Senate
25 November 1920

8^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- NOTICE OF MOTION
QUESTION
- BONUS ON GOLD
QUESTION
- SUGAR
QUESTION
- NAVY
NEW BUSINESS
- Suspension of Standing Order
ORDER OF BUSINESS
APPROPRIATION BILL 1920-1921
WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT REPEAL BILL
- Second Reading
PAPERS
INDUSTRIAL PEACE BILL
RIVER. MURRAY. WATERS BILL
- Second Reading
HOUR OF MEETING

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and road prayers.

page 6953

QUESTION

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to raise a question of privilege. I had a notice of motion on the business-paper in my name prior to a recent visit to Sydney on public business, and when I came back I found that it had disappeared from the paper.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable senator will permit me, I may save time by explaining that the motion in the name of Senator Foll was called on in the usual way, and as no member of the Senate was in a position to say that he had authority from the honorable senator to postpone the consideration of the motion, or to deal with it in any way in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the Senate, it disappeared from the busineespaper. It is quite open to the honorable senator to give notice of. the motion again, and have it restored to the paper.

page 6953

QUESTION

BONUS ON GOLD

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

What are the conditions governing the distribution of bonuses payable’ on gold marketed inside and outside the Commonwealth ?
Whether the Government, through its agencies, share in determining the destination of such bonus?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The following answers have been supplied : -

Permission has been given to the Gold Producers Association to export all gold won by the members of the association since 1st February, 1919. The existing permit expires on 31st July, 1921, but may be further extended on the approval of the Treasurer. Membership of the Gold Producers Association is open toall bona fide gold producers.

Gold is sold by the mints to manufacturing jewellers, dentists, and others, at the mint par value, plus a premium based on the world’s average price for gold for the preceding six months. The premium has been fixed at £1 On. 3d. per standard ounce for the halfyear ending 31st March, 1921. The gold sold by the mints is deemed to have been provided out of the gold belonging to the Gold Producers Association.

The premium thus earned by the export and sale of gold is distributed amongst the members of the Gold Producers- Association in pp roportion to the total value of mint returns l odged by each member.

The premium is distributed by the Gold Producers- Association, and the Commonwealth Government is not concerned in such distribution.

page 6954

QUESTION

SUGAR

Supplies for Jam

Senator LYNCH:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Whether the Government is aware that, owing to the inadequate supply of sugar during the past few years in the fruit season, large quantities of fruit in Western Australia were allowed to rot because of such shortage?
Whether during the coming fruit season sufficient supplies will be made available to meet the demands of domestic requirements?

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

– The answers are -

There was an unavoidable shortage of sugar.
It is confidently expected that the supplies coming forward will be sufficient for all requirements.

page 6954

QUESTION

NAVY

Distribution of Ships and Forces

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

If the Government will take into early consideration the advisability of a more equal distribution of the Ships and Forces of the Royal Australian Navy among the principal Australian ports?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following reply : -

The Naval Forces of the Commonwealthare distributed in accordance with a definite programme laid down by the Naval Board, with a view to obtaining the greatest efficiency and economy.

page 6954

NEW BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Order

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That standing order No. 68 be suspended up to and including Friday, the 28th November, 1920, for the purpose of enabling new business to be commenced after half-past ten o’clock at night.

page 6954

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to- -

That until the 26th day of November, 1920, Government business, unless otherwise ordered, take precedence of all other business on the notice-paper, except questions and formal motions.

page 6954

APPROPRIATION BILL 1920-1921

Bill read a third time.

page 6954

WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT REPEAL BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

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

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I should like to know whether the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders as proposed will suspend the right of an honorable senator to take a -point of order as to whether this Bill is properly before the Senate. The very wording of the motion- seems to imply that any standing order that would prevent the measure going through will be suspended if the motion is carried. If that be the case, I should like to take a point of order on the Bill before the motion, is carried. If that is not so, I should prefer that the first two clauses of the Bill should be passed before I raise my point of order. I should be glad, sir, to have your ruling as to whether the passing of the motion will shut me out from the opportunity to raise a point of order on the Bill later.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– I may explain that the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Ordersunder the motion will merely provide for the elimination of formal delays in the passing of the measure. It will not in any way limit the right of discussion on the measure or the opportunity to raise points of order, properly arising out of the discussion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

With this preliminary explanation, I come now to the subjects with which the

Bill specifically deals, and which were previously dealt with by the War Precautions Act. There is, for example, the coal question, to which I have already referred. The War Precautions (Coal) Regulations are to be continued, but with a definite date fixed for their termination, namely, 31st December, 1921. In the ‘meantime the Governor-General may repeal, alter, or amend those regulations, and persons contravening them will be guilty of an offence. But no prosecution will be instituted in regard to any such offence without the written consent of the Attorney-General, or a person who is authorized in writing by him. The expiry of these regulations will not affect any accrued rights, privileges, or obligations. The situation in regard to coal in Australia has been extremely critical for some time, and in respect of the manufacturing industries of all the States it is a matter of first class importance that a supply of coal should be assured to them. It has been found, as the result of experience, that that supply in the States can be secured only by Federal action. The States of Tasmania, South Australia, and Victoria have impressed upon the Commonwealth Government their desire that the Commonwealth should continue to take a part in the control of this matter until conditions become more normal.

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– But we cannot compel the Newcastle miners to work.

Senator PEARCE:

– We cannot; ‘but there are other things that we can do. It is clear that the position in regard to coal is a position which has been largely created as the result’ of the war. The war was responsible for the withdrawal of large quantities of freight, for the shortage of coal by reason of the withdrawal of labour, and for excessive demands being made upon our coal supply by other countries. The necessity to regulate the supply of coal, therefore, is a direct result of the war. When we reflect that this power is asked for only up till the end of 1921, it will be recognised that it is surely a legitimate use of the war power which must repose in every Government, to insure that the industrial needs of the country are provided for, not only during the war period, but after war has ceased.

Another matter dealt with by the Bill relates to the control of the wharf at Port Pirie. The War Precautions (Wharf) Regulations authorize the Prime Minister or any person authorized by him to take possession of any wharf at that port. These regulations will be repealed, but will be deemed to remain in force in relation to claims arising out of anything which has been done under them, and in regard to functions exercisable under them. The Bill will, therefore, enable us to clean up any obligations which may have been contracted whilst those regulations were in force. Honorable members know the reason why we had to take control of that wharf during the war. It was because it was the wharf from which our supply of munitions was chiefly shipped. The use of that wharf for this purpose was found to be of great benefit; but it is not proposed to continue to control it other than to honour existing obligations. In regard to our primary products, the provisions of the Bill will authorize the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to enter into arrangements with State Governments and with banking corporations to provide funds for the financial requirements of the States to enable them to operate any scheme for the transportation and marketing of Australian primary products. In this connexion he may give guarantees to the banks in regard to the repayment of advances by the various States, and may arrange for the Commonwealth to accept portion of any liability incurred in connexion with the payment of advances to primary producers. It is also proposed by the clause to ratify any such agreement already entered into. There is no War Precautions Regulation dealing with this matter, but sections 10 and 12 of the Commercial Activities Act 1919 contain similar provisions in regard to the 191S-19 and 1919-20 harvests. That surely i.s an’ eminently desirable power with which the Commonwealth Government should be clothed. Those who, on the one hand., say that all these powers should be stripped away would be the first, if they were so stripped away, to denounce this Parliament and this Government because they had not made provision to enable the Wheat Pool, for instance, to be carried on, at any rate for the present year, and to enable us to get back to normality in that regard, and also in regard to the other Pools operating at the present time.

It is proposed to amend the Commercial Activities Act so as to extend the powers in relation to sugar from 30th September,1920, to 30th June, 1923. That is done by clause 6. In this regard the Commonwealth had to operate under the War Precautions Act, and later under the Commercial Activities Act, but whilst the sugar market outside Australia is in a disturbed and fluctuating condition, in order to have some guarantee for our secondary industries that are dependent on sugar, and in order to see that the sugar produced in Australia is available for the consumers in Australia, it is necessary that contracts should be entered into between the Commonwealth Government, as representing the rest of Australia, and the Queensland Government. Naturally, if those contracts are to be fair to both sides, they have to be entered into over such a space of time as will give some guarantee to those entering into the industry and planting cane that they will get a return for the crop they are planting when it is harvested. Whilst that is an advantage to the sugar-grower of Queensland, it can be easily demonstrated, by a slight examination of the sugar market in the outside world, that it has been of even greater advantage to the consumers, and particularly to the jam manufacturers, in Australia. If this power were stripped away, and nothing were put in its place, the consumers of this country, looking at the sugar position outside Australia, would soon be screaming for this Parliament toenact fresh legislation to take control of this matter again.

During the war, regulations were made dealing with the registration of companies, firms and businesses, and these it is proposed to continue till 31st December, 1921, and to authorize the making of regulations repealing, altering or amending them during that period, provided that they are not inconsistent with the clause. No prosecution can be commenced without the consent of the AttorneyGeneral. The Bill also provides that no company in which more than onethird of the shares are held by aliens can, without the consent of the Treasurer, acquire any mine, or interest in a mine, or any mining or metallurgical business, and that no alien canacquire shares in any company incorporated in the Commonwealth without such consent. I take it that Senator Gardiner will say, “If you are going to deal with that question, you should deal with it under a companies law.”

Senator Gardiner:

– Hear, hear!

– We were operating under a War Precautions Act regulation.

There are also amendments of the Crimes Act, which deal principally with sedition, concerning which I have already spoken and on which I do hot propose toelaborate at this juncture, asthey can be more effectively dealt with in Committee. If ft is decided that there should be legislation against sedition, it should be included in such a measure as this.

The Bill also provides that any municipality, Harbor Trust or Board or Marine Board or local governing body may invest inany loan raised by the Government of the Commonwealth any of its funds or anymoneys raised by it by way of loan. Such bodiesmay also borrow money byway of bank overdraft or otherwise for investment in any loan, and sell any stock or bonds of any suchloan.

Provision has also been made toenable a bank to advancemoney to employees for investment in Commonwealth loans. These provisions arecopied from supplementary regulations issued under the

– It is a question of whether the State andCommonwealth laws conflict, and that is a matter which the Court would have to decide. If the Court should decide that it was a function of the Commonwealth, our law would override that of a State.

Provision is also made that the agent for oversea companies or firms must surply to the Collector of Customs annually particulars of the name and address of the company or firm, the amount of its capital, and the name and addresses of its branches. In the case of a firm, the name, address, and nationality of each member must be submitted. This is practically supplementary, and has been inserted to enable a record to be kept of foreign capital invested in Australian industries.

