House of Representatives
8 October 1908

3rd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 3rd Parliament
  3. 1908

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 934

QUESTION

PATENT MEDICINES

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government intend this session to fulfil a definite promise made by them some time ago that legislation would be introduced providing that patent medicines should be so labelled as to show their component parts, in order that the people who use them may know what they are taking.

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

– A Bill relating to that subject was, I think, laid on the table shortly before the close of last session. My honorable colleague, the VicePresident of the Executive Council, is now acting for the Minister of Trade and Customs, who, unfortunately, is disabled, and I shall ask him to lookintothematterand see whether it would not be possible to reintroduce that Bill, as then submitted, or in some amended form.

page 934

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether anything definite has yet been done with regard to the selection of a site for Commonwealth offices in London.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– No more than the House knows. We expect, however, to receive, not later than next week, a final offer in respect of one of the leading sites.

page 934

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Report (No. 2), presented by Mr.

Storrer, read by the Clerk, and adopted.

page 934

QUESTION

ABOLITION OF STAMP DUTIES

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I desire to ask the Treasurer whether he has seen a paragraph in to-day’s issue of the Argus in which it is stated’ that in the Legislative Assembly of Victoria yesterday Sir Thomas Bent, in referring to the abolition of stamp duties in Victoria and New South Wales, said that the honorable member remarked at Albury some time ago that they would have to make New South

Wales re-impose taxation that had been remitted. Seeing that this matter is of material importance to the commercial community of New South Wales, I should like to have the assurance of the Treasurer that no such action is contemplated by the Commonwealth Government.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I have not seen the paragraph to which the honorable members refers, and know nothing about it. I do not think that it is possible for the Federal Government to deal with the question referred to. It is, I believe, a matter within the control of the States.

page 934

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE : BALLOT

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister inform the House how soon after a definite decision has been arrived at in respect to the site of the Federal Capital he proposes to take practical steps towards the removal of the Federal Parliament to the Seat of Government.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– We shall take the earliest possible steps aftera decision has been arrived at.

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question with reference to the nomination of sites for the Federal Capital. Among the nominations is that of Yass-Canberra, which really includes another place known as Lake George, also appearing in the list of nominations. As the two nominations relate practically to the same district, I wish to know, sir, whether it would be possible to alter the nomination in order to make it clear that the expression “ Yass-Canberra “ also includes “Lake George.”

Sir John Forrest:

– And strike out the nomination “ Lake George “ ?

Mr REID:

– We could leave that alone and vote for the Yass-Canberra site on the understanding that it includes Lake George.

Mr Watson:

– It is the same district.

Mr.REID.- Yes.

Sir John Forrest:

– And we could strikeout the separate nomination of Lake George ?

Mr REID:

– Yes, if necessary.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In reply to the right honorable member.Ihavetoinformthe House that on Friday last eleven nominations were made, one of which, as the right honorable member has mentioned, is that of “ Yass-Canberra.” On that occasion, after the nominations had’ been made, an honorable member applied for permission to withdraw the nomination of one site. I then said that under the resolution of the House I had no power to permit the withdrawal of any name, and I am afraid that I must give the same answer to the right honorable member. But, as I said on Friday last, no honorable member is compelled to vote for a site because it appears in the list of nominations, and it may be that one or two names may be at once dropped off the list.

Mr WATSON:

– I presume, Mr. Speaker, that whatever site is selected it will still be practicable to more accurately define its limits when we proceed to describe it in the Bill, and that in that way the right honorable member’s desire may be met if the Yass-Canberra site is selected.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will realize that that matter must be dealt with in Committee, and that, therefore any ruling on the subject must be given not by me, but by the Chairman of Committees. I do not think that it would be right for me to anticipate a ruling that the Chairman might give. Doubtless, if the honorable member consults the Chairman of Committees he will obtain the information he desires.

Mr WATSON:

– I wish to know, sir, whether we should be compelled in Committee to insert in the measure the exact wording of the successful nomination, or whether it would not be possible for the Committee to devise another phrase which, while conveying the same meaning, would more accurately describe the selection made ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I know of no reason why in Committee a clearer description could not be given, but the matter would, of course, depend on the ruling of the Chairman.

page 935

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Estimated Cost of Defence Scheme

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– In reference to the statement that I made on the spur of the moment last night with regard to the publication of my speech, in December last, on the defence policy, I find on inquiry that my recollection was sound, and that in a subsequent edition of the report of that speech the error to which the honorable member for Flinders called attention was corrected, as instructed by me. The error was the substitution of the figure “ 6 “ for the figure “ 8.” In the first edition the figures £1,600,000 appeared, instead of £1,800,000. In the next that error was corrected. I regret, however, that the persons concerned confined themselves very literally to their instructions, and that on the very next page - a few lines after that in which the correction was made - they allowed the same statement as to £1,600,000 to appear, although the instruction given was intended, in the circumstances I have mentioned, to cover the whole report. In reference to the first column to which the honorable member called attention, and in which the sum of £125,000 was deducted, I find that my phrase was “£125,000 has been deducted from the full cost. “ That is perfectly correct, because the full cost is that which appears at the foot of the column, £1,400,000, and not as the honorable member supposes the amount which appears in the line above it, £1, 293, 000. The column is therefore perfectly correct, and the statement itself is correct. I have found, also, in the little time at my disposal, that attention was called in the Sydney newspapers to the discrepancy in the figures, and that the West Australian specifically called attention to the error in the addition of the last column. I hope honorable members understand that the items are all correct, and that the error is in the addition only. It consists in placing a “6” where there ought to be an “ 8 “ - an error of one figure in making a statement to the same effect.

page 935

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– When speak ing on the second reading of the Seat of Government Bill, I referred to the fact that the father of my colleague, the AttorneyGeneral, died through the cold weather in Melbourne. One of the Sydney newspapers reports me as having made that reference to the father of the Minister of Trade and Customs. I do not know how my remarks were so construed ; . but I understand that Mr. Chapman was grieved to see such a statement published, and I wish to make this explanation accordingly.

page 935

QUESTION

PREPARATION OF DEFENCE . SCHEME

Military Board’s Opinion

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of De fence, upon notice -

  1. On what date did the Military Board express its opinion of the Government’s latest land defence proposals?
  2. Did the Minister, on any earlier date, seek the opinion of the Military Board on the question of the cost, and of the practicability of the Government’s latest land defence proposals. If so, when 2
  3. Why did the Government appoint a Special Board to consider his above proposals, instead of taking advantage of the experience which the official duties of the Military Board give it a unique opportunity of gaining?
Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The reply to the honorable gentleman’s questions is as follows : - 1, 2, and 3. The “ latest land defence proposals “ would apparently infer that there has been an alteration of the Government’s attitude. It has been explained that such is not the case. The policy having been decided, the question was how best to embody it in a measure for the consideration of Parliament. The Minister has discussed all matters of moment with the members of the Board. The Minister is available at all times to all members of the Board, and they are aware that he is glad to receive their views upon any subject at any time, and the converse is the case with regard to members of the” .Board. No dates are kept of such inter- » views or discussions. The Minister believes that he is justified in obtaining information and assistance from any source that would enable a measure to be satisfactorily prepared for this House. His view of the situation with regard to Boards and military members is that they should advise the Minister, but not control him. Technically, the Board has no responsibility - and under the regulations is not entitled to express any opinion with regard to policy. Matters of policy must remain under the control of Parliament and cannot be relegated to any Board.

Mr Kelly:

– The Minister has not answered any of the questions.

Mr EWING:

– I regret that my efforts have not met with the approval of the honorable member.

Mr Kelly:

– It is evident, from that only too obvious evasion, that there is something to conceal.

page 936

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I understand that the honorable member for Grey, who has charge of the first motion on the businesspaper for this afternoon, cannot possibly conclude his remarks in a quarter of an hour, and as a most important step must be taken at 3 o’clock, the preliminaries in connexion with it might be begun now, and the .honorable member be relieved of the necessity of dividing his remarks into two portions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If it be the desire of the House, I shall now leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 2.4.6 to 2.58 p.m.

page 936

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE : BALLOT

The Order of the Day for a ballot to determine the Seat of Government having been called on -

The Clerk read the following statement of the procedure to be observed by Mr. Speaker -

While ballot-papers are being distributed to and marked by members, the division rule, that members shall keep their seats, will be enforced.

Tt is suggested that members make the cross on the ballot-papers and also sign the papers with pencil, so as to avoid blotting, and that the files of members may be used as tables.

Should any ballot-paper not be signed it will not be counted. Should any paper signed not be marked with a cross, or be marked with more crosses than one, the member shall be called to the table to indicate the true nature of his vote, which shall then be counted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The House resolved upon an “open, exhaustive ballot,” and, as on the previous occasion, each ballotpaper must be signed.

The House then proceeded to the first ballot.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Barker has made a mark against the names of two sites ; for which does he wish his vote to be recorded?

Mr Livingston:

– For the YassCanberra site.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The voles were cast in the first ballot as follows : -

As a vote has not been recorded for the Lake George site, that name will not appear on the next series of voting papers.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– I would point out that, if the name of the Lake George site alone disappears from the next series of voting papers, the second ballot will give the same result as that just taken.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am afraid that that may be so; but the House having resolved that the name of only the lowest site shall be struck out after “each ballot, I have no option but to direct a second ballot, in which all the sites but Lake George will be voted on.

Mr Reid:

– By general consent - one objection being fatal - the House might perhaps vary the procedure resolved upon, so that the painful delay of a large number of ballots may be obviated. I suggest that until only four sites remain to be voted on, we might strike out, say, three names after each ballot.

Mr Fisher:

– More time would be wasted by that procedure than will be spent on this which we are now following.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In the 1903 ballot, two of the sites failed to obtain a vote on the first selection, and the House then proceeded to a second ballot, although, as now, it might have been supposed that the voting on the remaining sites would be the same.

Mr Glynn:

– I understand that a site is struck out, as the lowest on the list, so that any votes which have been cast for it may be transferred to the others. It will be useless to take a second ballot without first striking out, in addition to Lake George, which got no votes, those sites for which the lowest number of votes was recorded.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The instructions embodied in the resolution are very definite, and I am bound to follow them’, even though in the second ballot there will be no votes to distribute. I am following now the procedure adopted in 1903.

The second ballot having been taken -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The votes were cast in the second ballot as follows : -

Dalgety, 26 Tooma, 3

Yass-Canberra, 22 Bombala, 1

Lyndhurst,8 Canberra, 1

Armidale, 5 Albury,0

Tumut, 4 Orange,0

Two of the voting papers handed in were not signed, and, of course, were not counted. As there are two names lowest on the list, I shall put them to the House in alphabetical order.

Question - That Albury be further balloted for - resolved in the negative.

Question - That Orange be further balloted for - resolved in the negative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The names of Albury and Orange will not appear on the next series of voting papers.

The third ballot having been taken -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The votes were cast in the third ballot as follows : -

Dalgety, 28 Tooma, 5

Yass-Canberra, 23 Tumut, 3

Lyndhurst, 7 Canberra, 1

Armidale, 5 Bombala,0

The name of Bombala will not appear again.

The fourth ballot having been taken -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The votes were cast in the fourth ballot as follows : -

Dalgety, 28 Armidale, 5

Yass-Canberra, 21 Tumut, 2

Lyndhurst, 8 Canberra, 1

Tooma, 7

The name of Canberra will not appear again.

The fifth ballot having been taken -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The votes were cast in the fifth ballot as follows : -

Dalgety, 27 Lyndhurst, 8

Yass-Canberra, 22 Armidale, 5

Tooma,9 Tumut, 1.

Tumut will not appear on the next series of voting papers.

The sixth ballot having been taken -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The votes were cast in the sixth ballot as follows : -

Dalgety, 27 Lyndhurst, 8

Yass-Canberra, 22 Armidale, 5.

Tooma, 9

One ballot paper was unsigned, and, therefore, not counted. Armidale will not appear again.

