View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
1 October 1912

4^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- SUGAR INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- EXPLOSIVES
QUESTION
- NAVAL POLICY
QUESTION
- SAVINGS BANKS
QUESTION
- VEND CASE
QUESTION
- SOCIAL AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
NOTICES OF MOTIONS
MATERNITY ALLOWANCE BILL
QUESTION
- SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TRANSFERRED OFFICERS
QUESTION
- DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND CUSTOMS
QUESTION
- PATENT OFFICE
PAPERS.
HOURS OF SITTING
MATERNITY ALLOWANCE BILL
- Third Reading
NAVIGATION BILL

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3617

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY

Bounty - Royal Commission

Mr GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Prime Minister yet replied to the communication of the Premier of Queensland regarding the bounty on sugar?

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister · WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– No. I have merely acknowledged the letter.

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I wish to know from th» Attorney-General if he has read the press report of yesterday’s proceedings in the High Court regarding the Sugar Commission, and the statement of the Chief Justice -

We are bound to conclude that the Commission, so far as it can, intend to enforce the production of books. It cannot do so by selling them, but it can enforce its order by punishment with such fines that the company would bc bound to produce the books. If the contention were disclaimed that would alter the position.

Later, the Chief Justice said -

After the discussion, I should say the Commission would act as reasonable persons would, and not ask questions that are not material.

Is the Attorney-General aware of any questions asked by the members of the Royal Commission during their inquiry into the sugar industry, which were immaterial, and does he intend on behalf of the Government to ask the counsel. appearing for the Crown for an unreserved and unqualified decision by the Court respecting the powers of the Commonwealth in regard to Royal Commissions ?

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My attention lias been called to a report of the proceedings in the High Court, and I have read the remarks of the Chief Justice. The position taken up by the counsel for the Crown, under instructions from me, was that the Government desired to ascertain whether the Royal Commissions Act is or is not valid.

Subject to the validity of that Act, the Commonwealth declines to limit its rights, and insists on exercising any or all of its powers, and the Commission will ask any question that it thinks relevant and proper. lt is not our intention to recede from that position. The Commission will, of course, please itself as to the questions it asks, and should it ask an irrelevant or immaterial question, it will be for the witness to take exception to the ques: tion, and to follow whatever course, subject to the law, he may think right. The Government is only concerned with the validity of the Act. If the High Court declares the Act to be valid, the Commission will be able to ask what questions it pleases, subject to the scope of the Commission and the Act. It is absurd to suppose that immaterial or irrelevant questions would be asked by the Commission. I cannot believe that the Commission would ask such questions. The Crown does not admit that its rights are limited in any way, either by the Constitution or by the Statute.

page 3618

QUESTION

EXPLOSIVES

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I invite the attention of the Prime Minister to the following newspaper paragraph -

Mr. Atkinson, the Chief Inspector of Mines, who has been at Newcastle inquiring into the case of the fire at Pelaw-Main mine, returned to Sydney to-day. He states that he found the explosion was due to the use of the ex- plosive called “Arkite,” although it was used y a qualified worker. When the explosion took place the fire-damp was ignited, and the coal being of a bituminous nature, the fire quickly assumed serious proportions.

To safeguard life and property, and encourage the manufacture in Australia of suitable explosives, will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of establishing a testing ‘ station within the Commonwealth ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– The question has been before me at various times. I think that the time has arrived when a Board or an institution for the testing of public explosives might be established. Nearly all explosives deteriorate in transit, and the Commonwealth might well consider the safety and welfare of its people by providing for a testing institute. The matter will have serious and favorable consideration, especially now that the New South Wales Chief Inspector of Mines, who has had great experience, has drawn attention to a specific case in which injury has been done by a defective explosive.

page 3618

QUESTION

NAVAL POLICY

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The following paragraph appears in the seventh annual report of the Executive Committee of the Australian National Defence League -

It is well to point out here that the Prime Minister has recently stated in Parliament that his Government generally accepts, and is pre- pared to - carry into effect in due course, all Admiral Henderson’s far-reaching recommendations for the creation of a powerful Australian Fleet.

Did the Prime Minister make such a statement, and does the Government intend to carry out all Admiral Henderson’s farreaching recommendations ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– The Minister of Defence has given a full and. detailed t statement of the Government policy, wh’ich is available in Hansard.

Later -

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question which arises out of an answer that .he gave to an inquiry put to him by the honorable member for Richmond. The honorable member asked him whether the Government had committed themselves to the whole of Admiral Henderson’s scheme. The Prime Minister’s reply was that we should find the answer to that question set forth in a statement which was made by the Minister of Defence. I wish to know whether the following represents the Government view upon this question -

The- position which the Government take up with regard to the scheme and its commitments is this : we say that if Parliament is going to adopt the scheme, complete the naval bases, and build the ships proposed in the seven years? period, the amounts which I have mentioned indicate what it will be called. upon to vote. It will be for Parliament to say each year whether it is prepared to vote them.

Mr Glynn:

– I can assure the Minister that there was a previous short report, which was the result of a conversation I had with Mr. Knibbs.

Mr TUDOR:

– This is the only report I know of.. I asked on Friday that everything in the Department in relation to this matter might be got together. I am not sure that there is anything in addition to what has been presented by the Department.

Later -

Mr J H CATTS:

– I desire to make a personal explanation, sir. When I was asking the Minister of Trade and Customs, a few moments ago, as to the statements made by the honorable member for Kooyong on Thursday, I was met with ejaculations of surprise by some members of the Opposition. The amendment which the honorable member for Kooyong moved to the Maternity Allowance Bill was as follows : -

That the following words be added :- “ That the Committee on the Bill be instructed to incorporate in the Bill provision for a national insurance scheme providing for sickness, “unemployment, and medical attendance, as well as maternity, and subsidized by an appropriation to the extent necessary to make the benefits immediate and adequate.”

I lay stress upon the words “ immediate and adequate. ‘ ‘ In support of his proposal, the honorable gentleman said -

I submit that the only effective way of dealing with the subject with which the Bill deals is to introduce a comprehensive scheme covering it and other social questions. The last Government gave very full attention to this matter, and it was my duty to collect information for the framing of a Bill to carry into effect its policy. That information is in the possession of the Department which I was administering.

I think, sir, that that statement amply justifies the form of the question that I put to the Minister.

page 3621

– It i’s correct that we have given an order; but I would ask the honorable member to wait a day or twofor the balance of the particulars relating to that order.

page 3621

NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Mr HIGGS:

– I rise to give notice of a motion of censure, but I do not propose to ask the Prime Minister to adjourn the House. I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, the 2nd October, I shall move -

That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, informing him that the Fusion known as His Majesty’s Opposition merits the censure of the House and the country -

for its failure to realize its national and constitutional obligations ;

for flagrant neglect of its duty to vote against those measures which it professes not to believe in ;

for unduly taking up the time of the

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr Groom:

– Chair.

Mr HIGGS:

for the notorious lack of harmony be tween its leaders; and-

page 3623

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE BILL

Mr HIGGS:

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether, if any appointments are made to carry but the administration of the Maternity Allowance Bill, when passed, he will appoint women?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– The policy of this Government in relation to appointments, is to give the same opportunity to women as to men, not only in this, but in other matters. There will be no inspectoral work in connexion with this scheme. The only difference will be that women, instead of men, will sign the receipts, or write the documents. It is quite a mistake to think that there are going to be inspectors, &c, to examine. The women of the Commonwealth have the same opportunity under the Public Service Acf and the regulations as have men at the present time. I do not think that, because this is a maternity allowance, we can make an exception.

page 3623

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TRANSFERRED OFFICERS

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government have taken into consideration the necessity for appointing some person to inquire into the rights of South Australian transferred officers, seeing that they have no right of appeal to the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, and if they have decided upon such an appointment, when is it likely to be made?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– An answer to the honorable member’s question was given by the Postmaster- General the other day. I ask him to give notice of his question to my colleague the Postmaster-General.

page 3624

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Liverpool Manoeuvre Area - Construction of Cruisers, Destroyers, and Dredges

Mr CANN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether any definite arrangement has yet been arrived at in regard to the acquisition of private lands in the manoeuvre area at Liverpool?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– As regards private lands, no; but as to the general resumption of the area, I may say that the Commonwealth Government are now prepared to provide the means to enable the whole of it to be resumed for the purpose for which it was originally intended-

Mr Cann:

– By the Federal Government?

