House of Representatives
6 December 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- CAPTAIN CRESWELL’S REPORT
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN TARIFF
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE INCREASES
QUESTION
- DISCARDED TELEPHONE INSTRUMENTS
QUESTION
- IMPERIAL CONVICTS
IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION BILL
- Second Reading
COMMERCE BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 6307

PETITION

Mr. WATSON presented a petition from employers and employes in the printing trade in Brisbane, praying for protection against the importation of post-office directories.

Petition received and read.

page 6307

QUESTION

CAPTAIN CRESWELL’S REPORT

Mr.EWING. - The honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne has asked if a report by Captain Creswell can be laid on the table of the House. I have consulted the Minister of Defence on the subject, and he has no objection to it being done, so that instructions will be given accordingly. If this report does not furnish the information which the honorable member for Wentworth desires, I shall endeavour to secure for him any further information that hemay require.

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The probability is that Captain Creswell was asked to put his views before the Council of Defence when it was first formed, and was considering a Defence policy. If a report of any such questions and answers could be prepared, it would be very useful to -honorable members, and I ask the honorable gentleman if he can obtain a copy for us, so that we may be fully seized of what has. been proposed in regard to naval matters.

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– There is no objection to any honorable member seeing any of the papers in the Defence Department, unless they relate to some matter which all would agree should not be made public. If the honorable member’s views can be met without injury to the public interest, T am sure that the Minister of Defence will be glad to meet them.

page 6308

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN TARIFF

Mr CARPENTER:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister of Trade and Customs lay on the table the recent correspondent relative to complaints from Western Australian manufacturers as to the manufactured articles entering that State whose component parts are liable to dutv under the special Tariff of the State.

Sir WILLTAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I will lay the information on the table to-morrow.

page 6308

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE INCREASES

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– When will officers who are entitled under the classification scheme to receive increases be paid the amounts due to them? Will these increases date from the presentation of the original report by the Commissioner, or from the time of the approval of the scheme by Parliament?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– The Treasurer could answer this question better than I can. I understand the intention was to pay these increases as soon as an appropriation had been made. I ask the honorable gentleman to give notice of his second question, because I think the dates, from which some of these increases take effect vary.

page 6308

QUESTION

DISCARDED TELEPHONE INSTRUMENTS

Mr MAUGER:
for Mr. Wilkinson

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

What is done with telephone instruments when discarded by his Department because of wear or for other reasons?
Is it true that a number of such instruments were recently sold at a very low price, after a much better oiler had beenmade for them for use in connexion with rifle ranges and refused ?
Will the Minister confer with the Department of Defence with a view to giving rifle clubs an opportunity of securing some of these instruments at a fair valuation?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

They are used as far as possible for repairing other instruments, or sold by auction.
Not so far as the Postmaster-General has been able to ascertain.
The Minister has no objection to such instruments, when available, being supplied to rifle clubs at a fail valuation.

page 6308

QUESTION

IMPERIAL CONVICTS

Mr FRAZER:
for Mr. Mahon

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether his attention has been directed to recent reports of the Comptroller for Prisons, Western Australia, and especially to the following passages therein : -
1. ” There were ninety-five convicts undergoing sentences of penal servitude in the various gaols and at large under the ticket-of-leave regulations in the different districts ; nineteen had originally been sent from England as Imperial convicts, and of these eleven were still under life sentence imposed from thirty-five to forty years ago. Repeated applications have been made to the authorities in England with a view to obtain for these men a remission of their sentences, but without avail.
2. ” At the end of 1902 there were ninetyfive men undergoing penal servitude in Western Australia, and on the same day in 1903 there were but seventy-nine. Eighteen of these had been originally sent from England as convicts, nine being still undergoing life sentences imposed in that country from thirtyseven to forty-two years ago”?
In view of the lengthy incarceration of the life prisoners referred to in these extracts,’ and other circumstances, will the Prime Minister suggest to. the Imperial authorities the desirability of liberating these men?

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The report of the Comptroller for Prisons-has not come under my notice, but I will make inquiries respecting the matters alluded to by the honorable member.

page 6308

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10th November (vide page 4946), on motion by Mr. Deakin -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

– We hear from members of the Opposition that they are in favour of a good many principles, but so soon as we try in a Bill to give effect to a principle in which they say thev believe, thev do all thev can to wreck it. I do not wish, however, to be drawn off the track. We have been told that the Japanese Government have no desire that their citizens shal.l immigrate in any numbers to Australia. But what are the facts? The deputy leader of the Opposition referred to what had taken place in Fiii in regard to the Hindoos, and I should like to point out what has happened in Hawaii so far as the Japanese are concerned. In 1894, there were 24,000 Japanese in Hawaii, and in 1897, their number had increased to 70,000. They have driven out the natives, Chinese, and the Americans in the same way that the Hindoos are driving out the natives and Britishers from Fiji. Therefore, it is useless to say that the Japanese do not wish to emigrate. I am in a position to adduce strong evidence on this point by quoting from a pamphlet issued by the late Mr. W. H. Browne, who was formerly the leader of the Labour Party in Queensland. Mr. Browne pointed out the danger of intrusting the Administration with large powers such as are contemplated in this measure. He said -

That the Japanese authorities are of the opinion that the Queensland Government are favorable to Asiatic labour is shown by the following extracts from a letter from the Japanese Consul to the Chief Secretary, 6th November I800 :- “ From your correspondence, it appears to me that your Government is anxious to maintain a certain proportion of people of the Asiatic race in your Colony, but I am unable to learn on what basis the proportion is arrived at, or how the limit of maximum becomes known.”

Mr. Robert Philp was then Premier of Queensland, and negotiations went on, resulting in an agreement that the number of Japanese labourers and artisans in the Colony should be 3,247, and that the number might be kept up by fresh importations. . This of course only applied to those calling themselves “ artisans or labourers,” and no restriction whatever was placed on those coming in under other designations. Now I am coming to an important point, which shows what can be done by an Administration to permit of the introduction of an increased number of immigrants. Mr. Browne said -

By the earlier agreement not more than twentyfive Japanese were allowed to be brought in in any one vessel, but on 14th August, Mr. Philp, in a telegram to the Japanese Consul, said - I have no objection to the number allowed to be brought by each ship being increased to fifty.

Mr. Browne added

It is just possible that there are about 80 per cent, of the people of Queensland and of Australia who have very strong objections to these numbers being increased, but this is of course of little importance. Robert Philp “ has no objection,” so “let them all come.”

That is precisely the position that might be taken up by some future Prime Minister. If we leave it open to the Japanese to come here, they will undoubtedly flow in in such numbers as to become a menace to our people. Mr. .Browne goes on to say.: -

One reason given by the Japanese Consul for asking for a certain concession is as follows : - “ In view of the large number of Japanese labourers returning to Japan from this colony, and of the distressed state to which the immigration companies (whose sole business was to supply

Japanese labourers to employers in this colony), have been reduced since last year, in consequence of the prohibition measures taken by your Government, the Japanese Government is very anxious to hear, as soon as possible, of your decision as to the proposition suggested.”

In despatch after despatch, the Japanese authorities manifested an anxiety to secure permission for Japanese to come into Queensland in such numbers as they might desire. Mr. Browne went on to say : -

This appeal went direct to the heart of the Premier ; the common everyday unemployed are only a nuisance. A hard-up swagman deserves no consideration, but fancy an “ immigration company “ in a “ distressed condition.” The very ‘thought was terrible, and some of the concessions asked for were at once granted. ‘

I cannot see what inconvenience has been caused, or to whom offence has been given by the administration of the present Act. What is the position in Japan at present ? No Britisher can own a single foot of land in Japan, or make his home there without first obtaining the express permission of the Government. I do not think that outlaws are nearly so rigid as are the Japanese laws in regard to foreigners. In 1904 there were only 2,133 Britishers in Japan, and I believe that this small number is due to the restrictive legislation that is enforced against foreigners. Therefore, I do not see why we should be asked to pass legislation that would permit of an unlimited influx of Japanese into Australia. When I visited Queensland recently, I was disgusted to find that the great majority of the storekeepers were coloured aliens. Surely it cannot be said that white people are unfit in that climate to act as storekeepers. I was also very much astonished to find that certain unpatriotic individuals were leasing their land to Chinamen. Apparently they were so fond of the coloured) races that they would do everything possible to retain them, and if some of the Europeans in Northern Queensland have their own way, there will be very little hope for the white sugargrower. I am very strongly opposed to any interference with the present legislation, except in the direction of closing up the gaps. Nothing will prevent some of the Agents-General, who apparently have little sympathy with a White Australia, from making statements such as are contained in the memorandum laid on the table yesterday. I do not .trouble myself about the misrepresentations of people, who, after having done well in Australia, proceed to England, and apparently direct all their energies to maligning the country of their adoption. Nothing of that kind would induce me to amend the law in the direction of intrusting Ministers with greater powers. I cannot say that I am altogether content with the present administration of the Act, but I believe that it is giving the utmost satisfaction to the country,. We know, however, that all Ministries are fallible, and that if large powers are conferred, they are always liable to abuse, especially when anuses will have the effect of favouring the wealthy, or land-owning, classes. I believe that for many year,s to come the coloured aliens who are already with us will be a great menace to the workers of Australia. The keen competition which white workers now have to meet is indicated by the statements of an Adelaide clergyman who has had a wide experience of the sufferings of the unemployed. He says : -

There were scores of so-called homes in Adelaide, where the furniture consisted of a few boxes, and where the inmates had not sufficient bread to eat, or enough clothing to keep them warm. He was satisfied that in many instances the distress was as great as in any of the slums of London. While on the one hand there was dire poverty, however, there was much waste in other directions. One of the leading citizens of Adelaide the other day - he could mention his name if necessary - said in a ballroom - “ I don’t know a Christian in Adelaide. I know I am not one, because I am not prepared to pay the price.”