The seventh ballot having been taken -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The votes were cast in the seventh ballot as follows : -

Dalgety, 24 Tooma, 13

Yass-Canberra, 24 Lyndhurst, 11.

Lyndhurst will not again be voted on.

The eighth ballot having been taken -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The votes were cast in the eighth ballot as follows : -

Yass-Canberra, 31 Tooma, 14.

Dalgety, 27

Mr Wise:

– I have learned since the nominations were closed that the YassCanberra site includes the Yass, Lake George, and Canberra sites. As the last two have been rejected, are we not now confined to a vote between Yass and Dalgety?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have nothing to do with what the sites named may include. Three sites were just balloted upon, of which Tooma, having received the fewest votes, will disappear from the last of the series of voting papers.

The ninth ballot having been taken -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The votes were cast on the ninth and final ballot as follows : -

Yass-Canberra, 39 Dalgety, 33.

Mr Watson:

– I wish to say, by way of personal explanation, that I did not vote in some of the ballots because I had arranged to pair with, or to find an effective pair for, the Minister of Trade and Customs, who is absent through illness.

Mr Deakin:

– The honorable member has acted most generously.

Mr Watson:

– I am glad to have been able to do what I have done. I voted in one or two of the ballots because of opportunities afforded by the honorable members for Flinders and Barker, both supporters of the Yass-Canberra site, who refrained from voting, to give me an oppor tunity to do so. I thought it only right to make this explanation of the reason why their names and mine will not be found in some of the ballots when the records are published.

Mr Webster:

– As the site which was beaten on the eighth ballot had not a fair test, in not being pitted against the other sites individually, will it be possible for me, when the Seat of Government Bill is being dealt with, to move the adoption of that site?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I cannot give a ruling on a matter not now before the House.

Mr Bamford:

– Is it intended to place on record the result of the voting?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It will be recorded in Hansard, and in the Votes and Proceedings, in the manner adopted on the last occasion.

Mr Deakin:

– It will probably meet the wishes of honorable members, and allow the honorable member for Grey to obtain a less disturbed hearing, if we suspend our sittings now until after the dinner hour.

Mr Crouch:

– Is Government business to be gone on with to-night?

Mr Deakin:

– There will not be time, after four hours have been given to private members’ business.

Sitting suspended from 5.50 to 7.4.5 p.m.

page 940

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to-

That General Business have precedence during the remainder of this day’s sitting.

page 940

QUESTION

STRIPPER-HARVESTERS AND DRILLS: PRICES TO FARMERS

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

– I move -

That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the prices charged to farmers for stripper-harvesters and drills.

The history of the stripper-harvester must lead one to the conclusion that its evolution has been exceptionally slow, seeing that the first trace of such an appliance is found amongst the Gauls in the early part of the Christian era. I refer to this fact, in order to show that no particular person or persons can claim the stripper-harvester of to-day as the result of his own ingenuity, and inventiveness ; because all now in use are more or less copies of machines contrived by man almost since the beginning of history. The Gauls’ stripper-harvester was in the shape of a box with a stripper cone, and, instead of being drawn by horses as to-day, it was propelled by an ox between two shafts. This early machine is referred to by several writers, amongst them Arthur Young in his Annals of Agriculture, which was published in 1785, and which contained translations from the work of Pliny and Palladiusanother Roman writer on the subject. About the same time, a Mr. William Pitt, of England, invented a stripper machine with a stripper-drum instead of a cone; and in 1807, a Mr. Plunkett introduced a machine of a similar character for use in harvesting clover ; but, owing to the dampness of the climate, it was not successful. Before referring to the introduction of similar machines in the United States at an early date, I should like to direct the attention of honorable members to the Encyclopedia of Agricul ture, which was published by Mr. Louden, in 1807, and which contains a full description of the machine to which I have referred, as being in use amongst the Gauls in the first century. In 1836, a stripperharvester was invented and patented in the United States, and claimed to be a complete machine, by Hiram Moore and a Mr. Hascall. Five years later, Mr. D. A. Church patented, in the United States, a combined harvester; and in’ 1847 Mr. C. Foster, of Indiana, obtained a patent for a complete harvester, which, in very many respects resembled the harvester of to-day ; followed forty-two years later by an invention of Mr. Roberts, of NewYork State. I desire .to point out that the last two machines I have mentioned are proved by the records to have had what is known as the canvas elevator, though Mr. McKay, of the Sunshine Harvester Works, claims such an appliance as his own invention. In the United States, the success of these machines was not very marked, owing to the climatic conditions ; indeed, up to the present time, neither the harvester nor the stripper which preceded the harvester, is used in the United States. It is only Australian conditions, taken advantage of by Australian ingenuity, that enable the machine to be used , as we have it to-day. The first gentleman who introduced what is known as the stripper-harvester in Australia, was Mr. John Ridley, of South Australia, in 1847. My contention that no particular brain, or set of brains, can. claim credit for the invention of the stripperharvester, is borne out by a letter which Mr. Ridley published some time before his death, and in which he admitted that he got the idea from Louden’s Encyclopedia of Agriculture, and the full description there given of the machine’ used by the Gauls. It is well known that the stripper introduced by Mr. Ridley made no pretence to do the work that thestripper.harvester of to-day does; but, in 1857, Mr. Joseph Mel lor,’ of South Australia, improved on the Ridley machine, and obtained patents in both Victoria and South Australia. In the latterColony, as it then was, the Government offered a reward of ^4,000, and the Victorian Government offered” a reward of ,£100 for a complete stripperharvester ; and in 1879, a competition took place at Gawler. Three different machines did very good work, but- only a portion of the South Australian reward was given, because, in the opinion of the judges, none warranted the full amount ; and in Victoria the reward was divided between two competing machines. It was about 1874 that Mr. Thomas Robinson, of Victoria, came to the front with his machine; and I may mention that from that day to this the same firm, founded by that gentleman, under different names and combinations has been endeavouring to complete the machine. Mr. McKay has been working for many years with the same object, and, whether there is any truth in the statement or not I do not know, but it is said that he was never able to complete the machine until the patents of some other Victorian makers had expired; according to the evidence given before the Royal Commission, no doubt was entertained by some Victorian manufacturers that their ideas had been manipulated by Mr. McKay. There were no further developments until 1900, when there were introduced the International and the Massey-Harris machines. There is no doubt that these machines are to a great extent copies of machines purchased in Australia, just as the machines made in Victoria are to a great extent a copy of machines made in America long ago. In 1904, the price of stripper-harvesters was from £63 to £70 ; Australian makers, including, I think, Mr. Martin of Gawler, advertising them all over Victoria at the former price. Not long afterwards, however, the local makers entered into a combine with the importers of foreign-made machines, and came to an agreement as to the prices to be charged. With the exception of the Sunshine machine, which was £85, the prices ranged, as I have said, from £63 to £70; but, under the agreement, the price was fixed at£81 for all machines except the Sunshine, the latter being fixed at £83. Not long afterwards, a deputation of Victorian manufacturers waited on the Minister of Trade and Customs, and suggested that the imposition of a duty would reduce the price of the machines by at least £10 in two years; and it is well known to honorable members that that agitation resulted in the breaking up of the Combine. I can find no evidence of a combine - there maybe no written arrangement - but all the facts point to, at least, an understanding, which enabled the importer to compete for a certain amount of the trade, and yet insured to the local maker a very much higher price than he would have obtained with fair and reasonable competition. In the report of the Royal Commission, there is a reference made to the evidence given by Mr. Alexander Picken, representative of the firm of Messrs. Nicholson and Morrow. The report states -

In the statement submitted to the Commission by Mr. Alex. Picken, representative of Nicholson and Morrow, he said - “ If the increase in the rate of duty be granted, the manufacturers would not penalize the farmer to that extent. They are prepared to give any guarantee desired’ by the Commonwealth Parliament not to increase the price of stripper-harvesters beyond the present market value, viz., £81 . . . And in addition to that they offer to reduce the price by £5 forthefirst year, and another£5 for the second year.” “ If necessary,” said Mr. McKay, “ I would put into writing, and hand to the Commission, a promise that the price should not be raised unless there is a large increase in the cost of the raw material or labour.” “ Under that agreement,” he was asked, “ would you propose to give a buyer any advantage which might come from a reduction of cost?” “Yes,” he replied.

Quite a number of others, all on the same lines, made it clear that their intention, if they got a better control of the home markets, was to reduce the price of the machines. As a matter of fact, the advantage that the Australian maker is getting to-day is considerable. According to the report of the protectionist section of the Commission, it was admitted in evidence that the cost of landing an imported machine amounted in the case of the Massey-Harris to £14 16s. 6d. without the duty. When that report was written the duty was £5 4s. 7d., which is 121/2 per cent on £38 os. 3d., that amount being described as the value of the machine. Subsequently, under a decision of the honorable member for Hume, when he was Minister of Trade and Customs, the duty was collected on the basis of a value of £60. The import charges plus the duty represent on that particular machine £26 16s. 6d., and on the International Harvester £24 3s. 6d., the difference being due to the fact that in the latter case there was less railage to be paid. An interesting statement is given in the Commission’s report regarding the relative profits on the Australian as against the foreign machine. The Commission state -

Accepting the figures as sworn to by the MasseyHarris and International Harvester Companies representatives, and accepting the estimated factory cost, and the estimated selling expenses of an Australian-made stripper-harvester the following three tables will show the merchandising profit on the sale of these three machines.

It is then set out that on the Massey-Harris, at a selling price of the profit was 1s.9d. ; on the International, £131s. 1d. ; and on the Australian-made, £18 2s. 7d. Honorable members will remember that the following section and schedule were included in the Customs Tariff Act of

1906 -

If the Governor-General is satisfied that the cash prices at which stripper-harvesters and drills manufactured in Australia are sold exceeds the prices hereunder set out he may by proclamation reduce the rate of duty specified in the Schedule in respect of stripper-harvesters, but so that the reduction shall not reduce the rate of duty below one-half the rate of duty imposed by this Act.

Prices of Australian Stripper-Harvesters.

On and after 1st February, 1907 -

Stripper-harvesters, 5-ft. size and under, price £70.

Stripper-harvesters, 5-ft. 6-in. to 6-ft. size, price £75.

Stripper-harvesters, 6-ft. size and over, price £80.

On and after 1st February, 1908 -

Stripper-harvesters, 5-ft. size and under, price £65.

Stripper-harvesters, 5-ft. 6-in. to 6-ft. size, price£70.

Stripper-harvesters, 6-ft. size and over, price

It was also enacted that in each of those two years there should be a corresponding reduction in the price of drills. I have asked a number of questions in this House as to whether those reductions have taken place, but unfortunately obtained very little satisfaction out of the answers. We have always been told that the manufacturers were reducing the price of the machines, but, in all my travelling about the country, I have not come across one instance where the provisions of that Act have been complied with. The makers got the duty they wanted, but in selling to the farmers they are absolutely ignoring what they stated on oath before the Commission to be their intention. It is about time that this House made a thorough investigation into the question of the price of harvesters and drills. I deal with those two classes of implement only because they are all that were included in the Act of 1906. I am satisfied that evidence could be obtained that the prices have increased. I am certain that they have in Western Australia. I was in that State recently, and found that the price there was £105, whereas when the Commission was sitting the price quoted to them for a machine, including charges landed in Western Australia, was£87. In South Australia, I believe - I may be wrong - that the price is higher now than it was when we passed that Act. I know that nominally £81 per machine is charged, but a charge is also made for some of the attachments which were not charged for prior to the introduction of that legislation. Seeing that those gentlemen have obtained the advantage of a duty, and made promises such as I have proved that they made, it is the duty of this House to ascertain whether they are carrying out their part of the contract. I admit that it will be difficult to do so. I find it most difficult to obtain information as to selling prices, and I believe that we shall only arrive at the truth by means of a Committee armed with the necessary powers to obtain evidence from those interested. It is also not forgotten that these men promised, under another Act which was passed at the same time, to pay reasonable wages, based on Wages Boards decisions or Arbitration Court awards. I do not say that all of them have evaded the Act, because, as a matter of fact, a large number of the manufacturers in South Australia paid, and still pay, the wages fixed by Mr. Justice O’Connor. In Victoria, some firms are doing the same, but others, who gain an equal advantage from our Tariff legislation, are not paying anything like those rates. I shall quote some of the wages paid by one particular firm for skilled labour, which work out at an average of less than the wages of ordinary labour.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Some of the firms are not paying the wages that they led the Commission to believe they would pay if the concessions they asked for were made.