There are a number of minor clauses which are really additions to the Crimes Act, such as making it an offence to deface or destroy British gold coins. There are also powers to frame regulations under the Bill on a variety of subjects, including the closing to members of any of the “Naval or Military Forces premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors.

– I am not going to Queensland for any examples of legislation, except that for improving the condition of the people.

This Bill received from another place is submitted ostensibly to repeal the War Precautions Act 1914-18, and to provide for certain matters arising out of such repeal, and for other purposes. I take the provision with respect to coal mines; and will any one say two years after the war has ceased that an agreement with the coal miners has anything whatever to do with the war? It may be very convenient and desirable to have such an agreement, but what has it to do with a measure to repeal the War Precautions Act?

Senator Payne:

– It is a matter arising out of the repeal of the Act.

Senator GARDINER:

– By a stretch of imagination an honorable senator might suggest that almost anything is a matter arising out of the repeal of the War Precautions Act. After this Bill is passed we shall find matters arising out of it, and the powers of the Government in respect thereto will be extended, because, in my opinion, the members of this Government have no sense of decency in connexion with the introduction or administration of legislation.

It is not long ago since the Senate passed a Bill dealing with unlawful assemblies, and proposing to do exactly what this Bill proposes.

Senator Foster:

– The provision in this Bill is word for word the same as the Bill passed by the Senate.

Senator GARDINER:

– That Bill was passed by the Senate and sent to another place. Why was it not passed there ?

Senator Earle:

Senator GARDINER:

– I define as the power-holding classes the people who control the companies; the people who are now supporting the Government, and are behind this measure, which includes a Bill passed by the Senate but could not be got through another place.

Senator Senior:

– And yet the identical words contained in the Bill we passed are in this measure, which has been passedby another place.

Senator GARDINER:

– If the words are identical, why was not the Bill we sent to another place passed? We know, of course, that this Bill is a quicker way of doing things. It is, in. fact, direct action. All the Industrial Workers of the World are not on my side in politics now. The Government have taken over their methods.

I do not wish to continue the discussion of this Bill. Mr. President, so I shall content myself by taking your ruling as to whether the Bill i.3 in order. It is cited as the War Precautions Act Repeal Act . 1920, and clause 2 provides -

The War Precautions Act 1914-1918 is hereby repealed.

– The responsibility will be ours, if we pass it.

Senator EARLE:

– I decline to accept that responsibility, because I doubt whether the Bill is complete enough.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– At the commencement of the war it was found absolutely necessary to supersede our existing legislation by one comprehensive measure known as the War Precautions Act. When that Act was passed by this Parliament, previous legislation became subordinate to its provisions and to the regulations that were framed under it. That Act remained operative during the duration of the war, and for six months afterwards. Before the expiration of that time, the period of its operations was still further extended. That measure, which superseded many of our laws when it was enacted, must now be repealed. It must be repealed in exactly the same way as the original Act itself was passed. I do not object to the pro visions of the War Precautions Act, except in so far as miscarriage of justice may have occurred under its operation. During the war I was rather inclined to think that we were not as severe as we should have been upon those persons who talked lightly of the part that we were playing in that struggle. But, if there were any miscarriages of justice under its operation, they are past and gone, and we had better allow bygones to be bygones.

SenatorFairbairn. - We erred upon the side of mercy, anyhow.

Senator LYNCH:

– I think so. It is. very necessary for us to continue to vest in the Government certain powers which are embodied in this Bill. The rest of the Bill is certainly very comprehensive, coveringas Senator Gardiner said, matters ranging from the stamping of gold metalto the companies law, and theregulation of the conduct of aliens. But the War Precautions Act itself was also’ most comprehensive. I suppose there wasnever a measure passed, by this or any other Parliament of so comprehensive a nature as was the War Precautions Act in. itself, and standing by itself. Having been brought into being as such, it takes a comprehensive measure to put it out of existence. When I read this measure; and saw how it extended to most of the ramifications of our commercial and social life, it reminded me of the lecturer who, not wishing to confine himself within too narrow limits, chose for his topic “ The Universe and Collateral Subjects.” This measure is very nearly on the same lines, and so war the War Precautions Act, although it was highly necessary, warranted, and justifiable in its day. But it . has done its duty and had its day, and we can afford to say to it, “ Well done; you have served your purpose, and you are no longer necessary.” I am quite content to support this Bill, in such circumstances. I believe there is no other means of dealing with the situation, although it may seem at first sight somewhat incongruous to introduce so many subjects under the one heading.

Senator J D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I have certainly experienced a considerable amount of astonishment at the way in which this Bill was brought in. It surprised me that, after the Senate had dealt with an Unlawful Assemblies Bill, and sent it on to another plana, it should be simply thrown into limbo, and then brought back to us under another name. That does not seem to be treating the Senate with the courtesy that it deserves.

Senator Keating:

– We should rescind that before we pass this portion of the Bill now before us.

Senator J D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– It was amazing to me that such a thing could happen.

Senator Pearce:

– There has been all the time a War Precautions Regulation in existence dealing with that subject.

Senator J D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– There is no doubt about that, and I am not complaining of it; but I do Complain that the time of the Senate should be taken upon a. Bill which is then thrown out by another place and sent back to us under another guise. That does not seem to be the proper way to deal with legislation. I admit that I do not know very much about it; but, as a matter of ordinary business efficiency and economy, it seems to be, to a very large extent, side-stepping the issue.

There are very many things in this Bill with which I agree. I feel that the clauses dealing with the amendments of the Crimes Act and the question of entry into the Commonwealth deserve our most hearty support, and for that reason I am prepared to swallow a fair amount as regards the rest of the Bill. I realize that, unhappily, our ethical and political problems cannot now be satisfactorily settled by simply establishing the doctrine of laissez faire. It is impossible to hand out unrestricted liberty to all members of the Commonwealth on the ground that it is a possession of unequalled value, and to which they have a moral right, because that liberty does not come as a boon to some of them, and it certainly does in some circumstances result in detriment to the individual, and eventually to the State itself. Where liberty has been granted to an individual, or to a State, there is in that contract an implied, condition that it shall not be used to the detriment of the individuals comprising the State, or the State itself. We went through five years of war. We went through a cataclysm that swept over a great portion of the civilized globe. We saw a hundred battlefields, and we saw the results of those battlefields. We expected to draw from those results certain lessons, and surely we would hope to get, among them, a lesson in discipline. Has that been achieved? Is there any discipline to-day in any class ? Discipline seems to have gone by the board. Restraint of any description is deprecated, as if restraintwere detrimental to the very State itself. Further than that, one would think that, as our nation went to war for the rights of the smaller nations, we, as individuals, would be prepared to respect each other’s rights, but to-day stalking through the land, naked and unashamed, is selfishness in its most arrogant form. As the war has passed over, what do we find left? We find left amongst us largely all forms of selfishness, a considerable amount of sedition and of disloyalty. Apologists make out a strong case to show that there has been some very evil examples set to the people, and they are not to be blamed. One of the most ugly things that we have to deal with is profiteering. Profiteering has torn society asunder. I want honorable senators to realize thoroughly that I am not referring now to the capitalistic class only. I am referring to the labour class as well. I am referring to those who, with their utter selfishness, are going about seizing all they possibly can, destroying and tearing down the very pillars of Democracy. Atfirst and for a little while the spirit of gain crept about after the beginning of the war with veiled face and. furtive care, but now it stalked forth as a Colossus “bestriding our land. The doctrine of selfishness is bringing our people into a condition in which sedition and disloyalty can be very easily bred.

What are we to do to alter that set of circumstances? If we go back over history to find some means which we can use to build up and better our present state, the mind goes back to Plato’s ideal State. In this we find firm governance and the sovereign authority of a small band - a few guardians of the people - incapable of intellectual error owing to their profound studies in solid geometry. They would not. succumb to any. moral temptation, because of their close association with the platonic philosophy. Can we find in that ideal State any way out of our present difficulty? If we take away those fantastic trimmings that the perversity of Plato wound round hia ideal State, I think we shall agree that he has pointed out the right path; that is, the steady development of the true sense of citizenship in every one within the State. We must realize that there is an increasing purpose passing on down through the ages. There is a cosmic mind having a cosmic purpose, and that cosmic purpose is supreme in wisdom and irresistible in power. We must realize that good will always prevail.. If it is true, as Plato laid down, that those citizens who had been thoroughly trained in the best arts of citizenship, and who were possessed with the very essence of his platonic philosophy, should get out and endeavour to educate all the others in a sense of citizenship and a spirit of service - if this condition, could be realized, it would go far to build up such a race as we now need. It would out out that selfishness which is causing a great deal of the trouble which this Bill has been brought forward to mitigate or stop.

In our present state, where we have a particular and political ideal, a particular and political regime, neither our present politics nar our virtue will stand what is now being thrown up against it. When the seed which is being sown broadcast throughout the land is bringing forth these horrible fruits, tearing away the very ideals and foundations on which our society depends, it is, therefore, absolutely essential that something should be done in the way of bringing forward a Bill to stop the sedition mongers and those who flagrantly breed disloyalty, and who would bring amongst us internecine strife that would eventually destroy the very foundations of that Empire to which we are proud to belong.

I very much regret that a Bill was not brought in as a Sedition Bill, and that there will not stand on our statutebook a Sedition Act, instead of being, as now, camouflaged under the name of a ‘ War Precautions Act that has been repealed. I think most members of both Houses would be glad to stand up and vote for something that would add further glory and pride to Australia’s name, and give her her place more firmly amongst the nations of the earth, cutting away that disloyalty that would attempt to separate us from the great Motherland which so many of Australia’s bestsons went out to aid in her time of peril.

Senator ADAMSON:
Queensland

– ‘I feel that I should justify my position in voting for a Bill of this kind. I recognise that it is an innovation so far as legislation is concerned, but it is an innovation born of experience and necessity. We have passed through the war, and all the things attendant on war. We have passed through many peculiar experiences in the different States during the last five or six years. One of the things that struck me during the whole of that time was that men. who wanted to say things that were, if not disloyal, at any rate bordering upon disloyalty, sought to use the Constitution in order to get behind the Constitution. ‘To my mind, that is one of the great reasons why a measure, of this kind should be placed on the statute-book. Something has been said about the Bill dealing with so many different subjects; but the same thing was true of much of the legislation passed during the war. Take, for instance, some of the Bills that were used to commandeer certain goods. There were drag-net clauses in them, and some of the acts done under them ‘had practically no bearing upon the Status which was used to justify them. For example, there was the commandeering of beef in Queensland. This was done under the Sugar Acquisition Act, and the clause which was used to justify it was passed merely to enable those at the Head of affairs in Queensland to do what they considered was for the good of the State of Queensland, but what, at the same time, was doing harm, so far as the Empire and the nation as a whole were concerned.