– I should like, to emphasize the objection’ of the honorable member for Kalgoorlie that the practice of the Government introducing Bills, and then flooding the House with amendments upon them, is very seriously to be deprecated.

Mr Deakin:

– Does the honorable member call our one amendment in connexion with this measure “ flooding the House with amendments ‘ ‘ ?

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– I am referring ‘ to other measures in addition to that which is now under consideration. The House has been flooded with amendments after amendments upon Bills which have been presented by the Government. This measure provides that until some particular language has been prescribed, the dictation test shall be in the language authorized by the existing Act. That will give the Minister power to prescribe a test either in an Asiatic or a European language. I have always been strenuously opposed to the flooding of Australia with alien races; but I say that if Ave wish to exclude those races we should at least do so honestly. If this Bill is designed to placate the Japanese, I maintain that Ave shall incur very much greater risk of giving them offence if

Ave allow them to come to Australia in the belief that they will be subjected to a test in their own language, to find upon their arrival that they are required to undergo an examination in Portuguese, Spanish, or Greek, than we should do by directly excluding them.

Mr Deakin:

Mr Hutchison:

– I do not trust even the present Government in this matter.

Mr GLYNN:

– That part of the Bill which substitutes for the language test imposed by the Act of 1901, an agreement with a nation as to the method of regulating the immigration of the subjects of that nation will be welcomed. I think, some eight or ten years ago, the Japanese, and also the Chinese, addressed remonstrances to the Imperial Government in regard to the immigration restriction laws of the Colonies. It was pointed out that both nations had been willing, for several years, to regulate the emigration of their subjects to the British Possessions and America., that the whole matter could be arranged by treaty, and that under the operation of these treaties, quite as great a restriction would be imposed upon the subjects of those nations, as would be effected by the restrictive legislation of the various colonies. I am pleased to find that even at this late hour, we are proposing to enter into an arrangement by virtue of which the amourpropre of Japan can be consulted. As Japan is our ally, we are bound to consider her susceptibilities. At the same time, we must be cautious to provide that the Japanese do not come here in too great numbers. No race should be introduced that is incapable of intermarrying with our own people. Where that rule is not observed, the only result is either the exploitation of the lower races, or infertility. Professor Weismann, the great German, points out that the intermarrying of races which are not sufficiently close in type always results in diminished fertility, and a lower standard of ability and character than results from the intermingling of races between whom such differences do not exist. It is difficult toget at the truth about the Japanese. There can be no doubt that they are a great military nation, but according to some writers, that is simply because their internal history from the sixth to the middle of the seventeenth century was a welter of blood. I do not know whether that statement is true, but an interesting article on the subject appears in the Athenaeum of the 19th August last. The Athenaeum is not a paper which writes hysterically on any subject. It is the leading literary journal of England, and perhaps one of the leading literary newspapers in the world. In a review of two books - Bushido, the Soul of Japan, by I. Nitobe. and Young Japan, by James A. B. Scherer - the Athenaum apparently adopts an estimate of the character of the Japanese which in some respects is not overflattering. It points out that the history of old Japan, more or less authentic, from the sixth to the seventeenth century, is a mere welter of blood ; that “ Bushido,” which is a Chinese word adopted by the Japanese, means the “ way of the executioner, ‘ ‘ and that the castes who were designated by that term were -

The executers of the will of irresponsible petty princes or their councils, they were the instruments of oppression and themselves the victims of a pedantic and absolutely merciless ceremonialism.

It goes on to quote from Mr. Scherer’s work as to the general character of the Japanese, and points out that -

He admits to the full, as every one must, “ the five noble qualities of Japanese character : bravery, loyalty, alertness, thoroughness, and self-control.”

At the same time, it states that he goes on to say that -

The two cancers at the core of the Japanese character are deep-set dishonesty and abandoned impurity ; either would be sufficient towreck the life of any nation.

It may be hoped that the Prime Minister’s amendments of the Immigration Restriction Act will not be accepted by Parliament. They are virtually an abandonment of a White Australia. They open the door to all sorts of dangers and abuses; and they do so without any justifiable reason. In striking out of the Act as it stands the need of coloured aliens passing an education test in a European language, permission is virtually given to any Minister who chooses to let in any number of a coloured race. Mr. Deakin himself has taught us what that means. We know what use Mr.Reid made of his period of power. He endeavoured by the indefinite extension of a period of fiscal truce to subvert the Protectionist policy of Australia by the continuance of a Tariff which is strangling some of the industries of one State.

Again, the article says -

That change could have no bad effect at all as long as there was in office a man loyal to the policy of a White Australia. Mr. Deakin himself could be fully trusted to “prescribe” such a language test as would exclude every undesirable alien. But very few people indeed in the Liberal camp would intrust a similar power in Mr. Reid’s hands, or in those of Mr. Bruce Smith, Mr. Dugald Thomson, or any of their immediate coterie. As the law stands at present, it is safe and effective, and no one can say that it has been productive of any serious inconvenience.

Further down it says -

Mr. Hutchison was not travelling an inch beyond the records when he said that the innovation proposed by the Prime Minister wasa blow at the policy of a White Australia, and nothing which Mr. Deakin advanced in support of his proposal relieved it of that imputation.

No regulation prescribing any language shall have any force until it has been laid before both Houses of the Parliament for thirty days, or if within that time a resolution has been proposed in either House of the Parliament to disapprove of the regulation until the motion has been disposed of.

Every member of the police force of any State, and every officer may, without warrant,, arrest any person reasonably supposed to be aprohibited immigrant.

I could understand such a provision if itwere to apply only in out-of-the-way places, to meet the isolated cases to which theMinister referred; but, even then, I thinkit would be unnecessary. The regulations, however, might be so framed that the Minister could authorize any police officer toact in the manner provided for, and if theclause were amended to read, “ The-

Minister may authorize any member of the police force,” my objection to ic would be largely removed. It must be remembered that we are allowing the Government to make arrangements with foreign Governments for the admission of certain of their subjects on the presentation of passports, duly vised, and on the observance of other necessary precautions against imposition. Even the honorable member for Bland, when in office, agreed that this might be done. The men who will come here under this arrangement will belong chiefly to the tourist class, who will come here for purposes of sight seeing, or to the merchant class, who will come here to obtain trade. At all events, they will be men recommended by the Governments whose subjects they are, and it would be a great affront to those Governments if any of them were suddenly arrested in the streets of one of our large cities, without other authority than this provision, by any member of the police force who chose to take such action. The power is one which is not likely to be often abused, but we should not run the risk of it being abused at all. It might happen, if the clause were left as it stands, that some raw member of the force, anxious to distinguish himself, might availhimself of this power to be offensive :to one of these persons whom we are practically inviting to our shores. In my opinion the provision goes beyond what is safe or sound, and is likely to create difficulties in our relations with foreign Governments, because, possibly, the visitor subjected to indignity might be a man of influence and high rank in his own country. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will agree to the amendment which I have suggested.

I am sorry that the measure is being brought forward so late in the session.

II extends the power of the Minister to make arrangements with foreign Governments, but, in my opinion, effects no real improvement of the Alien Restriction Act. The success of legislation of this kind depends largely upon its administration, and the administration of the past has not been such as to justify us in anticipating very successful results in the future. Had the measure been brought in earlier, I think there would have been a better recognition ot what is due to other nations, and I would then anticipate less difficulty in the future than I now foresee. In my opinion, it would be better to postpone its fur- ther consideration until next session, when we will come fresh to it, and will be able to give full attention to the various points put forward bv honorable members.

Mr DAVID THOMSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I regret that the Government have introduced legislation to amend the Alien Restriction Bill. At the last election every opportunity was- taken to decry that measure, and the opponents of the Labour Party made use of it against us. Having successfully defended ourselves in regard to it, why should we now allow it to be modified? Queensland will be the greatest sufferer if more aliens are permitted to enter the Commonwealth, because Chinese, and the people of the other coloured races, make for that State first. There is now in Queensland a great number of Chinese, Japanese, and other coloured aliens, living amidst all the filth and dirt imaginable, and why should that State be a receptacle for the black, brown, and brindles of the whole world? I shall oppose the motion for the second reading. We often hear of Chinese puzzles, but the measure seems to me to provide a Japanese puzzle. I cannot understand what language is to be used as the education test. Why should we substitute for an “ European “ language a “ prescribed “ language ? What language is to be prescribed? Is it to be the Japanese language? Those who support the Bill’ appear to be favorable to the admission of Japanese to Australia because their nation has recently defeated Russia after a great struggle. That is no reason why we should be afraid of Japan. In my opinion, both the Russians and the Japanese are practically savag.es, except in their knowledge of civilized methods of warfare, though probably the Japanese are more civilized and humane than are the Russian’s. “Still, that is no reason why we should admit them into Australia. I know the evils which have resulted from the admission of Japanese men, and especially of Japanese women, into Queensland, and it would be a disgrace to allow any more of them to come here. They do not come to Victoria, New South Wales, and South Australia.