Mr POYNTON:

– That is so, and Mr. McKay, for one, said distinctly that he was prepared to do all these things. It would be in the interests of the bona fide manufacturer, who is trying to do what is right, to have an investigation, in order to ascertain whether there is not some way by which we can deal with the men who came to this Parliament, on their knees, and deluged it week after week, and month after month, with requests for the imposition of a duty against imported machines, but who, as soon as they had obtained the duty, forgot all about carrying out their promises. From a list of the wages paid by the Sunshine Harvester firm, I take the following -

I have not quoted all the wages paid, but the totals show that 419 hands are employed by the firm, and the average of the wages paid works out as follows -

Mr Mauger:

– Is that the average for the actual time worked or for the whole year ?

that the total cost of a locally-made stripperharvester is about ^37 3s. Assuming this statement and the inference therefrom as being correct, and adding to the cost of materials and the cost of wages another 10 per cent, to represent general expenses of manufacturing, management, lighting, insurance, &c, the cost of a complete machine in Australia should work out at about £41.

The report also sets forth that the actual merchandizing profit is £18 2S. 7d. per machine, and the liberal allowance of ^21 17s. 5d. is made for selling expenses. If the information on which the Department instituted proceedings against this firm for the recovery of Excise amounting to £20,000 was correct, the proprietors of the Sunshine Harvester Works in one year must have made a profit of ,£61,410. The duty on stripper-harvesters was increased to £12 per machine, and manufacturers here were thus placed in a much better position to compete with the importers. As the result of that legislation, the price of the imported machine was increased, and, in the circumstances, I appeal to the House to say whether it is fair that the local manufacturers, notwithstanding the sweated labour employed in the industry, should still be charging the farmer £80 odd for a machine which, on the evidence before the Commission, costs only £41 ? My desire is that there shall be a thorough investigation. The honorable member for Wannon has put to the Minister of Trade and Customs a number of questions on this subject, but has not been able to obtain a direct answer. Last session I also put a number of questions to the Minister, but was invariably put off with the reply that the price had been reduced, or that further inquiries were being made by the Department. The duty on harvesters was increased on the distinct understanding that the price of these machines would be reduced. This was the recommendation of the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission -

We propose to recommend a conditional increase, that is to say, an increase coupled with certain conditions; that the present duty shall stand unaltered, and that alongside such duty shall be imposed a conditional duty of 12^ per cent., total 25 per cent.; that the conditional duty shall be liable to be suspended by the Governor-General in pursuance of a joint Address by the Senate and the House of Representatives certifying - (1) That within two years after the passing of the Act the retail price of stripper-harvesters made in Australia has been raised above £81 ; or (2) That after the expiration of two years from the passing of the Act the retail price of stripper-harvesters made in Australia ‘has not been reduced to £70; or (3)

That after the expiration of one year from the establishment of the Act the manufacturers of stripper-harvesters in Australia are not paying their workmen a fair and reasonable rate of wages, and upon the receipt of such joint Address the Governor-General may, by proclamation, suspend the collection of such conditional duty of i2± per cent, for such period ‘as may be deemed advisable.

Mr Palmer:

– Were those recommendations embodied in legislation?

Mr POYNTON:

– Yes. I would refer the honorable member to the Customs’ Tariff Act of 1906, which was passed with the deliberate intention that the users of these machines should receive some benefit from the encouragement given, in the shape of a wider local market, to the Australian manufacturers.

Mr Bamford:

– And that Act has been evaded from the outset.

Mr POYNTON:

– That is so. I think that I am puting my case fairly before the House. The manufacturers have beaten us in a Court of law so far as the collection of Excise is concerned, but, save for inquiries made by the Department, nothing has been done, so far as I am aware, to compel them to comply with the Act, which provides for the machines being sold at reduced rates. The matters which I have brought before the House deserve consideration, and the investigation of a Committee, whose report will enable us to judge what steps it would be best to take to make the manufacturers of stripper-harvesters do what they offered to do. The reduction of prices was a voluntary offer by them, evidently made to gull honorable members into the belief that, if the duties were increased, the farmers would benefit. Having got higher duties, they proceeded to treat the farmers, as badly as they have treated their workmen. I hope that the House will agree to the inquiry, which should not take long, and ‘ should procure information, not otherwise obtainable, which will strengthen the hands of the Minister in giving effect to the law.

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

– I shall support the proposal for a Select Committee made by the honorable member for Grey. Since the Act was passed, we have heard from the employed that all the manufacturers have not loyally observed the conditions attached to the granting of higher duties, while, on the other hand, some of the manufacturers say that, by reason of competition, and for other causes, they are unable to comply with those conditions. There is no one in this House who would not say that a compact should be kept ; and the honorable member has clearly proved that a virtual compact was entered into by Parliament and the manufacturers of stripperharvesters. The latter stated repeatedly, when giving evidence before the Tariff Commission, and through members of the House, that they would pay higher wages, and improve the conditions of their workers, if the duties on their manufactures were increased j but, having got higher duties, some of them have not carried out the terms of the bargain. Of course, there are others who are loyally observing the compact, and one of the reasons for the proposed inquiry is the necessity for finding out who are breaking their word, and who are deserving of encouragement for having done what they promised to do. But why has my honorable friend limited the investigation to an inquiry into the prices charged for stripper-harvesters? Why not have a full inquiry” into the facts of this industry?

Mr Mathews:

– Into wages and conditions of labour.

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

– Yes. Let us ascertain whether the industry provides healthy and well-remunerated employment. Parliament, in passing the Act, thought that, while Australian skill and ingenuity should be permitted to compete on fair terms with the world at large, those employed in the manufacture of stripperharvesters should also receive fair treatment. It is therefore important to ascertain what manufacturers are recalcitrant, and what manufacturers are observing the bond which was entered into. To give greater scope to the inquiry, I move as an amendment -

That the following words be added to the motion: - “And the wages paid and other conditions observed in their production.”

If the motion is carried amended as I wish, the investigation will cover the whole ground. When the Tariff was under discussion, and it was proposed to further increase the duty on stripper-harvesters, I received a letter from a firm manufacturing these implements in my division, in which it was stated that the writers were severely handicapped by reason of what was being done by manufacturers in other parts of the Commonwealth. That letter showed clearly that, in the interests of the good employers, we should make known who are the bad employers, who are trying to introduce sweating conditions of production, and at the same time endeavouring to take as much as they can from the consumers.

Mr Watkins:

– Will a Committee have sufficient power to get at the bottom of these matters?

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

– The honorable member for Grey evidently thinks so. The members of the Committee could interrogate some of the manufacturers who are supposed to be acting improperly, and would furnish an impartial tribunal before which they could show cause0, if there be cause, why it is impossible to pay the wages agreed on, and observe the conditions stipulated for in the Act.

Mr Watkins:

– I do not object to the appointment ot a Committee; but I am under the impression that under our Standing Orders such a Committee could not send for persons or papers without being specially empowered by the House to do so.

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

– It could take the sworn evidence of these manufacturers, and we should form our own conclusions if they did not choose to produce papers which were asked for. It was alleged, during the investigation conducted by Mr. Justice Higgins that the manufacturers cannot successfully carry on their industry if the prescribed rates of wages have to be paid, and that has been repeated by honorable members in this Chamber, who have said that the rates demanded cannot be paid under the existing duties. Parliament has imposed a duty of £12 on every stripper-harvester imported. That is equivalent to 30 per cent, on the cost of manufacturing such a machine in Australia, and to at least 40 or 50 per cent, on the cost of a machine manufactured abroad. It is clear that this duty is passed on to the consumers. The honorable member for Grey produced incontrovertible evidence of that.

Mr Mathews:

– The honorable member is now making a free-trade speech.

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

– The request for an investigation is based on the statement that the duty is passed on to the consumers, and I do not think that the honorable member will deny that the legislative compact has not been observed by some of the makers, either as to the prices or as to wages. Why, then, should I be. accused of raising the fiscal question, when I am merely stating a fact which he himself must acknowledge? I am as desirous ar« he is that those engaged in this industry shall work under fair conditions, and, therefore, I wish for an investigation into the conduct of it.

I want to discover, not merely how far the duty is passed on to the consumer, but also what wages are paid to the employes, and what are the conditions generally under which they labour. Having created, by means of the duty, a fund out of which good wages should be paid, we must discover how far such wages are being paid, and how the employes in the industry are being treated. If the manufacturers can demonstrate that they cannot pay the prescribed rate of wages, and observe the conditions which hav”e been laid down, we ought to know it. It has been claimed by honorable members opposite that duties do not increase prices, and, therefore, they should be eager to inquire into the truth of the statement that in this instance duties have increased prices. They ought to be as eager as we are to see whether the theory does, or does not, break down at this point ; because we have statements, supported by voluminous proof, that in this case, at any rate, a duty does raise the price.

Mr Mauger:

– We have voluminous statements, not proof.

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

– Then I shall say we have alleged proof, if that will satisfy the honorable member. It maybe, as alleged, that internal competition has become very keen; and, if protection does not raise prices, and profit is reduced to the lowest margin, then it seems to me that the employers- should court inquiry, particularly in view of the new protection which we have to consider. Both sides should be possessed of all the facts, in order to find out whether there be such internal competition as to bring the price to an unremunerative level, and .whether there is a margin, in industries which are properly and skilfully worked, to pay good wages and enable fair conditions to be observed. If there be such a margin, and fair conditions and wages do not prevail, then we ought to review our side of the compact. The duties in question were agreed to on certain conditions, and we have to ascertain whether those conditions have been observed, and, if not, why not.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

.- I think that the honorable member for Grey will be very willing to accept the addition proposed by the honorable member for Parramatta, because it is entirely in the spirit of his motion. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity, as a freetrader, to express my appreciation of the new departure which is involved in what is called the new protection. The basis of the public support which has been given to the protective policy throughout Australia, has mainly consisted of the belief that it was impossible to maintain Australian conditions and pay good wages in a large number -of manufacturing industries, unless Tariff protection were conceded to those engaged in the industries. The main plea, so far as the great mass of the people are concerned, has not been based on any desire to aggrandize the capitalists, but on a desire to see Australian labour employed under conditions equal to those which prevail in other communities. My own view has been that, in a large continent like this, it would be more to the general advantage if Australian enterprise and labour were devoted mainly to sources of industry which spontaneously yield a large and natural profit, and which produce articles which are sought for by the great buying powers of the world. I have looked on the maximum of advantage to Australian capital and Australian labour, as best sought in developing the veins of natural wealth which Australia so abundantly possesses. In working with nature, instead of against nature - in working with the industrial conditions, which so happily prevail in Australia, instead of against them - the maximum of benefit will be derived by the great capitalistic concerns of this country, and also by the great mass of the Australian workers employed in them. Whilst that has been, and still is, my view, I cannot avoid recognising that it is not the view which is entertained by a majority of the Australian electors. They are prepared to adopt what is called a protectionist policy ; but that policy has been adopted by .the great mass of the people, who believe in it, and those sacrifices which are involved by duties on trade are made by the great mass of the people, with the object of securing fair remuneration for Australian industry. I have appreciated from the first the object which has been kept in view by those who have at last converted the Drotective policy into a policy of securing to the workers of Australia a fair dividend from the sacrifices which are made by the people of Australia.