This Bill apparently seeks to give people power to say certain things about the Constitution in a iona fide way. In my opinion, much of the talk which was called disloyalty during the war might have been uttered in a bond fide way, but it was uttered in such a way as to make people feel that the men who were responsible for it were completely disloyal. It was hard to charge such persons with disloyalty, because the elasticity of the

British Constitution allowed many things to be done during the war that should have been prevented. While it may have been desirable to bring in a separate Bill dealing with, say, companies or sedition, it must be admitted that a separate discussion on such matters would have taken up considerable time, and there is no one who would have done more to retard the passage of such Bills than Senator Gardiner.

Senator Gardiner:

– I generally assist in the discussion of Bills.

Senator ADAMSON:

– The honorable senator has certainly expressed his opinion very freely this afternoon concerning the action taken in another place. If this Bill is an innovation, it is certainly justified in view ‘of our experience during the war, and has become a necessity. As Parliament is about to adjourn for an extended period, it is desirable that the Government should have power to deal with these matters in the way they consider necessary for the welfare and progress of the Commonwealth. As Senator J. D. Millen has stated, disloyalty is rampant everywhere, and the Government should control those who preach sedition or are anxious to disorganize or destroy the recognised form of government. While I believe in the principles of Magna Charta and everything that promotes liberty under the British Constitution, as Senator J. D. Millen has stated, we must have discipline, and not allow liberty to became licence. Those who are prepared to adopt unconstitutional methods to promote disloyalty and revolution should be controlled by law or deported from the country. Whatever there may be of a novel character in this Bill, the state of affairs in the Commonwealth and the world generally fully justify its introduction.

Senator Gardiner:

– I rise to order. Clause 10 of this Bill deals with unlawful assemblies, and as the Senate has already passed a measure relating to that matter, I desire to ascertain whether we have the right to again consider the question in this form.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– I have already ruled that the Bill is in order,’ and, therefore, that question cannot be debated. The proper time for the honorable senator to raise I a point of order on a particular clause is when the measure is in Committee.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– The main arguments that have been presented against this Bill have been based on its comprehensiveness, lt provides for a surrender of certain powers that could be exercised under the War Precautions Act and its regulations, and the retention of specific powers. Senator Gardiner’s strong argument against the Bill was based on its comprehensiveness, and because the Government are retaining power to- control such primary products as wool and wheat. But the honorable senator must remember that these powers are being retained at the wish of the producers. When the Government intimated that it was not their desire to continue to exercise this authority under the War Precautions Act, and wished to clear themselves of their responsibilities, there -were many who rejoiced. But those individuals .who took - that stand ultimately learned that no one could handle their produce as effectively as the Government, and they, therefore, asked for a continuance of Government control. Senator Gardiner objects to the people using a Committee of the people to act for the whole in the best way. In other words, the honorable senator took exception to the Government exercising functions for which they really exist. The Government does not exist merely -for the making of laws, but in an administrative as well as a legislative capacity. Exception has been taken to the Government exercising powers in an administrative capacity, but they have exercised those powers only for the benefit of the people.

Senator Wilson:

– Parliament has no direct administrative authority.

Senator SENIOR:

– Parliament existsby the will of the people, and it is useless unless it expresses the will of the people in an administrative way.

Senator Wilson:

– Parliament has no power of itself.

Senator SENIOR:

This Bill deals with many things, from the requirements of primary producers down to the’ Criminal Code, and all under the one heading. I recognise that during the next year or two it will be necessary for the Government to have extensive powers to finance and handle primary production. That, to me, is not even a debatable question.

Senator Lynch:

– The War Precautions Act took a very wide sweep.

Senator WILSON:

– It did, and that is the very point I am trying to make. The provisions of this Bill are of a very farreaching character, and I think that it is asking rather too much to ask us to pass such a measure at the eleventh hour before we go into recess. One honorable senator has said that he leaves the responsibility to the Government, but I take the stand that the responsibility of pass:ng legislation in this Chamber does not belong to the Government, but to individual senators. We are here for that purpose.

Senator Gardiner, in the course of his speech, made the statement that the new senators settled this matter in caucus.- I mav assure the honorable senator that I am not one of those who are privileged to attend that august assembly. I endeavour to carry my personal responsibility in dealing with matters submitted to the Senate, and claim even a greater freedom in this connexion than Senator Gardiner himself enjoys.

Senator Gardiner:

– I shall apologize to the honorable senator the first time I get an opportunity of speaking.

Senator WILSON:

– Senator Gardiner must know that I shall be very pleased to accept his apology, but it is just as well that statements such as that to which I have referred should be refuted. In discussing this Bill, the honorable senator was most careful not to discuss the provisions in it, which appeared to me to be of the greatest importance. I refer, for instance, to clause 9, dealing with entry into the Commonwealth. We are proposing, under this clause, to ask every man who comes here to sign an oath that he is going to be a good citizen and a worthy Australian.

Senator Reid:

– We are taking the power to put the oath of allegiance, but not necessarily to every one.

Senator WILSON:

– The Bill proposes to give the Government the power to ask any one of a suspicious character whether he is prepared to be a good citizen and a worthy Australian. I say that that provision alone warrants me in voting for the Bill. To-day, from one end of Australia to the ether, we have specimens of the imported article from America and other places, who have come here under the banner of the Industrial Workers of the World, and other similar banners, and the Commonwealth would be well rid of them. Clause 9 of this Bill will give the Government power to protect us from the entry of such people in the future. Standing in a public park within the last few weeks, I heard a soap-box orator speak of one of the finest soldiers who ever left this country as being a “legalized murderer.” if we leave these fellows alone, and the Government look on at their propaganda with a smile, we cannot be surprised if there is a growth of the disloyalty of which some honorable senators have spoken. As representatives enjoying the confidence of the” people of the different States, we are here to do what we believe to be our duty, and should maintain the reputation for peace and good-will amongst its inhabitants which Australia has enjoyed for so long. In view of the inclusion of the important clause to which I have just referred, I commend this measure to Senator Gardiner, whom I know to be a good Australian. As such, the honorable senator should be only too pleased to come out boldly, and assist us in carrying such a desirable provision.

– I have so much faith in the intelligence of the people of Australia that I am satisfied that the honorable senator and his party have a long way to go before they will get back to this Parliament in a majority.

I come now to deal with the provision in this Bill for the curtailment of criticism, and especially that of the press. I think that the restriction of criticism can be carried altogether too far. As public men, we must be prepared to submit ourselves to public criticism. I am aware that there is a feeling to-day, which is more marked in the Federal Parliament than it is in the State Parliaments, that we have a right to resent press criticism. We should know, as public men, the grievance given expression to by successful men of the past. They said, ‘” Criticise me as you like, favorably or adversely, but forHeaven’s sake do not leave me alone.”

Senator Lynch:

– That was deadly.

Senator WILSON:

– No, I think it was George Reid. On the question of the press and public criticism, I say unhesitatingly that objection to it can be carried too far. I think there is some ground for complaining that the Government should have introduced a measure dealing with so many different subjects, and should toss it on the table and ask us to pass it to-day. I have had the Bill in my possession for about half-a-day, and, in discussing it, can only do the best I can in the circumstances.

I wish to direct the attention of honorable senators to a provision contained in clause 12, which justifies me in voting for this measure and in commending it to Senator Gardiner. It is provided in this clause that -

To promote (feelings of ill-will and. hostility between different classes of His Majesty’s subjects so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth, is a seditious intention.

I do not want to say much more, because a second-reading speech of any length on a Bill of this character is not necessary,especially as we shall have to deal with the measure clause by clause in Committee, and every clause, practically, is important. But I should like tosay a word or two about the objection that so many matters have been included in the Bill. I take it that the Government have ‘ been placed in this position : We are approaching the termination of the session, for this year at allevents, and unless these matters were included in a comprehensive Bill there was no possibility of the Government being able to act promptlyin any emergency that might arise between now and the time when Parliament meets again next year. But, after all, the title of the Bill sets forth clearly its purpose. It is a measure to deal with certain matters arising out of the repeal of the War Precautions Act, “and for other purposes.” This phraseology isto be found in many of our Statutes, so the objection raised on this score is not justified, especially in view of the peculiar circumstances in which we find ourselves. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill, and I hope that when we come to the contentious clauses in Committee, the good sense of the Senate will so impress Senator Gardiner that, instead ofopposing them, he will give them his support.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– There are one or two points upon which I should like to touch. One is the procedure adopted in regard to the Unlawful Assemblies Bill thatwas passed by the Senate some time ago. I am not going to say that I defend that procedure. I confess frankly that I would have preferred to see the Bill taken up by another place and passed. But, unfortunately, the Government are not in such a happy position in another Chamber as in this, and I presume that Ministers in charge of the business there thought there was a better chance of getting a speedy passage for legislation on that subject by adopting this procedure. I draw attention to the objection that has been raised by several honorable senators that a number of diverse subjects are dealt with in the Bill. They speak as though, when this Bill becomes an Act, we shall have several Acts dealing with the same subject. That will not be the case at all. Let us look at the construction of the Bill. In clause 6 there is an amendment of the Commercial Activities Act, and in clause 11 a number of amendments to the Crimes Act. These amendments, so far as the Commonwealth Statutes are concerned, will be included in the respective Acts. In the Crimes Act will be set out all the offences which are provided for in this measure. Thus there will not be that confusion which some honorable senators anticipate, merely because all these matters are dealt with in one Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

In the Senate:

The Chairman of Committees. - In Committee Senator Gardiner raised a point of order upon clause 3. I ruled against him upon- the ground that the clause comes within the scope of the measure. Senator Gardiner has dissented from my ruling upon the ground that the clause is outside its scope. My ruling was based upon the fact that the clause relates to a matter arising out of the repeal of ‘ the War Precautions Act 1914-18, and as such comes within the scope of the comprehensive title of the measure.

Senator Gardiner:

– When I raised my previous point of order, you, sir, ruled against me in respect to the entire Bill. I still submit, however, that this clause relates to a matter which is absolutely foreign to the War Precautions Act. It deals with an industrial matter of a State, and is, therefore, quite outside the title of the measure. When you, sir, ruled against me upon the entire Bill I accepted your ruling, but I claim that I am now within my rights in testing whether certain objectionable clauses in the measure are. in order. If you rule against me upon the present occasion I shall not persist in raising points of order in respect of those clauses, and, therefore, the procedure which I am following will effect a saving of time.