Mr FISHER:

– The Commonwealth Government are to provide the means, and I think the resumption will be accomplished in a verv short time.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I should like to ask the Prime Minister why land in the Federal Territory cannot be used for a manoeuvre area, instead of the Government being called upon to buy land for the purpose near Sydney?

Mr FISHER:

– The question ought really to have been addressed to the Minister representing the Minister of Defence. The Defence Department state that they require a manoeuvre area at Liverpool, and that the piece of land in question is that which they need. Knowing the Defence Department as I do, however, I have no doubt that they will need another manoeuvre area at the Federal Capital.

Mr SAMPSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Will the Minister lay upon the table of the House the tender and the contract in connexion with the construction of the destroyers and cruisers at the Fitzroy Dock?

Mr ROBERTS:
Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Copies of correspondence, and of the form of contract entered into, are being laid on the table.

Mr MATHEWS:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Can he give the House any information as to the construction in Australia of dredges for the Defence Department?
Is it a fact that the tenderers for dredges had to draw up the plans and specifications themselves ?
1. If so, does he not think that there would have been more tenders if the Department had prepared the specifications?

Mr ROBERTS:

– The answers to the honorable ^ember’s questions are -

On 22nd June, tenders were invited by public advertisement for two single-screw steel barge-loading bucket dredgers.

In response, on 30th July, two tenders were received : -

From an Australian firm offering to build and deliver the dredgers - the first in sixteen months; the second in twenty months.
From the Melbourne representative of a British firm offering to deliver - two dredgers under steam at Melbourne Wharf in forty-five weeks; to deliver two dredgers in pieces at Melbourne Wharf (no woodwork), in forty weeks.
Negotiations have also been entered into’ with the State Governments of New South Wales and Victoria.
1. Yes. ^ 3. There was no reason to think so - the practice adopted is the usual one, and has the advantage of allowing freer play to the builders*’ initiative and experience.

page 3624

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Tasmanian Mail Service - Postage of Letters at Railway Stations.Female Telephonists, Sydney - Wireless Station, Fremantle.

Mr ATKINSON:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Will the PostmasterGeneral lay on the table the correspondence that has taken place between his Department and various steam-ship companies regarding the Tasmanian mail service ?

Mr FRAZER:
Postmaster-General · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I wish to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is correct, as reported in the press, that the Government have accepted the Combine’s tender for a mail service between Tasmania and the mainland for a further period of three years ?

Mr FRAZER:

– The tender of the Union Steam-ship Company of New Zealand and Messrs. Huddart Parker and Company has been accepted for a period of two years. I am sorry to have to say that, notwithstanding their negotiations, the Government have not been able to obtain a more satisfactory service between the mainland and Tasmania.

Mr CANN:
for Mr. Jensen

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether any tender has been accepted for the carriage of mails between Melbourne and Tasmania ?
If so, what is the name of the shippingcompany which has secured such tender?
For how long a period is such tender let foi?
What is the cost per annum?
How many mails will Tasmania receive per

Week under such tender?

What port or ports will such mails be delivered at?
How many times per week will the mails be delivered at each port?

Mr FRAZER:

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

Yes.
Melbourne-Launceston Service. - The Union Steam-ship Company of New Zealand and Huddart Parker Proprietary Limited - joint contractors.

Melbourne-Burnie Service. - The Union Steamship Company of New Zealand - contractors.

Two years.
Melbourne and Launceston,£1 1,000; Mel bourne and Burnie,$2,000.
Five.
Launceston and Burnie.
Three times at Launceston ; twice at Burnie.

Mr. McWILLIAMS (for Dr. Carty Salmon) asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the Minister’s desire, expressed in the House, to secure uniformity of treatment regarding the late fee charged on letters posted at railway stations, he will consider the alternative of remitting the extra charge in States where it is in vogue instead of imposing it where it has not previously existed ?

Mr FRAZER:

– Yes.

page 3626

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND CUSTOMS

Freezing Works, Portland - Angora and Ostrich Rearing

Mr MCDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether it is true, as reported, that the freezing works of Messrs. Borthwick and Sons, Portland (Vic), were closed down owing to the influence of the Beef Trust?
If the report is not true, what are the real reasons which induced the proprietors of the works mentioned to close down?

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

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

I am not aware that such was the case.
Several reasons have been advanced, but I am not sufficiently conversant with the facts to be able to say what was the precise reason for closing the works.

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has the South African Government imposed an export duty on Angora goats?
If so. what is the amount of the duty?
Has the same Government taken any steps to prevent the export from the Union of ostriches to Australia?
If so, what are those steps?
Is he aware that Australian efforts to build up the Angora and ostrich industries are being seriously hampered by the actions of the South African Government?
Is he aware that South Africa is seeking to establish the merino wool industry in South

Africa?

How many merino sheep have been exported from the Commonwealth to South Africa^ up till the latest available date?
Has the Commonwealth imposed any restriction upon the said export?
1. Will the Commonwealth Government represent to the Government of the South African Union that reciprocity in such matters is desirable in the interests of both countries and of the Empire of which they form a part?

Mr TUDOR:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are: - 1 and 2. The export from British South Africa of Angora rams and ewes is prohibited except to South African Colonies, &c, which have enacted similar prohibitive legislation.

Yes.
The exportation of ostriches and their eggs from. South Africa is prohibited and made a penal offence.
Representations have been received to that effect.
Yes.
Merino sheep are not recorded separately. The exports of sheep (all kinds) to South AfricanUnion during the years 1907-11 were as follows : -

t Also 200, valued at £350, shipped to German South-west Africa. §Also 599, valued at ^584, shipped to British East Africa.

No.
Such representations have already been made, without success. Overtures will be made again, when reciprocal trade relations betweenthe two countries are under consideration.

page 3626

QUESTION

PATENT OFFICE

Mr KELLY:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Referring to questions of the honorable member for Wentworth, answered on the 14th- August, will the Minister state - i.- Referring to question j, previously asked, whether it is not a matter for the Patent Attorney to determine how and in what manner his signature is submitted to the Patents Department, end whether by his own hand or that of ‘ his Attorney?

Will rubber-stump impressions be recognised as the signature of a Patent Attorney whether made by his own hand or that of his delegate ?

Have not complaints been received by the Attorney-General of hardship under the substituted practice as compared with that of a satisfactory seven years’ trial?

What is the difference between the Attorney of a Patent Attorney under power of appointment of principal and the Attorney of the Patent Attorney’s said principal?

Was not the substituted practice retrospective in that it involved the return to Patent Attorneys of numerous papers for re-signing; and, if so, how many of such?

What was the fixed date of the coming into force of the substituted practice?

In what way was the old practice unsatisfactory or prejudicial to the Patents Department?

Did the Commissioner of Patents ever express any disapproval of the old practice, or did the Examiner of Patents object to same?

What has been gained by the change of practice?

Will he approve of a new regulation giving Patent Attorneys the same privilege in regard to the Patent Office as are possessed by Solicitors in reference to the Supreme Court?