Mr Hutchison:

– We have a great many in the Northern Territory.

Mr DAVID THOMSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Yes, but thev are more isolated there, and do not come as much into contact with white people as they do in Queensland. Round about Cairns, and in other places on the Herbert

River, we find that there are great numbers of Japanese, Chinese, and other blacks, browns, and brindles, engaged in the. sugar industry, and I do not wish their number to be increased. It is not the administration of the law by the present Government that we are afraid of, but its administration by future Governments. I am satisfied that if we amend the law in the manner proposed we shall find it difficult to preserve a White Australia. I, therefore, intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill. The Labour Party, which went to the country as the main supporters of that measure, came back stronger than ever, and I do not see why we should modify legislation of which the electors have approved. I do not believe in introducing any of the black races into Australia, and I shall certainly oppose any provisions in. the Bill that would have the effect of opening the door for them.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– Every true Australian, whether by birth or adoption, should seriously consider the proposal now submitted to us. We are asked to amend an Act of Parliament which has occupied a more prominent place in the public attention than perhaps any other measure passed by an Australian Parliament. I believe that the Prime Minister is sincere in his desire to preserve a White Australia, bub it is human to err, and I think that the honorable gentleman is now taking a course which I think he will have cause to regret.

Mr Deakin:

– The Bill is intended to close up the loop-holes that now exist.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Yes, but whilst some of the provisions of the Bill are intended to operate in that direction, others will have the effect of opening the back door more widely than ever, and, under the administration of a Government not fully sympathetic with the White Australia policy, of permitting a wholesale influx of coloured aliens.

Mr Deakin:

– I think not.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I take the opposite view. In view of the extent to which coloured aliens are monopolizing trade and industry, particularly in the country districts of the various States, we should be careful to refrain from adopting any course that would lead to the augmentation of their numbers. At Wellington, one of the most prosperous towns in New South Wales - and it is the most prosper ous settlements that are chosen by coloured aliens for the pursuit of their operations- - the Assyrians, who, of all foreigners, are the most objectionable to the housewives of the bush, are taking possession of the whole of the business. In other towns the Chinese are predominant among the traders. In the Tumut district the tobacco-growing industry is practically wholly in the hands of the Chinese, and in Queensland the sugar industry is gradually drifting in the same direction. I am afraid that the substitution of the words, “ in any prescribed language,” for the words “ European language,” would afford a loop-hole which would be taken advantage of by unscrupulous administrators to defeat the purpose for which the Act was passed.

Mr Deakin:

– No other language but European can be added without the consent of Parliament.

Mr WEBSTER:

Mr Fisher:

– “ Concede “ is - not . the word to use. and the honorable and* learned member knows it.

Mr CROUCH:

– I do not know it. On the contrary,’ i think that the word is a very proper one to use. The present is not the first occasion upon which Imperial representations have been made to us in this regard. I assume that, in consequence of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, Imperial representations have been made in regard to this question. But it is already being conceded by some of the greatest authorities in England that Mr. Chamberlain was wrong in insisting upon our adopting in the original Bill the language of the Natal Act, instead of allowing us to pass such legislation as we deemed fit. I have here a copy of an article written by the Sydney correspondent of the London Times, and published in that journal on the 27th October last. The writer puts the position well when he says -

One can only hope (not very hopefully) that the misleading educational test will be abolished, that the exclusion of Japanese will be arranged by treaty - as it used to be in Queensland, and :as the Japanese have always desired - and that Australians will be allowed to say honestly and straight-out what they wish about other non-white folk. If a man wants to be selfish (assuming, for the moment that “ White Australia “ is a purely selfish policy), you will not cure him by making him pretend not to be so ; you will only irritate him from the first, teach him the easiness of subterfuge, and in the end demoralize him altogether.

Commenting on this letter, the Times, in its leading columns, writes -

In its essence there is nothing more insulting in limiting by legislation the work that may be done in Australia by Japanese immigrants than there is in limiting the importation of Japanese ;goods by a tariff. What is insulting is a system which professes to be educational, and then defines the European languages as the sole standard of education, which may be applied to a scholar and a gentleman from China, but is never, as our correspondent points out, applied to a European navvy. As Mr. Deakin suggested in his reply to the Japanese Government three days ago, there is room for a general re-statement of the form in which these restrictions are cast. The growth of Imperial unity must be Eased on compromise, not on verbal subterfuge. We must realize the nature of Australia’s problems, and modify our preconceived theories to suit them. On the other hand, Australia, in the interests of the Empire, and her own progress, must learn to separate what is essential to the development of the white race, and to the maintenance of her standard of living, from what is unessential, so that she may retain the former and discard the latter.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– Sometimes they cannot pass the test now applied to them.

Mr HUGHES:

– The Bill could be so enforced as to exclude nine out of every ten persons of European birth who would be regarded as most desirable immigrants. When the Act was under discussion, I said that it would exclude my own countrymen - I was speaking of men who had a speech alien to that of Englishmen - that it would exclude Welshmen, Irishmen, Frenchmen, and hundreds of the most desirable persons. Therefore, the test is in itself but a means by which we can exclude all those persons whom it is desired to keep out of the Commonwealth. If, therefore, we alter the language test, we may open the door to personswhom we are all agreed should be excluded.

Mr McWilliams:

– Who is to be the judge as to desirability?

Mr HUGHES:

– If we specify those nations, the peoples of which we regard as undesirable immigrants, the remainder of the peoples beyond our borders must be regarded as desirable. I regard as undesirable those persons who, from their habits, their traditions, their racial peculiarities, or their code of morality, are unfit to mix with us on terms of industrial, moral, and social equality. That is a very wide definition, and would exclude a very large proportion of the inhabitants of the earth, but it has been adopted by this House in the most emphatic way. I remember when the present Act was under discussion, there were practically but two sections of honorable members. There was, indeed, a small party led by the honorable member for Kooyong, but there were only two sections of any importance, namely, one in favour of direct exclusion by prohibition, and the other in favour of exclusion by some test such as that now adopted. So far as I know, those honorable members who desired to admit all sorts and conditions of men were few in numbers, and their opposition of small account. Now, we understand that after the experience of some years, and after much agitation in the press, and elsewhere, it is desired to amend the Act in certain particulars - although very few persons have urged that it should be amended in this particular direction, unless in’ others at the same time. It is now proposed to permit of the admission of Japanese, and Japanese only. The Prime Minister, in reply to aquestion addressed to him by the honorable and learned member for Corio, stated that Chinese, Hindoos, and others are to be entitled to the benefit of the proposed provisions; but I would ask honorable members to look at paragraph a of clause 3, and the proposed addition that I have already quoted. According to these proposals the languages now prescribed will stand unless altered by regulation, which will have to lay upon the table for thirtydays. That) leaves to the House at some future time the settlement of a question of a troublesome character. It will have to determine what language or languages shall be prescribed. It will be useless to think of prescribing any Asiatic language. The Prime Minister would not dream of permitting Malays or Javanese to enter here. Would he permit the inhabitants of the South Sea Islands to enter the Commonwealth ? Does he contemplate the admission of the more barbarous or the lesserknown tribes of Asia? I think not. Obviously this Bill is only introduced for the purpose of admitting the people of three great races, namely, the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Hindoos. It is primarily intended to benefit only the Japanese. It leaves to the House the task of deciding what language test shall be imposed. Will the House say to the Ministry - as it ought to do - “ You prescribe the test, and accept the responsibility.” Assuming that honorable members decide that a test in an Asia tic language, which may from time to time be prescribed by the Minister, shall be imposed, what will be the position ? Effect could not be given to the Bill without further legislation, because no regulation can be enforced until it has lain upon the table of the House for thirty days. Let us suppose that under such circumstances a number of Japanese are desirous of entering Australia. Are they to be kept waiting at our outports until the thirty days have expired, or is their arrival to be anticipated by that period?

Mr Mcwilliams:

– What would be the effect of a debate upon such a question in this House?

Mr HUGHES:

– I do not know. I leave that question to be answered by other honorable members. I am chiefly concerned with the consideration that this measure is intended to placate the Japanese Government, and renders them noservice, or that it is designed to placate them, and renders them a very great service ; or that it is intended to leave things exactly as they are. In its present form the Bill is indefinite. It postpones the evil day. It expresses our readiness to do something, and leaves the House todo it at some future time. It createsmachinery which is cumbersome, and I venture to think, ineffective. It proposes to enable the Minister todo something “ thirty days after date.” For instance, there may be Chinese, Hindoos, Japanese, and others, who are desirous of gaining admission to Australia. What language test will be prescribed intheir case? If Japanese, obviously the Japanese alone can benefit ; or are we, then, to declare that a person who passesany test in the Japanese, Chinese, or any language used by the natives of India may enter the Commonwealth? If so, since the Bill can only apply to educated Japanese,. Chinese, and Hindoos, the arrangement which it is now proposed to make a part of our statute law would be sufficient.. The clause which it is proposed to insert in the Act as 4a reads -

If the Minister notifies by notice in the Gazette that an arrangement has been made with the Government of any country regulating the admission to the Commonwealth of the subjects or citizens of that country, the subjects or citizens of that country shall not, while the notice continues to have effect, be required to pass the dictation test.