Senator Pearce:

– This is a Bill “to repeal the War Precautions Act 1914-18, and to provide for certain matters arising out of such repeal.” Clause 3 clearly deals with a matter “arising out of such repeal.” The coal matter is one which is dealt with under the War Precautions Act, and because we are repealing a portion of that Act it becomes necessary to deal with this question which arises out of it.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– Whatever may be said in regard to other provisions of the Bill, I do not think there can be any doubt that this clause comes within its scope and ambit. It sets out that certain regulations under the War Precautions Act shall continue in force, and it imposes a limit to the period of their continuance. It is quite permissible in a repeal Bill to prescribe a date upon which the provisions of the Act which is to be repealed shall cease to operate. That is chiefly what this clause does. Subclause 2 of it provides -

Subject to this section, the War Precautions (Coal) Regulations shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one.

There a definite date is fixed, and unless those regulations are further extended by Act of Parliament they cannot continue in operation beyond that date. Obviously that is quite permissible in a repeal Bill. The War Precautions Regulations were made under an Act which it is now proposed to repeal, and this clause provides for the continuance of certain regulations made under that Act for a definite period. I therefore rule that the clause is in order.

In Committee:

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– Having failed to obtain a ruling in the direction which I desire I shall now, clause by clause, briefly express my opposition to the objectionable provisions of this measure. Coming to the War Precautions Regulations dealing with the coal industry, I claim that under our Constitution” this Parliament has no power to interfere with trade within a State, and we cannot, under any pretence whatever, do something which the Constitution does not empower us to do. We are now passing this Bill, but any successful appeal against the validity of any portion of it will nullify the whole of it.

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– No.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, I dare say that the honorable senator could quote a seaman’s case in which that occurred. Under our Constitution the powers of this Parliament are plainly defined. That charter of government makes it perfectly clear that we have no power to interfere with trade within a State. But because there was a war some years ago-

Senator Cox:

– There is still a bit of it hanging about.

Senator GARDINER:

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– Thehonorable senator’s time has expired.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 -

With regard to any wharf, possession of which has before the commencement of this Act been taken in pursuance of the War Precautions (Wharf) Regulations (StatutoryRules 1917, No. 79), those regulations shall be deemed to remain in force -

in relation to claims by any person arising out of anything done under those regulations; and

as regards functions exercisable under those regulations.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- This is a many-sided Bill, and almost every clause in it is a Bill in itself. I must, therefore, be cautious about allowing any clause to pass until I am reasonably well acquainted with what it contains. The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) will nob take exception to that, because we saw this Bill for the first time after 3 o’clock this afternoon. The honorable senator immediately moved the suspension of the Standing Orders, and I offered no objection, because at the close of a session one does not care to put unnecessary obstacles in the way of the transaction of business. I should like to know what are the functions exercisable under these wharf regulations that are to remain in force under this Bill?

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 9.30 p.m.

Senator GARDINER:

– I find that this is a matter chiefly concerning South Australia, but it might be just as well to show what powers the honorable senators from that ‘State are prepared to hand over, not to the Federal Parliament, but to the Prime Minister. This particular regulation, known as the War Precautions (Wharf) Regulation, reads -

These regulations may be cited as the War Precautions (Wharf) Regulations.
The Prime Minister, or any person or authority authorized by him, may, upon publication of a notice in the Qnsette or service upon the owner, of his intention to do so, outer upon and take possession and control of any wharf situated at Port Pirie, in the State of South Australia.
Any person having any claim arising out of anything done by or on behalf of the Prime Minister under these regulations shall, within twenty-one days after the doing of the thing, forward particulars of his claim to. the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Offices, Melbourne, and the Prime Minister shall deal with such claim.
Any function exercisable underthe laws of the State of South Australia, by any authority of that State in relation to any wharf specified in a notice published in pursuance of these regulations, may be exercised by the Prime Minister or the person or authority specified by the Prime Minister.

– I am aware of that, Mr. Chairman, but it is very difficult, owing to disorderly interjections, to refrain from doing so. But I am not quite sure that I could not, if I were so disposed, demonstrate that the testimonial of £25,000 to the Prime Minister is related to the clause under discussion, because no doubt it came from people who are more or less interested in powers now being exercised by the Prime Minister, and particularly a power relating to one of the South Australian wharfs, which South Australian senators are now prepared to continue under this clause.

If the people of South Australia are satisfied with the position, then all I can say is that they are the people I would like to represent.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– Senator Gardiner has a greater capacity for tearing passion to tatters than any other honorable senator in this Chamber. This clause simply deals with an agreement entered into between the State of South Australia and the Commonwealth Government, under which the Commonwealth Government undertook the erection of certain coal appliances on a wharf at Port Pirie, South Australia. We took that power under the War Precautions Regulations with the full consent and goodwill of the South Australian Government. Certain claims are arising out of that action. If we repealed the War Precautions Act in its entirety, those claims would stand, so it is essential that some representative of the Commonwealth Government must be named. It could not be the Commonwealth Government as a whole, so the Prime Minister is named as our representative. I am surprised that Senator Gardiner did not remark on the fact that the regulation is signed “ G. F. Pearce, Minister for Defence,” and from that suggest some horrible significance. The whole thing is hardly worth the storm in a teacup which the honorable senator has raised.

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I repudiate entirely the statement made by Senator Gardiner concerning the representatives of South Australia in this Chamber. We know Port Pirie; he does not. We know the wharf there, and all about the arrangement that was made for the erection of a coal grab for the purpose of feeding the mother State with iron ore in order to carry on the steel works at Newcastle. South Australia has played a bigger part in the development of Newcastle steel works than even- New South Wales, and I suggest that, in future, the honorable senator should confine his remarks to subjects about which he knows something. His attitude in regard to this matter is ridiculous. I could, if I chose, talk about Woolloomooloo, and other parts of New South Wales, but I prefer to speak about matters with which I am well acquainted. Senator Gardiner has never been to Port Pirie in his life, and yet he presumes to castigate the representatives of South Australia for their approval of a scheme under which one of the biggest industries of his own State is being so materially assisted.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

. -It is all very well for the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) and Senator R. S. Guthrie to say that this clause merely deals with an agreement, and that a representative of the Government must be named in it. The regulation speaks for itself, and that there may be no doubt upon the point, I shall read again that portion of it which confers upon the Prime Minister powers which shouldbe exercisable only by the South Australian Government -

Any function exercisable under the laws of the State of South Australia, by any authority of that State in relation to any wharf specified in a notice published in pursuance of theseRegulations, may be exercised by the Prime Minister or the person or authority specified by the Prime Minister. If that is not a general handing over of power or authority, then I do not know the meaning of language. No doubt, Senator Guthrie can say something about Woolloomooloo, for probably he has had a daily and nightly experience of the locality. I may remind him that I get my biggest vote there. Having quoted that regulation to show the powers which will continueto be vested in the Prime Minister, I now leave the matter. If the South Australian representatives are satisfied with it, I am.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Unlawful Assemblies).

Senator Gardiner:

– As this clause is an exact copy of a measure which the Senate passed during the presentsession, I desire to take your ruling, sir, as to whether it is in order.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– I think the honorable senator indicated a short time ago his intention to raise this’ point of order. I find that there is nothing in our Standing Orders directly bearing upon the matter; and although the procedure has been questioned at times, it is an established parliamentary practice that what is intended to be effected by this clause can be effected, so long as the Bill passed by the Senate during the present session, and dealing with the same subject, has been rejected or disposed of in another place. Although the precedents outlined in May in connexion with this matter are very old, undoubtedly they show that under the practice of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords what is sought to be achieved by the clause may be thus achieved. That being so, and there being no expressed prohibition in our Standing Orders against it. I do not consider that the point of order raised by Senator Gardiner can be’ sustained.

Senator Gardiner:

– I move -

That the Senate dissent from the ruling of the Chairman, upon the ground that the Senate hasalready passed during the present session a Bill relating to Unlawful Assemblies.

In the Senate:

The Chairmanof Committees. - I beg to report that Senator Gardiner has raised a point of order to the effect that clause 10 of the Bill seeks to deal with something which has already been dealt with in a measure passed by this Chamber during the current session. I have ruled that there is nothing in our Standing Orders which is expressly prohibitory of what is sought to be achieved by that clause. I also looked up May’s Parliamentary Practice in connexion with the procedure of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords, and discovered that what is sought to be effected by the clause in question may be thus effected. To that ruling. Senator Gardiner has dissented, and the matter is now before you for decision.

Senator Gardiner:

-I have very little to add to what has been faithfully stated by the Chairman. I take exception to the clause upon the ground that a Bill dealing with the very matter to which it relates has already been passed by the Senate during the current session. What became of that measure I cannot say. To my mind, the practice which is being followed in this clause is a most unusual one, and one to which attention should be called, and because the best authority should be obtained as to whether it is a correct practice. Whether the Unlawful Assemblies Bill formed a part of the War Precautions Act is another matter. I did not emphasize that point when taking exception to the clause. But if the Unlawful Assemblies Bill did not form part of the War Precautions Act, I take it that you, sir, must consider whether it can rightly come up for discussion in connexion with the repeal of that Act.

Senator Pearce:

– There is in existence now, and will be until this measure becomes an Act, a War Precautions Regulation dealing with unlawful assemblies practically upon the lines that are followed in thisBlli. It is true that a measure was passed through the Senate dealing with that subject only. That measure has not been dealt with by another place, and has not become law. It has now been embodied in a larger and more comprehensive Bill which originated elsewhere, and which has come up to this Chamber. If it were to be ruled that this matter cannot be dealt with in’ the Bill which is now before us, let us look at what would be the effect of that decision upon Parliament. I take it that the object of our Standing Orders is not to prevent Parliament doing the common-sense thing in an orderly fashion. It would mean that if any Bill had been originated in this Chamber which dealt partially with a particular matter during one session, and the Government during the same session decided to introduce a comprehensive measure in which, incidentally, the same subject was dealt with, the introduction of the latter Bill could be prevented. In such circumstances Parliament would be stultifying itself. The practice which I have outlined would open up all sorts of possibilities, because it would enable any honorable senator to anticipate the introduction of any measure relating to specific subjects by the introduction of a Bill dealing, incidentally, with some of those subjects. This is not a measure to deal specifically with unlawful assemblies. That matter is merely incidental to it. But the War PrecautionsAct Regulations are to berepealed by this

Bill, and if it is the desire that our legislation in regard to unlawful assemblies should be retained, it can only be retained in this manner. We should be stultifying ourselves if we were prevented from approving of something of which we have already approved, simply because it now comes before us in a more comprehensive measure than it did previously.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– When it became apparent, upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill, that this question was likely to arise, I took advantage of the opportunity afforded me during the interval which has since elapsed to obtain every precedent that I could find in relation to it. When the point was first raised, I confess that it seemed to me to be fatal to this provision in the Bill, because standing order No. 133 provides -

No question or amendment shall be proposed which is the same in substance as any question or amendment which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the order. resolution, or vote on such question or amendment has been rescinded.