Mr HUGHES:

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

Reference is apparently intended to question 6 of the questions answered on 4th September. It is for the Commissioner to determine whether any signature is authentic, and binds the principal.
An attorney has no general power to delegate his authority, and a signature affixed by his delegate, therefore, does not suffice in the case of documents which require to be signed by the Principal or by the Principal’s Attorney.
Complaint has been made by one Patent Attorney.
The question is not understood.
In the case of one Patent Attorney, papers had to be returned to be re-signed.
About 6th May, 1912.
There was no satisfactory proof of authority from the Principal.
The Commissioner of Patents disapproved.
Conformity with the requirements of the Act and Regulations.
No. There is no analogy between the two.

page 3627

PAPERS.

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Defence - Construction of Destroyers and Cruiser at the Fitzroy Dock, New South Wales - Papers re. Public Service Act - Postmaster-General’s Department - Appointment of H. M. Cox as Assistant Engineer, Electrical Engineer’s Branch, Western Australia.

page 3627

HOURS OF SITTING

Mr FISHER:
Prime Min ister · Wide Bay · ALP

.- I move-

That on Wednesdays and Thursdays in each week the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, meet at half-past Ten o’clock a.m.

– I ask the honorable member not to discuss those matters.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– As a rule, a Government asks for lengthened hours of sitting when all the business has been submitted, and an effort is to be made to clear off what is deemed to be the most urgent. On the present occasion., however, a list of measures has been outlined by the Prime Minister, who tells us that these must be passed this session, although we know that they have not yet been framed. The Prime Minister wishes us to _ enter, on this legislative orgy, for it is neither more nor less, and to pass measures that have not yet been framed by the Government. The honorable gentlemen indicated to us to-day that the Government had not yet made up their mind as to the terms in which the referenda proposals are to be submitted. Then there is the Banking Bill, which evidently has not yet received final revision at the hands of the law ad*visers of the Government; and the same remark may be made of other important measures, such as the Bankruptcy Bill. Any one of these measures is in its way as important as the Navigation Bill, and might form the chief proposal of a session’s work. If those measures, in addition to others, are .passed this session it will mean a mass of legislation that cannot be a credit to this Parliament. In other words, we are being asked to do the impossible ; we may pass these measures but we shall have to revise them, and in the meantime they will prove the reverse of a benefit to the community. The people will have to interpret and work under them as best they may. But we were not elected to legislate in that way. It would be better not to legislate at all than to pass imperfect measure’s which must cause infinite irritation, trouble and expense, without benefiting the country. I strongly advise the Government not to press on with their bankruptcy and banking legislation if they wish to close the session within a reasonable time.

– I want to get to work, and have no wish to stay here a day longer than is necessary. The sooner we leave, the better it will be for the country, and for the great issue which is to be decided later ; although I am not desirous of an appeal to the ballot-box until the proposed redistributions of seats have all been determined upon, and we have had lime to make ourselves fully acquainted with the new conditions.

Another thing that would conduce to expedition is the ‘better preparation of measures. Many proposals, such as the Northern Territory Crown Lands Ordinance, and others I could name, have been thrown before us in a chaotic condition, and this has necessitated discussion, honorable members having had to feel their way towards a reasonable understanding of the matter. I have been in Parliament for a good many years, and know that the constant drip- drip of talk which it is proposed1 to create will not lead to business being done more quickly.

Mr Webster:

– Why does the honorable member repeat himself so often?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Business would be done more quickly if insults were hurled at the Opposition less frequently. Nothing so provokes discussion as the interjection of insulting expressions by those who seem to have nothing else to say. Those who are doing their duty in discussing proposals in the light t>f the public interest should not be subjected to this kind of treatment. No’ doubt the Government have determined to pass this motion, and we shall therefore have to do our duty as well as we can notwithstanding it. If the measures outlined in the last speech of the Governor-General are to be passed after proper consideration, we shall have to sit during the remainder of this and the whole of next year to rationally consider them; if the attempt be made to put them on the statute-book without that proper consideration, infinite trouble must follow, and the High Court will probably be appealed to for the interpretation of what we should have made plain.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We all recognise that when the business of the session is becoming congested the sitting hours must be extended, but, except under the present Government, extra sitting hours have been found necessary only in the closing weeks of the session. At present we are in the middle of the session, and there is no excuse for asking us to sit longer than usual. The motion is part of an attempt to invade the rights of members generally, and especially of the Opposition. Soon after the commencement of the session, the Prime Minister took advantage of a private member’s motion, .giving Government time for its discussion, to put a limitation on speeches. Among the reasons given for that action was that it would obviate the necessity’ of lengthening the sittings, or of sitting late at night. But what has been our experience? So far as the curtailment’ of speeches is concerned, many honorable members on this side have not availed them- selves of opportunities to speak, and very few of those who have spoken have exercised their right to occupy the full time allowed by the standing order. The majority of speakers who have taken advantage of the full time allowed have been heard from the other side. Honorable members opposite have frequently had to be informed that their time had expired, whilst that has been necessary in the case of very few honorable members on this side. In the circumstances, it is clear that the accusation that members of the Opposition have been guilty of wasting time cannot be sustained. The next thing the Government did, was, at an unprecedentedly early stage of the session, to submit a motion giving precedence to Government tainess, and depriving the House of the opportunity to discuss private members’ business. Probably the motion was submitted with a view to avoiding the discussion of a number of awkward questions which were on the business-paper in the names of private members. I recall the fact that when the honorable member for Ballarat, as Leader of the Government, submitted a similar motion as early in the year as the 15th September, the present Prime Minister said -

A stranger hearing the Prime Minister for the first time would consider his request most reasonable, but I assert deliberately that the honorable gentleman could not propose any course more likely to cause waste of time than that which he has put before us. I do not know why the Government have brought forward the motion at this time.

The honorable gentleman then went on to say how valuable is the time given to the discussion of private’ members’ motions. He said -

Every Government endeavours to belittle the importance of private members’ business without justification.

He went on to quote a number of instances to show that it was in the discussion of private members’ motions that a number of immensely beneficial reforms had their origin. He said -

It is a fallacious idea that private members’ business does no good. Quite the opposite is the fact, and in all Parliaments of the world we find that nearly every reform has been initiated as private members’ business.