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

– If dividend there be, and it is that we desire to find out.

Mr REID:

– That, of course, is another matter. I am well aware that a number of gentlemen, who hold the same fiscal views as myself, do not look on the new protection with any kind of favour. But my view is that, if this, which i believe to be a bad policy, is the law of the land, and if the motive of that policy was that all workers should receive an honest share of its benefits, no honorable man can shrink from making an effort to secure to the workers of Australia a fair share of the sacrifice of the people.

Mr. Hutchison. Hear, hear. The right honorable member has always said so!

Mr reid:

– i have, from the first, and i say so again.

Dr Wilson:

– How is it to be secured? Is it within our power to secure it?

Mr REID:

– The first thing is to endeavour to see what is the right thing to do; it is soon enough to abandon the right thing when we find that it is impossible ; and that we have not yet found, though I agree that there may be a multitude of practical difficulties in the way of the new policy. i look on the new protection as an infinitely more honest protective policy than any i have heard of as being proposed in any part of the world. In the United States multimillionaires are growing up as rapidly as mushrooms, under the shadow of a gigantic Tariff, while the artisans and operatives are crowded in unhealthy tenements, living under conditions which are far beneath the level which ought to prevail in a country blessed so abundantly by nature, and so full of magnificent energy, enterprise, and invention.

Mr Mcdougall:

– Is that not equally true of free-trade countries ?

Mr REID:

– i am not saying that it is not; i am on the practical point of the

Subject we are discussing, and i . do not at ‘ present desire to raise the . fiscal question in that sense. i say, ‘apropos of the new protection, that, surely in a country where multi-millionaires thrive on a Tariff intended for the benefit of American industries, the complement ought to be some legislation to secure fair and proper wages to the artisans.

Mr Mcdougall:

– We ought to be guided by the experience in the United States.

Mr REID:

– If we are to be guided by the experience there, it will not be in the direction of not establishing new protection. Unfortunately, in that great Republic, with its magnificent Tariff, where workmen are in many cases underpaid, and where children of eight and ten years of age are worked like white slaves, we hear no demand for the new protection. It is a scandal and a disgrace that there should be high Tariffs without some attempt to see that the vast benefits conferred on the industries are not extended, in an honest degree, to the people, who, after all, are the backbone of those industries. For once I find myself in a position in which I can cordially co-operate with my protectionist friends, who have invented this entirely new scheme ; and it is indeed wonderful that it has not been invented before now. I wish it to be distinctly understood, however, that I am not going to allow my desire to passlegislation to cany out the object to whichI have referred, to be made use of as a mere stalking horse - as a mere pretext - for introducing an amendment of the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth totake over from the States the control of all the industrial conditions of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable gentleman must not discuss that question.

Mr REID:

– I mention it only incidentally, because I fear there may be an attempt of the sort ; and I wish to say at once, so that there shall be no misunderstanding, that if there is any attempt, under cover of that which I heartily approve, toalter the Constitution in the way I have indicated, I shall absolutely oppose it. I hope that no such attempt will be made - that those who believe in the new protectionwill not allow any such attempt. I am prepared to follow my convictions up. If theConstitution as it stands at present is so drawn that, in a matter peculiarly affecting the Commonwealth and its power of Tariff legislation - if in a matter peculiarly and’ solely within its province - the Commonwealth is hampered in carrying out the best features of a protectionist policy, I amthoroughly in favour of the Commonwealth having the power to do that which is itsown business, and which no other Parliament can do. No State can operate on the Tariff, which is a matter entirely beyond the States.

Dr Wilson:

– Surely the States can best control industrial conditions?

Mr REID:

– Generally speaking, yes. And if there be any attempt to make use of me to break down the rights of the States, under cover of the new protection, I give notice that I shall not be made use of in that way.

Dr Wilson:

– They have already been trying to make use of the right honorable member in that respect.

Mr REID:

– I do not care how people try to make use of me ; that does not affect my convictions. If one allows his convictions to be affected by a consideration of how people are going to make use of him, he should not have convictions at all. I absolutely approve of the principle of the new protection, and as no authority but the Commonwealth Parliament can carry it out, I am prepared to give that Parliament the necessary power.

Mr Sampson:

– Would the right honorable member extend the system to all dutiable goods?

Mr REID:

– To the whole sphere of the Tariff - where there is any real benefit derived from the Tariff. I hope the honorable member does not think that the Tariff is of any benefit to the farming industry of Australia. I am not going to allow myself to be made use of in that way.

Dr Wilson:

– The right honorable member is being made use of.

Mr REID:

– No. 1 think I am sufficiently able to protect my own position. I will allow anybody to make use of me in pursuance of my convictions, and the more use they make of me the better I shall like it. I am not going to abandon my convictions because of a fear that somebody is going to make use of me. But to talk of industries like the agricultural industry as if’ they were getting any benefit out of this Tariff would be a sheer absurdity. I am speaking of industries which live on the Tariff.

Mr Sampson:

– How is the right honorable member to draw the line?

Mr REID:

– I am not engaged in that undertaking at present. When I have a concrete proposal to deal with, I shall endeavour to address myself to it. I am not called upon to submit a scheme. I see the greatest possible difficulties in doing it. But all that I can say is that if the scheme is to be like that beautiful essay which the Prime Minister gave us on the subject some months ago, which meant nothing at all, I am not going to support any rubbish of the sort contained iri that Ministerial memorandum, meaning nothing, projecting nothing, defining nothing, effecting nothing. What I expect from the Government is some practical scheme.

Sir William Lyne:

– What for?

Mr REID:

– To carry out the modern discovery of the honorable member in a direction that he never dreamt of until my honorable friends in that corner sug gested it to him. The Treasurer used to show an energy and zeal that did him credit in endeavouring to establish a protectionist policy in Australia. He failed utterly to establish it in New South Wales.

Sir William Lyne:

– - No doubt the right honorable member blocked me there.

Mr REID:

– Blocked the honorable member? I wiped him out - exterminated him. I reduced the Tariff to the smallest ever known in the history of the world.

Sir William Lyne:

– The worst thing that was ever done for New South Wales.

Mr REID:

– That is a matter of opinion. I call upon the Government for some plain practical method of carrying the new protection out. If they produce some method which has no sense or substance in it, I hope I am not expected to support it.

Mr Hutchison:

– Like the Defence Bill.

Mr REID:

– Something like it. Surely my honorable friend is not very proud of that measure? I should think that any one who believes in that scheme cannot feel very proud of the way in which his position is put before the country. My approval will be given to some rational, sensible scheme of carrying out the principle of the new protection, but I shall not allow the Government to make use of it in a direction which is in no sense justifiable. When manufacturers clamour for 30 per cent, and 5Q per cent, protection on the ground that they require the money in order to pay Australian wages, surely we are entitled to see whether they are paying Australian wages. Surely when we put duties of 50 per cent, upon articles, which the mass of working men of Australia use every day of their lives, for the sake of giving their Australian brethren fair wages in manufacturing industries, it is a matter of common honesty to see that the manufacturers hand over the share to which Australian labour is entitled. My fiscal views do not incline me to look on manufacturers with peculiar affection. I do not think it is a feature of the free- trade theory that manufacturers should be coddled to enable them to keep money that belongs to their workers - money which other workers have paid across the shop counters of Australia in the interests of their fellows employed in manufacturing industries. There are many people to consider when we are dealing with the interests of the big manufacturers. In a sense, those men are trustees for the workers whom they employ. I do not say. that they should not have a fair remuneration for their own capital and industry. I am not a destroyer. I recognise the absolute right of men of enterprise, who have been encouraged by the public policy to engage in Australian industries, to receive fair and liberal treatment. We have no right to encourage them to engage in those industries unless we give them a fair prospect of an honest remuneration for their enterprise and skill.

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

– What about the consumer ?

Mr REID:

– The consumer is already yarded. We are not discussing free-trade and protection now. The protectionists have put the consumer in the sheep-yard, and are fleecing him day after day behind this Tariff fence. We are not talking now of theories. The fence has been put all round Australia, and the struggling masses of Australia every Saturday have, as a direct consequence of this policy, to pay extra money for almost all they buy.

Mr Storrer:

– We are giving them more work in Sydney by protection.

Mr REID:

– Why should not the worker get fair wages? I am not entering into a fiscal discussion at all.

Mr McWilliams:

– The right honorable member is going very close to it.

Mr REID:

– If I am close to it, I do not mind that at all. My protectionist friends say that they put the duties up to 40 per cent. and 50 per cent., not for the sake of the manufacturers, but for the sake of the workers in their factories.

Mr Storrer:

– I did not say that.

Mr REID:

– My honorable friend never says anything. I did not accuse him of saying that or anything else.

Mr Storrer:

– I never voted for duties of 50 per cent., or even 40 per cent.

Mr REID:

– I honour my honorable friend for it. I am glad of that interjection, because it shows that the honorable member is not one of the rabid school, and I accept his statement emphatically. He knows the fight we had, in which he helped us on some occasions, especially in connexion with Tasmanian paraffine wax. I do not reproach the honorable member in that regard, because I voted with him. I thought he had a good case.

Mr Storrer:

– The right honorable member is very fond of bringing in Tasmania.

Mr REID:

– I always stand by Tasmania. I have the greatest desire to do what is fair by it, especially in those Tariff matters that come up, as the honorable member knows, from time to time. But my point is this : These high duties were put on in order to give our workers a fair share of the benefits of them. Those benefits go at present to the manufacturers out of the pockets of the people of Australia, and the House which gave the manufacturers the duties is entitled to see that the workers get a fair share of the advantage. Surely that is a fair proposition, whether one is a free-trader or protectionist? I think it would be very difficult indeed to carry the principle out. I do not believe that the Government are likely to frame any scheme which will grapple with this difficulty, because they have never studied the subject. They have been so busy putting duties on that they have not had time to study the intricacies of political economy. I give Ministers fair notice that, so far as I am concerned–

Mr Wilks:

-Will the honorable member support the amendment of the Constitution to provide for it?

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

– Ask the honorable member to give notice of the question.

Mr REID:

– I do not ask anything of the sort. If there is a feasible scheme, which does not seek, under cover of the new protection, to make an inroad upon the general industrial powers of the States, I am in favour of it. If there is an attempt, under cover of this principle, to take power to govern the industrial conditions of the States generally, I am against it.

Mr Wilks:

– How is the honorable member going to get at it, then ?

Mr REID:

– When I am submitting a scheme from the Treasury Bench, I will give the honorable member the information that he desires. Surely he will allow me the privilege of sitting in. this delightful corner ?

Mr Wilks:

– Will the honorable member allow me the privilege of making an interjection ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I have twice asked the honorable member for Dal ley not to interrupt the right honorable member for East Sydney. I hope that he will not do so any further. He may speak later on if he wishes.

Mr Wilks:

– I think I have a right to make an interjection, seeing that several other honorable members have done so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is at perfect liberty to make an interjection, but not to make several.

Mr Wilks:

– Then it is only their length that is objected to?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is their length and frequency.

Mr REID:

– I was beginning to fear, sir, that you were overlooking your duties by not calling those honorable members to order as promptly as was desirable, but I am one of those who are not seriously discomposed by interruptions. I am obliged, however, to you for your ultimate intervention on my behalf. I very much regret the abject failure of the Government to administer their own Act. They obtained an Act conferring upon them absolute power to extort an Excise from the manufacturers, and we were assured that it was constitutional, but the High Court has ruled it to be unconstitutional. Is it not a thousand pities that the Government should obtain the passage of high duties under a promise to apply the new protection and that that promise should be shown by the highest tribunal in the land to be founded upon a wrongful conception of the law? I deeply regret the fashion that is setting in of attacking some of the Justices of the High Court in respect of judgments which they deliver, and praising other Justices when their views seem to be in harmony with those of certain members of the community. I deplore what has happened lately in the shape of attacks upon some members of the High Court, and eulogy of others in connexion with the performance of their judicial duties.