The point taken by Senator Gardiner is that the matter which is specifically dealt with in this clause has already been finally dealt with by the Senate during the current session. That is quite true. A Bill dealing with unlawful assemblies was passed by this Chamber, and forwarded to another place. I have no official communication from another place regarding what has become of that Bill, but I have taken the trouble to look up the *Votes and Proceedings of the other branch of the Legislature, with the result that I find that the notice dealing with it has been discharged. There is no doubt whatever that if it had not been discharged in another place the Bill would still be before Parliament, and could not he superseded by a provision in the measure which is now before u: Consequently, the clause to which Senator Gardiner has taken exception would not then be in order. I consider that another place has treated the Senate with a great deal of discourtesy and contumely in regard to this matter, and I wish to express the strongest opinion about it.

The Senate, at the instance of the Government, passed a Bill dealing specifically with this matter, and sent it’ to another place, where, at the instance of the Government, it has been discharged from the notice-paper - rejected with contumely, I say - and a provision dealing with the same matter has been inserted in the Bill which is now before us. I take the strongest exception to that procedure.

Senator Gardiner:

– If you, sir, do not mind my interposing at this stage, I take exception to any ruling being given by you in the absence of official knowledge. If you rule upon the point of order which I have raised, you can do so only if you have official knowledge of what has become of the Bill which was passed by this Chamber, and which dealt with the same matter as is dealt with by clause 10 of the measure which is now before us. Upon your own admission, sir, you only know privately what has become of the Unlawful Assemblies Bill in another place.

The PRESIDENT:

– Every honorable senator has official knowledge of the fate of that Bill, because the Votes and Proceedings of another place are circulated amongst them. They have, therefore, an’ opportunity of knowing precisely what has occurred. I think that Senator Keating, as an old legal member of this Chamber, will bear me out when I say that the official records of Parliament are admissible as evidence in any Court of law in Australia, whether it be State or Federal. Though I do not blame Senator Gardiner for having raised that particular point, I must, therefore, rule against him. Personally, as I say, it would be a pleasure to me if I were able to rule in favour of Senator Gardiner, but I am not able to do so in carrying out my duties, because I am bound by the precedents that have been established. It is stated in May that, while the rule with regard to, reviving the same question in the same session generally holds good, it is not strictly applied with regard to Bills. There are several precedents on this point in the British Parliament. May, 12th, edition, page 273, states-

When Bills have ultimately passed or have been rejected, the rules of both Houses are positive that they shall not be introduced again; but the practice is not strictly in accordance with them. The principle was thus stated by the Lords, 17th May, 1606: - “That when a Bill hath been brought into the House, and rejected, another Bill of the same argument and matter may not be renewed and begun again in the same House in the same session where the former Bill was begun,-

That makes an important distinction. The Bill could not be originated again here in this session, but it can come to us from another place - “but if a Bill begun in one of the Houses, and there allowed and passed, be disliked and refused in the other, a new Bill of the same matter may be drawn and begun again in that House whereunto it was sent; and if, a Bill being begun in either of the Houses, and committed, it be thought by the Committees that the matter may better proceed by a new Bill, it is likewise holden agreeable to order in such case to draw a new Bill, and to bring it into the House.”

At page 274 of May the following passage, relating to a ruling given in a case practically on all-fours with this, appears : -

This Bill often has precisely the same title, but its provisions are altered so as to conform to the amendments made in the Lords. In this form it is sent to the Lords, received by them without any objection, and passed. Such a, Bill is not identically the same as that which preceded it; but it is, impossible to deny that it is “ of the same argument and matter,”-

That applies to this case and to this provision - and “ of the same substance.” This proceeding can be resorted to when the Lords pass a Bill and send it down to the Commons, with clauses that trench upon their privileges. The Commons can lay the Bill aside, and order another, precisely similar, to be brought in, which, in due course, is sent up to the Lords.

The case referred to there is, as I say, practically on all-fours with this. I turn now to the practice of the Canadian House of Commons. In Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure, 3rd edition, page 687, it is stated -

A Bill, once rejected, not to be again offered in the same session. - Exceptions to rule. - It has been shown that it is a well established rule of parliamentary practice that no question or motion can regularly be offered upon which the judgment of the House has been expressed during the current session. But while this rule is recognised as a general one, it is limited in its application as respects Bills.In reference to amendments to Bills, Hatsell lays down the uniform practice which still obtains in the Canadian and English Parliaments: “ That in every stage of a Bill, every part of the Bill is open to amendment, either for insertion or omission, whether the same amend ment has been, in a former stage, accepted or rejected.”

On page 688 of the same volume appears the following: -

Again, when a Bill has finally passed, it cannot be introduced again in the House where it was presented. But there are ways of evading this rule, when the necessity arises.For instance, if a Bill begun in one House be rejected in the other, “a new Bill of the same matter may be drawn and commenced again in that House whereunto it was sent.”

Senator Gardiner:

– That is how they evade it.

The PRESIDENT:

– In this case, as Senator Gardiner suggests, the rule has been evaded, and I exceedingly regret that I am not able to sustain the point of order raised by him. I did think that his objection, when first raised, was fatal to this particular provision; but, in view of the long-sustained practice laid down in the British House of Commons, which is the another of Parliaments, and in the Canadian Parliament, there is no other course open to me but to rule that the Chairman was correct in rejecting Senator Gardiner’s point of order.

Senator Keating:

– We might have had a message from another place informing us that our Bill was discharged.

The PRESIDENT:

-In concluding my ruling, I should like to suggest that, before finally dealing with this Bill and sending it back to another place, the Senate should, as has been done on a former occasion, in order to maintain its honour and dignity, send a strong protest to another place against themethod of procedure which has been pursued.

In Committee:

Senator J D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I also feel strongly that this is not a fair proposition to the Senate. We carefully discussed a Government Bill dealing with this matter, and now it comes up to us in another form. I think we have been treated with contumely, and I ask the Committee to reject clause 10.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I hope honorable senators will not reject the clause in the way that has been suggested. If it is the desire of the Committee to inform another place of their objection to the course that has been pursued, the regular way to do so is by message, as the President has suggested. We should be stultifying ourselves if we rejected a clause of the principles of which we are in favour.

Senator Benny:

– We should he cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes ; the Committee can communicate by message to another place its objection to the course that has been followed at the instance of the Government.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (Inciting or urging to the commission of an offence).

Senator Gardiner:

– I ask your ruling, sir, upon this clause. I am determined that nothing shall pass this Committee which I think is not in accordance with our practice. We are dealing with a Bill “ to repeal the War Precautions Act 1914-1918, and to provide for certain matters arising out of such repeal, and for other purposes.” I take it that the “ other purposes “ must be purposes arising out of the repeal of the War Precautions Act. This’ clause deals not with the War Precautions Act, but with a totally different Act, that is, the Crimes Act 1914-1915. The Crimes Act of 1914* was introduced into this Parliament before the War Precautions Act, and received the Governor-General’s assent on the 29th October of that year, the same day as the War Precautions Act 1914 was assented to. This is a clause dealing with the Crimes Act, which is in no way related to the War Precautions Act. As this is a- Bill to repeal the War Precautions Act, and for other purposes pertaining thereto, I submit that the clause .is not within the scope of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– I have considerably less hesitation in giving a ruling on this point of order than I had on the doubtful point raised by the honorable senator in connexion with clause 10. I must again call attention to the comprehensive nature of the title of the Bill, which is “A Bill for an Act to repeal the War Precautions Act 1914-1918, and to provide for certain matters arising out of such repeal, ‘and for other purposes.” Not only is the War Precautions Act of 1914-1918 repealed, but provision is made by this measure, according to the title, for matters arising out of such repeal ; and, furthermore, other purposes are dealt with. To insert a new section in an Act already on the statute-book is certainly within the construable scope of the words “ and for other purposes “ in the title. I call attention to the fact that in passing clause 6 we have already done something almost identical with what clause 11 seeks to effect, namely, we have, amended the Commercial Activities Act of 1918. Clause 11 simply seeks to add a new section after section 7 of the Crimes Act 1914-1915. I rule that the clause is in order by virtue of the title providing for the enactment of matters described as “ other purposes.”

Senator Gardiner:

– My point is that clause 11 amends the Crimes Act, which is not mentioned in the title of the Bill, and is, therefore, beyond its scope. Clause 6, to which you have ref erred, deals with an Act that was based upon the War Precautious Act itself ; but the Crimes Act is one with which the War Precautions Act has nothing whatever to do. I take it that the words “ and for other purposes “ upon which you rely for your ruling can mean no purposes other than those set forth in the statement regarding the repeal of the War Precautions Act.

I bog to move -

That the ruling of the Chairman be dissented from on the ground that clause 11 amends the Crimes Act, which is not mentioned in’ the title of the Bill, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of the Bill. ‘

Senator GARDINER:

– Queensland is a bit too hot for me. Honorable senators seem to think that there is nothing in this clause. We had no intimation, on the introduction of the Bill, that it was intended to amend the Crimes Act, and yet this clause provides that the following new section shall be inserted in the Crimes Act: - 24a. Subject to sub-section (2) of this section an intention to effect any of the following purposes, that is to say -

to bring the Sovereign into hatred and contempt.

This is to be proof of a seditious intention, and to render any one who does it liable to the penalties of the clause. I point out that it is very vague. I may say anything at all without any desire Whatever, to bring the Sovereign into hatred and contempt.

Senator Wilson:

– Then the honorable senator will not be liable.

Senator GARDINER:

– I will, if the Government prosecute me. If I were administering this provision, I might hold the opinion that the wealthy section of this community, by using their power to raise the price of necessary commodities above the purchasing power of the people, are making them dissatisfied with their condition, and are in that way bringing the Sovereign and the Government into contempt.

Senator Pearce:

– Let the honorable senator look at sub-section 2 of the proposed new section.