It is well known that an arrangement was initiated by the present Prime Minister, and carried out during the regime of the Watson Government, whereby certain classes of citizens of India and Japan are permitted to enter the Commonwealth without being called upon to pass any educational test. That in itself is sufficient. If it is proposed to subject the Japanese and the Chinese to any test at all, only educated Japanese and Chinese can pass it. But I am bound to confess that the possibility of allowing persons who are not so educated to enter the Commonwealth fills me with apprehension. I am strongly opposed to any measure which can have that effect. If it is proposed to allow only educated immigrants to enter Australia, I venture to say that nothing can be said in favour of this Bill at all, because already the educated Japanese -an be admitted, if they are students, merchants, or tourists. They may come in under a passport system which has been already approved. And, under clause 4A, it is proposed to make that arrangement statutory., and to enable the citizens of any country with which a treaty has been entered into to enter the Commonwealth. I venture to say that this Bill is one that ought to be opposed. It is indefinite; it promises much, and will accomplish little or nothing that is good, but may prove dangerous. It will disturb a law which has been upon our statutebook for some years. That law may have many defects, but it does not number amongst them any which this Bill seeks to amend. I am opposed now, as I was when the original Bill was submitted, to the admission of Japanese into Australia. I believe that they should not come here to compete with us industrially, and that their admission can serve no useful purpose. I do not believe that there is in this country a public opinion in favour of an amendment of the law in this direction ; but, if there is, I most emphatically maintain that this Bill will not give effect to that opinion. At the best, it cuts into a vital part of the Immigration Restriction Act, and seeks to differentiate in favour of the Japanese, because they have acquired, in one of the most bloody wars on record, a reputation which it would have been well for them and the world if they had never had an opportunity to gain. But is that any reason why we should unbar our doors at the behest of the conqueror ? Rather is it not a reason why we should set up our barriers in triple brass, and prepare against that day when they will no longer ask admission from us in the language of diplomacy, but will thunder at our doors with the arms of an invader? I do not think that the Bill is called for. I do not believe it is a measure which will reflect any credit upon the Government. It leaves too much to the House to do hereafter. It speaks of some “ prescribed “ language. What does that mean? Obviously it can only mean the Japanese language. If it means other languages, the whole Bill becomes a farce. If it means that an immigrant may pass the educational test in any language, why not say so? But I would point out that that test has never been applied with a view to finding out what a man knows, but rather with the object of ascertaining what he does not know. To apply a test in Greek to a German is not to ascertain what he knows, but what he does not know. Such a test would exclude every honorable member in this Chamber. I am certain that it would exclude me. I could impose such a test even in English that I venture to say would exclude everybody present, and it would be very easy to frame an examination “which would accomplish that result if it provided for a test in a foreign language. The present Act has excluded undesirable immigrants just as effectually as if a direct prohibition had been imposed upon them. If it is merely proposed to strike- out the word “European” and to insert “ prescribed,” for the purpose of enabling the Customs officers to continue to exclude these persons, what is there in the Bill ? If, on the other hand, it is intended to be an instrument under which anybody may be admitted to the Commonwealth, it constitutes a danger of a more serious character than any of which I have yet heard, so far as the ideal of a White Australia is concerned. I shall oppose the second reading of the Bill, because I conceive it to be both unnecessary and faulty. It proposes, but it does not dispose. It proposes to do something, but it leaves to the House the difficult and delicate task of deciding what’ language test shall be applied. For that reason I consider it unworthy of our attention, and I shall give it my opposition.

Mr SPENCE:
Darling

– We have been assured on more than one occasion that there is no. desire on the part of the Japanese Government to encourage the emigration of its subjects to Australia, or elsewhere. I intend to show the utter fallacy of that statement, and my observations will be based upon facts which have been taken from recent American experience. In Japan at the present time there are four large companies, with unlimited capital behind them, whose special business it is to encourage emigration. These companies engage intending emigrants, send them to America, and supply them with the money necessary to enable them to land there. They reimburse themselves through the medium of the Japanese boarding-houses, to which the men are sent there. During the present year, and in California especially, there has been a very great agitation in this connexion, in which the principal newspapers have taken an active part. The labour organizations found that the position was becoming so serious that they despatched Mr. Edward Rosenberg, a very able man, as a special commissioner to the Orient to investigate the labour situation there. The experience of California should be of some assistance to us in dealing with this question. In 1880 there were only 86 Japanese there. Ten years later there were 1,147, and ‘n 1900 there were no less than 10,151. A special inquiry has been made by the United States Bureau of Statistics as to the number of Japanese in America, and while it is difficult to arrive at an accurate estimate, it is believed that at the present time there are about 100,000 there. The most noticeable feature of the situation is that during the last few years the Japanese have been pouring into California and other States in very large numbers. From 1000 to 1904,8,000 Japanese entered California, and in 1904, 7,000 arrived from Hawaii. It is believed that there are now 30,000 in California, and the position has become so serious that, as the result of public meetings held all over the State, the Legislature of California has appealed to Congress and to the President to put a stop to the Japanese invasion. And yet we have been told that the Japanese have no desire to leave their own country. The Japanese of Hawaii conduct a paper called the Shimpo, and in June of last year that newspaper contained a statement to the effect that there were 3.-Soo Japanese there who wished to go to California. . In May, .1 902. when the great influx of Japanese into California probably began, the Shimpo published the following paragraph: -

Lately almost every, steamer for the coast - that is for California - carries away a large number of Japanese labourers from here. They are said to be pre-engaged to work in Californian orchards, beet fields, or on the rail roads. Several recruiting agents now in the city are affording every inducement for them to emigrate.

I have a copy of the agreement made between the coolies and the big companies to which I have referred. The coolies bind themselves to serve for a period of three years. During that time they are practically slaves, the conditions of their employment being similar to those under which Chinese have been sent to South Africa. The companies make large profits out of the business. They undertake to return sick Japanese, and to reimburse the Japanese Government any expense to which they may be put in this connexion. The coolie pays a fee of ten yen, in order to secure an engagement. The orchardists of California believed that the influx of Japanese would supply them with cheap labour ; but the Japanese have become masters of the situation. Having squeezed out the European workers, they have succeeded by the completeness of their organization in placing the orchardists of California practically at their mercy, and are demanding higher wages than were asked by the Europeans. When the Japanese were first introduced, there was a resort to firearms and blood was shed in an encounter between the white and the coloured men. The white workers having been driven out of the fruit-growing industry, the Japanese labourers have lost that suavity which’ previously characterized .them, and are resorting to the bullying and tyranny which is characteristic of such individuate. In California, growers of peaches, which ripen quickly, find themselves completely at the mercy of the Japanese. Local conditions are responsible for the desire of the Japanese to emigrate to America, and must prompt them to seek a footing here. Japan has a population of 45,000,000 settled on an area of 148,724 square miles, only n per cent, of which consists of arable land. It is idle to say that now that the war is over. Manchuria, which has a population of about 20,000,000., and Korea, which has also a large population, will afford a suitable outlet for the Japanese people, when they know that they can earn more money in other countries. Higher wages constitute the temptation for them to emigrate to the United States and Australia. It is said that they have adapted themselves to the ideals of Western civilization. But what does that mean? Mr. Rosenberg found that instead of the Japanese being co-operationists, as was believed, their property was so great that the places of those who went on strike were immediately filled by others. The methods of settling trade disputes which have found a place in our Western civilization are not likely to be availed of there. We have to remember that in Japanuntillately work that is performed by machinery in civilized countries was for the most part done by manual labour. It is only during comparatively recent years that labour-saving machinery has been introduced, and the result is that millions of workers who previously managed to eke out an existence there now find themselves utterly helpless. I. should like these facts to be impressed on. the minds of the officers administering the Act. We are not wide awake. The facts that I am putting before the House are up-to-date, and should be of interest to honorable members. It must be recognised that a crisis has been reached in the history of these people that their conditions of life are being completely revolutionized, and that there is consequently room for the agents of the large employing companies to secure Japanese labour for the Californian orchards and beet fields. These companies are not anxious to return the coolies to Japan, and having once reached California they drift to other States. The figures which I havequoted are admittedly only estimates, but they should be sufficient to show that we are facedby a very real danger. It is, therefore,highly im- portant that our Immigration Restriction Act should be vigorously administered. Imperfect though it may be. it is still capable of keeping the Japanese out of Australia. The idea that the Japanese do not wish to come here is absurd. The experience of the United States shows that they are anxious to emigrate, and that we have a serious danger to face. Mr. Rosenberg, the representative of the American Federation of Labour, to whom I have referred, writes -

On my way from Osaka to Tokio I had a lengthy conversation with T. Nakahashi, the president of the Osaka Shosen Kaisha, a steamship company, capitalized at $2,250,000, and owning seventy-six steamers. He was emphatic in his statements that the organization of labour on Western lines is impossible at present. He said, “Any attempt to do so would fail, the population of the country being so dense that the places of strikers could be quickly filled.”

My observations in Japan incline me to the belief that there is considerable truth in the opinion that there is ahead for the working people* of Japan an era of great and long suffering, just as in thelast decade of the eighteenth century the English workers suffered great hardships when machine production was revolutionizing English industry, and the workers lacked the organization of labour necessary to successfully demand a fair share in the nation’s industrial advance.

– Does the honorable member think that any other nation could have done as well?

Mr MALONEY:

– I do not think the “ well “ is good enough to boast of. Whether Ave did well or ill, the only result of the war was to find work for the yellow races in South Africa.

Mr Page:

– But that is not the question.