Mr Hutchison:

– All Courts are open to criticism.

Mr REID:

– They are open to criticism which does not reflect upon their persona’ honour and impartiality. That is the line that has always been drawn in British communities, even in times of the highest excitement. I shall support this motion. We cannot have too much light thrown upon the subject. With regard to the consumers, to whom reference was made, may i suggest, as one of the strongest arguments in favour of the new protection, and one which has influenced my mind very much in support of it, that at last we shall get some daylight thrown on to the real; operation of the Tariff, the real margin of profit that exists, and the real difference between Australian wages and those of other countries ? The more light that is thrown on the inner operations of industries under the Tariff, the better will it be for those whobelieve in a different system.

Dr Wilson:

– The Tariff Commission itself could not bring out all those facts. What could a Select Committee do?

Mr REID:

– The Tariff Commission performed a great public work with great ability. One of the misfortunes of ‘thisHouse was that the able reports and valuable evidence which the Commission produced were systematically neglected by the Government in the preparation of the Tariff. I regret that their reports were not treated with greater respect, for I regard the work which they did as of the most valuable public character. I support both the motion and the amendment with the greatest possible pleasure.

Mr SPENCE:
Dariing

.- After the lengthy address on States rights and other questions to which we have just listened, I think it well to suggest that we should return to the subject immediately before us. I do not know that any one is proposing to take away from the States the control of industries. It is clear, however, that the Commonwealth Parliament requires, to be vested with additional powers, and it seems to me that the proposed Select Committee would serve a useful purpose in preparing the way for submitting to the people proposals for an amendment of the Constitution which would enable us to carry out certain promises that we have made. Even if the amendment be not carried - and ‘ I think that we may very well accept it - the question of the wages paid in this industry, as well as the cost of production, is sure tobe dealt with by the Committee. The manufacturers have not kept the promise which they made to the users of these machineswhen they asked for increased protection,, nor have they fulfilled their promise in. regard to the payment of reasonable wages. Their attitude supports the contention of many honorable members that we have in the community a number of people who must be coerced into doing the right thing. The manufacturers asked to be protected from foreign trusts, and we immediately passed anti-trust legislation. We said tothem, “ We shall guarantee you the local market provided that you will pay fair wages to your employes, and treat the usersof these machines fairly.” “ That was a reasonable proposition,, and it was agreed to. The Act which was designed to gi’ve effect tq it now has been declared unconstitutional, and although the honest section of the manufacturers have been paying the wages which a Justice of the High Court declared to be fair and reasonable, others have taken advantage of this technicality, and have not carried out the bargain. Among honest men there should be no question as to the legality or otherwise of such a measure. It does not necessarily follow that the prices of these machines have been increased because of the protective duty. Many men who have things to sell will ask all that they can get for them.

Dr Wilson:

– Whether free-traders or protectionists.

Mr SPENCE:

– Certainly. It is clear that our legislation has given the local manufacturers control of the Australian market. They have secured a certain measure of! power, and hence I think that the proposed inquiry would be exceedingly useful. It would give the manufacturers an opportunity to prove that they are charging reasonable prices for their machines. 1 would remind the House that portion of our legislation in respect of the new protection remains unfinished. We were promised that provision would be made for the appointment of a Board of Trade, whose business < it would be to inquire into prices charged by manufacturers, and to report annually as to the cost of production, so that we might determine whether the measure of protection granted was too high or too low. The appointment of the proposed Select Committee would be a preliminary step in that direction.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Are the Government opposing this proposal ?

Mr SPENCE:

– I should not imagine that they would oppose it. The Government ought certainly to have in their possession a list of the’ factories in which the award of the Court is being observed. If that information is not in the possession of a Government Department, it ought to be ; it ought not to be necessary to have a fishing inquiry to obtain i’t. When a manufacturer is called upon to show why he has made certain charges he will doubtless make assertions as to the cost of production, and it will be necessary for the Committee to be empowered to take evidence with respect to that phase of the question. It would be well to publish a list of those employers who decline to do the right thing unless a policeman, so to speak, is sent to their works/ The light of day should be let in upon their actions. Those who seek to take advantage of the workers will undoubtedly take advantage of the users of their machinery. The House cannot afford to .allow this inquiry to stand over until a referendum is taken with respect to an amendment of the Constitution. The Tariff Commission did good work, but that which this Committee will be called upon to do will be very different. The Tariff Commission took the evidence of those who came before it with, a distinct object in view, but this Committee will have power to summon those whom it desires to examine, and will doubtless endeavour to obtain a disclosure of facts from those who are supposed to have something to hide. The whole community feels nowadays that the fabric of society is so interwoven that we are justified in seeking to let the light of day into the management and control of industries. I do not suggest that there should be a . disclosure of trade secrets, but I think we have a right to inquire into the position of the workers and the conditions of industrial life generally. It should not take long or cost much to ascertain the facts relating to this industry. An increasingly large number is interested in the manufacture and sale of harvesters. I represent a very large constituency directly interested in this question, and my constituents very reasonably want to know what efforts we are making to secure for them some of the benefits of protection. They want to know whether we are going to allow dishonest manufacturers to “ take them down ‘ ‘ after they have been given a monopoly of the market, and so far we have had no answer to give them. The Government should have taken up this matter, and they should be ready at once to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee and to clothe it with all the powers necessary to secure a thorough investigation. Its appointment may have some effect on those manufacturers who are not prepared to do what is a fair thing. It is bad to have in the community men who will be honest only when they are coerced. I was shocked to find that we have in the community even a limited number of men, posing before the public as men of standing, who need to be coerced into acting fairly and reasonably by their workmen. Such men ought -to be exposed. When a man is prosecuted for an offence against the criminal law his name is published broadcast, and since we have dealt fairly with the manufacturers of these machines I fail to see why we should not publish the names of those who are not doing fairly by their employes and those who have to purchase their machinery. Where would some of them be if we said to them, “This bargain is off?” Where would they be if Parliament were to say, “ As you have failed to keep your part of the bargain, we shall dissolve it altogether, by taking off the existing duties, and leaving you exposed to the competition of the International Harvester Trust, and other foreign makers”? J do not think that we should do that, because there is a chance that we may be able to exercise wider powers. I regret that the leader of the Opposition has raised the bogey of State rights. It has not been proposed to interfere with the rights of the States. In many matters the powers of the Commonwealth and the States are concurrent, and I think that the Commonwealth can control matters of this kind without interfering with the rights of the. States. The desire of the mover of the motion is to shed daylight on what is believed to be wrong-doing, with a view to having carried out the bargain which has been made between Parliament, the manufacturers, the workers, and the consumers.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

– I wish to move the adjournment of the debate, if the Government do not object.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The Government is willing to agree to an adjournment, if the honorable member for Grey acquiesces; but I understand that there are several honorable members who wish to speak to the motion.

Mr Tudor:

– Let us go on.

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

– Have Ministers nothing to say in reply to the statements which have been made?

Dr MALONEY:

– The honorable member for Grey is willing that there shallbe an adjournment, and, as I wish to speak at some length, but, under our sessional order, have not now the opportunity to speak for more than a few minutes, I move -

That the debate be now adjourned.

Question put. The House divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 16

Majority … … 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to; debate adjourned.

page 952

QUESTION

DIRECT TAXATION FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

.- I move -

  1. That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of defraying the cost of national defence out of Customs and Excise taxation is inequitable and unjust, and ought to be discontinued.
  2. That, as one of the main objects of national defence is the protection of private wealth in its various forms, the possessors of such wealth should be required to contribute by direct taxation an adequate sum towards the naval and military expenditure of the Commonwealth.

As the time allowed by the sessional order for the discussion of notices of motion has almost expired, it is impossible to-night for me to do justice to my subject, and therefore I ask leave to continue my speech on another occasion.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 952

INSURANCE COMPANIES

Debate resumed from 24th September (vide page 348), on motion by Mr. King O’Malley -

That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to appoint a Select Committee for the purposes of -

Inquiring into the methods of operating Fire, Life, Prudential, and Industrial Insurance Companies.

Reporting on and recommending a system which, while economical, will guarantee the poor against extortion.

Upon which Mr. Mahon had moved, by way of amendment -

That the words “ Select Committee “ be left out, with a view to the insertion of the following words : - “ Royal Commission composed of persons having special knowledge of the subject of assurance.”

Mr STORRER:
Bass

.- I do not entirely agree with those who wholly condemn insurance companies and their methods. These companies, like individuals, vary in their character, some being good, and some bad. The mover of the motion spoke of the desirability of the proposed inquiry in the interest of the poor. But it is the duty of this Parliament to study the interest of all classes of the community. Companies which impose on the poor doubtless, too, impose on the middle class and on the rich; if they are dishonest, they treat unfairly all with whom they have dealings. In my opinion, the proposed investigation is needed, and will do good, and I agree with the honorable member for Coolgardie that it should be made by a Royal Commission rather than by a Select Committee.

Mr Fisher:

– We have had enough Royal Commissions.

Mr STORRER:

– I do not agree with the honorable member for Coolgardie that the Commission should be composed of experts, such as accountants. If it is composed of outside persons, very likely those who are chosen will be men who occasionally work for fire, life, or other insurance companies, or similar institutions, and who are consequently prejudiced in their favour. While honorable members in this House from time to time accuse of lack of intelligence those belonging to other parties, I think that there is sufficient intelligence among us to enable a suitable Commission to be formed of members ?>f Parliament. The electors are not such fools as’ to send to Parliament men who have not sufficient ability to deal with subjects of this kind. To belittle the intelligence of members of Parliament is to belittle the intelligence of the people. My desire is to have a Royal Commission substituted for a Select Committee, and I wish to know whether I should be in order in moving an amendment to that effect.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Coolgardie has moved to strike out the words “ Select Committee “ with a view of inserting other words, and the first vote will be on the question whether the words “Select Committee” shall stand part of the question. If it be determined that the words shall not stand the further question will be whether the words “ Royal Commission composed of persons having special knowledge “ be inserted. When I put that question it will be competent for any member to move to strike out all the words after the words “ Royal Commission.”

Mr STORRER:

– That is what I wish to do. I think the House will agree with me in appointing members of the House or others to act, because I should not limit the body to honorable members to the exclusion of experts. I think, however, that if the Committee were composed altogether of experts we should not have available that information which is so desirable when we came to deal with the report.

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

– Why a Royal Commission ?

Mr STORRER:

– Because a Royal Commission can deal better with witnesses and obtain more information than can any other body ; and this is a question of the greatest importance, affecting every individual in the community. In my ,own city I have always been in favour <of municipal fire insurance, because I think that the profits should go into the pockets of the people instead of into the pockets of shareholders, who, by reason of their strong union, are able to charge more than their business is worth. I am in favour of unions generally, but, unfortunately, the business of fire insurance has got into the hands of such a strong combine that great hardship is inflicted on the general public. Such an inquiry as I suggest would, if successfully conducted, benefit the whole of the community.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- I look with a certain amount of doubt on the appointment of either a Select Committee or a Royal Commission. I should like to see an inquiry into the working of insurance companies with a view of letting the public know the advantages of the mutual system as against the proprietary system. I do not desire to go into the merits of the two systems, but I do say that my strong preference would be for the one based on the perfect co-operation realized through the mutual system of insurance when ‘properly worked. If we are to have a Select Committee I doubt whether we shall be able to obtain in this House the experience necessary to properly guide the inquiry. I very much doubt also whether, if we appoint a commission of experts, we shall get the dispassionate or unprejudiced judgment on which we ought to rely in any legislation. Insurance is a most technical subject, as I learned twelve or fourteen years ago, when I was instructed by the South Australian Government to draw up a Bill dealing with State Fire Insurance. Prior .to drafting that Bill, it was my duty to prepare a special report on the fire insurance system, and from the knowledge! then picked up, I found it to be an exceedingly technical subject, and one on which we cannot hope for much light by means of a perfunctory inquiry by either a Select Committee or, as often constituted, a Royal Commission. Some years ago some, very able articles on the subject were contributed to the English magazines as a result of a Royal Commission, and these articles - one in, I think, the Edinburgh Review - show how great are the difficulties connected with the proportion the premium ought to bear to the benefits given, what the bonuses ought to be, the cost of management, and so. forth. Regular actuarial comparisons have to be made; and, however valuable the general knowledge of honorable members may be, I do not see how they could, by any examination of actuaries, come to a conclusion likely to guide our judgment. I should like to have an inquiry made, not by insurance experts, who may or may not be more or less prejudiced by particular ideas of management, but by fairly competent men, such as Mr. Knibbs and those associated with him, into the working of the principle of insurance. Some years ago, when the South Australian Government desired to know how friendly societies worked in that State - whether their operations were based on proper actuarial calculations and so forth - a report was obtained from the Government Actuary, and that report to some extent guided the Parliament.