Senator GARDINER:

– We shall come to sub-section 2 when we have dealt with sub-section 1. I shall take fine care that honorable senators get the whole of it. The proposed new sub-section further provides that it is to be considered to be a seditious intention -

to excite disaffection against the

Sovereign or the Government or Constitution of the Unified Kingdom or against either Houseof the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

– No; it would depend upon the temper of the present Prime Minister, and that is not to be depended on. I quote another paragraph from the proposed new section -

to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution of any of the King’s Dominions.

Imagine legislation by the Australian Parliament dealing with things of that character ! Has there been any call for it? Has anything happened in this country that we should legislate in that direction ? I quote again -

to excite disaffection against the connexion of the King’s Dominions under the Crown.

In Committee no senator shall speak for more than a quarter of an hour at any one time on any one question.

I ruled’ that Senator Gardiner, having been called down by the Chairman, for a sufficiently long, time to enable any other honorable senator to speak, and no . other honorable senator expressing a desire to do so, was in order in speaking again. The Minister for Defence has disagreed with my ruling in the following terms: -

I disagree with the ruling of the Chairman of Committees as to the interpretation of standing order 407a, the second section thereof.

I submit that the language of the standing order is somewhat ambiguous, and for some time have felt that this question would arise. I consider the language of the standing order is open to the construction that Senator Gardiner was in order in speaking a second time, provided no other honorable senator was prepared to continue the debate. The matter is now before you for review.

Senator Pearce:

– I am loath to dissent from the ruling of the Chairman of Committees or the President, but I point out that this standing order was adopted by the Senate for a very definite purpose, and it seems to me that if the ruling of the Chairman of Committees is to stand, the purpose for which the standing order was framed will be altogether defeated. Obviously, the intention of the Committee in framing the standing order was to limit debate, as the second portion of the standing order specifically provides that no honorable senator shall speak for more than a quarter of an hour at any one time on any one question If the rulingof the Chairman of Committees is to stand, it would appear that an honorable senator may resume his seat, and immediately rise again, providing no other honorable senator is prepared to speak. The question is, hew long may he continue? It seems to me that there would be no limit to the debate, and that an honorable senator could go on speaking practically for ever.

Senator Crawford:

– And get a rest every fifteen minutes.

Senator Pearce:

– Under this interpretation of the standing order, the time of the Committee would be wasted, as the procedure would actually assist any honorable senator inclined to obstruct the business of the Senate. I am not, of course, accusing Senator Gardiner of endeavouring to do that. I am merely contemplating the possibilities, and the opportunities an honorable senator would have of obstructing business. The standing order was framed for the specific purpose of preventing such obstruction. If the ruling of the Chairman of Committees is to stand, I feel sure that theStanding Orders Committee will be asked to review the standing order, because its intention will have been entirely defeated.

Senator Gardiner:

– As I was speaking when the ruling of the Chairman of Committees was given, and as I am interested in the point of order, I would like to draw your attention, sir, to standing order 268, which reads -

In Committee senators may speak more than once to the same question, and, when a question has been proposed from the Chair, shall confine themselves to such question.

That standing order has never been rescinded. Let us now consider the new standing order 407a -

No senator shall speak for more than one hour in any debate in the Senate, except that in the debate on the Address-in-Reply, or on the first reading of a Bill which the Senate may not amend, or in moving the second reading of a Bill, he shall be at liberty to speak for one hour and a half. Any senator may move that the limit of one hour or of one hour and a half may be extended for thirtyminutes; such motion shall forthwith be put without debate.

That, I take it, must be read in conjunction with the second paragraph of the new standing order -

In Committee, no senator shall speak for more than a quarter ‘of an hour at any one time on any one question.

contend that the Chairman was quite in order, in view of the fact that no other honorable senator wished to address himself to the Chair, in ruling that I had the right to resume the debate.

– If I am in order, I move -

That the question be now put.

Senator Gardiner:

– After that attack upon me by Senator Foll? It is just worthy of you.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– I would point out to Senator Wilson that his motion must be put in the form, “ That the Committee do now divide.”

Senator Wilson:

– Then I have great pleasure in moving -

That the Committee do now divide.

Question - That the Committee do now divide - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 3

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Honorable Senators. - You said “ cowardly mongrels.”

In the Senate:

– I wish to state, by way of personal explanation, that -when I made a certain remark about Senator Gardiner in reply to remarks he had made, I had not the least idea that the “gag” was going to be applied. For that reason I voted against the “gag.” I would not like it to be thought that I had made an attack, knowing full well that the “gag” was going to be applied, and that the honorable senator would not have a chance to reply to me.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13-

Section one of the Crimes Act 1915 is amended by omitting sub-section (3) thereof, and that Act shall continue in force as if that sub-section had not been enacted.

Section proposed to be amended:

1……

This Act shall continue in force during the continuance of the war, and for six months thereafter, and no longer.

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law of the Commonwealth or a State, any Municipality, Harbor Trust or Board, or Marine’ Board, or local governing body may -

invest in any loan raised by the Go- vernment of the Commonwealth any of its funds or any moneysraised by it by way of loan;
borrow by way of bank overdraft, or otherwise money for investment in any such loan; and
sell any stock or bonds of anysuch loan.

– But managers of these institutions may find later on that what they have done under a Federal Act of this description is not in accordance with State laws, and the charters under which they exist.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

-The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Investment of trust funds in Commonwealth loans).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This appears to be a repetition of clause 15, save that it deals with the investment of trust funds. I invite honorable senators to give careful consideration to it. Do they believe that we have power to legislate in this direction ? I am sure they do not. If that is so, why continue the farce? Honorable senators may think that after all this provision will never be tested in the Courts, and that it is unnecessary therefore to discuss it. I would remind them, however, that it is a direct attack on the authority of the States. I can well understand such an attack on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), but I do not know why the Senate should assent to it. There are times when it would be quick to resent a far less serious attack on the sovereign powers of the States. This is really a trespass upon State powers. The framers of our Constitution clearly set out in section . 51, the matters in respect of which the Commonwealth Parliament has power to legislate, and a reference to that section should convince honorable senators that this provision is unconstitutional. Apparently the Government do not intend to respect the Constitution, because it is clear that the clause under discussion can only be operative with the consent of the people to whom it is applied. Thus, if a Board of Directors, by following the Federal law, exercise power contrary to their authority under a State law, the Courts of the land will decide that the State law is supreme, because the Federal Parliament has no power so trespass in that domain of legislation. It is my duty to warn honorable senators of grave precedents that may be established for future Governments to assume, by force of their majority, powers that are unconstitutional.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 -

Sections 14, 15, and 16 of this Act shall continue in operation for a period of two years from the commencement of this Act, and no longer.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This clause appears to be very similar to clauses 15 and 16.

Senator Wilson:

– Then why not let it pass?

Senator GARDINER:

– I have no desire to prolong the sitting, and I am just wondering if I can do so. I move -

That the word “two” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ one”

This will reduce the period within which the sections referred to shall continue, from two years to twelve months. My object in submitting the amendment is to get a decision as to the application of our Standing Orders. I always like to be candid about these matters. It has been decided in the Senate that an honorable senator in Committee may speak for only fifteen minutes on any one question, and it is now my desire to get another interpretation of that standing order. Sometimes it is as well to force a decision. Therefore, in the most open manner I in timate that I intend to discuss the amendment for fifteen minutes, and then to debate the clause itself for another fifteen minutes. Whether the Committee feels disposed to support the amendment I do not know, but Ishould like to have a division on it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 (Agents of oversea companies and firms).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This is a long clause constituting almost a Bill in itself, and I suggest that now would be a convenient time to adjourn for supper.

Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 1.30 a.m. (Friday) .

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.

Clause 22-

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all things whichare required or permitted to be prescribed or whichare necessary or convenient to be prescribedfor giving effect to this Act and in particular prescribing matters providing for and in relation to -

the closing to members of any of the

Naval or Military Forces of pre- , misses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors ;

the closing of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors or in which intoxicating liquors are sold where in the opinion ofthe Minister the sale or supply of intoxicating liquors is prejudicial to or endangers the health, training, discipline, or administration of any members of the Naval or Military Forces ;
the steps to be taken to enforce the closing of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors or in which intoxicating liquors are sold;
prohibiting orregulating the publica tion of books, pamphlets, or documents purporting to be records of the. services of any Naval or MilitaryExpeditionary Force raised in the Commonwealth ;
prohibiting or regulating the use of the word “Anzac “ or any word resembling the word “Anzac “ :
prohibiting or regulating the publication of newspapers or periodicals in a foreign language; and
penalties notexceeding a fine of One hundred pounds or imprisonment for sixmonths, or both, for breaches of the regulations made under this section.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I ask the Committee whether paragraphs a,b, and c of this clause are not a long way over the odds ? Personally, I should not care if every hotel in Australia were closed. During the war period it may have beennecessary for the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) to possess the power to close hotels. But is the retention of that power desirable in time of peace? It isperfectly safe to say that there are hundreds of military men in this country who believe that the sale of intoxicating liquors is calculated to injure the discipline of troops. If I were Minister for. Defence, and these particular provisions were the law of the land, I should close every hotel in Australia. How could I do otherwise if I believed that the sale of intoxicants was injuring the discipline of our troops? I therefore move -

That paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) be left out.

Senator LYNCH:

– Unless I am afforded a satisfactory explanation regarding paragraph c I shall vote against its retention. Paragraphs a and b have specific reference to the liquor trade so far as Naval and Military Forces are concerned; but paragraph c apparently comes under a different category. It appears to represent an effort on the part of the Government to acquire the right to step in and close any hotel in any part of the Commonwealth whenever they choose. I cannot support that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If it is the wish of the Committee I will put the paragraphs separately.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear.

Question - That paragraph (a) be left but - resolved in the negative.

Question - That paragraph (b) be left out - resolved in the negative.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– Paragraph c is consequential upon paragraphs a andb.

Senator Wilson:

– It is an open power, and has nothing to do with the Naval and Military Forces.

Senator PEARCE:

– If honorable senators will read clause 22 as a whole, they will perceivethat all three paragraphs are related. Paragraph c begins, “ The steps to be taken.”

Senator Benny:

– The relation of the paragraph to its predecessors would be made perfectly clear if the word “ such “ were inserted in lieu of “ the “.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is not necessary. When the Bill was framed the instructions given to the draftsmen were that these provisions were to apply only to the Naval and Military Forces. It is obvious that paragraph c is purely supplementary.

Question - That paragraph c, proposed to be left out, be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 15

Majority … . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule.