In that way, the honorable gentleman opposed the motion to supersede private members’ business. He considered that the Government proposal would make unnecessary inroads upon private members’ time. It is now further proposed that we should, in future, have morning sittings. The morning is the only time which honorable members have for the consideration, of measures submitted to Parliament, and to attend to their correspondence. Ministers must themselves find morning sittings very awkward, because their departmental business should properly be transacted during the morning hours. That business will, in future, apparently have to be left very largely to the departmental heads, and-under this proposal the reign of officialism and red-tape, which the Minister of Home Affairs so roundly condemns, will probably become more rampant than ever. I think the curtailment of speeches is in itself a sufficiently serious inroad upon the rights of honorable members. It was brought about distinctly with the object that less time should be occupied in the discussion of measures submitted to Parliament. Ministers should remember that, notwithstanding the statements of their supporters, members of the Opposition do not criticise Government measures merely as an act of grace on the part of the Government and its supporters. They have a responsibility to their constituents, which Ministers and their supporters do not appear to realize. There is an obligation resting on members of the Opposition to give full and careful attention to all measures submitted by the Government, and to criticise them in the public interest. A reasonable time should always be allowed for that criticism, and no one can say that the limits of reasonable discussion have been exceeded by any honorable member on either side during this ses sion. The proposal, therefore, cannot be justified on the ground that there has been any waste of time on the part of honorable members on either side. I venture to believe that the new arrangement will not prevent late sittings, as honorable members who support the proposal appear to think. I have not the slightest doubt that, as the session draws to a close, we shall have the Prime Minister intimating that the House should sit longer, and all-night sittings will be as frequent during this session as they have been in previous sessions. We shall be called upon to sit during the morning and afternoon, as well as late at night, and what kind of legislation is likely to be passed in this Chamber under such conditions? Common sense suggests that carefully considered legislation will not be passed under such conditions, and that the country is likely to suffer from the effects of a very severe attack of legislative indigestion. We have been told by the Prime Minister that certain Bills are not even yet ready for submission to the House. Much trouble has arisen during this session, and, in fact, during the whole of the time the present Government have occupied the Treasury benches, from the fact that their measures have been introduced without being properly considered. They have been badly framed, and, after criticism by the Opposition, have been found to be so defective that they have had to be taken back to the workshop, and amendments brought forward by the Government, or fresh measures submitted, with the provisions of which honorable members have had no opportunity to familiarize themselves. By the time they have come here fully prepared to discuss their merits, the measures have been withdrawn from discussion, and others substituted. In this way, Bills have been shuffled about in a most curious fashion. Members of the Opposition have had, moreover, the additional difficulty to contend with of finding that even Ministers themselves knew little or nothing about the Bills of which they were in charge. The practice of the Liberal Government when they brought down important measures was, not only to give honorable members copies within a reasonable time, in order to enable them to understand their provisions, but also, in some instances, to take the precaution of supplying explanatory memoranda which made the study of the Bills very much easier, and, of course, facilitated their discussion here very much. If there has been any delay in getting on with business and passing measures, the Government are mainly responsible, because they themselves have, as I said, brought in their measures very ill-considered and ill-digested, and have not come to the House equipped with the .necessary knowledge to keep members informed as to either the scope or intention of the measures or their provisions. Member after member oh this side has sought in vain to be informed in connexion with Bills, and consequently they have had to spend a little more time than otherwise might have been necessary in debating the measures, in order to get at their underlying principles, and their more or less obscure meaning. I think that the House will be very unwise in assenting, thus early in the session, to the sacrifice of what little time is now available to honorable members to study Bills and attend to their correspondence.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– One or two suggestions have been made which will receive very favorable consideration. One is to forecast, as far as possible, the business of the succeeding week, and to get the important measures before honorable members as early as possible. I do not take any notice of the nonsense which has been talked about the absence of Ministers from the chamber, or about ill-digested legislation. More Bills have been put through Parliament with fewer alterations by this Government than has been done by any other Government.

Mr Deakin:

– No other Government had a majority in both Houses.

Mr FISHER:

– And no Act of this Government has been declared unconstitutional. That kind of patter may be good enough for fools, but it will not stand examination.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3634

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE BILL

Third Reading

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

The honorable member for Darling Downs asked me if I would be good enough to ascertain from the Attorney-General the position of this Bill as regards our constitutional powers. I am able to say that he has no doubt as to the constitutionality of this Bill, and, of course, that involves the penalties. I make that statement on be half of the Government. As regards the acceptableness of the Bill to the community, or its usefulness, I do not wish to take up time now, otherwise I should be very glad, as it is a very interesting subject, to make a few remarks in reply to certain statements which have been made.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

– I desire, briefly, to put on record our most important objections to this measure. In the first place, this Bill deals with only a segment of the great social issues involved - a very important segment, but, nevertheless, only one of many. In the second place, it deals only with one method of relief, and that is by the grant of an allowance simply based on a birth. And, in the next place, it only makes provisions for making this grant isolated and apart. Before our social life is thoroughly organized, conditions of stability must be established for all classes, including those whose livelihoods are precarious, and who are, of course, always subject to the accidents of mortality.

To deal separately, and only, with mother and child at the time of its birth by a direct endowment, though it avoids the embarrassment of machinery and endeavours to avoid even the checks which are necessary, is a rash experiment.

Mr Fisher:

– I am not sure about that illustration about being isolated, &c.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am speaking of this proposition to deal with the parent and child at birth, as if that was the only social need which had to be met by legislation of this character. If this had been associated with a complete scheme providing for sickness, unemployment, and accidents, each branch would have assisted the other, supplying safeguards against misstatement, deceit, or misappropriation of money.

Mr Fisher:

– I meant an isolated effort to help in a chain of circumstances.

Mr DEAKIN:

– What I mean is that the Government have isolated the mother - really the mother and the child - at the instant of birth, and dealt with that crisis as they can under the limitations of the Constitution - if they are within the Constitution. Their task would have been much more effectively and completely performed if taken in conjunction with a much wider scheme dealing with unemployment, sickness, and other accidents, which, requiring to be faced by all those who earn their livelihood, fall with special severity upon the millions of toilers who hitherto have had but very slight aid from State support or State care in the misfortunes of their toil- ing lives. The scheme, therefore, appears to be incomplete by its very nature, imperfect, and insufficient in its proportions, due perhaps, in part, to our constitutional restrictions.

May I again venture to repeat suggestions made on the second reading of the Bill, which, from the criticisms accorded them, hardly appear to have been understood in this particular relation? The Government pays the money, unconcerned as to the particular purpose to which it is being appropriated, and there may not be grave risk of misapplication in any real home. In most of them, I venture to believe and to hope that the mother, and after the mother the child, will obtain the whole of the value of the money applied to nourishment and clothing, so as to carry the parent over her period of trial, and give the child a better start in life. It should be better cared for by a better-cared-for mother, whatever surplus there may be of the £5 being applied towards procuring those necessaries, or it may be those medicaments, which the circumstance may call for. J do not think that the Prime Minister and the supporters of the Bill sufficiently realize that these conditions do not, by any means, apply to all the children born in this community. A certain number will be born under conditions most painful to the mothers, often under circumstances unfavorable to health, physical or moral, even permitting this money, sacredly set apart for motherhood and for the child, being applied to the purchase of alcohol, or wasted upon folly.

Mr Page:

– The same argument was used in respect of old-age pensions.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The Attorney-General himself admits that abuses exist there which we cannot hope to cure. But that is no justification for neglect on our part now to take advantage of every necessary precaution. In this brief explanation I am merely reiterating the points elaborated in my speech on the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I say again that charity organizations generally are capable of being used to great advantage amongst those unfortunate sections of society in which supervision, advice, and care are most urgently needed. The Prime Minister can supply many deficiencies in this scheme without any trespass on our Constitution, if he will link up with this work existing societies and philan thropic bodies which will take care that, in the slums and amongst the unfortunate classes, voluntary helpers will guard the mother and the child against the parasites who will otherwise prey upon them.

Mr Page:

– We are all anxious to do that.

Mr DEAKIN:

– It seemed to be supposed that I was submitting a proposition that the whole of this allowance should be supervised by these bodies. That is not so. They may contribute to secure the proper outlay of the ^5, but cannot attempt to cope with the other great remedial measures proposed. The particular proposal before us will certainly justify itself wherever the allowance is honestly applied to the necessitous mother and the child. As it stands, it implies a certain amount of anticipatory outlay on the part of the mothers which may create a difficulty in cases where their credit, for some reason or other, is not good.

I will not labour this point, because it can be partly met by the assistance of which I have spoken. But very often this money could be better expended before than after the birth of the child. It could then be spent to greater advantage to the mother, and with decidedly more benefit to the child. If we were in touch with those organizations of unpaid persons who, for the love of their fellow creatures, undertake to lend their invaluable aid in this mariner, we might hope to see that made a far more important feature than we can now expect in the case of those who live from hand to mouth, or who are unaccustomed to make a wise use of their means. By-and-by, when experience has cast some light upon the operation of the Bill, when some of the obstacles common in the old world have been removed, we may find that new difficulties have to be encountered before this allowance fulfils its purpose.

But a still stronger support to this scheme, and a far higher guarantee, both of efficiency and economy, will be supplied when this forms part, and only one part, of the necessary -larger scheme of a comprehensive measure of social reconstruction under modern conditions. Obviously we are only at the beginning of a period in which, in a more or less experimental form, endeavour after endeavour will be made to secure to the working man, his wife and family, a greater sense of stability and assurance against the hazards of illness . and unemployment. Until that has been done no nation in the future will be considered to have properly found its feet. Not until the masses realize their close union with the whole of their fellow citizens, not until they co-operate with their endeavours to assist them, and feel themselves supported by the entire community, will the section–for whom these schemes are more particularly provided - the working classes - become strong enough and experienced enough, standing together to take their control into their own hands. Then, and then only, shall we get an efficient scheme, and appreciation of the principle of self help which underlies it. To that we all look forward.