Mr MALONEY:

– I think that, if necessary, I could quote some of the greatest authorities in England in support of the contention that the British Army broke down, and did not do as well as England had a right to expect of it. I am not making an attack upon the Army; I am simply giving expression to my own honest convictions. Every man of note in the British Army will admit that, in connexion with the South African war, it failed to do what might reasonably have been expected. That being so, does it need any stretch of imagination to believe that our splendid line of naval defence might also fail in the hour of need? In that event, how long would it be before our chief port in the East - Hong Kong, which, according to the Statesman’s Year Book, has only 3,500 regular defenders and 375 volunteers - was overrun by the Japanese ? What might happen in. such an event may well form food for reflection. Next to the defence which Great Britain affords us comes that offered by our splendid relatives in the West. The United States stands to-day as a sentinel in the Pacific. I am glad that they have taken over the Philippine Islands. In the hour of danger they may stand as a sentinel between us and Eastern countries ; meantime thev are assisting to preserve the health of the people of Australia. If a great influx of Chinese took place, the diseases which have been enumerated by my honorable friends would be easily disseminated here. But the United States authorities in the Philippine Islands insist that every ship, before entering the port of Manila, shall not only be passed by the harbor-master, but shall, through her master, furnish the American Consul with full information as to the health of the immunity in every port at which she has touched. We therefore owe to the United States a meed of praise for the splendid vigilance which she exercises in this regard, and which tends to the preservation of the health of our own people. Perhaps, in a free-trade sense, Hong Kong is the most complete port in the world. So far as I was able to ascertain on the occasion of my recent visit, no duties whatever are imposed. But it is the great focus point of disease.

– We do not give fair play to the people of our own race. The honorable member for Kooyong has asked why we do not encourage people from Great Britain to immigrate to Australia. It is because even in this sparsely populated country the land has gone into the possession of the few. Our land system is a huge monopoly. As leader of the Government of Western Australia, the Treasurer succeeded in placing upon the statute-book of that State better land laws than we have here. Hundreds have to leaveVictoria toseek holdings elsewhere. These are the men who would help us against the attacks of alien races. If the removal of one offensive word from our statute-book will enable the splendid diplomacy of the Japanese to assist us in our desire to keep Australia white, no one will welcome the change more than I shall do. Peace is always better than war, but if the Japanese come here, it will be our duty to force them away by every means in our power. I do not think that the United States of America would see us controlled by an Asiatic race. If there is to be a realization of the present fear, I hope that the Europeans, will join, not in a marauding crusade, like many of those of ancient days, but in a true crusade in the interests of the white races. I hope that it will be a crusade of the Latins, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the great AngloSaxonCeltic races. But no word of mine will ever give offence to the Japanese. I have too much admiration for their art and their splendid inventive genius to insult them. Within the last few days I have had presented to me a toy which was invented in Japan after my visit to that country. There is nothing upon which they will not improve, and, if the worst comes to the worst, they will be able to give us, a splendid example of the nationalization of industries. When exJudge Casey, whose courtesy and ability to cross-examine should have enabled him to obtain much information on the subject, asked, during his visit to Japan, what men had raised Japan from the lowly place which she occupied in the middle centuries to her present high position, he was told that the one and only man responsible for the change was the reigning Mikado. If, in course of time, the Mikado be succeeded by a monarch such as was one of the kings of Bavaria, who went about carrying sticks in his mouth, believing that he was. a stork, and about to lay eggs, the educated Japanese, with their great nationalized industries, would never dream of permitting him to rule. And so Japanmay be the first socialistic nation in the world. I shall never speak of the Japanese as monkeys “ or “little brown men;” but if fate decrees that the children who are to follow us shall be dominated by. an Eastern race, I hope that it will be, not the Japanese, but the Chinese.

Question put. The House divided -

Ayes … … … 39

Noes … … … 6

Majority … … 33

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

Section three of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting the whole of paragraph a, and inserting in lieu thereof the following paragraph : - ” (a) Any person who fails to pass the dictation test : that is to say, who, when an officer dictates to him not more than fifty words in any prescribed language, fails to write them out in that languagein the presence of the officer “ ;

by omitting from paragraph e the words “ within three years,” and by inserting in that paragraph, before the words “received a pardon,” the words “served his sentence or “ ;

by omitting the whole of paragraphs m andn.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I move -

That after the word “officer,” line 10, the following words be inserted : - “ No regulation prescribing any language shall have any force until it has been laid before both Houses of the Parliament for thirty days or if within that time a resolution has been proposed in either House of the Parliament to disapprove of the regulation until the motion has been disposed of.” “ Until some language has been prescribed the languages authorized by the Principal Act shall be deemed to beprescribed within the meaning of this Act.”

– We are not proposing to exempt any one. All we propose is that Japanese, Hindustani, and other languages may be added to the European languages for the purposes of’ the education test, if Parliament consents to that being done. This amendment of the law will not alter its principle or policy. The language test is administered, not to discover the knowledge of an intending applicant, but to give effect to. a policy of exclusion in the way thought to be least offensive to the peoples excluded. We adopted the language test on strong representations from the mother country. We were told that we might exclude whom we pleased, and might make our conditions as stringent as we thought right. Mr. Chamberlain admitted that the influx of aliens which was feared here should be prevented at all hazards, and said that we were quite entitled to take any steps which would amply protect us, but he asked us to adopt the education test as a means of exclusion. The charge of hypocrisy could be rightly made against us, only if we had at any time pretended that the test would be applied to discover the measure of education possessed by those presenting themselves for admission into the Commonwealth. It was never so pretended. It was stated from the first that the test would be used as a means of excluding those whom it was desired to shut out, without offending them by discriminating against them by name or nationality. There was no hypocrisy about the provision when its purpose was announced. If all the Eastern languages were added under the present proposal, the policy would remain the same, and the administration would be unaltered. The needs of the future will be met explicitly by this Parliament, or its successors, after due consideration. Even if we desired to do so, we could not tie the hands of future Parliaments. We are making no alteration in our present policy, or in the law, beyond removing the word “European,” which is regarded by certain peoples in the East as conveying an unnecessary reflection on them. It has been plainly stated that they would accept it as a tribute to them if they were not discriminated against merely because they were Japanese or Chinese, or whatever they might be. They do not mind being excluded, so long as they are excluded with the rest of the world.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).The Prime Minister has told us that the object of this Bill is to remove from the present Act an offensive word, which is calculated to wound the susceptibilities of an Eastern nation, which is on particularly friendly terms and in treaty relationship with the Empire of which we form a part. It occurs to me, however, that by the amendment, whilst removing the offensive word, the Prime Minister does not propose to remove the offensive thing which the word represents. It is the very essence of hypocrisy to pretend to do a thing, and in reality not to do it.

Mr Fisher:

– What does the honorable member propose?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I propose to vote against the amendment.

Mr Watkins:

– Then the honorable member is favorable to the admission of the Japanese?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Nothing of the kind. I am prepared to trust the Government to prescribe a test that will exclude them. That is stated to be the specific purpose of this Bill, and the only difference between the honorable member and myself is that he is not prepared to trust the Government to earn’ out a specific in,struction of Parliament, whereas I am.

Mr Watkins:

– I would rather trust the Parliament.

Mr Glynn:

– Honorable members are prepared to trust a future Parliament, but not to trust themselves.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– When I set out to assist the Government to remove the cause of complaint, and, at the same time, to make the exclusion of “aliens as complete as ever, I was thoroughly in earnest. It appears to me, however, that the Government were not. They are preparing to remove a cause of offence to the Japanese and the Hindoos, and to immediately withdraw it again. Either we are in earnest about this matter or. we are not. We must take the Japanese to be very simpleminded people, if we think that they will see any concession in this Bill. They will not be fooled. They will see that matters are a little worse than before, so far as they are concerned. They will realize that present conditions are to be perpetuated until they are altered by some future act of the Parliament, and they will not be humbugged by any such pretence as that now being made. The Prime Minister should have made it plain to the Japanese that he was not prepared to legislate in the matter.

Mr Deakin:

– I told the Consul-General of Japan precisely what I intended to do - to remove the word “ European,” but not to alter our policy in any respect.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But whilst the Prime Minister has removed the word, he has not removed that which the word represents.

Mr Deakin:

– I said that I could not do so.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Prime Minister is merely emphasizing the offensiveness of the whole proposal, so far as the Japanese are concerned.

Mr Watson:

– The course that the honorable member suggests is not one whit better in essence.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I propose to complete the concession at once, and have done with it.

Mr Watson:

– Do I understand that the honorable member would allow the Japanese to be examined in their own language - because that is the alternative?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No, it is not. The alternative is to leave the matter in the hands of the Government of the day, and not to depend upon parliamentary action.

Mr Batchelor:

– Is not that just asmuch hypocrisy?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not think so. In that case, we should remove the offensive word, and should do all that is asked for by the Japanese. Under the Government proposal, however, whilst removing the offensive word, good care is taken that the amendment shall not operate except as the result of some further action on the part of the Parliament. That appears to me to be “ rubbing it in,” rather than removing the cause of offence. Then again, it seems to me that the Government are entirely abdicating their responsibilities. Surely Ministers can be trusted to administer an Act of Parliament, and to interpret the intentions of Parliament. The Government are weakly surrendering their responsibilities, and throwing them upon the House. If that course is to be pursued, the sooner we resort to the plan of elective Ministries, advocated by the honorable member for South Sydney, the better it will be.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Did not the late PostmasterGeneral submit the English mail contract for the approval of the House?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is a very different matter. There is nothing in a business arrangement that may not appropriately be brought before Parliament, but in matters of delicate negotiation between nation and nation, it is of the very highest importance to have a Government in whom the fullest confidence can be reposed.