Mr Storrer:

– Some actuaries do not understand the working of friendly societies.

Mr GLYNN:

– That may or may not be. At all events, this man was not connected with any company or society, and hence was unprejudiced, and capable, from his education, of coming to a reasonable conclusion. I do not desire to discuss the matter, but I ask the Government to consider whether it would not be possible, instead of appointing a roving Royal Commission, which may think it necessary to journey to New Zealand and cross-examine, with imperfect light, various witnesses on a highly technical subject, or of appointing a Committee of laymen from this House, to have a Board of skilled officers, such as Mr. Knibbs, to report on the whole matter for the enlightenment of Parliament?

Mr Mahon:

– How could Mr. Knibbs get the evidence of witnesses ?

Mr GLYNN:

– How would a Royal Commission get evidence?

Mr Mahon:

– A Royal Commission has power to get evidence on oath.

Mr GLYNN:

– No doubt; but I do not see that the absence of the oath is a bar to obtaining reasonable information.

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

– - I do not propose to debate the merits of the question, but merely to point put that the Government are again dumb.

Mr Crouch:

– The Attorney-General gave the Government’s views when the question was last debated.

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

– That is precisely what the Attorney-General did not do; but he promised that he would consult his colleagues, and that we should have a Ministerial statement. It seems impossible, for some reason or other, to get a Ministerial statement on any question to-night. I suppose it is all right. The Government have only to gently and privately make an intimation to their friends in the corner, and then no Ministerial statement is necessary. Everybody in the Labour corner seems satisfied, with the exception, perhaps, of the honorable member for Melbourne, and he never looks satisfied with the Government.

Dr Maloney:

– I am never satisfied with the honorable member !

Mr Frazer:

– If we have not a Government statement, the Government will have a parliamentary statement.

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

– What does that mean? Is it another blank cartridge, or what is it? When the question was last before the House, the honorable member for Darwin, having interjected that a Select Committee could always be turned into a Royal Commission, the Attorney-General said -

Upon the question, I promise that I shall consult with my colleagues, and have a statement made at an early stage. Personally, I think that a small Commission, that will take complete evidence, and be properly equipped with powers to conduct a thorough investigation, is the proper thing, because the law relating to life, marine, and fire insurance has not, so far as the whole public of Australia are concerned, been adequately considered.

I should like to know whether the Government have yet made up their minds whether there is to be any statement as to their attitude on the motion. There may be small matters which the House may take into its own hands, and on which it may determine to appoint a Select Committee or a Royal Commission in the teeth of the Government, but I venture to say that on a question of this great importance - and there can be no question as to its supreme importance to the industrial life of the country - the Government ought to have a clear and definite mind. I can conceive of no question so profoundly affecting the large body of the population as that now under discussion. I appeal to the Minister to say what the intentions of the Government are, so that we may know precisely what to do in the matter.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- I can only regard it as most unfortunate that a previous motion should have been postponed to make way for that now under discussion. While I admit the importance of the subject-matter of the motion, I think it would be a great mistake to appoint a Royal Commission as the best means of dealing with it. In the world of insurance we have all the statistical and other information, except that relating to allegations made in regard to certain parties in the Commonwealth at the present time. If the Government have made up their minds to appoint a Royal Commission, I hope they will have die courage to say so; but I find that the one way of shelving a question in this Parliament is to have it referred to a Royal Commission. A Select Committee is not so successful in this connexion because it must report before Parliament prorogues. But a Commission can be appointed to keep a subject dangling for two or three years, and when its labours are concluded, not one honorable member out of three reads even the report, to say nothing of the evidence. If this matter is urgent, I hope it will be sent to . a Select Committee, which will deal with it promptly ; but if a Royal Commission is to be appointed, I hope the Government will stand up and say that it is necessary, and not keep the House in a state of uncertainty as to what they intend to do. For my own part, I feel that to keep motions of this kind dragging on can do nothing more nor less than demoralize Parliament.

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

– How does the honorable member expect , the Government to say what they are going to do while there is so much “difference of opinion in that corner ?

Mr FISHER:

– I can remember a similar occasion when the Old-age Pensions Commission, which was a stop-gap for another Government, slipped quietly through, to the detriment of the people who should have been paid pensions.

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

– We remember how the honorable member slipped the’ Postal Commission through also.

Mr FISHER:

– That Commission was not slipped through. At any rate, I cannot help the past, but I shall domy utmost to safeguard the interests of reform in the future. My objection to remitting the subject to a Royal Commission is thatit will delay legislation on the matter for two years or more. When a Government who mean to do business come into power, and try to deal with the matter in the interests of the people, they will not be free to do so, because the exercise of a power of the Crown, separate from Parliament, in the shape of the Royal Commission, will have debarred Parliament from legislating on the subject. Even if at the next election the whole of the people declared in favour of a thorough reform in this matter, that reform could not be made law, because of the fact that certain people had been appointed by the Crown to investigate the subject, and it would be an interference with the rights of the Crown for Parliament to step inbefore the Commission reported. Such a state of affairs would be a humiliation to a national Parliament.

Mr Mahon:

– Could not the Crown fix a time at which the Commission shouldreport?

Mr FISHER:

– Fortunately, theCrown is all-powerful in these matters. The Treasurer could stop supplies, but we know that that is not done. I have never known a Commission, except one on a criminal charge, to report at the time fixed for their report to be presented.

Mr Mahon:

– The Navigation Commission reportedvery promptly.

Mr FISHER:

– I do not think the Navigation Commission’s report is complete yet. A tentative report waspresented, but if the final report has come in - and I have not seen it - it must have been within the last seven or eight months.

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

– The final report was issued about nine months ago.

Mr FISHER:

– And so the Navigation Commission was appointed in 1904, and its report lias been in for nine months !

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

– An altogether improper delay.

Mr FISHER:

– I wish merely to verify my own statement of the facts. I trust the House will not agree to make this body a Royal Commission, but will appoint a Select Committee, and give it all necessary powers. A Select Committee has now every power except that of penalizing witnesses who refuse to answer proper questions. There is a Bill before the House, which the Government could go on with, to give Select Committees full powers to deal with witnesses. That Bill was before the last Parliament. Why do not the Government proceed with it now if Select Committees have not sufficient powers to do their work properly? There would be no difficulty in proceeding with that Bill to-night. I object to tying up important legislation for two or three years with paltry Commissions, that serve no useful public purpose. I am ready and willing to allow honorable members an opportunity of serving on a Select Committee if they think they have a good case, and are prepared to give the necessary, time to the work. .

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– What has been said by- honorable members as to the importance of this question cannot be gainsaid, but that is the very best reason why it should tie most carefully investigated by those who have either the time to make a careful investigation, or the expert knowledge required to advise the House. Tt is equally obvious that in its present condition the House is not sufficiently informed to say whether legislation is really necessary or not upon, this subject, or, if the House is of. opinion that legislation is necessary, it is certainly not advised as to what form that legislation should take. When the Attorney-General spoke on 24th September, he said -

I would leave the scope of the inquiry open. It would be necessary to furnish any Committee of investigation with a succinct statement of the laws of the States, and it would be the duty of its members to inquire as to the need for further legislation. If they thought such legislation necessary, it would be for them to suggest the lines on which it should be based.

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member would recommend an inquiry into the manner in which the various companies are doing business. ; Mr. GROOM. - Certainly ; so far as that might be necessary to guide Parliament in framing Commonwealth legislation.

He went on to point out some of the difficulties regarding industrial, prudential, and other forms of insurance, and, in the same speech, expressed his own personal view that1 a small Royal Commission was the better method of procedure. ‘ The honorable member for Wide Bay now says that a Select Committee is the more expeditious method, whilst the honorable member for Angas says that we ought to be extremely careful in what we do, and advises us to try to secure the help of some of our statisticians. In the multitude of counsellors on this occasion there is confusion, and not safety. At the time the Attorney-General spoke, he did right to say that he would consult the Government as to what steps should be taken. That consultation has taken place, and I shall inform the House before I sit down what view the Government take on the matter, and what course they intend to pursue. In the meantime, it should be pointed out, in reply to the honorable member for Wide Bay, that if a Select Committee were appointed its functions would cease at the end of this session. As the House will in all probability be out of session very shortly, the Committee would not have long to sit. In ordinary circumstances, and under ordinary conditions, this session will cease possibly a few days before Christmas, and, in the regular course of events, there would be no further meeting of Parliament until probably some time in next June. During the whole of that period there would, consequently, be no body charged with conducting an inquiry into this subject, unless the Select Committee were turned into a Royal Commission before the prorogation, as was suggested when this motion was previously debated. Therefore, if an inquiry is to be made, it would be better and more expeditious to appoint a Royal Commission at once.

Mr Fisher:

– There is more pay and more privilege attached to a Royal Commission.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– As a matter of fact, there is no pay attached to it.

Mr Fisher:

– One cannot get near the Prime Minister when there is a Royal Commission to be’ appointed.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– If that is so, it is a circumstance which I, personally, cannot understand. When the Postal Commission was about to be appointed, I tried all I knew to get out of the position

In which I now find myself, and I was surprised to find that anybody else wanted to undertake work of that kind. It involves an enormous drain upon one’s time, ;and, as I have discovered to my cost, it -means a tremendous amount of work to make oneself acquainted with the subjects which come up for consideration. I am :amused when I hear statements, such as are frequently made, that we are well paid for this work. As a fact, members of Parliament receive no payment for service on a Royal Commission. With regard to the subject now under review, a subject which touches practically every household in the community, we require to be very well advised before we proceed with legislation. Inasmuch as the effort of this House would be, in all circumstances, to protect the poorer classes who deal in life or other forms of assurance, we require to be most cautious as to how we move in the matter, lest we do harm. The Government, therefore, are of opinion that a small Commission would be the better method of procedure in this case.

Mr Tudor:

– Did not the AttorneyGeneral say that he had the rough draft -of a Bill already in existence?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The Attorney”General said that it had been his intention to prepare a Bill dealing with the subject; “but that when he inquired into it as a matter for legislation, he found that the law relating to assurance generally was so closely bound up with the companies law, that it was advisable to have an inquiry so as to frame the measure which he had in his mind.

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

– This is only a means of delaying legislation.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– If the honorable member for North Sydney can show us how to proceed with greater expedition, we shall be delighted to have the benefit of “his advice.

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

– I have already .shown that. I spoke on the motion previously. There are laws now in existence in different countries dealing with the very evils that have been complained of.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I admit that the i honorable member made reference to that matter, but the contention of the Govern.ment is that in framing a Commonwealth law we have to survey the whole scheme of assurance and deal with it in a comprehensive way.

Mr Fisher:

– When? Five years hence ?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Not necessarily. The honorable member for North Sydney must recollect that we have now in existence in the six States of the Commonwealth six different laws relating to these matters, and that before a Bill can be submitted we shall require first of all to know what is the law in each of the States. That in itself must take some little time.