Oath.

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the King, and will loyally, as in duty bound, uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, established under the Crown of the United Kingdom. So help me, God!

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I desire to move an amendment upon the schedule, which does not go as far as I should like it to go. I move -

That after the word “faithful” the words “ to Australia “ be inserted.

If we are going to deal with people coming to Australia in the way proposed in this Bill, the first thing we should demand is that they shall be loyal to Australia.

Senator Pearce:

– That is already provided for.

SenatorGARDINER. - I want to make quite sure that Australia shall be put first.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– The amendment is entirely unnecessary. What Senator Gardiner seeks to do is already provided for in a clause of the Bill in a much better form than he proposes.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the report be now adopted.

Senator J D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I wish to add some words to the motion, but I am not quite sure as to the method I should adopt to give effect to my intention. I move -

That after the word “ adopted the following words be added: - “The Senate records its protest against the inclusion in the Bill of provisions similar to those already included in a Bill passed by the Senate this session, and transmitted for the concurrence of the House of Representatives, and declares that the matter is not to be regarded, as a precedent; and resolved that this protest be embodied in the message returning the Bill.”

I do not know whether what I propose is the right course to adopt.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– The amendment proposed is quite in order.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am glad to second the amendment. There is no honorable senator, no matter on which side he sits, who will contend that the House of Representatives has, in this matter, treated the Senate in the way in which it should be treated. The Senate passed legislation which it considered of sufficient importance, and sent the Bill down to another place, where it was discharged from the business-paper, and later embodied word for word in another Bill. That is treatment which no member of the Senate can allow to pass unquestioned. I am speaking now, not as Leader of the Opposition, but in my capacity as a member of the Senate prepared to jealously guard its rights and privileges. If we permitted this treatment of the Senate to pass unchallenged, we should not be doing justice to the institution of which we are members. I consider Senator J. D. Millen’s amendment offers a simple and dignified way in which the Senate may enter its protest against its treatment by the House of Representatives in connexion with theUnlawful Assemblies Bill transmitted from this Chamber.

Senator Pearce:

– This is a novel procedure, and I think it is the first time in the history of the Senate that such an amendment has been moved. I should like to hear from you, sir, whether you regard this as the proper stage of our proceedings in connexion with this measure for the moving of such ah amendment. I have been looking through the Standing Orders dealing with the adoption of the report of a Bill from Committee, and I see no provision there for the moving of such an amendment. I see provision made for the adoption or rejection of the report, but none for the amendment of the motion for its adoption: There is provision in the Standing Orders for the moving of amendments on the motion for the second reading of a Bill. There is no provision, so far as I can see, for a message to be transmitted to another place by means of an amendment to the motion for the adoption of the report, or to the motion for the third reading of the Bill. I remember one case in which a message was transmitted from the House of Representatives to the Senate in connexion with the passing of a Tariff. On that occasion the House of Representatives sent a message to this Chamber. I am not speaking with a view to blocking the sending of a message to the House of Representatives in connexion with this Bill,but I should like to know whether there is provision in the Standing Orders for the sending of a message of this kind, and whether this is the proper stage at which to propose the matter. I should like a ruling on the subject.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– Any motion moved in the Senate is always open to amendment, provided that the amendment is relevant. That is the only limitation whatever upon the moving of amendments to a motion. The question which Senator Pearce has raised is really whether the amendment moved by Senator J. D. Millen is relevant to the ‘’ motion that the report be now adopted. It is competent for the Senate to make any relevant addition to that motion, so that the only question to be determined is whether or not the amendment is relevant. If in the detailed examination of the Bill in Committee certain facts became apparent, then the report stage is the proper time to takeaction regarding the facts so ascertained. . The amendment is a protest against the inclusion in this measure of provisions similar to those embodied in a Bill already passed by the Senate this session, and transmitted to the House of Representatives for its concurrence, and I rule that it is relevant. On more than one occasion a message has been transmitted to another place protesting against its treatment of the Senate; but I am not sure whether such a protest was agreed to at the report stage of a Bill. The amendment isin theform of a protest, to be transmitted with the message to the House of Representatives, and I rule that it is in order.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 7015

PAPERS

The following papers were presented: -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act. - Orders of the Commonwealth. Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and other documents, in connexion with awards or variations of awards in the following cases: -

Dated 17th November, 1920-

Australian Commonwealth Post and Telegraph Association.

Australian Letter Carriers’ Association (two cases) .

Australian Postal Electricians’ Union.

Australian Postal Linesmen’s Union.

Commonwealth General Division Telephone Officers’ Association.

Commonwealth Public Service Artisans Association.

Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association.

Commonwealth Temporary Clerks’ Association.

Federated Public Service Assistants’ Association of Australia.

General Division Officers’ Union of the Trade and Customs Department of Australia.

Line Inspectors’ Association - Commonwealth of Australia.

Meat Inspectors’ Association - Commonwealth Public Service.

Postal Sorters’ Union of Australia.

Dated 18th November, 1920-

Professional Officers’ Association - Commonwealth Public Service.

Dated 19th November, 1920-

Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association.

Dated 22nd November, 1920 -

Australian Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association.

Audit Act. - Finance : Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure during the year ended 30th June, 1920, accompanied by theReport of the Auditor-General.

page 7015

INDUSTRIAL PEACE BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Suspensionof Standing and Sessional Orders.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

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

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I object to the absurd proposal to suspend the Standing Orders at this hour of the morning, when the Minister (Senator Pearce) has no ground for complaint as to the treatment he has received, throughout the session, at the hands of the Senate. I recognise that the Chamber - is constituted almost entirely of members of his own party, but I think we may reasonably object to this motion in view of the fact that the whole Bill might well be dealt with as fromal matter at our ordinary hour of meeting. There is grave objection to a Bill of any magnitude being passed through all its stages at this unreasonable hour. Does the Minister think that there would be any objection to this measure if its consideration were allowed to stand over, as suggested by me? If he will let us get home now, I shall be prepared when we meet, in the ordinary course, at 11 a.m., to let it go through as a. formal matter. That is a fair offer, but I know the Minister will resent any interference with his method of doing business. It is unfair businessto ask honorable senators to put legislation through at this hour of the morning. Any honorable senator could have objected to the Minister’s motion for the suspension of Standing Orders- to allow new business to be taken after half-past 10 o’clock last night, and thus could have obstructed the business. I would agree to let this measure pass if I had the assurance of the Minister that other Bills would not be brought on also; but when I asked him, there was an ominous silence, suggestive that other measures were to come on. I protest against the use by the Minister of his majority in this way, but I realize that I would be inflicting a hardship on other honorable senators if I continued the discussion to the same length as on a former occasion, when the Minister moved the suspension of Standing Orders to discuss an amending Electoral Bill, so I shall not continue. In my opinion, the Senate should insist upon its business being conducted in a proper manner. I have shown all through this debate that it has not been my intention to delay the closing of this session by one minute, but I protest now against this unreasonable attempt to bludgeon legislation through.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Secondreading.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia -

Minister for Defence) [2.55 a.m.]. - I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Section 14 of the principal Act passed this session reads as follows -

A Special Tribunal shall consist of an equal number of representatives of employers and employees respectively, together with a chairman. The chairman shall be chosen by agreement betweenthe representatives of the employers or employees, or in default of an agreement, shall be appointed by the Governor-General.

By a peculiar oversight Parliament failed to provide how the finding of a Tribunal should be arrived at in the event of an equal division of opinions. It was intended, of course, that when the members were equally divided the chairman should have a casting vote, and the object of this Bill is to remedy the defect in the principal Act by providing -

At meetings of a Special Tribunal the opinion of the majority shall prevail ; and where the members of the tribunal are equally divided in opinion, the opinion of the chairman shall prevail.

– Have not strikes been settled on the lines of industrial peace?

Senator GARDINER:

– As I say, I welcome every effort to .bring about industrial peace, but I have not much expectation of success. The fact is that the community is divided into two camps, which regard each other with jealousy and suspicion; and we can never have a permanent industrial peace until there is a better understanding amongst ourselves. It was a member of the Labour party who, about 1892; first introduced an arbitration measure in the State Parliament of New South Wales, and a little while after it became fashionable to advocate that system of settling industrial questions. It certainly seemed to point to conditions under which employers and employed could work, in harmony; and, up to a limit, that expectation was borne out by experience. It was soon found, however, that awards of increased wages frequently led to higher prices being charged by traders, who wished to obtain a share of the extra money. Take the case of house rent by way of illustration. I know of one landlord” who increased the rent charged for his house because he had read in the newspaper an announcement to the effect that the members of the trade to which his tenant belonged had received an increase of -wages. Every excuse has been availed of by the powerholding class of this country to increase the cost of living.

Senator J F GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator Pearce:

– Upon special Tribunals constituted in connexion with industries of a diverse character, more members will be required than upon Tribunals appointed in connexion with other industries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Constitution of Special Tribunal)..

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

: - The point raised by Senator Senior on the second reading has been considered, but it was thought inadvisable to provide for any fixed number because there are diversified industries in regard to which it might be thought necessary to appoint representatives of various sub-industries; but where the labour in an industry is all of one kind, a smaller number of representatives would suffice. It is, therefore, thought advisable to leave the number of representatives to be appointed to the discretion of the appointee. Both sides, of course, will have the samerepresentation.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 7019

RIVER. MURRAY. WATERS BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I move -

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

As Senator Gardiner may again object to this motion, I would remind him that it is the general desire of senators and members of another place to adjourn this week for a recess, so that those who come from distant States and have been absent from their homes for a long time may be able to ‘set back before Christmas. If this step were not taken, they would have to stay in Melbourne another week. Surely that is not desirable, especially as, because of the attention that senators give to public affairs, the measures to be dealt with are well within their knowledge Senators generally know how this Bill was originated, and practically all about it. The conduct of Senator Gardiner creates some suspicion that he may have designs for tomorrow which might put some honorable senators who have made their plans for getting away to the inconvenience of missing their trains. Certainly, his conduct would not justify the Senate in taking any risk. In any case, the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders must be agreed to if the Bill is to be passed to-morrow.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I ask the Minister to postpone the consideration of this measure until we meet again at 11 o’clock this morning. I do not anticipate that it will meet with opposition, but as the waters of the River Murray, from their source until they flow across the South Australian border, are wholly within the territory of New South Wales, asenator from that State should not be asked to discuss the Bill at this hour. We should at least have a chance toread the Bill before it is hurried through

Committee. But if the Government and its supporters are determined to go on in this way, I can only enter my protest against their method of doing business.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator RUSSELL (Victoria- Vice-

President of the Executive Council) [3.27 a.m.] - I move-

That this Bill be now read asecond time.