Mr Watson:

– Does not the honorable member recollect when the PostmasterGeneral of New South Wales entered into an agreement with the Eastern Extension Company ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That was quite a different case. All mail contracts are submitted to the House of Commons. But treaties are not submitted before they are ratified.

Mr Watson:

– This is not a treaty

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No, “but it stands on the same footing. It belongs to the same class of subject, and has to do with an international arrangement. All civilized Governments treat these questions as matters of supreme Ministerial responsibility,, and not, until completed, as subjects which are to be ma’de the sport and playthings of a public assembly, like this. Therefore the Government are, in my judgment, abjectly abdicating their supreme responsibility, and are doing it in a way that is bound to give greater offence to the Japanese. What would the Government do supposing that a case arose that required to be dealt with within a week? Would they have to wait for thirty days - until Parliament had been consulted ? Ministers should- be careful to retain their full responsibility in all matters of negotiation, with which Parliament, owing to its party constitution, is unable to treat as fairly as desired. All such matters should be removed from the area of party warfare.

Mr Higgins:

– Hear, hear; that is what we say.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No, it is not. Before any prescribed language can operate, there must be a party conflict m this Chamber. No civilized Government could carry on its affairs if it adopted any such course as that proposed. The British Government never consults the House of Commons before it concludes its treaties. The honorable member for Hindmarsh thinks that if too much power is given to Ministers, a_ Government might come into power which would play ducks and drakes with the administration of the Act. He said he would not trust the leader of the Opposition to administer the Act.

Mr Poynton:

– I would not do so if he had the numbers behind him.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The attitude of the honorable member has changed within a very short time. He can find no reason in support of his statement. I challenge him to look into the history of the right honorable member for East Sydney, particularly in relation to these matters, and to find a scintilla of basis for the insinuations he has made. When the honorable member for Hindmarsh has done as much to keep Australia, white as has the right honorable and learned member for East Sydney, he will have some excuse for talking.

Mr Hutchison:

– The honorable member is misrepresenting what I said. I say that if the right honorable member for East Sydney were in office he would be at liberty to administer the Act in accordance with his own views.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– He would only have the right to interpret the wish of this Parliament. Does the honorable member suggest that the only dutv of a member of the Executive is to interpret Acts according to his desires?

Mr Hutchison:

– In the form in which the Bill at present stands, could not the right honorable member for East Sydney, if he were in power, prescribe a test in the Japanese language?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member is only trifling with words when he talks like that. No member of a Government would dare to interpret the Act in such a loose way as he suggests.

Mr Hutchison:

– It is not loose at all. The Bill leaves it open to the Minister to prescribe a test in Japanese.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Any Executive might do just as it pleased, if there were no Parliament behind it.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Under the present Act, the French language test might be applied to coloured French subjects.

Mr Watkins:

– Why not adopt the language of the ancient Britons?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is precisely what the honorable member for Franklin asked to-day. May I remind the honorable member for Hindmarsh that when we desired to do what is being suggested upon all sides to-day, the Government in which he has such implicit confidence would not consent. When the honorable member has done as much towards keeping Australia white as has the right honorable member for East Sydney, he will have very much more reason to be suspicious than he has at the present time. It is only a piece of canting humbug for him to suggest that we are actuated by any other motive.

Mr Poynton:

– The leader of the Opposition stated, on the public platform, that he wished to get into office in order that he might alter the law relating to the maintenance of a White Australia.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is one of those sweeping statements which certain honorable members are accustomed to make, and which do not contain even a tittle of truth. I shall oppose this amendment, because it does not make the Bill one whit more effective than it is. It is of no use for practical purposes, and may prove a great hindrance in the administration of the legislation which we have already enacted, and so defeat the very ends for which that legislation was introduced.

Mr. DEAKIN (Ballarat - Minister of External Affairs). - Inreply to the honorable member, I wish to make it perfectly clear that this Bill can occasion no disappointment, because at no time have I held out the hope that we could do anything more than comply with the suggestion that the wording of the Immigration Restriction Act should be altered but that thepolicy which it embodied should be continued.

Ministers accept their responsibility, and cannot avoid or evade it. But the Government has not a responsibility for the choice of a language. That is a proper thing to be determined by Parliament. Under this Bill Ministers have unlimited power to grant exemptions, and if a case suddenly arose which called for action, it would be for them to use that power of exemption, and take the responsibility for so doing. By adopting the proposed amendment, we neither limit nor increase Ministerial responsibility in any way. We merely leave it to Parliament to dictate the languages which shall be prescribed.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– It does not dictate them now.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes, it does; because in the principal Act the words, “ an European language “ are used.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– But it does not specify the languages which shall be applied to particular races.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Neither does this Bill. At the present time we can apply to coloured immigrants a test in any European language, and we shall be able to do so in future. We cannot use any language other than European until a change has been made. This Bill does not diminish Ministerial responsibility, which remains absolutely adequate to cover all the urgent cases to which reference has been made.

Mr HIGGINS:
Northern Melbourne

– I support the amendment, and in doing so I wish to explain why I do not intend to. submit the proposal of which I have already given notice.

Mr Deakin:

– I drafted this amendment after reading the proposal of the honorable and learned member.

Mr HIGGINS:

– I felt that there was great danger in the Bill in the form in which it was introduced. It is admitted that the whole of this legislation simply resolves itself into a question of administration. If it were seen that the law prevented Australian Ministers from prescribing any but an European language, a foreign Power could not lay the blame at their doors.But if it saw that the law permitted Ministers to prescribe what language they chose in the case of coloured immigrants, it might well have cause for anger if Ministers did not exercise their discretion. Upon constitutional grounds, therefore. I feel that it would be very inexpedient to vest an uncontrolled power in

Ministers. The amendment which I tabled read as follows: -

No language other than European shall be prescribed except in pursuance of a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.

– I do not regard the amendmentproposedas one which deprives Ministers of their proper responsibility. They must declare their opinions beforethey consult the House. They must commit themselves to a certain course of action by making a particular recommendation. We are then asked to declare that, unless the House objects, their decision shall become law. I do not think it is giving the House too much power to enable it to interpose before any departure is made from the policy of a White Australia. This Bill only serves to show how unwise was the educational test which we imposed under the principal Act, at Mr. Chamberlain’s request. There is no legislative provision upon our statutebook which has caused so much friction, or which has tended more to make Australia unpopular than have the sections of the Immigration Restriction, Act which relate to that test. I opposed it at the time, and my opposition has been perfectly justified by events.

– That must be a recent restriction, because I once travelled into the interior of Japan without a passport. Japanese statesmen cannot logically object to any restriction which we may place upon the admission of Japanese into Australia. Their objection, to our law must be based - as I know it is - on the wording of the Act, which they regard as casting a reflection upon them, and other Eastern peoples. I agree with the Prime

Minister that we should endeavour to remove any expression which may pain the susceptibilities of a friendly power, without receding from the policy which Parliament has sanctioned. The Bill as introduced would do what is desired ; but no sooner had the second reading been carried than the honorable and learned gentleman moved’ an amendment, which, if it allows any satisfaction at all to be given to Japanese statesmen, makes that satisfaction as small as possible. No doubt, if the Bill were passed as it was brought in, t’he honorable gentleman would not examine aliens in their own, language, but would exclude them by asking them to pass a test in some language with which they were not acquainted. The Japanese would be satisfied1 if the law were so altered as to place the Japanese on a par with European languages, but the Bill, if amended in the manner proposed, will not accomplish that.

Mr Frazer:

– Would the honorable member favour the adoption of the Japanese language as a test?

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I see no objection 10 it, if the precautions which are now taken are continued.

Mr King O’malley:

– Why not ask undesirable Europeans to write a passage in Japanese, and Japanese to write a passage in some European language with which they are not acquainted?

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– That could be, and no doubt would be, done. As the law stands at present, any number of coloured’ aliens could be admitted to Australia, because many coloured people speak French, Spanish,,- Portuguese, or one of the other European languages which mav be used as a test. Any number of coloured people can speak English, and the English language mav be used as a test.

Mr Frazer:

– Could they write English?