Mr Fisher:

– Would the honorable member be surprised to know that that has been the position in regard to practically every Bill with which we have had to deal ?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I should not.

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

– The States laws will be of assistance to us.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Possibly they may be. At present, however, I am dealing with the two proposals before the House. The first of these provides for the appointment of a Select Committee, and very little consideration will show that it would not achieve the objects that honorable members have in view. The second, a Royal Commission might take more time to investigate and present a report, but in the absence of any better proposal what are we to do?

Mr Fisher:

– A Royal Commission blocks legislation.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Not necessarily.

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

– That is what it is intended to do.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Would the honorable member for Parramatta be prepared to say that this House is now ready, in the absence of any investigation, to legislate upon this question ?

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

– We are engaged now in legislating with respect to a far more complicated branch of insurance.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The honorable member knows full well that the Bill to which he refers relates to marine insurance as defined, I understand, in something like 2,000 cases, and is more or less in the nature of a codification based on the English Act. On the other hand, unless I misunderstand the temper of this House, what is proposed or about to be proposed is something entirely new with regard to life and fire assurance.

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

– We have legislation on the subject all over the world.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Quite so. Perhaps it is the desire of the honorablemember that we should digest the world’s legislation on this subject and frame a measure upon the best known precedents.

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

– Just as the Government have done with respect to’ marine insurance.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The Government might do that ; but if I understand the attitude of this House, that is not what it desires shall be done with regard to the branches of insurance business now under consideration. In the circumstances we require some assistance, and have a right to get it. That being so, the Government are of opinion that the best way to obtain that information and assistance is to appoint a Royal Commission.

Mr Tudor:

– To investigate the law or the conditions of assurance?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– For both purposes, so that the Government and the House may not lack information on either phase of the subject.

Mr Reid:

– Is the honorable member going to appoint lawyers to report on the law, and insurance experts to report as tothe insurance branch of the subject?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The Government do not desire to have their hands tied in the terms of the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Coolgardie ; but will give serious consideration to the personnel of the Commission, with a view to obtaining the very best assistance. We might have a lawyer on the Commission, as the leader of the Opposition has suggested, and also a statistician, as suggested by the honorable member for Angas ; but nothing has yet been determined.

Mr Reid:

– But the Government can obtain from the Attorney-General a report on the question of law.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– It is possible to make him a member of the Commission; but I am not in a position to say what will be. the personnel of the Commission. What we require at present is more information. The House will admit that a Royal Commission will obtain that information, and if it agrees to that, the initiative can be taken as soon as circumstances permit. That is the method we propose, and we believe that it will prove the best.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- On the last sitting day of last session, the honorable member for Melbourne put to the AttorneyGeneral certain questions, relating to life assurance business, which were based on statements published in a Melbourne journal. . The Attorney-General replied that the managing director of the company referred to had recommended the appoint ment of a Royal Commission. It would’ appear that the Government are now ready to adopt the suggestion or recommendation! made four months ago, by the managing director of the Citizens’ Life AssuranceCompany. Since the question to which I refer was asked, we have had from a Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comments on the business methodsof that company. The Attorney-General, informed the honorable member for Melbourne that he had a rough draft of as Bill to deal with this question, but the Honorary Minister to night, in reply to an interjection I made, would not say whether or not that draft was still in existence. I am anxious that something should bedone, and done expeditiously. If the business methods of the company I have named are as stated by Mr. Justice Gordon, then not only this Parliament, but every person likely to assure his life in> Australia, ought to know it.

Mr Mahon:

– What did Mr. Justice Gordon say?

Mr TUDOR:

– If I remember rightly,, he said that the company was like Shylock sharpening his knife on an old shoe.

Sir William Lyne:

– He did not say anything of the kind.

Mr Mahon:

– He certainly did not.

Mr TUDOR:

– It is strange that weshould find two honorable members tumbling, over each other, so to speak, in their anxiety to deny what Mr. Justice Gordon* said.

Sir William Lyne:

– I have been a director of the Citizens’ Life AssuranceCompany from its foundation, and ami proud of it.

Mr TUDOR:

– If the company is conducting its business on proper lines, whats objection can there be to an inquiry ?

Mr Mahon:

– Why is the honorable member assuming that it does not desire? one?

Mr TUDOR:

– I am not. I have said that its managing director, according tothe information put before us by the AttorneyGeneral, has suggested the appointment of a Royal Commission. TheHonorary Minister deliberately evaded aquestion that I put, by way of interjection, with reference to the existence of ai draft Bill dealing with this question. A similar statement was made about afortnight ago by the Attorney-General when this question came up. If the Government are in ‘earnest, I hope that they will see that a Committee or Royal- Commission is appointed to inquire into the methods of these particular insurance com.panies. If they are properly conducted they have nothing to fear.

Sir William Lyne:

– The company referred to has nothing to fear. Some other “Companies may have.

Mr TUDOR:

– Then they ought to be shown up.

Sir William Lyne:

– So they ought ; and they will be.

Mr TUDOR:

– I for one will do nothing to prevent a thorough inquiry. I should say that the Commission ought to ^contain experts, to whose views some attention would be paid.

Sir William Lyne:

– I hope they will be; and honorable members will not find the Citizens Company at the bottom, either.

Mr TUDOR:

– Judging from some statements, they will not find that company very far from the bottom.

Sir William Lyne:

– It will be very close to the too.

Mr TUDOR:

– If that company is at the top, it will not be at a very high level.

Sir William Lyne:

– It is very unfair to say so.

Mr TUDOR:

– Judging from some r.statements that have been made-

Sir William Lyne:

– Oh, judging from ^statements !

Mr Frazer:

– Who brought in the name -of the company? The honorable member for Yarra did not.

Sir William Lyne:

– He did.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must ask the Treasurer to allow the honorable member- to proceed.

Mr TUDOR:

– I had no intention of stirring up the Treasurer or any other hon.orable member. According to the answer of the Attorney-General to the honorable member for Melbourne, the manager of a particular company stated on the 5th June that he had no objection to the appointment of a Royal Commission by the Government. But no action has been taken, so far as we have been informed. No statement has been made until to-night, when the Honorary Minister has made the statement that the Government consider that a Royal Commission will be the most expeditious method of inquiry. I hope that the matter will not be lost sight of. I feel sure that the honorable member for Darwin will not withdraw his proposal, but will insist that some inquiry shall be made as to the methods of certain insurance companies in Australia. My only hope is that the most expeditious method of inquiry will be adopted.

Sir William Lyne:

– Hear, hear; so it will be.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– I agree with the honorable member for Yarra, that if an inquiry is to be held it must be by means of a Royal Commission - and not by a Select Committee ; because the present session will be a short one, and the members of a Select Committee could not attend to their parliamentary duties and do Committee work properly at the same time. I do not agree with the second part of the amendment of the honorable member for Coolgardie with regard to experts, because the experts on whom the Government would have to rely would be persons largely dependent upon insurance companies for their living.

Mr Atkinson:

– Not necessarily.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– A friend of mine, who is looked upon, as one of the leading accountants in one of the States of the Commonwealth, on one . occasion took certain action, a/nd was in consequence refused the auditorship of companies, even when the fees did not amount to more than £25 or £30. He was so punished simply because of certain action that he took. We must not expect first-class actuaries and accountants to do the work that will be required of this Royal Commission We ought to do what was done by a Commission of which I was a member in South Australia. It had reference to the Civil Service. One of our duties was to inquire into the Police Superannuation Fund, and place it upon an actuarial basis. Those who have had experience of similar funds in the Commonwealth know that they tend to get into a state of disorganization, and tobecome practically insolvent. In this case we called in the State Government Actuary, and told him that we wanted certain information. We got it.

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

– Could not the Government have obtained the information just as easily?

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Probably hot. Some Governments had taken money from the fund for public purposes, and other Governments had made promises to augment the fund, and had failed to do so. Consequently, the Government was hardly in a position to make the inquiry properly;.

Mr Fisher:

– The honorable member does not expect such conduct from the present Government.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I find the Government willing to promise a good many things, but we get very little result from them. I do not expect much by way of result from the Government until they have better guidance than they seem to have at present. This is a question as to which expert information is needed. Any Commission that is appointed will require to deliberate for a considerable time.

Mr Fisher:

– Some years, I supposed

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Even if it were to take years, the question is of such importance to the people of the Commonwealth that it is high time something was done. The honorable member for Wide Bay has said that he never saw any value from the work of a Royal Commission. If that be so, it is his duty to oppose the appointment of a RoyalCommission on any subject. But I take a very different view. I agree that very few honorable members take the trouble to read the evidence collected by Royal Commissions.

Mr Fisher:

– Or even the reports.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– But my experience tells me that the members of this, and other Parliaments, are familiar with the reports of important Commissions. I do not say that they read all the evidence. I admit that I did not read the whole of the evidence taken by our Tariff Commission. But when I wanted information on a. particular matter I knew where to find it in the report. Whether honorable members make themselves familiar with such evidence or not, it is certain that legislation can be based upon such reports, and I feel sure that those who frame such legislation take the trouble to consider both the evidence and reports. We have an example in the Navigation Bill now before the Senate. It is based upon the report and evidence of ‘a Royal Commission, which sat for a considerable time. I make no charge against any particular insurance company, but charges of the most shocking character have been made. It has been shown in the press, in different parts of the Commonwealth, that some of these companies

Mr SPEAKER:

– There are two or three honorable members carrying on a conversation in such loud tones that it is with the utmost difficulty I can follow the remarks of the honorable member for Hindmarsh.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Newspapers in various parts of the Commonwealth have alleged that a most shocking system of commercial immorality is being carried on by these companies. I should.not like to believe that all that has been stated in. this connexion is true. But as legislators it is our duty either to prove that companies are not guilty of what has been charged against them, or to see that the poorest members of the community are protected by law. I ask whether the honorable member for Coolgardie or any of his friends can be said to be possessed of the special knowledge of fire, industrial, and prudential insurance necessary to enable them to determine the lines upon which a Bill dealing with these matters should be framed?

Mr Fisher:

– The Government can command the services of the best experts tomorrow.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– In a matter of this description it is necessary that evidence should be taken which can be published to the whole world.

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

– Plenty of inquiries in reference to evils of this kind have been made elsewhere, and remedies are being applied.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I am not aware of any inquiry which has taken place elsewhere which would cover the statements that have recently been made in the press of Australia regarding insurance companies.

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

– Look at the inquiry in America.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– The condition of things which exists there may have no parallelin the Commonwealth.

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

– But we can enact legislation to prevent evils, irrespective of whether they do or do not exist.

Mr. HUTCHISON. If the evils alleged in connexion with insurance companies in Australia do not exist, our present legislation is quite sufficient.

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

– Legislation to prevent those evils - even if they are nonexistent - would not do any harm.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I do not think that we are in the habit of anticipating what may happen. Unfortunately our experience is that, after some enormity has been committed, we continue to tinker with legislation year after year, and even then do not effectually deal with the evil. The Australian Industries Preservation Act affords us an excellent illustration of this. If we cannot enact legislation to deal effectually with evils which have actually occurred, I do not think that we are likely to achieve much by attempting to anticipate evils. It will be useless to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the methods adopted by insurance companies unless the Government intend at a later stage to convert it into a Royal Commission. At the same time, I hold that if the services of experts are necessary, it would be far better, in the interests of legislation, to require those experts to give evidence before a Royal Commission.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is, “ That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.”

Mr Webster:

– Am I to understand that the putting of that question closes the debate?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The division upon this question will close the debate upon the amendment, but it will still be possible for honorable members to submit any other amendment. In point of fact, the honorable member for Hindmarsh has already given notice of an amendment. So that there will still be an opportunity presented for debating the larger question.

Question - That the words “ Select Committee,” proposed to be left out, stand part of the question (Mr. Mahon’s amendment) - put. The House divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 32

Majority … … 20

Amendment (by Mr. Storrer) proposed -

AYES

NOES

That the amendment be amended by leaving out the words “ composed of persons having special knowledge of the subject of assurance.”