We begin with the preservation of child life, and the preservation of the mother during the trials to which child-bearing exposes her. But after all we have selected only one trial, and one method of granting assistance, when, as a matter of fact, these should take their place in a far more comprehensive and inter-related scheme than that with which we are now confronted. The several reconstruction schemes should render great assistance to one another. Though their applications on the surface might seem diverse, they would be at one if promoted by the same principle. That principle is the securing of social health and stability, by means of co-operation of a kindly and generous character, not simply on the part of the representatives of the people in Parliament towards their constituents, but on the part of the people themselves when they reach a higher platform. Then they will take these matters voluntarily into their own hands, with a full capacity to deal with them on the spot. In the meantime they may gain by assistance and advice, but they will gain more by taking charge themselves of the complete scheme. This will provide them against emergencies, such as industrial disturbances, illness, incapacity, maternity, and the rearing of the child, not only just at the period of birth, but until it is afforded the opportunity of becoming completely furnished with the requisites of a good citizen, no matter to what class of the community it may belong.

The fact that these schemes would be largely contributory is, when they are consistently applied, an advantage rather than a hindrance. It is in connexion with the contributory aspect that the old public maxim “ no taxation without representation “ applies. When those’ who are to share the benefits it will offer take their stand on the contributory system, they must have a large voice in controlling that system and administering it. It. will pass into the hands of those immediately affected, who will then be well equipped for facing these various emergencies, which, by different forms of social union, by co-operation and mutual action, we are seeking to provide against. The State is leading the way, but it can lead only a part of the way. Under the present proposal, the community, through the State, is to contribute the whole allowance as a birthday gift. But, under Mr. Lloyd - George’s great scheme, as well as under the German, Austrian, Italian, and some other schemes, we find the contributory principle being gradually introduced. Undoubtedly in the future these will be given a far wider scope, with far greater varieties of application, than the development of those countries has hitherto permitted.

However faulty this measure, however obvious and serious its omissions and numerous the risks that it must run, I look upon it, after all, as a social endeavour in the right direction. I wish it had been conditioned and shaped in another way, and especially that it had other associations in support to make it more efficient. But, with all these conditions, recognising its disabilities and dangers, it marks, after all, another forward step towards social union, and, if I may say so, social re-formation - for, in that plain sense of the term, rather than in the “ reformation,” which customarily carries a slightly different meaning - is found the1 great practical hope for future schemes of this kind. If they are merely to be planned in Parliaments, supported by State moneys, and carried out by State officials, they will all fall very far short of their aim. Not until they become part of the natural _ every-day healthy activity of the community - every part of the community bearing its share of the burden, and every part linked with the other - shall we get the full value of this or any other scheme of social assistance and cooperation

Mr Fenton:

– The incidence of taxation will have to be altered before that can be brought about.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Honorable members always assert that something must be done before another thing can be brought about. The honorable member for Maribyrnong needs only to be re- minded that we are confessedly living in an imperfect world, and proceeding by imperfect methods. We have to take opportunities as they come, and not necessarily to follow the strict logical order of their acceptance.

Mr Fenton:

– That is what we are doing in this case.

Mr DEAKIN:

– No. I have taken the objection that we are not following the strict logical order; but yet that, having regard to its merits and value, I am unable to vote against the Bill.

In those circumstances, I trust that this measure, so far from indicating to us a dead-end, so far from laying down a principle for future application in connexion with any of its operations, will be recognised for what it is. Excellent as it may be in the core, it is but a stop-gap measure - a measure for the moment - to carry us on until we are prepared to cope with the whole problem more thoroughly. This one will work under numerous difficulties, and, in many particulars, disappoint many who have supported it. But it is, at all event’s, a beginning in the fight direction. I hope that we shall have men and women courageous enough to correct its faults and misapplications. We ought to calculate on the generous assistance of the public, if they are invited to give it, in making this crude plan a greater success than it can be if left only in official hands. I trust, as illustrating to the community, as a whole, our sense of the unity of the nation, and our common obligations to each other, as well as to the future, that, in passing this Bill, we have taken a step that we shall not need to retrace so far as it relates to the necessitous mothers and children of the community, but that we shall rather buttress, support, and complete it, by means of various additions that are necessary to any scheme of complete social establishment.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

– I have not hitherto discussed the merits of the Bill ; and now, at its last stage, I desire only to repeat the opinion I have already expressed, that it is a measure not contemplated as coming within the scope of the Federal Parliament, and that it is beyond our powers. The Constitution is our guide. It is the basis of all our powers. However beneficent, reasonable, or desirable a measure may be, if it is not within our powers, we must forego dealing with it until we have, by the means provided, by the Constitution, .obtained the power to pass it. Section 83 of the Constitution provides that -

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law - and section 81 provides that -

All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth, in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

That is to say, they must be appropriated for ‘ ‘ the purposes of the Commonwealth.” I submit that the maternity allowance for which this Bill provides is not a purpose of the Commonwealth, and that it is an “ ungranted “ power. If that be so - if my judgment be right - then the Bill is ultra vires. If we can pass such a Bill as this, we must be able to do anything in the way of expending money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund without any limitations. This power was never given to us by the States. Twist and turn the paragraphs of section 51 of the . Constitution as you may, you will find nothing on which you can hang an immense expenditure like this. The power to make this expenditure was never given to us, and, therefore, still belongs to the States in the way that all other kindred subjects, such as hospitals, charitable institutions of all sorts, education, and other matters of that character, were retained by the States. It seems to me that, if we can do this, we can expend large sums of money on building schools and universities. It is not a question whether the proposal is beneficent, necessary, or desirable. The whole issue is : Is it within our powers? Has the power been granted to us? I think it has not been.

I should like to refer to another matter, namely, to what was said by the Prime Minister on the second reading. He said-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honororable member would be out of order in making the quotation.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Fisher:

– No; the right honorable member is misquoting. The quotation is that” age and want are an ill-matched pair.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– That is another quotation. If any one receives benefits supplied by all, and which all do not share, even though all have a right to share in them, that is State aid. Everybody pays, but all do not receive the benefit. I have made these few observations to show that when one comes to look into the statement of the Prime Minister that “ there is not the slightest stigma of charity attached to this allowance,” it becomes clear that there is no real difference between this particular allowance and any other allowance or assistance received from any Stateaided institution in this country. It would be difficult to prove otherwise.

As far as the humanitarian aspect of the question is concerned, I do not suppose that there is any one in this

House who would not be glad to assist in providing from the public funds, or from his own funds as far as he could afford help to any person who is in want 01 distress, or who was in need of assistance of any kind. But, in my opinion, this Bill tries to do too much, because it provides that those who are not in want, and who have no need, and who ought not to receive help from the State, shall be entitled to receive it. However, I have said all that I desire to say upon the subject. I believe that the Bill is beyond our powers - that we are invading rights which were not handed over to us under the Constitution. Therefore, I am convinced that if the matter is tested, what I have indicated will be the result. If, on the other hand, the measure be within the powers of this Parliament, there is hardly anything in the way of expenditure that any one can imagine that is not also within our powers.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am inclined to think that I shall be named before I have gone very much further. It seems to me to be quite in the order of things now proceeding that I should be named. Sir, I decline to proceed in the circumstances.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3643

NAVIGATION BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from nth September, vide page 3108):

Clause 1 -

This Act may be cited as the Navigation Act 1911, and shall commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– Early this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition expressed a hope that we should be able at least to take up certain portions of the Navigation Bill. He pointed out that it is an extraordinarily long measure. I candidly admit that, owing to the length of the measure, and to the fact that so many varied interests are covered by it, beginning the proceedings of the Committee stage seems like starting upon a long race without knowing when one is to finish. I move -

That after the word “ proclamation “, the following words be added : - “ after the King’s assent thereto has been proclaimed in the Commonwealth.”