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Very many can. Some coloured peoples are much better linguists than are most Britishers. Some of the natives of the Seychelles Islands speak and write both French and English in addition to their own tongue, the trade of the place being conducted in French, whilst English is taught in the public schools. In many other parts of the world the natives are forced by the necessi ties of the situation to learn to speak and to write one or more European tongues with as much ease as many Britishers can speak and write the English language. The exclusion of undesirable immigrants rests solely with the -Administration. A large number of persons who would be strongly objected to might be admitted under the Act if it were not administered for the express purpose of shutting them out. Consequently the extension of power asked -for by the Prime Minister in the first instance involved no extension of responsibility. It was proposed merely for adding to the languages that might be used for the same purpose that European languages are now employed. I should have gladly consented to that extension. I agree with the honorable m’ember for Parramatta that once we have adopted a particular principle, questions involving delicate national considerations should be dealt with by the Administration. It is not desirable that an important question such as the adoption of an additional language for test purposes should be discussed by this Parliament. Very often the wounds that are inflicted by such debates are more difficult to heal than those which are caused by the operation of the measure itself. Therefore I prefer the Bill in its original shape, and I intend to vote against the amendment. Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words which I think are necessary to define the position taken by myself and other honorable members. Our provisions for exclusion are not directed against certain races, because they are not considered good enough to associate with white people, or because we think that they would contaminate us. But experience has shown that the admission into a country inhabited by a white race of large numbers of persons so alien that they can never successfully unite with a white people, inflicts great injury upon that country. The Japanese themselves have excluded Europeans, because they have recognised a similar danger in their own case. Therefore no reflection can be cast upon us because we exclude from permanent settlement - and it is to permanent settlement only, to which I am now referring - or prevent from becoming an integral part of our population, races so alien that they cannot be successfully blended with a white race. The inevitable result of the introduction of large numbers of Orientals into Australia would be to raise up two separate communities, which in the end would come into conflict. That is the attitude adopted by most honorable members. It should be made perfectly clear that we do not exclude any particular race, because we consider our own superior - in some cases we may be superior, in others we are not - but merely because we desire to guard the community against the evils which have arisen in the United States and elsewhere through the growth within the same territory of two distinctly alien races. I agree with the Prime Minister that, whilst declaring this to be our policy - as it is the policy of Japan - we should take care not to wound the susceptibilities of any nation, and, above all, of a nation which is standing side by side with Great Britain for the benefit of the whole world. I regret that the Prime Minister, who took the right step in the first instance, should now propose to adopt an amendment which will rob his first proposal of much of its merit.

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

– I was particularly pleased to hear the remarks of the honorable member for North Sydney. I entirely agree with the view that he has put to the Committee. I think that the Act as it originally stood was sufficient to fulfilthe purpose for which it was intended. I do not believe that the three great races - the Caucasians, the Mongolians, and the negroes are capable of being amalgamated. The mixture of the Europeans with the Indian races has produced half-castes known as Eurasians, who are not acceptable to the British race. We have had an example of the evils attendant upon influxes of coloured aliens in the United States, and I shall always advocate the exclusion of the black or yellow races from Australia.

Mr.DEAKIN (Ballarat- Minister of External Affairs). - I am indebted to the honorable and learned member for Angas and the right honorable member for Balaclava for having directed my attention to an omission in the draft of my amendment. As the amendment stands, no provision is made for the contingency of the resolution being negatived. Upon referring to the Act from which the draftsman adopted the provision now before the

Committee, I find that one sub-paragraph has been omitted. I therefore move -

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the first paragraph the following words : - “ If before the regulation comes into forcea resolution disapproving of it is passed by either House of the Parliament, the regulation shall be of no effect.”

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– I would ask the Prime Minister to consent to temporarily withdraw his amendment in order that the feeling of the Committee may be tested as to whether the provision now in the Act should be retained.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Webster) proposed -

That the words “ any prescribed,” line 8, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ an European.”

Question - That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause - put.

The Committee divided -

Ayes … …31

Noes … … … 13

Majority … … 18

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Deakin) proposed’ -

That after the word “ officer,” line 10, the following words be inserted : - “ No regulation prescribing any language shall have any force until it has been laid before both Houses of the Parliament for thirty days or if within that time a resolution has been proposed in either House of the Parliament to disapprove of the regulation until the motion has been disposed Of. “If before the regulation comes into force a resolution disapproving of it is passed by either House of the Parliament, the regulation shall be of no effect. “ Until some language has been prescribed the languages authorized by the Principal Act shall be deemed to be prescribed within the meaning of this Act.”

Mr Poynton:

– I shall be willing to vote against the clause, but I would sooner see it passed as it is proposed to amend it than as it stands.

Mr LONSDALE:

– I shall vote against the clause if it. is amended in the way the Prime Minister proposes to amend it. and shall, of course, vote against the amendment, because I think it better to leave the Immigration Restriction Act as it is than to place a canting and hypocritical measure on the statute-book. The Bill, as introduced, provides that the test shall be the writing of fifty words in any prescribed language; but now, because of some pressure brought to bear on the Prime Minister, probably by his masters-

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think it is inad visable for the honorable member to use that expression.

Mr LONSDALE:

– I withdraw it, if it is considered offensive. If the amendment is agreed1 to, and regulations are framed and laid on the table of the House, a party debate will be stirred up, which will not be pleasant to the nation whose feelings we are trying to mollify. I am with the honorable and) learned member for West Sydney in the opinion that we should say straight-out what we mean.

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 13

Majority … … 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

– Paragraph c proposes to omit the whole of paragraphs m and n from the original Act. Paragraph m makes an exception, so far as prohibited immigrants are concerned, in favour of a wife accompanying her husband if he is not a prohibited immigrant, and of all children apparently under the age of eighteen years accompanying their father or mother, if their father or mother is not a prohibited immigrant.

Mr Deakin:

– The operation of that paragraph has been suspended for the last two or three years by proclamation.

Mr GLYNN:

– The law as at present administered operates very harshly. The

Chinese interpreter in the Northern Territory, who was born there, and is an excellent linguist, has been unable to introduce his wife from China; He married a Chinawoman many years ago, and afterwards took her to China with him. He returned to the Territory in advance of her, and has been precluded by the operation of the law from again bringing her into the Territory. I directed ‘ the attention of the authorities to this matter, but was informed that the law could not be relaxed. It is ridiculous that we should retain on our statute-book a law that prevents a man from introducing his wife into the Commonwealth merely because he arrives here in advance of her. Last week my attention was directed to another case, and I would suggest that we should so amend the original Act as to make paragraph m read -

A wife, if her husband is not a prohibited immigrant, and resides in the Commonwealth, and all children under the age of eighteen years, if the father or mother is not a prohibited immigrant, and resides in the Commonwealth.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– The proposal of the honorable and learned member opens up a very serious question. The great majority of the Chinesein Australia are males. Very few of them have their wives with them, and the majority do not desire to introduce them into Australia, but prefer to visit China every few years. Since the Act has been in force, however, they have sought to take advantage of the paragraph referred to by bringing in their wives and children. They introduced them in such numbers that it became necessary to suspend the operation of the paragraph by proclamation. If this course had not been adopted, the whole object of the Act would have been defeated, and numbers of Chinamen would have been encouraged to depart from their habit of retaining their families in China. I admit that the case mentioned by the honorable and learned member for Angas is deserving of reasonable consideration, and I promise him that if he brings it under my notice I shall do everything I can to remove any hardship that may have been inflicted upon the official in question.

Mr Glynn:

– I should be quite satisfied if such cases were met.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If we were to throw open the door to an influx of Chinese women and children we should reverse the policy of the Act and undo all the good we have accomplished.

Mr. LONSDALE (New England).Some time ago, I brought under the attention ot the authorities a case somewhat similar to that mentioned by the honorable and learned member for Angas. A Chinaman in my electorate, who is in a large way of business, and who has been resident in the Commonwealth for twenty years, lost his wife, and went to China in order to marry again. He desired to bring his wife with him on his return, but he was prevented from doing so. It appears to me that we should be moved by some of the finer feelings when dealing with cases of this kind - that our laws should be relaxed1 to a certain extent in such cases. We do not want the Chinese to marry our white women.

Mr Deakin:

– No, we want them to go back to China and marry there.

Mr LONSDALE:

– The man to whom I refer is practically one of our own citizens. He is highly respected, and I do not think that we should treat him as if he were a criminal.

Mr. GLYNN (Angas). - I am quite satisfied with the assurance of the Prime Minister - which evidently meets with the approval of the Committee - that exceptional cases will be fairly dealt with.

Mr Deakin:

– I do not mind doing that, because we shall be able to deal with cases of hardship now, and we shall then be done with them for ever.

Mr GLYNN:

– I do not wish to diminish the number of eligible bachelors in the Northern Territory, and consequently I shall not press my amendment.

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

– I feel that I have been placed in a very peculiar position bv reason of the amendments which have been effected in this clause. It seems to me that they have destroyed the whole purpose underlying the alteration of existing legislation. This Bill, I understand, was introduced primarily to meet the objections of the Japanese to the provisions of the Immigration Restriction Act. The idea was that we could attain the same ends by means of a much less objectionable method - by the adoption of a treaty between the two countries. Now, however, it appears that whilst the objections of the Japanese have been technically removed, the effect of the latter portion of the Bill is to nullify the former. Whatever the intentions of the Prime Minister mav have been, they have been frustrated. Under these circumstances, I find it difficult to decide how I should vote. The original aim of the Government has been thwarted by the adoption ofam amendment which will certainly make us appear a laughing-stock - if they do not regard the matter from a serious stand-point - in the eyes of the Japanese. For the present,. I shall content myself with listening to further arguments on the question witha view to determining how I should vote under these peculiar conditions.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 -

After section four of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - “ 4A. - (1) If the Minister notifies by notice in the Gazette that an arrangement has been made with the Government of any country regulating the admission to the Commonwealth of the subjects or citizens of that country, the subjects or citizens of that country shall not, while the notice continues to have effect, be required to pass the dictation test. “ (2) The Minister shall not issue any such notice until the expiration of one month after copies of the arrangement to which it refers have been laid before both Houses of the Parliament. “ (3) Any such notice shall cease to have effect upon the Minister notifying, by notice in the Gazette, that it is cancelled. 4b. - (1) Any person who has resided in Australia for a period or periods in the aggregate of not less than five years, and who is about to depart from the Commonwealth, may in manner prescribed apply to an officer authorized in that behalf for a certificate in the prescribed form excepting him, if he returns to the Commonwealth within the period limited in the certificate, from the provisions of paragraph a of section three of this Act. “ (2) The officer may in his discretion give the certificate on payment of the prescribed fee, or, without assigning any reason, withhold it. “ (3) Where the Minister is satisfied that a certificate given under this section has been obtained by any untrue statement of fact or intention, the Minister may revoke the certificate, which shall thereupon be taken to be of no effect, and shall on demand be delivered up. to the Minister. “ (4) A person to whom a certificate under this section has been issued (which certificate has not been revoked) shall not, on his return to the Commonwealth within the time limited by the certificate, if he produces and delivers the certificate to an officer, be required to pass the dictation test.”