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

.- I hope that the House will not strike out the words. If a Commission is required to inquire into these matters, it should include some experts.

Mr Coon:

– Who are the experts?

Mr McDONALD:

– They would probably be got outside the House. I do not wish to underrate the ability of any honorable member, but I certainly think that an inquiry into certain matters by a Royal Commission calls for the possession of special and technical knowledge on the part of its members. It may be that there are some honorable members who have special knowledge to deal with those matters, but I think that the Commission should be composed of outsiders and not of Parliamentarians. In fact, to be candid, I think it is about time that the House took into its serious consideration the attitude which it is taking up with respect to the appointment of so many Select Committees and Royal Commissions. If the business can be done by a Select Committee while the House is in session, perhaps it would be a wise thing to appoint Select Committees to deal with many matters, but I believe that the appointment of Royal Commissions from time to time will not only lead to endless expense, but will not enhance the reputation of the Federal Parliament in the eyes of the general public.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- I do not consider there is a great deal in the objection raised to the elimination of the words. I certainly think that any Government in appointing a Royal Commission would select some person or persons with a thorough knowledge of the operations of these institutions throughout the Commonwealth. It is a most remarkable things to me to hear honorable members protesting against the appointment and work of Royal Commissions, especially when it is remembered that during the last six years they have not objected to the appointment of a Royal Commission to deal with a far less serious matter than the one now under consideration. I should like any one here to try to explain to the House intelligently how a Select Committee, or even a Royal Commission, composed wholly of members of the House, could effectively conduct as inquiry into the subjects of fire insurance, life insurance, and prudential insurance.

Mr Roberts:

– Who is going to do it?

Mr WEBSTER:

– There should be on the Royal Commission some expert to give the necessary technical knowledge, and to help the others to elucidate the evidence.

Mr Roberts:

– In other words, the honorable member wants a Webster appointed to inquire into the conduct of Webster?

Mr WEBSTER:

– I do not think that that is proposed. I do not desire to speak at any length, although I had intended if the debate had been adjourned, to speak on the subject at a later date. I certainly think that it would be wise to leave the responsibility in this matter with the Government.

Sir John Forrest:

– We have already seen how that is exercised. There have been plenty of Royal Commissions appointed.

Mr WEBSTER:

– The honorable member has never raised much objection to the appointment of them.

Sir John Forrest:

– What would have been the use of doing so?

Mr WEBSTER:

– It seems that the honorable member has woke up suddenly.

Sir John Forrest:

– On the Postal Commission, who knows anything about postal matters ?

Mr WEBSTER:

– The right honorable gentleman voted in that direction, I believe.

Sir John Forrest:

– Not for the composition of it.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Nor did I agree to that aspect of the question. I was originally of the opinion - and I hold it still - that it would have been of advantage to that Commission to appoint one or two persons to it who were not members of Parliament. However, it is our duty to do the best we can to unravel the administration of the Department. As to the proposed Commission, I think’ its composition might as well be left to the Ministry. I have on the business-paper a notice of motion asking for a Commission to inquire into one phase of this matter, and I framed that notice only after reflection had convinced me that nothing but a Royal Commission would make an effective investigation. The honorable member for Wide Bay has been rather trenchant in his criticism, and has made remarks with regard to the working of Commissions and those who have held positions on them which were unwarranted. 1 ask him, and the honorable member for Kennedy, to say whether they are ready to deal with the momentous questions of fire and life insurance without the assistance of a Commission. Has the Government at its command men with sufficient knowledge of the subject to frame legislation which could satisfactorily deal with this matter? If a Commission is appointed and does its duty thoroughly, going to the root of things, there will be revelations which will paralyze many of the insurance companies, and surprise the general public. Had I time, I could name, not one, but many insurance companies doing business in this country whose operations should be closely investigated by us - -seeing that it is ‘our duty to protect the public from institutions which prey on the savings of the poor. Industrial insurance is the most cruel of all forms of preying on the poor. Take the latest statistics-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is, “ Shall the persons appointed to the proposed Commission have special knowledge?”

Mr WEBSTER:

– I am advancing, as a reason why experts should be appointed, the fact that technical records have to be investigated. In New South Wales, for every 100 persons taking out industrial insurance policies there are not three who, after the lapse of ten years, are continuing their payments, the other policies having lapsed. These figures show how the poor are losing their savings, while the proprietary companies with which they insure are becoming rich. These matters call for sympathetic consideration, and I think that the Commission to be appointed will do great public service by preparing the way for effective legislation. It is our duty, as the makers of the laws of the country and the custodians of the rights of the people, to see that justice is done to those whom we have the honour to represent.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- The honorable member for Gwydir was not in the Chamber when I spoke, and has accepted a secondhand statement of my remarks, which is not correct, as his informant would, no doubt, be willing to tell him. I did not reflect on any member of a Royal Commission. No one knows better than does the honorable member that I recommended him to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the administration of the Post and Telegraph Department, on the ground that a

Select Committee for that purpose would be useless. If we omit the words proposed to be left out, our action will amount to an instruction to the Government not to appoint persons with special knowledge.

Mr Storrer:

– That is ridiculous.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member is in a great hurry to give his opinion. Obviously, persons with special knowledge should be appointed - that is, persons capable of obtaining by examination the information that is sought. If a Royal Commission is to be appointed, it is not too much to asTc the Government to select the best men obtainable. Personally I have the poorest opinion of experts for general work, but what is asked for in this case is the appointment of persons possessing special knowledge, altogether a different thing. Honorable members are doubtless aware of the dictum of the Scotch Judge that there are liars, worse liars, and experts. There is a great deal in that. 1 do not ask for the appointment of experts, but I am in favour of the appointment c..f persons possessing special knowledge.

Mr SPENCE:
Darling

.- I do not think that it matters whether the words are left in or struck out; the Government will, in any case, appoint persons with special knowledge. I should like to know what is meant by “ experts.” What we need is a searching inquiry into the business methods of a number of institutions. If actuarial calculations are required in connexion with that investigation, they can be easily obtained ; but what we seek to rind out is the methods of doing business which are being followed - whether they are fair and honest.

Mr SPEAKER:

– A few moments ago, I had occasion to call attention to the number of conversations proceeding in a loud tone of voice, but there are now more than there were then. If this continues, I shall be driven, much against my will, to take action.

Mr SPENCE:

– Consideration must be given to the relations of the insurance companies with the public. I should like to see the scope of the proposed Commission enlarged. Fidelity and guarantee societies make promises to the public which are never fulfilled. That kind of business should be investigated and exposed. But if the work is left to experts, accustomed to view with complacency the making of money by companies at the expense of the public, we shall have the wrong kind of Commission.

We should appoint persons who will look at matters from the point of view of the public interest. We should have some one on the Commission who will be able to say whether insurance business is carried on in the Commonwealth in a legitimate way. Men who have a pretty wide experience of the world, and know what business management is, would make a very much better Commission than one composed of actuarial experts who, however clever at actuarial investigations, might be quite unfitted for such an examination as we require. I do not object to the insertion of the words ‘ special knowledge ‘ ‘ ; but I trust that the Commission will not be formed of men who have been engaged in running insurance businesses. The legal aspect of the question should be attended to by the Attorney-General’s Department. We have the right to expect the officers of that Department to know all about the insurance laws of the various States. Evidence as to the failure of those laws might be obtained from persons who have been taken down by insurance companies. I have in mind certain cases which show that there is a very great need for an inquiry into the way in which insurance companies do business. I hope that the Government will consider the insertion of the words, if they are inserted, as an instruction to appoint to the Commission persons who will be best able to protect the interest of the public.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

.- I wish to emphasize the views put forward by the honorable member for Darling; but if they are to be given effect to, it will be necessary to strike the words out. The persons possessed of special knowledge in this matter may reasonably be presumed to be directors, or officials, of insurance companies.

Mr Spence:

– If so, P object to the insertion of the words.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Their insertion would be a direction by the House that in appointing the Commission the Government should appoint persons having special knowledge of the subject, and that could only mean persons who have been engaged in the management of insurance business. I take it that we do not desire that persons engaged in the insurance business should be asked to report upon and recommend a system of insurance. What we particularly require is that the business shall be inquired into as it affects the public. If wo look at the second paragraph, we shall find that it is proposed that the work of the Commission shall be to report on and recommend a system of insurance which will guarantee the public against extortion. That will involve a political work, as well as a business inquiry. I hope the words referred to will be struck out.

Mr Storrer:

– Their omission from the motion would not prevent the appointment of experts.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Of course it would not, but it would throw upon the Government the responsibility of appointing a suitable Commission.

Amendment of the amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr HUME COOK:
Honorary Minister · BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– It is necessary in order to broaden the scope of the inquiry to insert words which will give the Commission the right to inquire into the law relating to these matters, as well as the methods operating within the Commonwealth. I therefore move -

That after the word “into,” paragraph1, the words “the law relating to and” be inserted.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

– I think the amendment now proposed would not be an improvement upon the motion. It is sufficient to have an inquiry into the methods operating in the Commonwealth. The law on the subject is before us if we need to consult it. The more you extend a direction the more you limit its application is a well-known maxim, and the Minister would be well advised to leave the motion as it stands.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– If the amendment now submitted be adopted, will it not be an instruction to the Government to appoint to the Commission experts in law ? If it is necessary that persons of special knowledge of the methods of conducting insurance business should be appointed to the Commission, it may be necesssary, should the amendment now before the Committee be adopted, to appoint one or two legal experts also.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, further amended (on motion by Mr. Hutchison) to read -

  1. Inquiring into the law relating to and the methods of operating Fire, Life, Prudential, and Industrial and other Insurance.

    1. Reporting on and recommending a system which, while economical, will guarantee the public against extortion.

Amendment (by Mr. Fisher) proposed -

That the following words be added : - “ and to report not later than June 30th, 1909.”

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

.- -Sooner than that there should be any further talk about making money, I am quite willing not to be a member of the Royal Commission.

Mr Fisher:

– No one has said anything about making money.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– I moved in the matter, anyhow.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That has nothing to do with the question, which is when the report shall be presented.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– How can members of a Commission with no technical knowledge or experience report on such a question in a few months. It might be done in two or three months, or it might take a year; and it must be remembered that honorable members have to spend some time with their constituents. If I have anything to do with this Royal Commission I desire, in order that the work may be systematically and scientifically accomplished, not to be bound down in the matter of time.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- I hope the amendment will be taken into serious consideration. And I should like to quote a saying, by a witty and cynical German, to the effect that if the Almighty had placed the making of the earth in the hands of a Commission it would never have been created. Let us see if we cannot get one Royal Commission to do its work seriously and in short and sharp order.

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority … … 11

That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to appoint aRoyal Commission for the purposes of -

(1) Inquiring into the law relating to and the methods of operating Fire, Life, Prudential, and Industrial and other Insurance.

(2) Reporting on and recommending a system which, while economical, will guarantee the public against extortion, and to report not later than June 30th, 1909.

AYES

NOES

page 965

MOTOR CARS

Motion (by Dr. Carty Salmon) agreed to -

That a Return be laid upon the Table of the House showing number and value of motor cars, and duty paid thereon, imported into each State of the Commonwealth since 1st January,1901.

page 965

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business - Financial Statement

Motion (by Sir William Lyne) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

.- Will the Minister state what business it is proposed to take to-morrow ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– It was intended, when the Prime Minister left, to proceed to-morrow with the Marine Insurance Bill, but a strong desire has been expressed to-night by some honorable members to go on with the Defence Bill, for some time, at any rate. I have no doubt that, if one or two honorable members want to speak on the second reading of that measure before the Marine Insurance Bill is taken, the Prime Minister will have no objection.

Mr Fisher:

– When is the financial statement to be made?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I hope to be able to make it on Wednesday next.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.27 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 October 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1908/19081008_reps_3_47/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant