILLEN:
LP

Senator READY:
Tasmania

Senator LONG:
Tasmania

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator STEWART:
Queensland