The measure does not introduce any new principle; it merely makes a change in the Murray River waters agreement, of which I am sure every honorable senator will approve.

On the 9th September. 1914, the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) signed, on behalf of the Commonwealth, an agreement which was come to with certain of the States as a result of a Conference with their Premiers, under which the Commonwealth bound itself to provide £1,000,000 for the conservation of the waters of the River Murray. Since the war, it has become more necessary than ever to push on rapidly with this scheme, so that Australia may increase her production, and opportunities may be given to those whom it is our duty to help. Hitherto, it has been difficult to get the various parties to the agreement to co-operate closely. All the parties have had to be in perfect unison before work could be done. Under such conditions, it is always extremely difficult to carry out an undertaking. Some one of the four contracting parties has always had some difficulty or grievance. At last, it was seen that an arrangement must be made for an effective and business way of carrying out the work. The Commonwealth Government thought that there has been undue delay. The original Commission merely reviewed the work done by the States. Many of the works had to be carried out jointly by New South Wales and Victoria, and progress has been hindered for want of perfect agreement between them. Therefore, it was determined at the last Conference, between Commonwealth and State Ministers, to create a constructing Commission which would not have to do its work through a dozen red-tape agencies. This Commission will be composed of the best experts, who will represent the different States which are concerned.

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– No. We purpose giving the constructingauthority absolute and imperative power to go on with the work. Apart from the voting of the money, there will be practically no political interference, and there will be no Public Service Commissioner in the matter. The great principle underlying the Bill is to make the Commission the responsible body, to give them an independent seal, and to allow them to suggest to the States the best plans to adopt in order to carry out their work on a uniform basis. It is the intention of the Commission, under this measure,to permit the States, practically as contractors, to do the work as far as possible within their own areas; but it is provided, and the States have agreed to this provision, that if they do not carry it out within a reasonable time they shall be liable in the same way as any other contractor is, and the Commission will have the power to complete the works wherever a breach is caused by undue delay or by the job not being done properly.

Senator Wilson:

– That should be an interesting case, when the Crown fights the Crown.

Senator RUSSELL:

– The Commission may simply decide to complete the work, and in that case it will go ahead and leave the liability to be settled afterwards with the States. There has been undue delay in carrying out the work, and we want to hurry it up, because it is a national enterprise of great importance to the returned soldiers, and will practically open up a new State in Australia. It was estimated in 1914, on the then cost of materials and labour, that it could be completed for about £4,665,000; of which the Commonwealth would contribute £1,000,000. Since then, our outlook has become a little broader, on account of the war and the return of many of our men who are anxious to settle on the land. The Commonwealth has now decided to accept one-quarter of the responsibility, because of the largely increased cost of carrying outthe work. It is anticipated that, instead of the first estimate, the total cost will reach very nearly £7,000,000 for this great and glorious undertaking for Australia.

Senator J F GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– It will be money well spent.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Yes ; and from what I saw when I attended the ceremony of turning the first sod at the dam on the other side of Albury, the project has immense and illimitable possibilities. Each of the four contracting parties must spend at least £125,000 per year to insure the quick development of the work. The Commonwealth does not ask the States to stop when they have spent £125,000 in the year, but, if a ‘State exceeds that quota, the Commonwealth will make the necessary financial arrangements to lend the amount of the excess to the State.

As regards the civil servants who will be employed, we cannot afford, on a big public work of this description, to have any duplication of staffs by the States and the Commonwealth. It is, therefore, proposed to utilize, as far as possible, the services of the Commonwealth and State engineers, by giving them temporary appointments under the Commission, and by the Commonwealth and States granting them leave of absence from their own services. In this way they will be brought directly under the control of the Commission. We shall employ all those who are competent engineers as much as possible, but, in transferring them, we shall see that their rights are conserved so that they may return to their old services when the job is completed. The Bill takes the control of the work out of the hands of four different authorities and puts it into the hands of one, in. order that the designs mav be uniform and the work be carried out on a uniform basis: I am sure that all the States will be represented on this responsible Commission by their most capable representatives. Except so far as this new agreement goes the old agreement between the States and the Commonwealth, which has already been ratified by this Parliament, remains practically unaltered. The Bill contains as a schedule the new agreement which has been signed by the Premiers of the three States and the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth.

As regards industrial disputes there is to be an exclusively Australian Court to deal with them. The States are giving the Commonwealth, absolute control in that regard. There have already been strikes on the works, because New South Wales on one side of the Murray is paying different wages from those paid on the Victorian side. It is impossible to carry on such a job with two grades of wages, salaries and hours for men who are working on a common class of work. These disputes have been the cause of considerable delay, which we want in the future to avoid.

Senator Senior:

– Is power given in the Bill to levy tolls at the locks ?

Senator RUSSELL:

– Yes, that power is in. the contract. It will be one of the powers of the Commission that will be appointed as the constructing authority until the work is ‘ finished, and then, I suppose, we shall have to create by Act’ of Parliament a complete set of machinery to enable some permanent body to manage and control the whole scheme. The agreement which has been signed by the State Premiers and the Prime Minister is really the essential part of the

Bill. The contract is a sort of agreement to give complete power to the Commission to proceed with a definite policy of construction without interference from anybody.. The only power which the States will have over the Commission will be their right to vote the money for the use of the Commission. I am a strong believer in the system of constructing the work by means of experts and specialists, and handing the control over to them. Parliament will, no doubt, require to keep a grip of the financial side of the business, but we as Government Departments are not able to do the work effectively except through the agency of the skilled experts whom it is proposed to employ. The State of Victoria has specially developed’ its irrigation works. I believe that we have in this State some of the most competent men in this line to be found anywhere. I refer particularly to men like Mr. Dethridge and others, who have done the State wonderful service in our irrigation areas. I feel sure that with the co-operation of the best experts of the States, who are to be given a free hand to carry out the ‘ design and construction, the scheme will bring big results to Australia.

Senator LYNCH:

– Is there any intention to give the Commission an instruction as to how they shall carry out the work - as, for instance, by contract or by day labour ?

Senator RUSSELL:

– They will be authorized to construct the works as they choose. Under the old agreement it was hard to get all the representatives of the States into line, but under the new agreement, if three ‘Commissioners are in, favour of the adoption of a certain course of action, it will be binding on the whole Commission.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 (Short title and citation).

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

Senator WILSON:

– I am referring more particularly to the Commission which will exercise, control over the work when the scheme is in full operation. The Minister must realize that, if a settler does not take care of his block, the interest of others will be detrimentally affected, and the results disastrous. I am not much alarmed about the question of prices. When men on blocks of 15 or 17 acres make £600 and £700 per annum, there is a fair margin, so that even with a reduction of prices, their occupations would still remain remunerative. As we have given preference to British goods, it is not too much to ask that Britain should give preference to dried fruits grown in Australia by returned soldiers who fought for Australia and for Great Britain.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

’. - I regret the way in which the Government have introduced this exceedingly important measure. Australia is confronted with probably as grave a financial position as any country in the world, but here is a Bill involving the expenditure of several millions, which honorable senators are required to consider at this hour of the morning, and at brief notice. I agree’ with all that has been said in favour of the Murray Waters project as a whole. I listened to the speech of Senator Earle with particular pleasure. It came as an expression of fine feeling from the representative of the island State, whose citizens can expect to gain no benefit from the scheme outlined in this measure, but whose fruit-growers will be ‘ ready to shoulder their share of the cost in the general interest of Australia. When Bills involving heavy financial obligations are introduced in circumstances such as this, the least I can do is to protest. The

Government are rushing into fresh expenditure when they would do well to hold their hands, in view of our terribly serious prospects.

Senator COX:
New South Wales

– I regretted to hear Senator Gardiner refer to the prospects of Australia in so dismal a tone. The project indicated in this measure is one of the finest that any country could have. I wish honorable senators will take the trouble to inspect some of the irrigation schemes. If we were to spend £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 upon these works, we would soon be repaid. We have the right kind of land, and the water to make all these projects successful, and to give remunerative employment to many thousands of new citizens.

Senator Crawford:

– The honorable senator seems to forget that there is a northern end of Australia.

Senator COX:

– There is room for successful irrigation settlements in Queensland; but I would remind the honorable senator that there are irrigation schemes in the Yanco district of New South Wales which are well worth his inspection. That neighbourhood still has room for the settlement of thousands of people. The Murray River project is one of the greatest and best that Australia has ever undertaken, and we should have no fear of the money being spent there.

Senator Foll:

– What is the use of talking about the settlement of thousands of new citizens when there are many returned soldiers who have been waiting for month after month for land. Senator COX. - Send them down to Yanco. Good livings are to be had there for all the returned soldiers who are waiting for land.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– I would point out to honorable senators that the intention in this Bill is not to take over any land for the establishment of irrigation settlements. That phase of this great national work has already been undertaken. The Commonwealth Government have already had to take control of the placing of Australia’s dried fruits. Some four years ago there was such a demand for our products that our own country would have been left bare had not the Government taken action. We decided to allocate a certain proportion of the dried fruit, products for home requirements, and wo rendered assistance, particularly in the direction of securing shipping in order to export our surplus to the eager markets overseas. I have been confidently informed that dried-fruit producers have so firmly got on their feet that there is every prospect of the Australian product securing quite a large share of the almost unlimited world’s demand. Land in the neighbourhood of Merbein is now bringing more than £100 per acre owing to the recognition of the world-wide ‘markets which are awaiting our produce.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 13, schedules, preamble, and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 7025

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator PEARCE) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until to-day at 12 o’clock noon.

Senate adjourned at 4.16 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 November 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1920/19201125_senate_8_94/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate25 November 1920

QUESTION

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

BONUS ON GOLD

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator LYNCH:

Senator RUSSELL:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

NAVY

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:NAT

NEW BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Order

ORDER OF BUSINESS

APPROPRIATION BILL 1920-1921

WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT REPEAL BILL

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Lynch:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator J D MILLEN:TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Crawford:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Crawford:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Crawford:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator J D MILLEN:TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Senior:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Adamson:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Payne:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Foster:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Earle:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Senior:

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator GARDINER:

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Earle:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Earle:

Senate
25 November 1920

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator J D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator J D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator R STORRIE GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator J F GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

The PRESIDENT (Senator Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator J D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator J D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator J D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator ADAMSON:
Queensland

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator WILSON:
South Australia