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

-I move -

That paragraph 4A be left out.

I do so, because I contend that this provision will open the door for the admission of undesirable aliens.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– If the honorable member will permit me to say so, the object of th’is clause is to allow us to make an arrangement with any other nation whose subjects are habitually excluded from our ports, by which if the Government of that country are willing to undertake their control in their own ports they need not be required to present themselves for the education test. We may enter into a reciprocal arrangement with regard to our citizens visiting their country. The proposal will not disturb the existing arangement, which allows merchants and tourists from Japan and elsewhere to enter the Commonwealth temporarily under the passport system. I am not as hopeful as I was when the proposal was originally framed, that we shall be able to enter into any arrangement such as I have suggested. Still, no harm can result from our offer. The honorable member for Hindmarsh must see that the whole purpose of this clause is not to permit of the admission of any aliens who do not at present enter Australia. It merely provides a different method for their exclusion.

Mr. HUTCHISON (Hindmarsh).- It is scarcely to be expected that many countries will take advantage of our legislation to exclude from our shores members of their own race. As I am quite satisfied with the explanation of the Prime Minister, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr HIGGINS:
Northern Melbourne

– I move -

That all the words after “ notice,” in clause 4a, line 12, be left out, with a view to insert in Heu thereof the words “ until the arrangement has been sanctioned by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Immigrants evading officers or found within Commonwealth).

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

– I wish to make a suggestion in regard to sub-clause 4b of clause 6.

Mr Deakin:

– We have dealt with that clause, but with the permission of the Chairman, I shall be pleased to hear the honorable member’s suggestion.

Mr FRAZER:

– Sub-clause 4b of clause 6 provides that -

Any person who has resided in Australia for a period or periods in the aggregate of not less than five years . . . may . . . apply to an officer authorized in that behalf for a certificate in the prescribed form excepting him, if he returns to the Commonwealth within the period limited in the certificate. . . ,

I think that under that clause it would be. possible for a tourist or other person who had paid several visits to Australia under an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Government of his country to prove to the satisfaction of the officer that in the aggregate his period of residence in the Commonwealth was not less than five years.

Mr Deakin:

– I do not think that is possible, but I shall take care the instructions to the officers include the direction that no such person shall be exempted in that way.

Mr FRAZER:

– That assurance is satisfactory. The only other point which I desire to raise is that I think a maximum time should be fixed within ‘which the person claiming exemption under clause 6 must return to the Commonwealth.

Mr. DEAKIN (Ballarat- Minister of External Affairs). - As a general rule, the longer the persons to whom the sub-clause relates desire to remain away the better we are pleased. If a man wished to go away for twenty years, we should be glad to allow him to do so, and that is why we do not fix a maximum. We merely desire to keep control, to take care that the man is not leaving, and proposing to dispose of his permit. To guard against anything of the kind, we have the whole-palm test, as well as full photographs, profile photographs, and a description of the man on the paper relating to his .case. We have what is now believed to be the highest and best test of identity that can be obtained, so that’ we have not much cause for fear in this regard.

Mr Frazer:

– Does the Prime Minister consider that the test would apply in the case of a Chinese who had been absent for a number of years?

Mr DEAKIN:

– We are informed that it would ; but, in any case, we have the palm test, and if we have any doubt as to the identity of an applicant, we reject him. It is his business’ to prove his identity as, the person named in the certificate.

Mr Watson:

– Has the Department adopted the finger-print test?

Mr DEAKIN:

– It is something more than that. We have the whole hand test, and therefore our system ought to be fairly effective.

– If that is so, I am satisfied.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 -

After section thirteen of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - “ 13a. The master, owners, agents, or charterers of a vessel in which a prohibited immigrant, or a person who becomes a prohibited immigrant, come to the Commonwealth, shall, on being required in writing by any Collector of Customs so to do, without charge to the Commonwealth, provide a passage for the prohibited immigrant to the place whence he came. “ 13b. The master of a vessel on which a pro hibited immigrant, or a person reasonably supposed to be a prohibited immigrant, is, may, with the necessary assistance, prevent the prohibited immigrant from entering the Commonwealth from the vessel in contravention of this Act.”

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Under this clause, masters, owners, agents, or charterers of vessels bringing prohibited immigrants to the Commonwealth must provide for their deportation on being required to do so. Section 8 of the principal Act, however, provides that -

Any person who is not a British subject, either natural-born or naturalized under a law of the United Kingdom or of the Commonwealth or of a State, and who is convicted of any crime of violence against the person, shall be liable, upon the expiration of any term of imprisonment imposed on him therefor, to be required to write out at dictation and sign in the presence of an officer a passage of fifty words in length in an European language, directed by the officer, and if he fail. to do so shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant, and shall be deported from the Commonwealth, pursuant to any order of the Minister.

It seems to me that, in view of that section, this clause should be amended, because it would be hardly fair to require those responsible for bringing such a person to the Commonwealth to pay for his deportation. Section 8 imposes a liability to which there seems to be no end.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I am indebted to the honorable member for having pointed out an undoubted omission, and to meet it, I move -

That after the word “ person,” line 5, toe words “ other than a person deemed to be prohibited under section 8 of the principal Act,” be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DEAKIN (Ballarat- Minister of External Affairs). - I wish to move another amendment. It frequently happens that vessels arrive with coloured stowaways and other prohibited immigrants on board who, being discovered, are taken into custody, and kept in prison, at the request of the ship-owners, sometimes for . three or four weeks, until the ship’s departure. It is considered unfair that the State should bear the expense of their maintenance during that period, and, therefore, I am about to move an amendment which will cast that responsibility upon those through whose neglect the prohibited immigrants are brought here. I move -

That after the word “came,” line ro, the words “ and shall also be liable to pay to the Commonwealth for the State a fair sum to recoup the State for the cost of keeping and maintaining the prohibited immigrant, while awaiting his deportation from Australia.”

Amendment agreed to.

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– I should like to point out that, while it is possible for those connected with shipping to ascertain whether any intended immigrant is a lunatic, a coloured person, or suffering from an infections disease, and, therefore, a prohibited immigrant, it will be impossible for them to ascertain that men are prohibited immigrants by reason of their having been convicted of an offence within the preceding twelve months. I think that it is only fair that ship-owners should be exempted from such a heavy penalty as ,£100 if unknowingly they bring such immigrants. A little while ago, at the annual gathering of the Church Army in London, the Rev. W. Carlyle made the proud statement that during the previous, twelve months he had been able to send to Canada some 1,200 men, manyl of whom had been in gaol. There are a number of philanthropists in the old country who think they are doing a goad work in deporting criminals (from England to the Colonies. The ship-owners, however, in whose vessels such people are deported, should not be made responsible if they have no knowledge of the character of their passengers. Perhaps the Prime Minister will consider the matter.

Mr. DEAKIN (Ballarat- Minister of External Affairs). - I think that probablysome amendment will be required, and I shall have the matter looked into.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) agreed to -

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the Bill to pass through its remaining stage without delay.

Report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 6374

COMMERCE BILL

In Committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendments) :

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That the Senate’s amendments be agreed to.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I only wish to say that to my mind the present title of the Bill is ridiculous.

Mr Deakin:

– It is a common practice to adopt such titles.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I think it would have been much preferable to adopt the title “ Trade Descriptions Bill.” However, I shall not move an amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported ; report adopted.

page 6374

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) agreed to -

That the House at its rising adjourn to tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

House adjourned at 10.4 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 December 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1905/19051206_reps_2_30/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 6 December 1905

PETITION

QUESTION

CAPTAIN CRESWELL’S REPORT

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN TARIFF

Mr CARPENTER:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLTAM LYNE:Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE INCREASES

Mr TUDOR:YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr GROOM:Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

QUESTION

DISCARDED TELEPHONE INSTRUMENTS

Mr MAUGER:for Mr. Wilkinson

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

IMPERIAL CONVICTS

Mr FRAZER:for Mr. Mahon

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION BILL

Second Reading

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Hutchison:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Hutchison:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HUTCHISON:Hindmarsh

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr Watson:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr Johnson:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr Kelly:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr WATSON:Bland

Mr Deakin:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr Deakin:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Hutchison:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Hutchison:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr WATSON:

Mr McWilliams:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Mauger:

Mr WATSON:

Mr McCOLL:Echuca

Mr FRAZER:Kalgoorlie

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr FRAZER:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr FRAZER:

Mr MCWILLIAMS:Franklin

Mr Deakin:

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

Mr Deakin:

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

Mr Watkins:

House of Representatives
6 December 1905

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr CARPENTER:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLTAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
for Mr. Wilkinson

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr FRAZER:
for Mr. Mahon

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
Franklin

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928