It was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition on the second reading of the Bill that this was a very desirable amendment to make. If it be made it will meet a suggestion referred to in the correspondence with the Board of Trade. They have said that some such qualification of this clause is desirable in order to avoid any doubt as to the validity of the measure. The Imperial authorities contend that the Commonwealth Parliament has not the right, under the Constitution, to legislate in the way proposed, and that our power to do so is derived only from sections 735 and 736 of the Merchant Shipping Act. I do not know whether the Attorney-General admits that contention for a moment, but it is doubtful whether we should refuse to make the amendment merely in order to test the question. As it deals with a purely legal matter, the amendment will be discussed, if necessary, by the Attorney-General.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- I think, on the whole, that the Minister is right in seeking to put in this amendment. This matter has been the subject of a great deal of correspondence with the Imperial Government, and, I think, of a memorandum by the Attorney-General’s Department.

Mr Tudor:

– By the Customs Department.

Mr GLYNN:

– I think that Mr. Garran also submitted a memorandum, and, as a matter of fact, gave an opinion which was the basis of the correspondence with the Board of Trade. The point was as to whether we should be impliedly restricting our opinion of our power - because we cannot restrict our power - by putting in these words; whether it would involve a recognition of a statement of the advisers of the Board of Trade. As we have independent powers under the Constitution, I see no harm in making the amendment, because if the source of our power be the Merchant Shipping Act, we shall have complied with sections 735 and 736 of that Act.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– I concur that this is a very desirable amendment to make; but has the AttorneyGeneral considered whether these words go far enough to indicate that .the Bill is to be reserved for the Royal assent? He will remember that, in my second-reading speech, I quoted part of the. Merchant Shipping Act relating to the coasting trade. That Act gives self-governing dominions power over the coasting trade in certain cases to be dealt with in legislation which, on the face thereof, appears to be reserved for the Royal assent. I should like ‘to know whether the Attorney-General means these words to indicate that the Bill is to be reserved for the Royal assent, because, so far, there is nothing to show that it is to be so reserved. Probably, to comply strictly with the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act, there ought to be a clause to that effect.

Mr Glynn:

– The Lighthouses Bill may be invalid, because we did not do that.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I am not quite sure on the point, but I think that my suggestion is worth taking a note of.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– We do not admit that, under the Constitution, such a provision as is proposed is absolutely necessary. There has been a lengthy correspondence with the Board of m Trade, and we are animated b.y a very hearty desire to meet them in every possible way. We desire, too, that there should be not only conformity in shipping legislation, but a recognition of our wish to promote conformity, and this clause has been inserted to show clearly that our intent is not at all to ignore, or in any way to invite conflict, but rather to preclude it. I think that the clause is sufficient to satisfy the Board of Trade, andalso the terms of sections 735 and 736 of the Merchant Shipping Act. I think that the terms of the amendment will sufficiently indicate that the Bill cannot take effect until after the King’s assent has been proclaimed. If it cannot take effect until then, clearly the King’s assent must have been obtained, and as soon as it is obtained we should, of course, know of it. And that being so, I think that it goes beyond what the Merchant Shipping Act requires, if that Act imposes any limitations upon the powers of the Constitution in this direction. I therefore think that the amendment goes far enough.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 -

This Act shall not apply to ships belonging to the King’s Navy, or the Navy of the Commonwealth, or of any British Possession, or to the Navy of any foreign Government.

This Bill, since its first introduction, has gone through an evolution almost historical, and very suggestive in its nature. We see clearly written in these pages before us how the first relatively crude conception laid on the table has evolved, until we have the comparatively finished project that is now before us.

It has been said by honorable members opposite that the Government have listened to suggestions, and have very extensively embodied in the Bill proposed amendments. That is perfectly true, and no greater compliment could be paid to the Government than that fact. That being the position, we have to consider the scope and intention of the Bill in its relation to the proposed amendment. The intention of the Bill is to promote uniformity of law, and, therefore, we should certainly hesitate before we take any class of ships out of its operation, since that would interfere with the very purpose for which the Bill is introduced. We want uniformity; but the suggestion is that we should legislate in such a way as not to secure it.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.4.5 p.m.

Mr HUGHES:

– Any attempt to limit the scope of the measure is opposed to the very purpose for which it is introduced. Our endeavour is to secure uniformity. That can be “the only excuse for the Commonwealth interfering in this matter at all. In support of the view that it is desirable net only to have uniform legislation throughout Australia with regard to navigation and shipping, but uniform legislation throughout the Empire, I may point out that, in regard to copyright, patent law, and trade marks, as far as possible we repeat the English Statutes. In the Copyright Bill we have adopted the English Statute without alteration. The advantage of that practice is so obvious that it requires no argument. A man throughout the Empire knows exactly where he is. There is not one law here and another law in England. If uniformity be desirable in regard to copyright, patents, and other matters of that sort, how much more, desirable is it in the case of a law dealing with the most important industry of the Empire, upon which indeed the Empire absolutely depends? It is proposed so to limit the scope of the Commonwealth measure that there will be six State Acts operative in regard to Intrastate shipping, another for Inter-State shipping, and an absolute exemption in regard to State-owned ships. If that were done, we should have four distinct classes of shipping - foreign shipping, to which the

Bill will necessarily apply only in part; Commonwealth shipping, to which it will apply wholly; Intra-State shipping, to which it will apply, subject to the Constitution ; and State-owned shipping, to which it will not apply at all. If that is -the way in which it is proposed to secure a uniform law, we might well despair at the very outset of ever attaining it.

– No doubt So far as public, bodies think that this Bill gives the right, of regulating the conditions- of em- ployment on a vessel, I am afraid that they will find that it is not so. It was not the navigation power, but the commerce power, under which we passed the Seamen’s Compensation Bill.

Mr Roberts:

– Do you mind quoting the letter to which you referred just now ?

Mr GLYNN:

– It is marked on the top “ private and confidential.”

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Definitions).

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I move -

That the clause be postponed.

Mr Groom:

– Till when?

Mr TUDOR:

– Until the remaining provisions of the Bill have been dealt with. I feel sure that the honorable member for Kooyong, who has had a greater experience of this measure than has any other honorable member, will agree with me that after we have considered its remaining clauses, we shall have a better grasp of the various points which are contained in it than we shall have if we consider the definitions clause now.

Motion agreed to; clause postponed.

Clause 6 -

This Act shall be administered by the Minister for Trade and Customs, and the Department of Trade and Customs shall be the Department to carry it into effect.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- In South Australia, it was enacted by a Bill which was passed in . 1910 that if the Minister found the work connected with the administration of the navigation law too much for him, a proclamation could be issued under which his responsibility could be shifted to another Minister. I think that a similar provision ought to obtain here. We all know the immense amount of work which the Minister of Trade and. Customs has to perform, and I cam well understand that he may not have the time at his disposal to discharge the many duties which this clause will impose upon him.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

.- “ In Queensland, it is customary to insert in measures of this description a provision something like the following -

This Act shall be administered by the Minister for Trade and Customs, or such other Minister as may be intrusted with its administration.

This gives it a certain amount of elasticity, which I think is desirable. The Public Service Department was formerly under the control of the Minister of Home Affairs, but, as that Minister always manages everything himself, instead of through secretaries, the work became too heavy for him, and the Department in question was transferred to the Prime Minister’s Department..

Mr Tudor:

– The administration of the Trade Marks Act has been transferred from the Department of Trade and Customs to that of the Attorney- General.

Mr GROOM:

– In drafting Bills of this character, it is desirable to allow a certain amount of elasticity.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– This happens to be one of the few clauses in the Bill which is identical with that contained in the measure of 1904. While there may be other Acts which may, with advantage, be administered by other Departments, I think that the question of navigation naturally falls under the Department of Trade and Customs. Quarantine, perhaps, might more easily be transferred to another Minister.

Mr Glynn:

– If a similar provision were inserted to that which obtains in South Australia.,- the Minister could delegate- his authority.

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes, but the Department of Trade and: Customs is that under which the administration of this Bill most naturally falls. I will, however, look into what the honorable member has said.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– I quite agree with the Minister of Trade and Customs that the Department over which he presides is more naturally identified with shipping than is any other Department. According to the Acts Interpretation Act, wherever “ the Minister “ is referred to it means the Minister administering any enactment in respect of which the expression is used. But inasmuch as in’ this clause the Minister of Trade and Customs is specially mentioned, the administration of this measure will be confined to his Department. At the same time, there would be no harm in having an enabling Act such as has been suggested.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8-

The provisions of this part of this Act relating to ships, and to their owners, masters, and crews, shall, unless the subject-matter requires a different application, apply only to British ships, and to their owners, masters, and crews.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

– I understand that notice has been given of the insertion of a new clause, to be known as 8 (a). When the second reading of the Bill was under consideration, a good deal was said upon the question of reciprocity - of allowing, where the conditions were equal, those prescribed by the Imperial Act to hold good, instead of bringing a British vessel under die operation of our law. I understand that the Minister has taken advantage of that criticism, and that he intends to insert the necessary amendment.

Mr Tudor:

– Strange to say, the amendment was drafted prior to that criticism.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 -

A General Register of seamen shall be kept at the places and in the manner prescribed.

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not know why it was omitted by another place. We are rearranging provisions, and making various amendments which, I think, will have the effect of giving us a more complete measure than we should have if the Bill were passed as originally introduced. I shall look into the suggestion by the honorable member, and can assure him that I appreciate the difficulty which attendance at the mercantile marine office would involve in the case of a vessel carrying a large crew. I realize that it would be better to make the practice as easy as possible, but I would point out that the clause with which we are now dealing does not affect the matter.

Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh

– I think that the clause is satisfactory as it stands. If there has grown up a practice under which an officer of the mercantile marine office goes on board ship for the purpose of signing on a crew, 1 can only say that it is a practice that ought to be discontinued. It does not obtain so far as I am aware in any port in the United Kingdom. There, the master of a vessel has to go to the shipping office to sign on men.

Mr Groom:

– But would the honorable member apply that to men in the coastal trade whose agreement had expired, and who desired to sign on for a further period ?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– Certainly. The mercantile marine office is the place at which the work should be done. The British authorities were careful to see that everything of this kind should be done at the shipping office rather than on board ship, for the reason that the articles have to be read over so that the man who proposes to sign them shall understand them, and may be perfectly independent. There is a possibility of some of the men on ship-board having taken a drop of liquor, and they cannot have there that independence which they would have at a shipping office. That which the honorable member for Kooyong has referred to as being the practice in Australia, is certainly not the practice in Great Britain. All the reform that poor Jack has ever got has come from the Board of Trade insisting that articles and everything of that character shall be signed at the shipping office. I take the clause to mean what it says. A shipping office would not be established, for instance, at Heidelberg or Ballarat. There would be one at

Port Melbourne, another at Port Adelaide, another at Fremantle, and others at other places where there is a demand for sailors. In some of the smaller ports of Australia there may be a necessity to ship and discharge men. If so, the power is delegated to those smaller ports for that purpose. In a matter of this kind, we are practically re-enacting the navigation laws of the States.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- The matter is not quite as simple as the honorable member for Hindmarsh makes out, because, in a port like Sydney, ships may be, geographically, a considerable distance from each other. The suggestion of the honorable member for Kooyong is worth looking into, as all ports are not the same. In Melbourne, it would be very simple.

Mr Archibald:

– How do they manage it in London? I suppose it is as big as Sydney ?

Mr KELLY:

– The configuration of Sydney as a port is exceptional, and it might take half-a-day to get from one place to another.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (Certificated officers/.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I move -

That the following new sub-clause be added : - (2) Every British ship (other than those registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade), when going to sea from any place in Australia, shall be provided with a duly certificated master and such duly certificated’ officers as are, by the law of that part of the British Dominions in which the ship is registered, prescribed as being necessary for her when going to sea from any place in that part of the British Dominions.

Every British foreign-going, ship and every British home trade passenger ship, when going to sea from any place in the United Kingdom shall be provided with officers duly certificated according to the following scale -

Then the scale is set out. Furthermore, section 264 provides that, if the Legislature of any British Poss’ession, by any law, apply to any British ship any of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, such law shall have effect throughout the British Dominions.. The Minister says that it is part of the law of the United Kingdom, that a vessel leaving that country shall have a proper complement of certificated officers, or be liable to a penalty. He also says that in Australia we must require that a vessel’ does not leave in such a condition that, if she left England, she would be liable to a penalty. If New Zealand, for instance, lays down a scale of certificated officers, it is not. desired that a vessel shall leave our shores without the same safeguards that New Zealand would require. Therefore, so far as it is possible by our legislation1, it is proposed to provide that all British ships not registered in Australia, when they leave Australia, shall comply with the law of their own. country. I must confess that, on the face of it, that seems to be fair. Because, after all, we require certificated officers to be carried for the safety of the passengers and the goods put on board the ships. When vessels leave Australian waters, they carry Australian goods and Australian citizens. We want to safeguard the lives of our people and the safety of our commerce.. We do not want to send goods and passengers to sea on vessels that have not a proper complement of officers. The Minister’s provision is intended to safeguard shipping in that respect. It is not a hardship to any vessel to say, “ We want you, when you come to our waters, to comply with the standards laid down in your own country.” I cannot say that I have looked into the legal aspect of the case carefully; but, in equity, it seems fair and reasonable to insert this provision, and I see no objection to it.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– This is the first of a series of clauses which have a very important bearing. The clause raises, for the first time, the question of manning. The manning scale is set forth in a schedule. I have not had an opportunity of considering the manning scale in its present form, and I want to know whether any alteration has been made from the scale originally prescribed ? Personally, I do not hesitate to say that I am in favour of a manning scale, because I agree with the Royal Commission which made an important recommendation on this subject. A ship cannot be said to be seaworthy unless she is manned by a competent crew. The new feature of the Bill in this relation is that, for the first time, we prescribe what the minimum scale shall1 be. It is quite true that the scale is open to variation at the instance of the Minister, on the recommendation of experts who constitute an Advisory Board. But I should like to have an assurance from the Minister as to any alterations, if any, and the nature of them. I had to go carefully info the matter some time ago, and came to the conclusion that the scale originally provided was a reasonable one.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I do not think that it would be fair to ask honorable members, to pass this clause until they have dealt with the schedule in relation to’ manning. I therefore move -

That the clause be postponed.

Motion agreed to ; clause postponed.

Clause 12 -

The holder of a second-mate’s foreign- going certificate may ship as first mate of a limited coast-trade ship, or as mate of a river and bay ship.
The holder of a limited coast-trade certificate may ship in the corresponding grade in a river and bay ship.
The holder of a second class engineer’s certificate, or of a coast engineer’s certificate, shall be deemed to be duly certificated for service in such ships and for such voyages and in such capacities as are prescribed :

– There is a manning scale for river and bay ships.

Mr HOWE:
Dalley

.”- There will be’ no difficulty in the Sydney ferry steamers complying with the provision requiring river and bay ships to carry a master and mate. The honorable member for Parramatta made a reference to the matter on the second reading of the Bill. There is no definition of what a mate of a river and bay ship shall be. The Bill does not say whether he is to a first, second, or third mate, and the practice at present followed on the ferry steamers can be continued. At present these steamers have an engineer, a master in charge on deck, and an assistant who takes charge when the master is otherwise occupied. Some of these vessels now run to over 50 horse-power.

Mr Tudor:

– Some are vessels up to 100 horse-power.

Mr HOWE:

– The practice is to have an assistant on these vessels who is practically a mate, though his duties are not defined, and he has no status as a mate. If the Bill is passed as it stands, all that the shipping companies owning these ferry Steamers will do will be to continue these men in the duties which they have hitherto been performing, but they will call them “mates,” and may pay them at a little higher rate. The provisions of the Bill will not make necessary the appointment of an additional officer.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– I wish it tobe made perfectly clear in regard to river and bay ships, that while they may be exempted from some provisions of the Bill, they will not be exempt from all. The operation of the proposed new clause must not be taken to exempt them entirely. Owing to some confusion in the adjustment of the proposed clauses two conflicting proposals have been printed together. It is proposed to rely, so far as the general scope of the limitation of the Act imposed by the Constitution is concerned, on paragraph 2 of the new clause printedas 1 a. We do not propose to take river and bay ships out of the Bill altogether. If we did the discussion about river and bay ships would be quite unnecessary. What the honorable member for Dalley said will apply. That control over river and bay ships, which is proper and necessary, can and will be taken, but beyond that there is no necessity to go.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.

Clause 15-

Subject to the condition in the next subsection mentioned, a certificate in the form prescribed shall be delivered to everj’ applicant who passes the prescribed examination satisfactorily, and gives satisfactory evidence that he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the holder of the certificate, and of his sobriety, experience, ability, physical fitness, and general good conduct.
The Minister may, at any time before the delivery of a certificate -
1. require a re-examination of the applicant by the examiners who made the examination or by any other examiners; and
2. order a further inquiry into the applicant’s testimonials and character ; and if not satisfied with the result may order that a certificate shall not be delivered to theapplicant.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to what appears to me to be superfluous words. According to clause . 14 -

No person shall be admitted to examination for a certificate unless he is a British subject, and speaks the English language intelligibly, and possesses the prescribed qualifications.

That is to say, by regulations the necessary qualifications are to be prescribed. This clause begins with the provision that, subject to the conditions in sub-clause 2 thereof, a certificate in the form prescribed shall be delivered to every applicant who passes the prescribed examination satisfactorily ; that is, the prescribed examination referred to in clause 14. Then the clause continues with these superfluous words - and gives satisfactory evidence that he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the holder of the certificate, and of his sobriety, experience, ability, physical fitness and general good conduct.

– I think that the Minister will find that these wordsare superfluous. Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 -

If at any time the holder of any certifi cate appears to be unfit to perform the duties required of him, the Minister may require him to submit himself for medical examination, and, if it then appears that the unfitness exists and is likely to be permanent, may require the delivery of the certificate to him.
The Minister shall thereupon cause an inquiry to be held by a Court of Marine Inquiry into a charge of incompetency against the grantee. . . .

Mr HOWE:
Dalley

.- Does the word “unfitness” in sub-clause 1 mean physical unfitness? Might there not be professional unfitness? Would it notbe well to make an amendment so that the professional ability of a person who holds a certificate may be considered at any time?

Mr Fenton:

– Is not that provided for in clause 15?

Mr HOWE:

– Even that deals with the question of physical fitness. The words “medical examination” in clause 17 practically refer to physical fitness. I think that it should embrace something more than physical fitness.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– This provision refers principally to the failure of sight. In most of our ports to-day the pilots have to be tested periodically in regard to their eyesight, because cases have occurred where vessels have been wrecked simply on account of the unconscious failure of the sight of the persons who were in charge. In the Railway Department, too, the eyesight of engine-drivers is tested from time to time, because a man who is a first-class engine-driver to-day may not be able to pass the eyesight test at his next examination. If at any time it should be considered necessary, the holder of a certificate under the Bill will have to submit himself to an examination. The object of the provision is to make sure that the eyesight of officers is- all right. I do not know of any calling in which it is more important that this test should be applied.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– I have a note here that the words “ may require the delivery of the certificate to him,” at the end of sub-clauseI, originally appeared in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1862, and were repealed by the Amending Act of 1879. I cannot recall now why the words were repealed. I think that the idea was that a mere suspicion was not to be sufficient, but that there should be some conviction before the Minister could demand that the certificate should be handed over. The Minister has said very rightly that the main object of sub-clauseI is the testing of the eyesight. That is not a criminal offence. I think that the words “charge of incompetency,” in subclause 3, are hardly correct words to use.

Mr Hughes:

– Substitute “ allegation “ for “ charge.”

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I move-

That the word” charge” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ question.”

Mr HOWE:
Dalley

.- I have no desire to occupy the time of the Committee, but I confess that the position . which is disclosed by clauses11 and 12 is not at all satisfactory to me. Clause 12 provides -

Certificates of competency (in this Division referred to as certificates) shall be granted in accordance with this Act for each of the following grades of officers -

Then clause 14 sets out -

No person shall be admitted to examination for a certificate unless he is a British subject, and speaks the English language intelligibly, and possess the prescribed qualifications.

Now, what are those qualifications? They are not set out in clause 14, and surely relate to the special qualifications which are specified in clause 12. This is not a question of physical fitness, but of professional fitness.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– Looking through this clause, it is clear that the Minister is informed in some way that a person is unfit to perform his duties. Thereupon, he asks him to return his certificate. Afterwards he causes an inquiry to be held into the matter before a Court of Marine Inquiry. I quite sympathize with the position which has been taken up by the honorable member for Kooyong, who objected to the use of the word “charge.” But, after all, anything which is submitted to a Court of inquiry must be in the nature of a charge. It does not matter very much, however, what it is called. As to the nature of the physical unfitness, that, I take it, is a matter which we are not competent to discuss. There may be a dozen things which may render a man quite unfit to discharge his duties. But the Minister ought not to be asked to say what those causes are.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I trust the honorable member for Kooyong will withdraw his amendment. “ Incompetent “ means unable from any cause whatever to perform the official duty of the person in relation to whom the word is used. The word “ charge “ is used elsewhere in the Bill, and if we substitute another word for it in this clause, we shall be compelled to make numerous other amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 -

No person shall -

engage as an officer unless he is duly certificated ; or

take into employment as an officer any person who is not duly certificated. Penalty : One hundred pounds.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 10.19 P-m-

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 October 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1912/19121001_reps_4_66/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 1 October 1912

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY

Mr GROOM:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr FISHER:Prime Minister · WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr HIGGS:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr HUGHES:Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

EXPLOSIVES

Mr CHARLTON:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:ALP

QUESTION

NAVAL POLICY

Mr MASSY-GREENE:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr FISHER:ALP

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:ALP

QUESTION

SAVINGS BANKS

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:ALP

QUESTION

VEND CASE

Mr CHANTER:RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:ALP

QUESTION

SOCIAL AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr J H CATTS:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr TUDOR:Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr Groom:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr GROOM:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr GLYNN:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Glynn:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr Glynn:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr J H CATTS:

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS

Mr W J JOHNSON:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr KING O’MALLEY:Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr MASSY-GREENE:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr J H CATTS:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Mr RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

Sir JOHN FORREST:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

MR KING O’MALLEY:

NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Mr HIGGS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HIGGS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HIGGS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Groom:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Groom:

Mr HIGGS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HIGGS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr FISHER:Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Higgs:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Higgs:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Mathews:

Mr SPEAKER:

House of Representatives
1 October 1912

Mr GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister · WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr CHANTER:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:
ALP

Mr J H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr CANN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr SAMPSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr ROBERTS:
Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr ATKINSON:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr FRAZER:
Postmaster-General · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr CANN:
for Mr. Jensen

Mr HOWE:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MCDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES