House of Representatives
15 October 1912

4th Parliament · 3rd Session

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

page 4217


Mr. AUSTIN CHAPMAN presented a petition from certain residents in the Federal Capital Territory of Canberra, asking that their representatives might be heard at the bar of the House to ventilate their grievances, and to acquaint honorable members with certain disabilities under which they suffer.

Petition received and read.

Motion (by Mr. Austin Chapman) put -

That the prayer of the petition be granted.

The House divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 29



Question so resolved in the negative.

page 4217


Assent reported.

page 4218


Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– Since the House last met an appalling accident has taken place in a neighbouring State, which, I think, deserves mention in this House, so that we may extend our sympathy to those who have unfortunately suffered, and to those relatives who are bereaved, and at the .same time express the hope that the heroic efforts made by those who have escaped may lead to the rescue of the many men now believed to be alive in the Mount Lyell mine. As a miner myself I think I understand the circumstances as well as any one, and I can only say that, if human skill and endurance can effect a rescue it will be effected. The latest information is that the modern equipment asked for to enable the rescuers to achieve their purpose in the most speedy way possible has arrived, and the mining company hope that good results will follow almost immediately. I hope that their highest expectations may be realized ; and it only remains for me to express again, on behalf of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and, I am sure, every member of the Federal Parliament, under the dire circumstances, our sympathy and best wishes.


– I join with the Prime Minister in an expression of our deep concern at the unfortunate occurrence in the neighbouring State. From a long experience I, like the Prime Minister, know just what this occurrence means. It seems, somehow, as if in spite of all that modern science and ingenuity can contrive, these mysterious happenings still come like a bolt from the blue and leave us all aghast. Out of the ‘gloom of the surroundings we are glad to see these bright gleams of heroism in the efforts which are being made to rescue those who are unfortunate enough to be entombed. It makes us proud of our race to find men from day to day glad to brave all dangers, even to the sacrifice of their own lives, if only they may rescue alive some of those below. I join the Prime Minister in the very earnest hope that those now entombed may all be found alive, and eventually restored to their families - their hearths and homes. In the meantime, we express the deepest sympathy with those who are bereft and those who suffer ; and we can only hope that a kind Providence may assuage their grief and soften the blow which has come so suddenly upon them.

page 4218



Defective Ammunition - Instructional Staff : Increments.


– Is it a fact that 250,000 rounds of rifle ammunition have been returned to store as defective; and, if so, will the Minister representing the Minister of Defence tell us what steps will be taken to remedy this state of affairs?

Minister (without portfolio) · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I shall be able to provide the honorable member to-morrow with exact information on the matter.

LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Will the Minister representing the Minister of Defence inform the House whether it has been decided to increase the pay of the Instructional Training Staff in Sydney; and, if so, when the increase will date from?


– I suppose the honorable member means the noncommissioned officers and warrant officers of the Administrative and Instructional Staff?

LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Yes.


– There is a sum on the Estimates for an increase in their pay, and I presume the increase will date from the 1st July, although it will not be payable until the Estimates are passed.

page 4218




– Can the Minister of Trade and Customs inform the House and the country as to what he intends to do with regard to the moisture in butter question?

Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– As honorable members know, this matter has been under consideration for some time. At present I am kept fully employed by the Navigation Bill, but as soon as that measure is out of the road, I hope to be able to arrive at a decision on the question to which the .honorable member refers.


– As this matter has been under consideration, for a long time, and as the Minister of Trade and Customs has promised to submit it to the Cabinet, I desire to ask that gentleman, as the. Minister who knows all about the subject, whether he is prepared to recommend to the Cabinet an alteration in the standard of moisture, so as to put Australian producers on an equal footing in the London market with the other producers in the world?


– As I have already said, this matter is still under consideration, and when a decision has been arrived at I shall give a reply to the question.

Mr Fuller:

– It has been under consideration for months


– I ask the Minister of Trade and Customs whether he is aware that there is a mechanical contrivance on the market, in one of the States, the purpose of which is to increase the weight of butter by introducing large quantities of moisture? If so, can he do anything to protect the consumers of Australia against such imposition?


– This Parliament has no power to protect the people of Australia in that regard. All we can do is to protect consumers in the case of produce sent away from Australia. Those interested may deal with imported goods when they are landed here, or goods made here, in any way they please, so far as the powers of this Parliament are concerned.


– I ask the Minister of Trade and Customs whether he cannot prohibit the particular machine referred to by the honorable member for Calare used in the blending of butter from being introduced into Australia?


– It would be quite possible to prohibit the introduction of such a machine, but it would not be possible for this Parliament to prohibit the making of such machines in Australia.

page 4219




– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether, in connexion with the Public Service organizations now before the Arbitration Court, the rate of payment agreed on will be made available from the beginning of the financial year, or from the date of the award?


–I should like to see the award before answering that question.

page 4219



Pillar Box Robberies : Inventions - Increases of Salaries - Transferred South Australian Officers


– On Thursday last, when I asked the Postmaster-General a question in regard to the robberies from pillar-boxes in the suburbs of Melbourne, he said that if I had any suggestions to bring forward he would consider them. Since then I have received the following letter : -

Yea, 14th October, 1912.

In the Argus of Saturday I noticed your inquiry with regard to safety pillar boxes. My son, who is only a messenger ic the local Telegraph Office, has invented a contrivance that, if attached to the pillar boxes now in use, will make them safe against such robberies as have recently taken place. The lad is anxious to bring it directly under the notice of the honorable the Minister. I shall be much indebted to you if you ask Mr.- Frazer to grant me an interview, when it suits his convenience, in order that I maV explain the nature of the invention for his information. The boy has been working at a model of the box for some time, in fact, ever since the robberies were first reported.

I am, dear sir,

Yours faithfully,

  1. T. DALEY.

Seeing that the senior officers of the Department cannot produce an invention to meet this difficulty, will the PostmasterGeneral allow this ordinary messenger boy from Yea to have a chance to show horn this invention ?


– My predecessors will bear me out when I say that we in the Post and Telegraph Department are besieged with inventions of all descriptions. If the young fellow to whom the honorable member refers has an invention which he believes will meet the necessities of the Department, and he will forward it to me, I shall see that it is submitted to the Inventions Board, and that a report on it is obtained.


– I wish to ask the Postmaster-General a question without notice. Is the honorable gentleman aware, in the first place, that large increases of salaries for the higher officials in the postal service are to be paid from the beginning of the current financial year, whilst the lower paid staff have been told to go to the Arbitration Court? Some sections have gone to the Arbitration Court, and the Court has now been put off for six weeks. Their case will not be considered probably until the beginning of next year. Does the Postmaster-Genera! propose, in the circumstances, to make any compensation to the lower paid men in his Department ?


– In reply to my honorable friend’s series of questions, I have to say that it is true that some of the officials have been put down on the Estimates for increases of salary, and if Parliament approves, they will be paid the increased salaries as from the 1st July. The General Division Association of the Post and Telegraph Department have at present two cases before the Arbitration Court. One case, that of the postal mechanicians, has been partly heard. In connexion with that case, I gave the employes an .assurance when they were going to the Court that, in 4220 Personal [REPRESENTATIVES.] Explanations the event of undue delay in the hearing of the case, or the giving of the decision upon it, I would see that the award should date hack in order to meet any loss caused by . reason of the delay. Every other case, as it arises, will be dealt with on its merits, but it is my personal view that it is a fair thing to ask Parliament to recognise any undue delay from which officers of the General Division may suffer in securing a decision from the Arbitration Court.


asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Whether he is aware that, in the classification of the Public Service in 1904, a considerable number of South Australian post and telegraph officers were deprived of increments due to them under State law ; also, that a large number of postmasters were also deprived of considerable portions of their remunerations, consisting of allowances, and that these officers have made repeated requests to the Government to have these claims - (1) increments, (2) emoluments, and (3) age of retirement - settled on their merits by an independent arbitrator, but the Government has invited these officers to appeal to the Arbitration Court. Further, that the officers have been legally advised that the Court cannot make an award which would be retrospective beyond the date on which they lodged their plaint, and that the officers are willing to appeal to the Arbitration Court, provided the Court is competent to give a retrospective award ?
  2. Will the Attorney-General inform the House definitely whether the tribunal to which the officers are asked to appeal has the power to give an award on the claims set out above, namely, in respect to increments, emoluments, and age of retirement retrospectively to 1904?

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

  1. I am aware that, in 1904, the State classification was superseded by the classification under the Commonwealth Public Service Act, and that claims and requests of the nature stated have been made on behalf of some of the South Australian officers.
  2. No. The honorable member is referred to the answer given to him by me on the 25th September last.

page 4220



– I wish to make a personal explanation. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, in the issue of last Friday, reporting the proceedings in this House at the time of the adjournment of the grievance motion, reports me as having said -

Look at the exulting publicans opposite.

I do not wish it to be even suggested that I would make a personal reflection upon honorable members. The word I used was “republicans.” I make this explanation because I do not wish to offend the susceptibilities of the honorable member for Capricornia, who, I may say, has nothing of the Boniface about him.

Later -


– I wish to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Wentworth, in making a personal explanation just now, made a reference to me which I think was somewhat uncalled for. The only thing I can say in reply is that the honorable member for Hume once threatened to slap the honorable member’s bottom, and 1 am sorry he did not do it.

page 4220



Australian Natives’ Association - Savings Bank, New South Wales


– I wish to ask the Prime Minister, without notice, if he can inform the House when the Commonwealth Savings Bank is likely to be opened in New South Wales?


– The Savings Bank will be opened as early as convenient, and the general banking business probably about the 1st January.


asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has he noticed a press report setting out that the Port Melbourne Natives’ Association had under consideration the question of placing its accounts with the Commonwealth Bank ; that the meeting was informed by one of its members that the Commonwealth Bank would not acknowledge the drawing ofcheques; and that under those circumstances the Commonwealth Bank would be useless for the purposes of the Association ?
  2. Is it proposed to limit the operations of the Commonwealth Bank as thus indicated ; and, if so, will he reconsider the question of facilitating the financial operations of friendly societies and associations of the character of the Australian Natives’ Association?

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Governor of the Commonwealth Bank proposes, when the ordinary bank is opened, to allow friendly societies to draw cheques on ordinary bank account against moneys to their credit in Savings Bank Branch.

page 4220




asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Are the Government aware that the Government of New South Wales, by granting bonuses or subsidies to steamers trading to Java, have materially injured the South Australian trade. (See Hansard, page 2793, 1912.)?
  2. Is this practice legal and constitutional?
  3. Can the Federal Constitution grant the State of South Australia protection from these unjust practices?
*Land-Resumption.* [15 October, 191 2.] *Navigation Bill.* 4:221 {: #subdebate-9-0-s1 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I am aware that such a, subsidy has been given, and that allegations have been made of consequent injury to South Australian trade; but I have no information as to their accuracy. 1. The facts before me do not justify me in advising that the subsidy in question is a breach of the Constitution. 2. If the Constitution is being violated, the State of South Australia has access to the Courts to enforce her rights. {: .page-start } page 4221 {:#debate-10} ### PORT AUGUSTA TO KALGOORLIE {: .page-start } page 4221 {:#debate-11} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-11-0} #### RAILWAY Supply of Steel Rails - Contracts for Karri Sleepers {: #subdebate-11-0-s0 .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister of Home Affairs, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. If he is in a position to inform the House as to the supply of rails for the Trans-Australian Railway ? 1. When he expects rails to be delivered at Kalgoorlie and at Port Augusta respectively? 2. Is not the progress of the work at Kalgoorlie being prevented on account of neither rails nor sleepers being available? 3. When does he expect the construction work at Kalgoorlie to be commenced? 4. How many officers and men are already at work at Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie respectively ? {: #subdebate-11-0-s1 .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr KING O'MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Arrangements have been made for the supply of a considerable quantity of rails. 1. The first supply will be - Kalgoorlie,about January next ; Port Augusta, about December next. 2. No ; a sufficient quantity of both sleepers and rails for preliminary work has been made available. 3. Instructions have been issued for the work at the depot at Kalgoorlieto be proceeded with at once. 4. Port Augusta - about 150. The work at Kalgoorlie is only just being started, and the employment of very few men has, as yet, been necessary. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST: asked the Minister of Home Affairs, *upon police -* >If he will lay on the table of the House copies of the contracts entered into with the Western Australian Government for the supply of karri sleepers for the Trans-Australian railway? {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr KING O'MALLEY: -- Yes, when the deed of contract is signed. {: .page-start } page 4221 {:#debate-12} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-12-0} #### LAND RESUMPTION {: #subdebate-12-0-s0 .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: asked the Minister of Home Affairs, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it the intention of the Government to request the Government of South Australia to withdraw the six months' notice of resumption which they served on **Mr. Chapman,** of Woodville, in reference to lands at Port Adelaide, such notice being served at the request of the Home Affairs Department? 1. If not, why not? {: #subdebate-12-0-s1 .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr KING O'MALLEY:
ALP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is - 1 and 2. No. The lease being of land the property of the Commonwealth, and granted as from the State Government, is irregular. It is considered desirable that it should be terminated, and the grazing rights again offered to public competition. **Mr. Chapman** will probably not be disturbed in- his occupation until end of June next. {: .page-start } page 4221 {:#debate-13} ### NAVIGATION BILL *In Committee* (Consideration resumed from nth October, *vide* page 4216). Clause 287 - (1.) No foreign ship shall engage in the coasting trade unless she is licensed so to do. Penalty (on master, owner, or agent) : Five hundred pounds. (2.) Licences to ships to engage in the coasting trade shall be for such period not exceeding three years as is prescribed, and may be granted as prescribed. (3.) Every licence shall be issued subject to compliance on the part of the ship, her master, owners, and agents, with the following conditions so long as the ship is engaged in the coasting trade : - >That the seamen employed on the ship shall be paid wages in accordance with this Part of this Act ; and > >That the ship shall be provided with the same number of officers and seamen, and with the same accommodation for them, as would be required if she were a British ship registered in Australia; and > >That no subsidy or bonus shall be payable, and no agreement or arrangement shall be entered into or exist under which any subsidy or bonus will be payable, in respect of the ship to her owners, other than by the Government of the Commonwealth or a State : Provided that any payment for services *bona fide* rendered inthe carriage of mails, passengers, or goods, at rates based solely on the value of those services, shall not be taken to be a subsidy or bonus within the meaning of this paragraph. (4.) Any breach of any of the above conditions shall be a contravention of this Act. (5.) The Governor-General may cancel any licence if he is satisfied that any breach of any of the above conditions has been committed. (6.) No licence shall be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the master, owner, or agent of the ship to show cause against the cancellation. {: #debate-13-s0 .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert .- It will be remembered that at the last moment when this Bill was previously under consideration a division was taken upon an amendment of clause 286, moved by the right honorable member for Swan. I had intended to move an amendment immediately the amendment of the honorable member for Swan had been disposed of, but, owing to the confusion which existed 4222 *Navigation* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Bill* in the Chamber, and to the fact that I was intercepted in attempting to cross from one side of it to the other, I did not hear you, sir, put the question, " That the clause as amended be agreed to." {: #debate-13-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The question before the Chair is, " That clause 287 stand as printed." {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr BAMFORD: -- I am merely making an explanation. I had no opportunity on Friday last of hearing you, sir, put the question, " That clause 286, as amended, be agreed to." I think I have a right to be heard by way of explanation. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- I rise to a point of order. I desire to know whether the honorable member for Herbert is in order in discussing a clause which has already been passed ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member for Herbert is not in order. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr BAMFORD: -- I am not, discussing a clause which has been agreed to. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- The honorable member is doing so. He is discussing clause 286. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr BAMFORD: -- I am endeavouring to explain the reason why I did not discuss it. I ask the Minister to consent to that clause being recommitted, so as to afford me an opportunity of speaking upon it. {: #debate-13-s2 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I would point out to the honorable member that, owing to the way in which the clause was amended, if he had moved and carried his amendment, it would have had exactly the opposite effect to that which he intended. When we come to clause 5A, which will practically take the place of clause 286, with the exception of the proviso, he will have ample opportunity of moving the amendment whichbe desired to submit. I now move - >That all the words after "No," line 1, be left out, with a view to insert, in lieu thereof, the following words : " ship shall engage in the coasting trade unless licensed to do so. > >Penalty (on master, owner, or agent) : Five hundred pounds. (2.) Licences to ships to engage in the coast ing trade shall be for such period, not exceeding three years as is prescribed, and may be granted as prescribed. (3.) Every licence shall be issued subject to compliance on the part of the ship, her master, owner, and agent, during such time as she is engaged in the coasting trade, with the following conditions : - > >That the seamen employed on the ship shall be paid wages in accordance with this Part of this Act; and > >That, in the case of a foreign ships, she shall be provided with the same number of officers and seamen, and with the same accommodation for them, as would be required if she were a British ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting: trade. (4.) Any breach of the above conditions shall be a contravention of this Act. (5.) Before granting any licence, the Ministermay require security to be given to his satisfaction by the master, owner, or agent for compliance with the conditions of the licence and the requirements of this Part of this Act. (6.) In addition to, or in lieu of, any penalty otherwise provided, the Governor-General may cancel any licence if he is satisfied that a breach of any of the above conditions has been committed. (7.) No licence shall be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the master, owner, or agent of the ship to show cause against cancellation." {: #debate-13-s3 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- The Minister has not told us what will be the effect of the amendment. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- We are merely re-casting the clause. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The chief point raised by the clause relates to the application of conditions to the coastal trade. That matter has already been well discussed. {: #debate-13-s4 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Tradeand Customs · Yarra · ALP -- The reasons for the proposed amendments in this clause were set out by the Attorney-General in the speech which he delivered when dealing with the question of licences, during the debate on this part of the Bill generally. Whereas the clause, in the form in which it was drafted, provided that only foreign ships should be required to take out a licence, we seek to provide in its amended form that all ships - British, -foreign, and Australian registered - shall take out a licence. That circumstance will entail no new liability on British and Australian ships. The necessity to pay Australian rates of wages will' be dealt with in clause 289, and the obligation to provide accommodation on the prescribed scale has already been dealt with in clauses 135 and 136. The duty of carrying officers in accordance with the prescribed scale was dealt with in clauses 11 and 41. Under the clause, as it is proposed to amend1 it, the Minister may require security that the conditions of the licence and of Part VI. of the Bill will be complied with. The provision follows exactly the lines of a section in the Customs Act, and will insure, especially in the case of tramp steamers which have no owners, and no responsible-. representatives, in Australia, the recovery -of any penalties to which they may be liable by reason of a contravention of <the coastal trade provisions of the Bill. The clause, in its amended form, will place -all ships upon an equality, and will compel them to take out a licence if they engage in the coastal trade. {: #debate-13-s5 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs .- In its original form, I take it, the clause required only foreign ships to take out (licences ? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- And the intention of the ^amendment is to require all ships engaged in the coastal trade to take out a licence, and to give security that the provisions of Part VI. of the Bill will be complied with? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That is so. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I take it that the provision will include even the vessels which Are engaged in the limited coastal trade? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- There will be no difficulty in regard to them. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- They will have to take out licences upon the same conditions as are Applicable to oversea vessels. I would point out to the Minister that in the case of Australianowned vessels we have our own people to deal with, and I cannot see any reason why we should impose unnecessary -restrictions and formalities upon them, see- >Ting that, for the purposes of execution against them, all their assets are in Australia. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The United States COInpels every vessel to take out a licence. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The Minister is taking unto himself a new power, namely, the power of prohibiting vessels from engaging in the coastal trade, because, impliedly, he can revoke their licences if they fail to fulfil any of the conditions imposed in connexion with that trade. In the case of oversea vessels, he is justified in taking to himself that power, because they necessarily pass out of our jurisdiction, but I ask the Minister to seriously consider whether there is any necessity for this requirement in regard to locally-owned vessels. The local vessels, for instance, have to fulfil the wages conditions imposed by awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, or by agreements filed with the Court, and the Minister is therefore secured to that extent. I fail to see why we should require Ahem to take out a licence. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- It should be a mere formality, so far as our own coasting-trade vessels are concerned. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I think it becomes something more, because failure to comply with the formality would give the Minister power to refuse a licence and to lay up a boat. I should like the Minister to give us some reason for this departure from the original Bill, and to explain why it is desirable to apply this provision to limitedtrade and Inter-State trading boats? I can understand its application to foreign ships, because a ship owned by a foreign company, having no assets here, might engage in the Inter-State trade, set the Minister at defiance, and leave our jurisdiction, so that the Minister could not deal with it until it returned again. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- It is far better to place them all on the one footing. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- But, before granting any licence, the Minister may require security to be given, to his satisfaction, for compliance with the conditions of the licence. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The security required in the case of a local company would be entirely different from that required in the case of a ship-owner far removed from us. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- At all events, I should like the Minister te give us some reasons for this proposed alteration of the law. {: #debate-13-s6 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- - The first reason is that it is far better to compel our own people to do precisely what we compel the British and the foreigner to do. As a matter of fact, licences are issued to-day. In every port in Australia, I think, boats are to be seen bearing numbers which indicate that they are licensed for that particular port. I admit that the licence required in this case will' go further, but I do not think that the honorable member for Darling Downs need have any fear that, under this clause, we would compel local shipowners, for example, to deposit a considerable sum of money as a guarantee that they would observe the conditions of the licence. In the case of foreign shipowners, however, we should require some guarantee, because their vessels, after trading here, might leave our jurisdiction. We shall be on sound ground if we compel our own people to do precisely what we compel others to do, and I believe that the clause, as drafted, is infinitely superior to that which it has replaced. I would remind honorable members that we have already exempted from these provisions vessels of less than 50 tons burthen. We do not enforce the manning or accommodation scales in their case. Very early in our consideration of the Bill I proceeded to exempt river and bay boats from these provisions, and if any case of the kind has been overlooked, I intend to recommit the clauses affected with a view of dealing with them in the same way. There will not be the same necessity for local ship-owners to provide security as there will be in the case of vessels not owned here, and having no responsible local representatives. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- But in this case, the Government require every ship to be licensed. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- That has to be done today. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- In the case of vessels engaging in the coasting trade? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- They have to be registered, and they will get their licences as they get their registration to-day. I do not think we are taking too much power. The provision, I believe, is a wise one. {: #debate-13-s7 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- I cannot see any justification for the refusal of the Minister to limit this provision to foreign ships. The Attorney-General, in referring to the clause, urged that, in view of our treaty rights, there should be no differentiation as against foreigners. He thought that the difficulty in that regard would be overcome by framing this clause in general terms so that it would be applicable to all British ships, including those on our own register, and also to foreign ships. That is not necessary for our purpose. I remember at the time declaring that the question of differentiation against foreigners will depend, not upon the mechanical striking out of the words " foreign ship," but upon the refusal of the Minister in the exercise of the arbitrary power given under this clause to grant a licence to a foreign ship. It. has been slated that there are only a few treaty nations affected, namely, Austria, Egypt, Greece, Honduras, Salvador, and Mexico. Their objection to differentiation will arise, not from the inclusion of the words " foreign ship," but from the actual refusal of a licence. The real reason given for this alteration is that it is necessary to give the Bill the appearance of equality of treatment, so that it may be kept within the terms of section 736 of the Merchant Shipping Act. But the differentiation, if there is to be any, will arise from the re fusal subsequently to grant licences to foreign ships. In order to secure the appearance of equality, the Minister is actually requiring every vessel plying between ports in Australia to take out a licence, and he will have the power to arbitrarily refuse to issue a licence. The clause does not provide that he must grant a licence on certain conditions. The question whether the Minister has a discretionary or obligatory power on compliance with certain conditions to grant a licence has come before the Courts on several occasions. I think it has been raised within the last six or eight months in connexion with some municipal licences, and that the Court held in one case that the power was a discretionary one. If that be so, the Minister in this case may arbitrarily refuse to grant a licence to vessels that are plying within the ports of a particular State. The reply may be that the Minister has indicated his intention of excepting from this clause limited coastal-trade ships and river and bay boats. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I said that we exempted river and bay boats. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- If limited coastal-trade ships are not also to be exempted, our objection is made all the stronger. The definition of " limited coast-trade ship " has not yet been altered, nor has the Minister circulated any amendment of it. Under it the Minister may declare a voyage of 50 miles to be the limit of a limited coast-trade ship. There are many vessels engaged in trading within the State of South Australia, travelling for distances of over 300 miles, and some over 400 miles. I believe that in Western Australia the voyages are so long that some outside ships, principally British, actually compete with the local ships for the carrying trade within the limits of the State. I remember that on one occasion the question arose whether we could touch them by the Arbitration Act, and bring them under the local conditions. I doubt it, and I see that the Minister doubts our power to deal with them under the Navigation Bill, because all this part of the Bill is subject to a doubt, expressed by the Attorney-General himself here and by the Minister, as to whether we have power to regulate wage conditions under " navigation." We are doing it in this clause impliedly, if not directly, because we declare that unless certain accommodation is provided, and certain wages are paid, no licence shall be issued, although we were told a few days ago by the Attorney-General and by the Minister himself that we have no power under the term " navigation " to regulate wages. I ask the Minister, then, if it is wise to bring in a lot of these small vessels engaged within a particular State in purely domestic trade. If they are liable, their liability ought to arise under the conciliation and arbitration provision. That is a matter which has to come on in the High Court. Why put them in a position of doubt as to whether they ought to take out a licence or not? The amendment of the clause was for a reason, in order to obtain equality of treatment of foreign ships with British and purely local ships, but the proposal goes much further, because it actually brings within our control at once the whole of the Intra- State vessels that are not of the river and bay class. It applies at once the prevailing wage conditions prescribed by the Arbitration Court, or generally ruling in that district, to all boats that wish to engage in the coasting trade, without giving them the slightest opportunity of showing, as they could in the Arbitration Court, that those conditions are not applicable to their trade. Under the clause it rests with the Minister to declare, if he has the power, whether those conditions of wages shall apply at once to all vessels concerned, although at present they may be carrying on their trade without let or hindrance from anybody. The clause, therefore, goes much beyond what is necessary. It would be better if the Minister would confine his amendment to striking out the word " foreign." If the Committee votes to retain the word, I see no reason why the rest of his amendment should not be adopted for the sake of consistency, although some parts of it may be objectionable. The principle of the coasting trade part of the Bill, however, does require, at all events, the substance of the provisions which would be incorporated :in the clause as amended. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- It would be better to pass the clause as it is, because we place them all on an equality. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Why bring in vessels which have been trading for the last thirty years between Port Adelaide and Yorke's Peninsula, and whose conditions have been inquired into by the Arbitration Court, saying that, no matter what may be the conditions, they shall not engage in the coasting trade unless they comply with the terms of this measure? There is a mighty difference between regulating this matter by legislation straight out, and handing over tto a good tribunal, like the Arbitration Court, the power of saying whether the merits justify the application of an award. The course chosen by the Government seems to go far beyond the necessities as declared originally by the Attorney-General when he said that, in order to preserve our treaty obligations, we ought not to differentiate against foreign ships. That, I understood, was the reason for striking out the word " foreign." The Government are going much beyond that by applying the licensing provisions to Intra- State boats, on condition that they comply, in respect of air space, wages, and everything else, with the provisions of the other parts of the Bill. **Mr. HUGHES** (West Sydney- AttorneyGeneral) [3.58]. - I understand that, while the honorable and learned member takes no exception to the proposal to put foreign ships on an equality with Australian-trade ships, he thinks we are going far beyond the necessities of the case in including limited coast-trade ships. How are we to differentiate between a limited coast-trade ship and any other coasting ship for the purpose of this clause? According to the definition, a limited coast-trade ship is a sea-going ship exclusively engaged in making short voyages from and to any port in Australia within a radius not exceeding 400 miles. There is nothing to prevent a foreign-trade ship engaging in such trade. Although generally foreign-trade ships do not do so, there is nothing to prevent them, and they may frequently so engage. What is to prevent them, for example, carrying coal from Newcastle to Sydney or Brisbane, or cargo from Adelaide to any of the Gulf ports? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The Bill prevents them as foreign ships. {: #debate-13-s8 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
ALP -- But then they would compete unfairly with limited coast-trade ships. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- No; a foreign ship would have to take out a licence. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- Once you make an exception, and do not apply this provision to all ships equally - that some ships can trade without a licence, while others are prevented from so doing - foreign nations will have a right to say - and will properly say- that this does not apply to their vessel's. They will say, " We are not on the same footing as all ships, but only on the same footing as some ships; and some of your ships have benefits which are not given to us." What, then, are we to say to the nations with whom we have treaties, and why should a limited coast-trade ship 4226 *Navigation* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Bill.* be given privileges not extended to other Australian-owned coasting ships? All ships should be treated alike. I admit, as far as the practical side of the question is concerned, that not once in a thousand times would a foreign-trade ship compete with a limited coast-trade ship. But, nevertheless, I see no answer to the objection that would be urged by treaty nations in regard to this matter. Since the whole reason for striking out the word " foreign," is to meet this line of argument, I cannot see that we ought to make any exception. The only objection that can be urged is that the limited coast-trade ship would be put to the trouble of applying for a licence. But the application would be largely a matter of form. The licence would be applied for and obtained as readily as a ship obtains a clearance. I admit the cogency of the objection of the honorable member for Angas, but at the same time I see no answer to the argument that I have been submitting. Therefore, I think that this provision should apply to all ships. {: #debate-13-s9 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs -- I do not think that the Attorney-General has quite grasped the point which the honorable member for Angas has urged. If any foreign ship were engaged in the limited coast trade, it would come under the provision as introduced, and have to obtain a licence. But inasmuch as all the other conditions are covered by Part II. of the Bill, dealing with masters and seamen, which is made to apply to British ships to a very large extent, the Australian trade and limited coast-trade ships would have to comply with the wages conditions, manning scale, and accommodation regulations. . They would have to fulfil all the conditions which the Bill, as introduced, requires to be the conditions for a licence to foreign ships. The object of the licence is to bring in the foreigner, so as to make him do the same things as we compel our own people to do. That being so, the only object of the licence clause is to apply the conditions to foreigners. There can be no complaint by a foreigner, because all we say to him is, " We require you to fulfil the sameconditions as apply to our own vessels." There can be no complaint that we are trying to create a diversity of conditions. Limited-trade and Australian-trade ships have, under the Bill, to comply with wages, manning, and accommodation requirements. We are going to apply those to the foreigner. But in doing that we are bringsing in other provisions, applying them to the Australian ships, and giving power to hold up the whole of a ship's trade if she does not fulfil certain conditions. Takewages conditions. If there is a little dispute as regards wages there will be power to prevent a boat from engaging in the trade at all. There is no necessity for a power of that description with regard to the Australian ships. The only reason why you want to prohibit a boat is to secure the fulfilment of our conditions generally, and it seems to me that the Government are imposing unnecessary restrictions upon our own vessels in requiring a licence. We are practically legislating, as regards wages, for vessels which are already under awards. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That is not our intention. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- But the effect is the same. We are practically saying, " Here is an award in existence ; if you do not pay the wages contained in that award, we will cancel your licence, and will prohibit you from engaging in the trade." There are some vessels which cannot be covered by an award, owing to a dispute not extending beyond one State. Nevertheless, the Government say to such a vessel, " We are not going to allow you to engage in the Intra-State trade unless you comply with conditions contained in an award dealing with Inter-State trade." {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That is dealt with in clause 289. If in a particular State the wages are less than those generally ruling in Australia, I take it that the licence would have to be issued. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- This is a simple way of framing a common rule. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We can only point out the defect and leave it to the Minister to consider the point. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-13-s10 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas -- I quite sympathize with the Minister in regard to the application of this provision to foreign ships. But we are going beyond that. Instead of saying that vessels coming from abroad to compete on our coasts must comply with local conditions - that is, if the local trade is under a common award, saying to them, " You must pay the awarded rates whatever they are, and if there are no awarded rates, you must pay the ruling rates on that portion of the coast which is the area of competition " - the Minister has incidentally framed a common rule applicable to local vessels. He has really: *Navigation* [15 October, 1912.] *Bill.* 4227 usurped the functions of the Arbitration Court by declaring that all vessels, local vessels included, that enter into the coasting trade, whether they are or are not trading within the area of an award, must pay -certain wages. I do not think that the drafting is correct. What the Minister ought to have done was to see that foreign vessels entering into competition paid the wages prescribed; but he ought not to have gone on to say that the wages prescribed for the future shall be deemed, for all purposes, the ruling rates. What this clause says is that the ruling rates are to be the ruling rates under clause 289 current in the part affected by the competition. If there is an award of the Arbitration Court, that is to be deemed to settle the standard to be abided by. That is right enough as regards competitors from outside. If they enter this trade, they ought, according to the policy of this part of the Bill, to pay whatever wages are current, but we ought not, at the same time, to declare that local vessels which are not subject to the award must comply with its terms. We are framing a common rule applicable to all vessels engaged in the coasting trade of the particular part. I do not want to say any more about the matter, but I hope that the Minister will see if he cannot get a recast of this part of the Bill more consistent with the object, and that is to prevent unfair competiton by outside vessels, and not to frame a common rule, bringing all local vessels within its scope. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 288 (Master to answer questions). {: #debate-13-s11 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- Clause 414 gives ample power to do all contemplated by this clause, because it provides that the Minister, or any person authorized by him, may, among other things, summon persons before him, and require them to answer questions. In the circumstances, the clause is redundant, and therefore I desire its omission. Clause negatived. Clause 289 - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Every seaman employed on a ship engaged in any part of the coasting trade shall, subject to any lawful deductions, be entitled to and shall be paid, for the period during which the ship is so engaged, wages at the current rates ruling in Australia for seamen employed in that part of the coasting trade, and may sue for and recover those wages. 1. The wages to which a seaman is entitled under this section shall, in the case of ships trading to places beyond Australia, be paid before the departure of the ship from Australia. {: #debate-13-s12 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I move - >That sub-clause 2 be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-clause : - > >In the case of ships trading to places beyond Australia, the wages to which a seaman is entitled under this section shall be paid before the departure of the ship from Australia, and the master shall produce to the satisfaction of the Collector at the last port of departure in Australia evidence of their payment. In clauses 289 and 293 provision is made in regard to the payment of the Australian rates of wages on non-licensed and licensed vessels. As any ship is required by the Bill to take out a licence, this separate provision is unnecessary. Sub-clause 1 of clause 289 provides that, in the case of a ship trading beyond Australia, proof must be given before she leaves her final port that the men have been paid the wages earned while she has been on the coast, and, failing this proof, a clearance will be refused under the amended clause. I intend later to ask the Committee to negative clause 293. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 290 - >If the seamen employed on any British ship were not engaged in Australia, the master, owner, or agent shall, before the ship engages in the coasting trade, make and sign, before a superintendent, an indorsement or memorandum on the agreement specifying the wages to be paid to the seamen whilst the ship engages in the coasting trade, and that indorsement or memorandum, when countersigned by a superintendent, shall have effect as an agreement between the master and those seamen. {: #debate-13-s13 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I move - >That the words " owner or agent," line 3, be left out. The object of the amendment is to make the master responsible for the indorsement of the Tate of wages on the agreement. Under this Bill, as well as under the Imperial and other British shipping Acts, a seaman's agreement on a foreign-going ship is invariably with the master, and never with the owner or the agent. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-13-s14 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs .- Before the Minister moves the insertion of a new sub-clause, I should like him to explain how this clause will work in practical operation. Take, for instance, the case of a British ship trading regularly to Fremantle. Does the clause mean that before the boat comes to Australia there will have to be an agreement made in England with the men coming to Australia to pay them the Australian rates of wages, and that the agreement will have to be brought before the Superintendent in Western Australia before the boat is allowed to engage in the coasting trade? Then what is to fix the wages payable in the coasting trade? Are the wages to be those ruling in that part of Australia, or those ruling under an InterState award? What will be the practical procedure ? {: #debate-13-s15 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I move - >That the following new sub-clause be inserted : - > >* (2.) Where under the original agreement a seaman is entitled to be paid at a higher rate of wages than the rate ruling in Australia for seamen in a corresponding rating, nothing in this section shall affect his right to such higher rate during the engagement of the ship in the coasting trade." I take it that if a vessel is engaged wholly in the trade of Western Australia the crew will be paid the current rates of wages in that State. If she is engaged wholly in the trade of Queensland, they will be paid the rates which are operative in that State at the time. But if she is engaged in the trade of several States, Commonwealth rates will have to be paid. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Where will that agreement have to be made ? Does the Minister mean the original agreement which the men sign on their articles? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- No; it will not be the original agreement, but an indorsement made on the agreement after the vessel has got into Australian waters. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- It does not say how long it is to be in operation. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- It will be in operation while the boat is in Australian waters. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- That is claiming jurisdiction over the general agreement. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- It practically means that when they come to Australia they will have to make an agreement. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- It will have to be indorsed in Australia for the time that they are here, and, of course, they cannot leave until the Collector is satisfied that the men have received the wages set forth in the clause with which we have dealt. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- How is that going to apply to Australian trade boats? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- On such boats the men will get the current rate of wages independent of any indorsement. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- At regular times? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- In an earlier clause we have provided that the men shall receive their wages at stated times. {: #debate-13-s16 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- We have not very much information' as to the conditions under which licences will be granted, but I assume that what the Minister will do when an application is made will be to see whether all conditions, exclusive of the condition to pay the standard rate of wages, have been complied with - for instance, the condition as to air space is a matter which can be at once observed - and then a licence will be granted to the vessel which will inure in relation to that condition so long as the vessel is in Australian waters. The air space is not likely to be altered on every voyage. When the Minister comes to deal with the wages, he will want to know what the actual wages paid are. In order to bind the vessel to the payment of these wages, without continually asking what the wages paid are as the vessel arrives here, he will see that there is an indorsement on the. agreement with the seamen that the ruling rates, whatever they may be, are to be paid. That indorsement will then bind the owners of the vessel in respect to the seamen who are parties to the agreement. I cannot see how it will bind any other seamen except those engaged at the time. But will the agreement have to be re-signed whenever a new contingent is taken on? Perhaps the Minister will have to consider this matter a little more. I believe that the clause will work properly. As soon as the indorsement has been made, it will amount to a new contract, obligatory within our territorial limitations, between the master and the men. If it is necessary to know what wages should be paid, the ruling rates can be ascertained j and if there is an award, it can be produced. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The intention is to safeguard the rights of seamen who are entitled1 under their original agreement to higher rates than those ruling in Australia. In New Zealand, for instance, the rates are higher than in Australia. We desire to prevent, deductions from being made in cases like that. {: #debate-13-s17 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs -- May not conflicts in the operation of awards be possible? Speaking from memory, it has been held in New Zealand that the awards of the Dominion apply to New Zealand vessels wherever they may travel. If a vessel is registered in New Zealand,, the New Zealand awards are binding upon her wherever she may be, and, of course, follow her into Australian waters, assuming the decision to be valid, though its validity has been questioned. Our power is *Navigation* [15 October,1912.] *Bill.* 4229 beyond doubt. If a vessel is registered in Australia, and makes a voyage to New Zealand and back, the final port of destination being in Australia, the Australian awards and conditions bind her. This creates the possibility of conflict between the awards of the Commonwealth and those of the Dominion, and it seems to me that we might arrange to recognise each other's awards. The Minister might consider whether that would not be possible by mutual legislation. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- We propose to prevent the New Zealand standard from being prejudiced by our standard. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- While the New Zealand rates of wages might be higher than ours, their manning or other conditions, although considered satisfactory by the Arbitration Court of the Dominion, might differ. I ask the Minister to consider the advisability of establishing reciprocity in regard to standards, so that the Commonwealth and the Dominion may recognise each other's standards just as we recognise the certifificates of the Board of Trade. Another little matter to which I direct attention is that the marginal references throughout the Bill are to the New Zealand Act of 1903, although there is a consolidating Act of 1908. I suggest that the references be to the Act of 1908, so that it may not seem that we have overlooked it. {: #debate-13-s18 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP .- I cannot see that difficulty will arise in practice. The only vessels whose seamen are likely to be paid at a higher rate than that ruling in Australia will be New Zealand vessels, and, possibly, United States vessels from the West Coast of America. How can we have reciprocity in this matter? How can we compare things so different as, say, the rate of wages, and privileges, such as holidays? The rates of wages must be the test of comparison. It is suggested that while the rates of wages under other agreements might be lower than those ruling on the Australian coast, the holidays allowed, the payment for overtime, the provision for accommodation, or other conditions, might be more liberal; that a vessel might come here whose crew was being paid less than the Australian rates, but was enjoying more holidays or other benefits than Australian seamen enjoy. Still it would be unadvisable to depart from a test which is easily applied. It is only in respect to wages that a comparison can be made. It could not be said that three weeks' holiday a year, or any other privilege, was the exact equivalent of, say, 10s. a month in wages. I think that the clause should be left as it stands; an amendment would create difficulties. {: #debate-13-s19 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The purpose of the new sub-clause is to prevent seamen coming to Australia from places where higher rates of wages rule than rule on the Australian coast from being prejudiced; to provide that lower rates shall not be paid while a vessel is trading between Australian ports. I do not think that we can go further than that. If we add to the sub-clause so as to cover a number of conditions, we may be confronted with many practical difficulties. For instance, if we attempted to make provision as to accommodation, it might involve structural alterations, which would mean considerable cost or prove impracticable. For my own part, I think we may very well pass the sub-clause as it is, and, later on, the honorable member for Darling Downs may see some means of accomplishing what is in his mind. {: #debate-13-s20 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- We propose to take power under new sub-clause 8a to make reciprocal arrangements' with New Zealand, and to recognise the manning scale, the accommodation scale, and so forth, adopted by the Dominion. In another part of the Bill we take power to recognise any superior conditions which may be imposed by other countries in regard to life-saving appliances, surveys, and so on. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 291 agreed to. Clause 292 verbally amended and agreed to. Clause 293 negatived. Clause 294 - >The master, owners, and agents of any ship not registered in Australia engaging in the coasting trade, shall be Jointly and severally responsible for compliance with this Act. {: #debate-13-s21 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Ministerof Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I move - >That the words " not registered in Australia " be left out. This amendment is consequent on others already made, whereby we have provided that all ships shall be placed on the one footing. {: #debate-13-s22 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs .- I notice that, by this clause, the master of any ship engaging in the coasting trade is jointly and severally responsible with the owners and agents for compliance with this part of the Act, and is liable to a pecuniary penalty for any breach thereof. One of the conditions of the Act is that any ship engaging in the coasting trade must pay the standard rate of wages in Australia, and the effect of the clause is to make the master responsible, under a penalty, for the performance of arbitration awards in regard to wages. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Whom else could we make responsible? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The owners, I think. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Who is it that makes the contract with the men? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It may be right to make the master liable for the payment of the wages, but is it right to make him liable for penalties? This is in excess of any law we have at the present time. {: #debate-13-s23 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP -- It is perfectly proper, I think, to make the master of the ship liable. I admit that this is unnecessary in the case of locally-owned ships, but very necessary so far as foreign ships are concerned. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I agree with the AttorneyGeneral there. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- We desire to have recourse to as many persons as possible. Many of the foreign ships have agents here, and all necessarily have masters, but none that I know of have owners here. I cannot see that any hardship is involved. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 295 (Power to exempt). {: #debate-13-s24 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- This clause was originally inserted for the purpose of giving power to exempt foreign ships from the necessity of taking out a licence before engaging in the coastal trade. Now that the conditions have been made uniform, there is no necessity for the clause. {: #debate-13-s25 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- I can quite understand why this clause is to be struck out, for other reasons than those mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Customs. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I mentioned the most important reasons. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Clause 189 provides that ships may be exempted if the laws of the country from which they come " are as effective " as the provisions of this Bill, but that, I take it, does not mean that we want to know what the wages are? What we provide is that certain wages must be paid, and the word " effective " refers to provisions generally applicable. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- This clause ceases to be useful, because we have taken out the word " foreign," and treated all vessels alike. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- That is one of the reasons given by the Minister, but I believe there are other reasons for excising the clause. I wish to point out, however, that if we do so, we shall have no provision in the Bill for reciprocal arrangements to cover, for instance, the case of New Zealand shipping. The honorable member for Darling Downs has mentioned that there are provisions in the New Zealand law quite as good as ours. I do not know that we wish to provide for reciprocal arrangement, as it seems to me that all we want is evidence that the rate of wages paid under the New Zealand law is as high as that under our law. There are provisions in Parts II. and IV. of the Bill, under which reciprocity might be arranged for with respect to other conditions. If we wish to apply the ruling rates, or even the rates of an arbitration award, to a vessel coming from New Zealand, we may be met with the fact that the ruling rate of wages, or the remuneration, which is really the important matter, may be expressed differently in a New Zealand award from an award of the Commonwealth. I think that, in the last award made, in the case of the Merchant Shipping Guild, captains are allowed twenty-one days' holiday. They are also allowed, as compensation for being, deprived of certain time outside ports, to five days off per month. Under the award, the captain of a vessel may be entitled to a total of something like eighty-one days off the vessel in the year. In such a case, the wages paid! might be lower than where a captain would not be entitled to more than ten days off in the year. My point is that the benefit derived from a New Zealand award might be substantially quite as great as that derived under a Commonwealth award, though it might be expressed in very different terms. What we wish to arriveat is that the conditions of employment, as expressed in hours and wages, of foreign shipping, are substantially the same as our own. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That is to say, if the question of reciprocity be raised? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Or if we had to inquire into the conditions of employment on board any vessel, the owners of which desired to engage in our coastal trade. We might find that the conditions, though not the same as those prescribed by a Commonwealth award, were quite as good, although expressed in different terms. Compensation might be given in hours in the one case, and in higher wages in the other. I wish to know, from the Minister, whether this Bill will permit him, in dealing with foreign shipping, to accept a substantial compliance with a Commonwealth award? I suggest that we ought to define ruling rates, so as to cover a substantial compliance with a Commonwealth award. At present, the term covers merely the rate of wages. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- We could put that in the definition clause. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I think it well to raise the question now. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- It must be a matter for the Minister to decide. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Yes; when granting the licence. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- It is, undoubtedly, a matter for the Minister to decide ; but I am directing attention to the fact that, under the Bill as it stands, the Minister may find himself tied to local conditions and ruling rates. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- What the honorable gentleman means is that a substantial compliance should be regarded as a satisfactory compliance with clause 289. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Yes ; that is the point I raise. {: #debate-13-s26 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- - I agree that the point raised by the honorable gentleman is very important. I shall have the matter looked into, and see whether we cannot insert in the definition clause, or elsewhere in the Bill, some provision to meet it. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- It might be dealt with by a proviso in clause 287. Clause negatived. Clause 296 - >In this part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - " Wreck " includes jetsam, flotsam, lagan and derelict found in or on the shores of the sea or any tidal water, and any articles or goods of whatever kind which belonged to, came from any ship wrecked, stranded, or in distress, or any portion of the hull, machinery, or equipment of any such ship : " Salvage " includes all expenses properly incurred by the salvor in the performance of salvage services : " Receiver " means a receiver of wreck duly appointed by the Minister as such in any assigned district. {: #debate-13-s27 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- I do not intend to ask the Minister the meaning of any of the extraordinary terms used in this clause. There -is a reference here to the "Receiver," but I do not find in any part of the Bill a direct power to appoint a Receiver.. It may be that a Receiver under the Customs Act, or the Receiver of a State, may be contemplated by the Minister. Throughout the Bill, it is assumed that a Receiver is appointed, but there is no power to appoint such an official. We take express power to appoint a Superintendent, and in clause 291 we take express power to appoint surveyors. On a question arising as to whether the Minister has power to appoint a Receiver, the fact that an express power is given for the appointment of other officers, and such a provision is omitted in re- .gard to a Receiver, would be relevant to the question raised. The Receiver has very wide powers under this Bill. He has powers of apprehension in the case of a wreck, and it is provided that if there is any resistance to apprehension, and death results, the Receiver cannot be charged with manslaughter. That is an extraordinary extension of the common law provisions. I mention the matter to show that the Receiver will be in a position of very great power, and consequent responsibility. Perhaps the Minister will look into the reason why no express power is taken in this Bill to appoint a Receiver. I believe that, under the Customs Act, the question was raised in the *Pericles* case as to whether the Collector of Customs of a State is a Receiver for Commonwealth purposes'. That shows that it is necessary to be express in these matters. We should provide that the Receiver shall be a Receiver for Customs purposes, or we shoul'd make special provision for his appointment under this Bill. {: #debate-13-s28 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs .- In the Merchant Shipping Act, express power is given by section 566 to appoint a Receiver. The section reads - >The Board of Trade shall have the general superintendence throughout the United Kingdom of all matters relating to wreck, and may, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint any officer of Customs or of the coastguard, or any officer of inland revenue, or, when it appears to such Board to be more convenient, any other person, to be a receiver of wreck - This Bill implies that the Minister will appoint a Receiver of Wrecks, but makes no provision for such an appointment, except in the definition of "Receiver." The Commonwealth Public Service Act provides for the appointment of all officers throughout Australia, and, apparently, the only reason why we expressly appoint the Superintendent is that, in his case, we create a new office under statute. Although, under this clause, we vest the Receiver with statutory powers, I think that, under our Public Service Act, we have power either to appoint or remove him from office. Further, we do not require to make express provision for his appointment to the office solely, as in all probability an officer who is already filling some other position in our Public Service will be appointed to discharge the duties of the office. {: #debate-13-s29 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- - The point raised by the honorable member for Darling Downs is one which I admit had escaped my notice. The clause provides that - >Receiver" means a Receiver of wrecks duly appointed by the Minister as such in any assigned district. In same cases, it is possible that the SubCollector of Customs may be appointed to discharge the duties of the office of Receiver. Along the coast of Western Australia, for example, it would obviously be impossible to appoint any one man to act as Receiver, because if we did so, and a wreck occurred there, the Receiver might be 2,000 miles distant. A similar remark is applicable to Tasmania. Whether it is necessary that the Receiver should be a public servant I do not know. But I will look into the matter. Clause agreed to. Clauses 297 to 309 agreed to. Clause 310 - >The Commonwealth shall be entitled to all unclaimed wreck found in Australia. {: #debate-13-s30 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs .- I would point out to the Minister that section 523 of the Merchant Shipping Act provides - >Her Majesty and her Royal successors are entitled to all unclaimed wreck found in any part nf Her Majesty's Dominions, except in places where Her Majesty or any of Her Majesty's predecessors has granted to any other person the right to that wreck. That provision sets up a claim on the part of the Imperial authorities to any unclaimed wreck found in Australia. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- **Mr. Berriedale** Keith considers that the clause is *ultra vires.* {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- A despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies transmitting the report prepared for the Shipowner? Parliamentary Committee, and memorandum on colonial merchant shipping legislation by the solicitor to the Board of Trade, page 20, sets out - >Especial attention is directed to the provisions of section 523, by which it is provided that unclaimed wrecks found in any part of His Majesty's Dominions belongs to His Majesty, except in places where the right to unclaimed wrecks has been granted out by the Crown. If, therefore, a Colony legislates on lines similar to those above-mentioned, care should be taken to provide that the proceeds of unclaimed wrecks found in a Colony should be paid to the Imperial Exchequer. The provisions of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890, which more especially deal with *droits,* have, however, to be kept in mind. I presume that the retention of this clause in the Bill indicates that the Commonwealth has some right of wreckage. I do not know why it should not. In view of the fact that we have to incur all the expenditure that is necessary to provide lights on our coast, I fail to see why, if, as a result of misfortune, an unclaimed wreck occurs, the proceeds from that wreck should not find their way to the Crown in Australia. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Surely, if the King gives his assent to the Bill, we will have that power. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- And we cannot amend this Bill so as to over-ride the Imperial Act. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- I think we can amend the clause so as to bind the King. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- But that has not been done. The clause assumes that we have power to legislate with respect of something which an Imperial Act declares belongs to the Crown in its Imperial aspect. I would like to hear some explanation from the Minister in regard to this matter. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Can the honorable member recall any case in which a wreck has been worth anything to the Crown? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I cannot. As a rule, the equipment of a wrecked ship, and, indeed, 'everything on the vessel, is claimed. {: #debate-13-s31 .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh . - I do not think there can be any objection to the clause as it stands. It is very probable that, under some ancient prerogative, the sovereigns of England have a right of wreck. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- That is the reason why the Imperial Act is declaratory. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- We are perfectly justified in claiming a right of wreck, although I confess that I have never known of a wreck which was worth anything to *Navigation* [15 October, 1912.] *Bill.* 4233 the Crown. The Crown generally comes in for the payment of any expense incurred in removing a wreck, but if a wreck is of any value some one is almost sure to put in a claim for it. I think that we shall be perfectly safe in enacting the clause as it stands. {: #debate-13-s32 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- The question at issue is not the ownership of the wreck, but rather the inter-dependence of this provision with the penal clauses of the Bill. A number of penalties attach to persons who interfere with wrecks, and it may be that if we cannot pass this legislation as it stands, the penal clauses to protect wrecks may have to go to the wail. They may be held to be outside our power. If we desire to keep within our power we should declare that this clause, or the whole Act, shall bind the King. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has properly mentioned that this is a matter of prerogative. It is for that reason that it is declared in the Merchant Shipping Act, not that Her Majesty and Her successors "shall be entitled" to all unclaimed wrecks, but that they "are" entitled. It is one of the old prerogatives of the Crown. If we desire to cut down that prerogative, we can do so by providing that, notwithstanding any prerogative to the contrary, the Commonwealth shall be entitled to all unclaimed wrecks in Australia. The Minister should consider whether it is necessary to declare expressly, as was said to be necessary in a Privy Council decision, that this clause binds the King, because it may be a cutting down of the prerogative. As a matter of fact, the States question this power. I have a letter from a body in one of the States in which it is said that this is an attempt to usurp ownership that cannot belong to the Commonwealth. It is rather significant that some, if not all, of the State Acts make no reference to ownership. They have not attempted to cut down the prerogative. I have not had time to examine them all, but I do not think that any one of them contains a provision like this, declaring that unclaimed wrecks are to belong to the State. They seem to follow the provisions of clause 523 of the Merchant Shipping Act. {: #debate-13-s33 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I have never heard of an unclaimed wreck. I mentioned just now, by way of interjection, that Berriedale Keith considers that this provision is *ultra vires,* because it is in conflict with the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, and also with the Civil Lists Act, which require that the proceeds of unclaimed wrecks shall be paid to the Exchequer. A similar provision, however, appears in section 264 of the New Zealand Act of 1908, which has been assented to, and the Board of Trade, in their lengthy memorandum on this Bill, have taken no exception tothis clause. I think that we are entitled to any unclaimed wrecks, for, as has been pointed out, the Commonwealth Government would have to bearthe expense of removing them, and, in view of the further fact that an unclaimed wreck is seldom heard of, I hope that the clause will be passed as it stands. Clause agreed to. Clauses 311 to 313 agreed to. Clause 314 (Taking wreck out of Australia). {: #debate-13-s34 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs .- It seems to me that a little doubt attaches to this clause, in which it is declared that every person who takes into any place out of Australia any stranded ship or wreck " and there sells it " shall be guilty of an indictable offence. The clause is almost a verbatim copy of section 585 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and the difficulty I see in regard to it is that we are making an offence the doing of an act outside Australia. I do not know whether the Minister has considered whether we have power to do that. We are saying, for instance, that if a man took a wreck off our coast to the United States of America, and sold it there, that would be an offence. I do not know whether, on the authority of certain cases, the Commonwealth has a right to declare that some act done outside Australia shall be an offence. The same question arises in regard to several subsequent clauses dealing with salvage, and one or two other matters where we have followed the Merchant Shipping Act, and I should like the Minister to consider it. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I shall look into the question. Clause agreed to. Clauses 315 and 316 agreed to. Clause 317 (Liability of owner for salvage). {: #debate-13-s35 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- The point raised by the honorable member for Darling Downs in connexion with clause 314 arises also in respect of this clause. Although there is a like provision in the Imperial Act, the difference between our position and that of the Imperial Parliament is that the latter has power over the subject to an extent that we do not possess, and 4234 *Navigation* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Bill.* can follow the subject through the seas apart from questions of territorial jurisdiction. I read a few nights ago, in one of the English papers for September, that the International Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Law was to meet again at Brussels to revise and complete treaties on the limitation of ship-owners' liabilities, and so forth. That Conference met in 1910, and some very important matters, including new provisions as regards salvage, were then dealt with. I do not know whether those provisions have been incorporated in the Bill as it stands, but it would be a pity if we found later on that our law was not in line with the latest amendments made in England in this regard. The question of salvage received a thorough overhaul at the session of 1910, and several other questions associated with it were also discussed. Besides this, some very interesting questions were discussed at the Convention of last month, including that of the limitation of liability in respect of loss and damage to property at sea. The conditions of the Merchant Shipping Act on that point are altogether different from those of France, Russia, and several other nations. I hope the Minister, or his advisers, are watching what has been done at the Maritime International Diplomatic Conference. I think that all the amendments recommended by the Conference of 1 9 10 were adopted by a Bill introduced last year into the Imperial Parliament, although I do not know whether the Bill passed. I hope that the draft measure now before us has been brought into line with, at all events, what is best in the recent Imperial provisions. {: #debate-13-s36 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- The amendments which I have circulated, relating to the clauses from 320 onwards, are based entirely upon the Imperial Maritime Convention Act of 191 1. The Imperial authorities were anxious that we should take those clauses out of the Navigation Bill and embody them in a separate measure. I presume they thought that, as we had been about eight years over this Bill, another eight years might elapse before we passed it. The proceedings of the Convention in question have been watched, communications have taken place between the Board of Trade and the Department, and the Bill has been brought right up to date, in accordance with the procedure laid down at the Convention. Clause agreed to. Clauses 318 and 319 agreed to. Clause 320 (on motion by **Mr. Tudor)** amended to read as follows - (1.) All disputes as to the amount of salvage, whether of life or property, arising between the salvor and the owners of any ship or wreck, shall, if not settled otherwise, be determined summarily in the fallowing cases, namely : - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. In any case where the parties to the dispute consent ; 1. In any case where the value of the property saved does not exceed Onethousand pounds. 2. Where the amount claimed does not exceed Three hundred pounds. (2.) Subject as aforesaid, disputes as to the salvage may be determined by the Supreme Court of a State, but if the claimant does not recover in any such Court more than Three hundred pounds, he shall only be entitled to recover such costs as the Court allows, such costsnot to exceed reasonable costs on the scale usually allowed in any interior Court in which the case might have been brought, unless the Court certifies that the case is a fit one to be tried otherwise than summarily. (3.) Disputes relating to salvage to be determined summarily may be so determined by a County Court, District Court, or Local Court of a State. (4.) Disputes relating to salvage may be determined on the application of the salvor or of the owner of the property saved, or of their respective agents. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 321 (on motion by **Mr. Tudor)** amended to read as follows - (1.) Disputes as to salvage which are to be determined summarily shall - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. where the dispute relates to the salvage of wreck - be referred to a Court having jurisdiction at or near the place where the wreck is found; 1. where the dispute relates to salvage in the case of services rendered to any ship, or to the cargo or equipment thereof, or in saving life therefrom - be referred to a Court having jurisdiction at or near the place where the ship is lying, or at or near the port in Australia into which the ship is first brought, after the occurrence by reason whereof the claim of salvage arises. (2.) Any Court' to whom a dispute as to salvage is referred for summary determination may, for the purpose of determining the dispute, call in to its assistance any skilled person as assessor, and there shall be paid as part of the costs of the proceedings to every such assessor such sum as the Minister directs. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 322 - >Where a dispute relating to salvage has been determined summarily in manner provided by this Act, any party aggrieved by the decision may appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court of the State. *Navigation* [15 October, 1912.] *Bill.* 4235 Amendment (by **Mr. Tudor)** proposed - >That after the word "may," the following words be inserted : " if the sum in dispute exceeds£100." {: #debate-13-s37 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs -- I presume the object of the amendment is to limit the right of appeal, no appeal being allowed if the sum in dispute is under£100? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That is so. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by **Mr. Tudor)** proposed - >That the following sub-clause be added : - "(2.) The appellant shall, within twenty days of the decision of the Court which has determined the matter summarily, take such proceedings as according to the practice of the Supreme Court of the State are necessary for the institution of an appeal." {: #debate-13-s38 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs -- The time might be made longer, seeing that we are dealing with Australian conditions. I suggest that thirty days be allowed. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I agree. Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 323 agreed to. Clause 324 - (1.) Where salvage is due to any person under this Act, the receiver shall - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. If the salvage is due in respect of services rendered in assisting any ship, or in saving life therefrom, or in saving the cargo or equipment thereof - detain the ship and cargo or apparel ; Amendment (by **Mr. Tudor)** agreed to - >That the word " apparel " be left out, with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the word " equipment." Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 325 agreed to. Clause 326 (Abandonment of lien for salvage by agreement). {: #debate-13-s39 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas -- I do not think that there is any substantial inconsistency between this clause and clause 82, which provides that no seaman or apprentice shall, by any agreement, abandon any right he may have in the nature of salvage. Apparently, the seaman or apprentice gives up some security because something equivalent is given to him. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- The clause merely repeats a provision of the Merchant Shipping Act. Clause agreed to. Clauses 327 to 330 agreed to. Clause 331 (Compulsory pilotage). {: #debate-13-s40 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs .- This clause raises the whole question of compulsory pilotage. I do not raise any doubt as to the principle, but one or two general questions require to be considered. In the first place, in a subsequent clause, 352, we are altering the law as regards liability in respect of pilotage. Section 633 of the Imperial Act provides that the owner or master of a ship shall not be answerable to any person whatever for any loss or damage sustained through the fault of a pilot, where the employment of a qualified pilot is compulsory by law. In clause 352 of this Bill, however, we provide that the owner or master of a ship " shall not be exempt from liability for any loss or damage" occasioned by the fault of a pilot, where the employment of a pilot is compulsory. That is to say, we are making a fundamental alteration of the law as regards liability. I am not now questioning that alteration, because possibly the principle may be right, provided that the other alterations suggested be made. It is based, I understand, upon the report of an English Departmental Committee on pilotage, published in 191 1. But the Government have adopted part of the recommendation without adopting the whole of it. I understand that the alteration in the Bill was made in the Senate last year. I will read the recommendation of the English Departmental Committee - >If our recommendation as to the relative positions of master and pilot be carried into effect, one of the greatest objections to an alteration of the present law as regards the immunity from liability of a ship-owner whose ship is under compulsory pilotage will have been removed. ' We have adopted a recommendation altering the liability without altering the law as recommended by the English Pilotage Committee in an earlier part of their report. They raise the whole question as to the respective positions of master and pilot on board a ship. In dealing with the question of the respective position of the master and the pilot, the Committee say - >According to English law, the position of a compulsory pilot is that he is solely in charge of the navigation of the ship. He supersedes the master in all matters connected with the navigation of the ship. He is entitled to have all his orders promptly and diligently carried out, and any neglect of this respect or any interference with him in the performance of his duties, will, in the case of an accident resulting, make the owner liable. The master is not allowed to interfere with the pilot except in extreme cases of the latter's manifest incapacity to take charge of the ship, and to judge when such occasion has arisen is a matter of great difficulty; to quote the words of **Sir Kenneth** Anderson, giving evidence before us : - " As the law stands, the pilot being absolutely in charge and over the captain, intervention places upon the captain an almost intolerable responsibility." {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- If the honorable member will turn to the contingent notice-paper, he will see that we propose to strike out of clause 349 the last half-dozen words, " give the ship into his charge" and to insert in place of them the words "the charge of piloting the ship to that pilot." That will leave the captain in charge of the vessel. I went into this matter with one of the leading captains in the service of the Orient Company, and I think that the proposed amendment practically meets the views of the captain, because the pilot will only have charge of the piloting - not complete charge of the ship. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I have not had an opportunity to consider the proposed amendment. The quotation continues - " He must be able to show so- incontrovertible a case for intervention as to create a probability that he will not interfere until it is too late." {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Has that been given effect to by Great Britain ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No; but the Minister has taken one part, and not the other. What I wish to find out is the reason for adopting one, and not the other. The Minister has just informed me that he has under consideration an amendment which he thinks will adopt to some extent the other part as well. The report continues - >It has been held by the Courts that when a pilot was taking a ship on the wrong side of the river, in distinct violation of the law, the master o was not in fault for not interfering, and that he would not be justified in so doing. On the other hand, when an incorrect light was exhibited by the orders of the compulsory pilot, it was held that the owner was liable, as it was a matter in which the master should have interfered. The Courts, as we have seen, recognise the right and the duty of the master to interfere in extreme cases. It seems to us, on consideration of the many decisions upon this point, that they have in effect created what the professed object of the law has been to avoid, namely, the existence on board a ship under compulsory pilotage of a divided authority. Then the Committee consider the relations between the master and the pilot at some length, and make a recommendation as to their legal position. This is the recommendation which has been adopted - >We cannot look with favour upon what practically amounts to the total supersession of the master by the pilot when the vessel is in compulsory pilotage waters. We therefore recommend that the' master should at all times be legally responsible for the steering and safe conduct of the ship, and that the pilot, whether he actually handles the ship or not, should be the master's expert assistant. It should, in our opinion, be the positive duty of the master to interfere ir» cases where he is of opinion that the pilot, through ignorance or inability, is endangering life or property. There must be, in our opinion, at all times, and under alf conditions, one supreme authority on board, and that authority must be The master. > >We do not anticipate that this recommendation will have much, if any, effect on the existing practice on board ship. Pilots in free, as well as in compulsory districts, so far as our information goes, take charge of the actual handling of the ship, though in the free districts they are, of course, only in the position of advisers, liable to be superseded at any moment by the master. When ship-owners and masters have confidence in the ability of their pilots, the pilot will, no doubt, remain in complete control of the handling of the ship ; but we cannot regard with approval that a master of a large trans- Atlantic liner may be compelled, as has happened in one case which has been brought under our notice, to take on board a pilot who has had no previous experience of a ship of that size, and thereupon be entirely superseded by the pilot in the handling and navigation of his own ship. The Committee say that if that recommendation be carried out- {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Where does the honorable member say that our Bill, having adopted that recommendation, fails to carry it out ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- But the Government have not adopted the recommendation. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Clause 352 does. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No. That clause adopts the recommendation which I am about to read. The Committee go on to say - >If our recommendation as to the relative positions of master and pilot be carried into effect, one of the greatest objections through an alteration of the present law as regards the immunity from liability of a ship-owner whose ship is under compulsory pilotage will have been removed. The Government have removed that inclause 352. We have pointed 6u"t how productive of hardship is the present state of the law to innocent parties, and how fruitful a source of litigation. We are strongly of opinion that a ship-owner should not be released from liability for damagedone by his vessel when a pilot is compulsorily on board. We therefore recommend that section 633 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and the proviso to section 74 of the Harbors, Docks, and PiersClauses Act 1874, should be repealed, but, in. addition to such repeal, it will be necessary as well to insert a provision specifically declaringthat the owner shall be liable, as his immunity from liability at present does not alone depend' on these sections, but has also been decided independently of any Statute. We desire to point out that the Select Committee of 1888 reported as follows: - " Your Committee are strongly of opinion, having regard to the views just expressed, that the time- has arrived when the exemption of the owner from liability for damage done by his ship when the ship is placed in charge of a pilot by compulsion of law should cease to exist. Your Committee are of opinion that such exemption is indefensible, and is inimical- to the safety of life and property at sea. In their opinion, the master of the vessel, even while a pilot is on bo'ard, should continue to be responsible for the conduct and navigation of the vessel." {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- What report is the honorable member quoting from? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I am quoting from the report of a Committee which reported in 191 1 and indorsed the opinion given in 1888. ' {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- Is it the report of a Committee' appointed by the Board of Trade? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Yes. The Board of Trade are pleased to. appoint the following gentlemen, viz. : - **Sir Kenelm** E. Digby, G.C.B., K.C., **Mr. Charles** E. Brightman, **Mr. Sandford** D. Cole, Captain O. P. Marshall, Commander G. M. Maston, R.N., the Honorable T. H. W. Pelham, CB., Captain John Trenery, to be a Committee to inquire and report as to the present state of the law and its administration with respect to pilotage in the United Kingdom, and as to what changes, if any, are desirable. To continue the quotation from the report - >The conditions at the present day call for an expression of opinion as strong as, if not stronger than, that above quoted, and we are therefore of opinion that this is a reform which has been all too long delayed. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- The Board of Trade has not adopted that, though. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- On that point I am not sure. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- From what the honorable member has read, he may be sure of that. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I do not know whether the Bo'ard of Trade have adopted the latter report or not. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- I understand that they have adopted all the recommendations except this one. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We have adopted the latter portion of the recommendation of the Committee without adopting the former part, and I ask the Minister why, since part of the recommendation is embodied in clause 352, tha other part has not also been adopted? I understand, however, that an amendment is to be moved, which has been drafted in consultation with an eminent nautical authority, which the Minister thinks will cover the case. I am glad that pilotage is to be made a Federal service. The evidence taken by the Royal Commission on Naviga tion showed that at that time the remuneration for pilotage was not uniform, and sometimes not satisfactory. We found that the Queensland pilots should receive more than was at that time paid to them by the Government of the State. The pilotage service must always employ highly expert men of the best character, because of the serious responsibility attached to it, and the trying nature of ' the work. In determining the remuneration of the pilots, we should bear in mind the conditions under which they work, and the fact that theirs is a dangerous calling, needing skill, and expert knowledge. The Victorian pilots are not the servants of the State, but possess an organization and equipment of their own, with pension rights. The Commonwealth, in taking over this service with the pilotage service of the other States, will have to recognise these rights and privileges as liberally as it can, so that the men shall not be worse off than they are now. I am sure that the AttorneyGeneral intends that these men shall be fairly and justly dealt with. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- That is so. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Ii is the desire of all honorable members that they shall be properly treated, and their present rights fully recognised. {: #debate-13-s41 .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong .. - It is proposed that the Governor-General may proclaim the ports at which the employment of a pilot shall be compulsory, and that at any such port the pilotage shall be performed by a pilot in the Public Service of the Commonwealth. In Victoria the pilots, although under Government supervision, are remunerated by fees, and are not Government servants. The principle that the pilots shall be Government servants is, perhaps, a sound one, but it is only fair to point out that it failed when first applied to the Port Phillip pilotage service. . Our pilots were first paid in accordance with their earnings, but afterwards became Government servants, and received a fixed salary. After some years that arrangement was found to be unsatisfactory, and for reasons which then seemed obvious, the present system was adopted. It has proved very satisfactory on the whole. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- Does not =the plant belong to the Government of Victoria ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- No; it belongs to the pilots themselves. They set aside a certain portion of their earnings towards the purchase of plant. When Minister of Customs for Victoria, I had the pleasure of helping them in this matter, they applying to me for an advance of ,£20,000 for the purchase of a steamer, and they have since repaid the principal as well as the interest. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- According to the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Navigation, the pilots at our ports, whether in the Government service or not, are carrying out their duties most efficiently. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- No doubt that is so, but when the Port Phillip pilots were Government servants, and paid fixed salaries, the arrangement did not prove satisfactory. I do not urge that as a reason why the new system of making all our pilots Government servants should not be initiated. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- When they are taken over,' due regard, as the honorable member for Darling Downs suggests, will be paid to their rights and privileges. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Exactly. Clause 356 provided for the taking over of their plant, but there is another feature in the fact that they have something like ;£60,000 invested in the superannuation and pension fund, over which the Victorian Government have more or less control. We are making an important departure, which involves an interference with a large sum of money, and I desire to know whether the Minister of Trade and Customs has considered to what extent, if any, it is intended to interfere with that fund? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- These pilots are, I think, under the Marine Board. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- They are, I believe, under the Marine Board, and are governed by one of the provisions in the Marine Act. Has the Minister considered what is to be the position of these pilots, or how far their interests are affected? Do the Federal Government propose to make arrangements to step into the shoes of the State Government, in order that the rights of these men may be reasonably conserved ? We are entitled to know exactly where we stand, and how far the vested interests of the pilots will be affected. I am certain that the Minister will see that the rights and interests of the pilots are not prejudiced. I do not know whether the honorable gentleman has made any arrangements with the pilots, or what his intentions are. Does he intend to take all of them over? Will they all have a right to come into the service of the Federal Government, or will this be a matter for the discretion of the Minister? {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- That must be left to the Government. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- According to the terms of this Bill, the rights of these men are to be taken away; their licences are to be cancelled, and they are to become Government servants. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to ask whether they will have a right to come into the employment of the Federal Government, or whether the' Federal Government will take over only those whom they may think it well to take over? No indication is given by the Government as to what the status of these men is to be in the future - what their salaries or conditions are to be. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Have we ever provided in a Bill for the salaries or positions' of public servants under that Bill? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- No, but the circumstances here are vastly different. In some of the States, the pilots are Government servants. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- They are Government servants in all the States except in Victoria and the Torres Straits. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- These pilots have a right to know what their position will be in regard to status, salaries, and conditions. I am not suggesting that provisions in this regard should be embodied in the Bill ; but the Minister knows that it is a frequent practice for the Government to indicate to Parliament what the intentions are in regard to employment under such circumstances as these. Will the pilots have a right to be taken over, or will the Government exercise their discretion as to which shall be employed? {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- That must be left to the Minister. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Of course; but I urge that it is usual and proper for a Government to let Parliament know what the intentions are. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I understand that the AttorneyGeneral has given some assurance on the point. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- I have already said that, in regard to the Victorian pilots, the Government will pay due regard to their position and privileges, and treat them justly and equitably. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- That, of course, means nothing. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- I think it means everything. The facts are perfectly well known ; they were before the Royal Commission. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I am only urging that we should have at least some general idea as to what the status, salaries, and conditions of these pilots will be. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Whether they will all be taken over will be subject- to their fitness, and to their not being in excess of the requirements. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- That is the point, " subject to their not being in excess of the requirements." I admit the difficulty in that regard. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- I have no reason to believe that they are in excess of the requirements. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- These men are now licensed, and are earning their living as pilots ; and, by this part of the Bill, their employment will be, or may be, taken away. Hence, I say that they are placed in a rather unfair position; but I am sure that the Government will err on the side of generosity rather than otherwise. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- That is a perfectly fair arid accurate statement of the case. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- They have interviewed me, I suppose, half-a-dozen times, and I have assured them of what the Government propose to do. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I may say that they have not seen me on the subject ; and 1 am merely making suggestions that occur to me from my knowledge of the facts. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- They will have a fair thing done by them ; but whether the position of the Victorian pilots will be as good in the future as in the past, I am not sure. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Seeing that these pilots are now working under extraordinary conditions, and that' their vested interests, technically and legally, are being taken away so far as their employment is concerned, it is only fair that the intentions of the Government should be made known. We are taking their employment away by Act of Parliament, and I, therefore, urge that their peculiar, position should not be overlooked. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The honorable gentleman may be sure that if there were much doubt about their position they would have taken the trouble to see certain honorable members in regard to it. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Possibly they would. I know that the Navigation Commission went into this matter very fully, and I do not dissent from their recommendation for the taking over of the pilotage service and the employment of these men as public servants. At page 11 of the *Minutes of Evidence* given before the Commission, it will be found that **Dr. Wollaston** said - >In the case of Victoria, the chief difficulty would be in the arranging for taking over theplant of the pilots. It would not be fair to takethis without compensating them for the money which they have invested in it; and another difficulty would be experienced on account of their pension fund. The sum of, I think, ^50,000 is invested in that fund, the interest upon which is utilized for the payment of pensions. The question would have to be considered whether it is advisable for the Commonwealth to take this money and pay pensions out of pilotage rates. Doubtless, if we took over these pilots, we should also be obliged to recognise their pension rights, but we might provide that no fresh pilot entering the service should be granted any such right. I believe that all parties would be glad to cometo an arrangement of that sort. As regards future employment, that must be a matter for consideration by the Government, but as regards the existing rights of Victorian pilots, and particularly their pension rights, I think the Minister, if he has had the matter under consideration, should say exactly what he intends doing. I have discussed the question from an old knowledge of the state of affairs, and a desire that what is fair and just, so far as their existing rights are concerned, should be done in taking over the Victorian pilots. {: #debate-13-s42 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Tradeand Customs · Yarra · ALP -- The matter raised by the honorable member for Kooyong hasbeen brought under the notice of the AttorneyGeneral and myself. I think I havereceived four or five deputations from the Victorian pilots, whose position is very different from that of any other pilots inAustralia. They possess their own equipment, and have two rather fine steamers of their own. They bring vessels from 3 or 4. miles outside the Heads right into Melbourne, a distance of from 30 to 40 miles. Their opponents urge that they form a pretty close corporation. I do not wish.for a moment to infer that there are men in the service who are not fully qualified, but it is possible that sometimes the best qualified men are unable to get into that service. In view of their possession of vessels and equipment, and of insurance and superannuation funds, it has been rather a matter of buying one's way intothe Victorian pilotage service. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Who appoints them? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- They are appointed by the Marine Board, and I understand that applications are called for when a vacancy occurs. The last time the Victorian pilots saw me, I made special inquiries to know if many had been appointed within recent years. Honorable members will agree that it would be unfair to have the service loaded up just when we are about to take over the pilots. I find that that has not been the case. The Victorian pilots receive no fixed salary, but their emoluments come to about double the salary paid to pilots in other parts of Australia. Honorable members may rest assured that the Victorian pilots will be treated fairly. When we take over the pilotage service we shall require the vessels employed in it, and we must compensate their owners for them. Their superannuation and insurance funds are administered by themselves under the Marine Board Act, but they can rest assured that their existing rights will be effectively safeguarded. Still, no Minister could guarantee that every pilot entering the service in Victoria in future will have secured to him terms and conditions of employment equal to those enjoyed by the Victorian pilots to-day, because that would involve the raising of the rates paid to pilots throughout Australia, No doubt when the Port Phillip pilots become public servants of the Commonwealth the Public Service Commissioner will consider their position. If, for instance, it be shown that the average earnings of a Victorian pilot for the past three or four years has run up to *£800* a year, that will be taken into consideration in fixing their salaries. The Public Service Commissioner will, no doubt, take into consideration also the work the men have been doing and the work they will be required to do under the Commonwealth. They can rest assured that, as regards their plant and equipment, and their present status, a fair thing will be done by them. Neither the present nor any other Government would seek to deprive them of any advantages they have been able to secure for themselves, and which, but for the passing of this Bill, they would continue to enjoy. Some alteration will, of course, have to be made ; but we cannot, in any case, make the conditions throughout Australia uniform. The work of a pilot who takes charge of a vessel over a distance of a mile or two through one channel cannot be regarded as equal in importance with the work of one who takes a vessel over a distance of 40 miles through a number of channels. No doubt the pilots will be graded by the Public Service Commissioner, just as he has graded the offices of the Post and Telegraph Department. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- Then the Lord help them 1 {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The Public Service Commissioner has proved himself to be a very competent officer. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- Yes, he has. What I mean is that, for instance, the head of the Melbourne Post Office receives more than the head of the Richmond Post-office, because his work is more important, and his position of greater responsibility. He may have 500 or 600 men under him, whilst the officer at Richmond may not have more than twenty or thirty men under his charge. {: .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr Gordon: -- The question is, do we preserve the State rights of the postmaster at Richmond? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- We are not discussing that question at the present time. Honorable members will agree that, though public servants throughout Australia may complain very much about their position, very few of them leave the Service to go outside; and if any do so, most of them move Heaven and earth to get back again. We are not dealing with that matter now, but with the position of the pilots; and! I say that their position will differ in different ports. Their positions differ to-day. A pilot at Port Fairy may have to take charge of a vessel, perhaps, once in a month, and his time is very largely taken up with other work. In New South Wales, a pilot at Twofold Bay will not have the same work to do as a pilot at Sydney. The work of a Port Phillip pilot is very ' different from that of a pilot on the Gippsland Lakes. Pilotage will be compulsory under this' Bill, and honorable members may be assured that every -pilot taken over by the Commonwealth will have his rights safeguarded. I am not sure what course will be adopted in connexion with the Torres Straits pilots. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- There is no provision, in the Bill for '' sky " pilots. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- We are dealing with navigation by sea, and not through the air. There is no provision in the Bill for aeroplanes. The honorable member for Kooyong may rest assured that the case which he has mentioned has already received consideration, and that the men in question will be dealt with justly by the Government. {: #debate-13-s43 .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh -- This is one of the most important clauses of the Bill, and great care should be exercised in dealing with it. At the present time, when a pilot boards a vessel - assuming that compulsory pilotage exists - he at once becomes responsible, not merely for its navigation, but for the safety of the shipping through which the vessel must pass ; but although he is nominally in charge of the vessel, the master himself never loses control of his ship. The pilot is practically his chief adviser. If the pilot should lose his head as the result of a sudden illness, the master has a perfect right to interfere. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- We propose to amend clause 349 with that very object in view. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- If we enact legislation on those lines, we shall be on perfectly safe ground. Whilst the honorable member for Darling Downs was quoting from a report to the Board of Trade, I asked by way of interjection if there had been any legislation in support of the recommendations which were contained therein. I am satisfied that, whatever the departmental Committee might recommend, the Board of Trade is too shrewd to make the pilot alone responsible for the safe navigation of any vessel. We must recollect that in the old country pilotage is practically in the hands of the Trinity masters. If we take over the pilots in Australia, it is our duty to see that only efficient men are placed in charge of vessels entering, any port. If - we do that, it is all that we can do. But we ought clearly to lay down the lines upon which the Government should act; otherwise, in the near future, we shall have a nice crop of grievances on the part of the pilots themselves. I have very grave doubts whether we should take over the pilots at all. In South Australia, the chief ports in which pilots are engaged are the Outer Harbor, Port Adelaide, and Port Pirie. These pilots are employed to navigate vessels from the high seas into harbors which are under the control of the Marine Board of that State. Seeing that the Commonwealth has no control over Intra- State commerce, I am inclined to think that the States will set up a claim to retain their present system of pilotage as well as their Marine Boards. Consequently, it would be as well to make the clauses of this Bill which relate to pilots as separate as possible. At Port Adelaide and the Outer Harbor in South Australia, the pilots employed are the servants of the State; but at Port Pirie, they are merely licensed. Already, however, they are be ginning to smell fire. Under the South Australian law, they are entitled to continue as pilots, provided their health and efficiency are good, until they are seventy years of age. If the Commonwealth takes them over, the Public Service Commissioner will probably declare that they must retire upon attaining the age of sixty-five years. I do not think that this Parliament wishes to deprive any man of his rights. We must be very careful to guard against that. If the retiring age of pilots is fixed at sixtyfive or sixty years of age, that provision ought to apply only to future pilots. We know that there is always a fair amount of competition amongst our old ship-masters who wish to become pilots, and that for such positions there are always more applications than there are vacancies to fill. Shipmasters, of all men, are entitled io sympathy, consideration, and justice. The shipmaster runs all the risks of navigation in obtaining a living, and if he makes a mistake his employers may be prepared to re-engage him, but the exigencies of insurance nowadays are such that he is blackmarked, and practically loses his means of livelihood. A marine engineer, when he has a row with his employer, can take his tools ashore, and obtain a billet there; and so with the ordinary seaman; but the shipmaster is in an entirely different and less fortunate position. There are not many of these prizes, and I think that shipmasters should have an opportunity to secure them. At the same time, we should take care to obtain the best men for the position. I am speaking now for pilots in my own State, who have been " smelling fire in the distance." They have questioned me on the subject, and I have told them that I do not think the Federal Parliament will do them an injustice. I do not suppose that one-half of our pilots will be able to continue in the service until they have -reached seventy years of age. For reasons of health, as well as other considerations, most of them will probably retire before they reach that age, but those who are fit to remain in the service until they have reached that age should be allowed to do so. A large number of very elderly men who have followed a sea-faring life display great ability, are absolutely competent, and have a marvellous knowledge of our coast. The constant navigation of our waters gives them a knowledge of the varying currents along our coast, which the new man does not possess. They have an intimate knowledge, not only of the varying currents, but of the way in which those currents vary at different times of the year. I am told by competent men that many wrecks have been due to the fact that the masters in charge have not had a sufficient experience of these changing currents, a thorough knowledge of which is of the greatest importance when ships go by the reckoning. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is particularly the case on the North Queensland coast. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- There are many varying currents along the South Australian coast, and particularly about Kangaroo Island. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Does the honorable member contend that we cannot deal with pilotage or pilots, or that we cannot transfer such officers? {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- I am urging that if we take over the pilots, and it is found that under the State law their retiring age is fixed at seventy years, we should not alter that retiring age, so far as they are concerned. I am not troubling very much about the men who enter the pilot service in the» future. They will do so with their eyes open, but where men have entered the service under conditions prescribing the retiring age at seventy years, it seems to me that it would not be in accordance with justice or equity to call upon them, other things being equal, to retire on their reaching the age of sixty-five years. {: #debate-13-s44 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP -- The position, so far as the power of the Commonwealth is concerned, seems to me to be quite simple. Pilotage is an integral part of navigation, ( and to the extent that we may exercise our power in dealing with navigation, we may exercise it in regard to pilotage. Whatever limitations there are to our power in regard to navigation must exist also in regard to our power to deal with pilotage. That being so, we may pass a law with regard to pilotage and prescribe the conditions under which pilotage shall be carried on. That law should be uniform. We may prescribe the responsibilities of owners and of pilots, and we may take over State employes who are engaged in pilotage. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- Except those engaged in river and lake pilotage. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- That exception will apply to navigation generally. I anr not urging that there are no limitations. What these are we do not precisely know. I have already said that any limitation on our power regarding navigation must extend to our power to deal with pilotage to that extent, and no further. The practical limitation of our powers in regard to pilotage is, of course, to be found in the circumstances. We know that it is the general practice for coastal shipping to be brought in under an exempt certificate. Save in the case of the Brisbane River, and one or two more rivers of the kind, such vessels are generally brought in by masters holding a pilotage exemption certificate. Pilots, therefore, are mainly employed in and about foreign-going shipping, and as our power over foreign-going shipping is not in question, so far as regards the practical application of this Bill, there can be no doubt at all as to our power in regard to pilotage. As to the constitutional aspect of the question, I submit that whatever limitations are imposed upon us in respect of Intra-State shipping will apply also to pilotage to the same extent. {: #debate-13-s45 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- The honorable member for Darling Downs referred to a report, presented last year by a Committee of the Imperial Parliament, in which certain recommendations were made. I believe that all the recommendations of that report have been adopted with one exception, and that the only one that was not embodied in the British Bill is now incorporated in this measure as clause 352. Under that clause, reversing the principle of the Merchant Shipping Act, the liability is cast on the owner and master for damage or loss occasioned by fault or want of capacity on the part of the pilot, although the pilotage is compulsory. I do not know whether that is wise, but the honorable member for Darling Downs appears to approve of the principle. We have before us the fact that it is the very reverse of the principle embodied in section 633 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and that, although a Committee recommended that that section should be repealed, the Home Government did not accept the recommendation. *Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.* {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The reason that under the Merchant Shipping Act the owners of the vessel are not liable where the pilotage is compulsory is because the control of the vessel is taken out of the master's hands. He is not allowed to interfere in any way with the navigation, although there is a limitation to this extent, that if he sees a certain danger which may be avoided by giving advice to the pilot, leaving to the pilot the final determination of what is to be done, it would be negligence on his part to be silent. It is, therefore, thought that if, in the interests, not merely of the passengers and the cargo and the vessel, but of the port, compulsory pilotage is applied at any particular place, it would be unfair to make responsible for negligence the man who is deprived of the control of the navigation of the vessel. Although a recommendation was made by a Committee last year that the English law ought to be altered, the Imperial Parliament, in its wisdom, declined to sanction the alteration, but adopted the other recommendations of the Committee, which were, to some extent, mixed up with the principle of compulsory pilotage. Under this measure we compel a- man to employ a pilot licensed by us, and if the pilot happens to be inefficient or negligent, he is not responsible for more than ^100 in damages, and in order to make up for the rest we fall back upon the principle of making responsible the man who has lost control through our Act. That, I think, is unfair. This will affect principally oversea vessels, because I suppose most of the local vessels are controlled by exempt officers. There is another side of the question. If we exempt the master of the vessel from liability, and at the same time limit the liability of the pilot to £100, we may be doing an injury to the persons who are suffering loss, because there is no fund out of which they can get damages for loss which is due to the negligence of some one. Whatever view we take, therefore, an injustice is put upon some one. Nevertheless, the best course would be to stick to the English law, and if we say that pilotage must be compulsory we ought to find a way out by providing for some fund, by insurance or otherwise, to compensate the persons who are injured. I am doubtful as to whether we can take over the property of pilots. We can acquire any public property of a Department that we take over, but there is no pilotage Department. It is not a specific Department with property, like the Customs and Excise or Post and Telegraph. We can acquire property for any purpose within our powers of legislation, but does that mean that, because we regulate the employment of pilots, we can take over any of their stock in trade, such as their boalts, a class of property, unlike land, capable of being otherwise acquired? It may be so, but it is a fairly wide extension of the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- In this case they would want us to take them over. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- If they are agreeable it is all right, but we are taking here compulsory powers of acquisition of this property, and on that point there may be some doubt as to whether section 51 of the Constitution enables us to do it. {: #debate-13-s46 .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh -- I should like to make a strong appeal *to* the Government to strike out the clause which makes a pilot liable for pecuniary damage to the extent of *£100.* I have been of opinion for many years that a pilot is not liable at all in law. I believe that, on an appeal from New Zealand some years ago, the Privy Council decided that the pilot was not liable, on the ground that he was licensed in good faith by the authorities, who had, to the best of their ability, satisfied themselves as to his competence, and that if anything occurred it was part of the risks of navigation. I hope the Minister will not take what I am going to say personally, because it is not meant in that way, but for downright impudence and refined robbery commend me to the clause that makes the unfortunate pilot liable to .£100 damages. It often happens that the agents press the pilots to move a vessel, and to comply with thenwishes a risk has to be taken when the port is crowded. The pilots are a hard-working body of nien, and have to go out in all sorts of weather. Their's is not the easiest way to get a living, and accidents will occur. Take, for example, the port of Newcastle, where this sort of thing mostfrequently occurs. It is crowded with shipping, and a vessel may be damaged to the extent of *£10* or *£15.* The accident may be just a slight tap, with no real harm done, but if a pilot has to pay for that sort of thing it may practically mean reducing his income by half. It should be remembered that nowadays all these vessels are insured, some of them by their owners, like Holt's Blue Funnel line. Where you find a company that insures its own fleet, you may depend on getting a remarkably good and safe service. If the hull of a vessel is insured, the insurance people have to pay any damage, whether it is *£10* or £3,000. This proposal means that the unfortunate pilot is to be robbed in order to save the insurance companies a few pounds. I know the history of this clause, which, I 4244 *Navigation* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Bill.* believe, originated in my own State. I am not very proud of it. If there is anything of which we South Australians ought to be ashamed, it is the liability of pilots. It was introduced originally in South Australia by a very ingenious gentleman, when pilots were not Government officers, but were simply licensed, and he thought it would make them more careful. I do not know that it did make them more careful. There is another dangerous thing with regard to this provision. I stated a short time ago what I believed to be the law in the matter. In the English law, care has been taken to guard against liability in respect of pilots. If we make pilots liable, in my opinion we shall be creating a principle which will involve liability upon the Government. When pilots become officers of the Commonwealth, it will be difficult to prove that if a pilot is liable the Government which employs him is not liable also. Further than that the provision is grossly unjust to the pilots, who, as a rule, are poor men. There are not many of them who are so well off as are the pilots of Port Phillip. The clause may involve a tremendous tax on those who have to do with the moving of vessels within the various ports of Australia. I can see no reason for the imposition of this liability, notwithstanding that there is such a provision in the South Australian Act. I have always believed that it was a disgrace to our statute-book. I fought it in South Australia, and intend to fight it again. The provision will be unfair to the pilots in every port in Australia, but in the port of Newcastle it will create greater grievances than elsewhere. Those who know anything of the conditions attaching to shipping in that port will understand how it will operate there. Wherever shipping is thickly congested, and has to be moved about within a narrow compass, the risks are greatest. It is not the fault of the pilots that they have to take these risks. I trust that the Minister will see his way to strike out the clause. {: #debate-13-s47 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- If honorable members refer to the clause relating to the liability of pilots they will see that the penalty is imposed for a specific purpose. It is only incurred where damage is done to a ship as the result of negligence or want of skill on the part of the pilot. While some may be of opinion that *£100* is rather a large sum in which to mulct a pilot, it has to be remembered that the maximum penalty would only be imposed in case of wilful neglect. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That is how the clause reads {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The clause explains itself. It provides that no pilot shall be personally liable beyond the extent of *£100* for any damage or loss occasioned by his negligence or want of skill. Suppose damage is done to a ship through a pilot being the worse for liquor, in consequence of which he negligently and carelessly navigates the vessel. He may cause damage to the extent of thousands of pounds. Is there to be no check upon him? A pilot is put in charge of a ship, and of the lives of the people on board. There have been cases where pilots, through being in liquor, have navigated vessels with an utter disregard to the requirements of safety, and have taken risks which they had no right to incur. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- The penalty is only to be incurred for small damage. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member must see that a Court would have to determine the amount of the pilot's liability, and no penalty would be imposed until evidence had been taken. Some safeguard, at any rate, ought to be provided to insure that pilots shall realize that responsibility does rest upon them, and that in the event of their being lacking in nautical skill or caution, and placing the lives of people and the ship in jeopardy, they may incur pecuniary liability. Under the circumstances I do not see that the penalty proposed is too high, seeing that the maximum need not be enforced. A penalty as low as *£5* might be imposed. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- It is not a fixed penalty. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I take it that the penalty would be assessed according to the nature and extent of the damage. Fortunately, in Australia, we have been well served by our pilots. But even amongst the best class of men there would be exceptions to the general rule ; and any one of those exceptions may be the cause of a lamentable catastrophe. We certainly ought to make provision to meet cases of that kind. I, therefore, think that we are perfectly safe in leaving the penalty clause as it stands. {: #debate-13-s48 .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter .- I agree with the honorable member for Hindmarsh as to the necessity for eliminating the penalty clause, which would *Navigation* [15 October, 1912.] *Bill.* 4245 inflict great hardship upon pilots. The honorable member mentioned the port of Newcastle. In Newcastle generally the shipping is congested. During the last two or three months we have had from sixty to one hundred boats waiting there. After a heavy rain the river is in flood to a certain extent, bringing down trees, and so forth, and no pilot can move a boat without running a big risk of some damage being done. I want to know whether he will be clear under this clause. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I think he will. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- I do not. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I think he will, unless the damage was due to his neglect or want of skill. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Very often the Boards which have to deal with these accidents find that there has been neglect, when probably the pilot has not been to blame at all. If we permit a clause of this kind to remain in the Bill, the result will be that in bad weather, in the Newcastle district, the pilots will refuse to shift boats rather than take the risk of having to pay a penalty of *£100 ;* and, consequently, we shall have many mines thrown idle and hundreds of men unable to get work, because of the harbor being in an unsafe state. It is wrong to ask a pilot to take the risk of shifting a boat with the fear of being mulct in damages to the extent of£100 if an accident happens. A good deal has been urged by the honorable member for Lang in regard to culpable negligence or drunkenness on the part of the pilot. There is a clause which provides for such cases. If a man is guilty of gross neglect or drunkenness in the performance of his duty, he ought to be punished. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What clause is that? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Under clause 354 a pilot can be indicted, and put on his trial, if certain things have happened through his not being in a fit state to navigate the ship. That is quite proper. But it is quite a different matter when a pilot has to shift a boat in a congested harbor. In Newcastle there have been dozens of accidents, although the pilots have been cautious, skilful men. It stands to reason that the pilots must be skilful men, because a certificate is not likely to be given to a man who has not proved that he possesses the necessary skill. The pilots are all skilful men, and yet, in Newcastle, we have had dozens of accidents, where the damage to the boat may have run into hundreds of pounds. The accidents were not due to the fault of the pilots. The owner might be anxious for a boat to be removed to the crane to get a cargo of coal. Pressure might require that the boat should be got under the crane in order to get a.way from port, and to keep the colliery working. A pilot always does the best he can in such circumstances, but under this clause, if he bumps another ship, he will be liable to a fine not exceeding , £100, because somebody may consider that the accident was due to neglect on his part. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Is it not a Court which will have to decide that upon the evidence? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Why should the pilots have to go to a Court when there is provision made in the Bill to meet cases like those which the honorable member cited ? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- It would be worse for the pilots if they were left to be dealt with under the other clause. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The Minister must see that in the cases I refer to there would be no need to take Court proceedings. The authorities would be perfectly satisfied if the pilot had not been guilty of any neglect, but under this other clause a pilot would have to stand his . trial, because the charge would be wilful negligence or drunkenness on duty. As the honorable member for Hindmarsh pointed out, if a boat is insured against accident the owner will be fully reimbursed any expenditure which he may have to incur. I do not see why the pilot should be penalized because somebody considers that the accident was due to neglect on his part. I venture to assert that there is not a pilot to-day who does not take every possible care in the performance of his duty, and yet accidents occur, as they do in every walk of life. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- He will not be liable to any penalty if it is an accident. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- He will be liable under this clause. The other clause meets the case of a pilot who is guilty of wilful neglect. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I think it would be far more serious, because he would be indicted and tried in a Court. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Just so. If a pilot is guilty of wilfully doing something which he should not do, through being drunk when he is in charge of a boat, he should be tried in a Court, because no one's life should be put in danger. If you carry out this principle here, why not apply it to every other walk of life? Take the case of an engine-driver who has lives under his care as he winds an engine. Is any action, taken against him1 because of any damage which has happened to the mine through overwinding? That is never thought of. If, however, he does anything which causes a fatal accident, he has to stand his trial, just as a pilot who is guilty of wilful neglect will have to do under clause 354. No action for damages is taken against an engine-driver because of something which has happened, it may be, to the pulleywheel. The same thing applies in every walk of life. {: .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr Finlayson: -- On the railways? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Yes. No matter what class of employment we take, we do not find that men are held responsible for damage which may have taken place owing to certain accidents. For the first time, _ so far as I know, we are asked to penalize men who endeavour to perform their duty in a proper way. If the clause is allowed to stand, and I were a pilot, I should not move a boat in Newcastle harbor from the Stockton side to the crane for any one while there was a big swell. Very often, after a heavy rain, a week may elapse before the current subsides sufficiently to permit the moving of a boat with a reasonable chance of not incurring any damage. Under this provision, we shall at times of flood have the whole of that large district laid idle. A pilot will be amply justified in refusing to move a boat in such circumstances when he is made liable to the extent of £100 for any damage which may be occasioned to a boat under his control. It is not a fair provision to enact. Pilots do not receive large salaries, and very few of them who have to maintain a home have *£100.* In these circumstances, they are not likely to take a risk. Surely, if an accident happens in moving a boat, and the insurance company makes good the damage done, the owner can lose nothing. Why should a poor pilot who could not possibly prevent an accident be liable to pay to the extent of ^100 for the damage done? .1 hope that the Minister will take notice of the representations which have been made, and that, after reconsideration, he will see his way to eliminate the clause. In mv opinion, it is quite unnecessary, as ample provision is made in clause 354 to meet the case of a pilot who wilfully does any wrong in connexion with the control of a boat. {: #debate-13-s49 .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong -- I am largely in sympathy with the views expressed by the honorable members for Hindmarsh and Lang. {: #debate-13-s50 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I should like to make a suggestion, if I may be permitted. It seems to me that this discussion is not regular. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- We are getting into detail. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- We are discussing the division. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- We are discussing the division in a general way. The last two speeches have been directed to one clause. I think* that it would be much better to discuss the matter on that clause. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I wanted especially to draw the attention of the Committee to the fundamental difference which exists by reason of certain limitations in this Bill. When the pilotage system was a licensing system, there may, perhaps, have been some reason for imposing this liability on pilots as was done in the Merchant Shipping Act. In the . Old Country, where the pilots are licensed, they have to enter into a bond, and thereby a recognised liability is undertaken. But under our law the pilots will be Government servants. It is proposed to make them liable to the extent of .£100, thus applying to them a principle hitherto unknown in the Public Service. The Cam.monwealth is not to be liable for any damage or loss occasioned by the neglect or want of skill of a pilot. It is to be protected; but the pilot, who is to be the servant of the Commonwealth, is to be liable for penalities. Of course, if a pilot is guilty of negligence, he can be dealt with like any other member of the Public Service. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- Why did the Commission recommend this provision? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I think that the provision was inserted in the Bill under a misapprehension. The fact that it was under the old licensing system that pilots were made liable to a penalty, has been lost sight of ; and it has escaped notice that, under the Bill, they will be Government servants. The English law has been followed blindly. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The same provision is in the Victorian law. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- But the Victorian pilotage service is carried on under a licensing system, and, of course, the provisions of the British law apply to it. Under section 620 of the Merchant Shipping Act, a qualified pilot appointed by Trinity House who has executed a bond, is not liable, for neglect or want of skill beyond the amount of the bond and the amount paid to him in respect of pilotage for the voyage for which he became so liable. Apparently, there is a bond for each voyage. The honorable members for Hunter and Hindmarsh are right in saying that it is unreasonable to exact this penalty for neglect or want of skill from pilots who are to be public servants, when other public servants are not similarly treated. A man who is unskilled ought not to be allowed to remain a pilot. Only qualified men should be appointed, and where there is wilful neglect or negligence the pilot must be punished; but there are other ways of punishing him. Clause 354 provides penalties for drunkenness and like offences. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- How does the honorable member differentiate between wilful negligence and want of skill in one who has been engaged as an expert ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- A pilot who is negligent must be punished, just as any other public servant is punished for neglect of duty ; and a man who shows want of skill should not be a pilot. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- The want of skill is often not ascertained until a ship has been run on the rocks. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- That may be. In other services besides the pilot service risks have to be taken in proving the skill of those appointed to conduct them. The skill is often ascertained only by the manner in which a man discharges his duties. I do not understand the alteration that is proposed in regard to the liability of the master. The old Bill followed the English law, which is that the owner or master shall not be > answerable for any loss or damage occasioned through the fault or want of capacity of a pilot when the employment of the latter is compulsory. The Bill makes it compulsory that the master shall take a pilot under certain circumstances; but says, nevertheless, that the owner or master shall not be exempt from liability for loss or damage occasioned by the fault or want of capacity of the pilot by reason of the fact that the employment of the latter was compulsory. It has been suggested that the departmental Committee of the Board of Trade recommended the re peal of section 632 of the Merchant Shipping Act, but that recommendation was made on the basis of the proposals and recommendations of the Committee which were anterior to it. They altered the relationship of the master and pilot by putting the master in supreme authority, making the pilot merely an expert assistant. The idea of the Committee of the Board of Trade was that the master, who is the servant and agent of the owner, being in supreme authority, the owner should be liable. That is a legitimate and reasonable requirement, because the owner could pro'tect himself by insurance against loss or damage. I think that the Government make a mistake, first, in putting the pilot in supreme command, and then in causing the owner to be liable notwithstanding. My view is that the master should remain in supreme command, and the owner should continue liable for loss or damage, he being able to protect himself by insurance. The English Act, which is a declaration of the common law, makes the owner liable; and if it is followed, as it was by the original Bill, clause 352 should be amended. {: #debate-13-s51 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP -- The liability of a pilot is limited by clause 351. The honorable member for Kooyong is seeking to show that a principle which is quite sound in the Merchant Shipping Act becomes unsound in this Bill by reason of the fact that we propose to' make the pilots public servants. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- As a matter of fact, I do not think that the principle is sound, but I was trying to get at its history. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- There was a similar proposal in the honorable member's Bill of 1908. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- That is quite right. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- The Royal Commission went into this question at some length ; and it is perfectly true that there was some evidence showing that the proposal might press hardly on the pilots. But the Commission did not agree with that view. A pilot is an expert engaged for one particular purpose, because he possesses skill and knowledge. This clause provides that when a pilot does not display that special skill or knowledge, and anything happens, he shall be liable; and I am bound to say that I see nothing wrong in that. A pilot is a man who puts himself forward as an expert, and he may be placed in charge of a vessel valued at many thousands of pounds, and with many human lives dependent upon him. If he piles a ship up, and a Court of Marine Inquiry, on the evidence, decides that he exhibited gross negligence and want of skill- {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- He may be indicted under another clause for that. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- Of course he may; nothing can relieve him of that liability any more than an engine-driver or a chauffeur can be relieved. But the position of a pilot is a special one. The master of a ship, in all other respects, excepting the particular skill in taking a. vessel in and out of port, is a thoroughly qualified man ; and if he does anything wrong he may be dismissed and is subject to all the pains and penalties of the law. I really do not see that the pilots have anything to complain of in this clause. They can only be liable when found guilty by a competent Court of jurisdiction ; and human lives and property of very great value depend on their skill and care. The community has to bear the brunt of any loss occasioned through wreck, collision, or fire, though insurance companies may shift it from one individual's shoulder and spread it over many individuals. And, of course, there are precious human lives to be thought of. If we delete the words referring to want of skill we do not advance ourselves at all, because, in a pilot, want of skill is neglect. A pilot ought not to put himself forward as a pilot unless he has skill, and if skill is not exercised there is neglect. When the Royal Commission made inquiries it was after the wreck of the *Australia* at the heads of Port Phillip. In that case it was, I think, the pilot's eyesight that failed. At any rate, he was incompetent. The Royal Commission in their report said - >Upon the licensed pilots being taken over by the Commonwealth, provision should be made for the purchase of the whole of their plant at a fair valuation, and due regard paid to the equities of their position. > >The revised provisions for periodical examinations to test the fitness of pilots made by the various States seem to leave little room for improvement. > >The evidence shows that the men now engaged are physically fit, their eyesight being regularly tested. We recommend, however, that uniform regulations be drawn up with a view of making arrangements for an annual examination for physical fitness, and that the eyesight test be based upon **Dr. Ramsay** Smith's suggestions, which your Commissioners consider to be both efficient and appropriate. > >A considerable amount of evidence was adduced on the question as to whether pilots should be liable (as proposed in the Bill) to the extent of £100 for accidents caused through want of skill or neglect. This provision has been in force in Victoria for some time, and, believing it to be a salutary one, your Commissioners recommend its general adoption. > >The sub-section providing that the Commonwealth shall be entirely exempted from liability for accidents to vessels whilst in the charge of pilots did not meet with the general approval of witnesses, but your Commissioners cannot see their way to recommend any alteration in this respect. If we delete this clause the Commonwealth will have to bear the entire responsibility, and become liable for pecuniary damages whatever they may be. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- How is it that the State Government of New South Wales are not liable, and there is not a provision like this in the State Act? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- Very likely that Act exempts the State Government. If not, then the New South Wales Government is liable for all damages caused through negligence or want of skill of its servants. I submit that somebody ought to be responsible; the liability must rest somewhere. Legislation that denied the liability of every party responsible would not, and ought not, to be tolerated. Besides, the Commonwealth would not tolerate in its service men who were guilty of neglect of the kind indicated. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- Hear, hear; let the offending pilot be dismissed, as is the case in the State service. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- Well, dismiss him. But this clause permits a less drastic course to be taken. I think it a perfectly fair and proper provision. It may be that it will be very rarely used, and I hope it will ; but, of course, we know perfectly well that, when there is loss of life, a pilot or engine-driver is liable to be indicted. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- Properly so, too. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- No one would suggest otherwise ; where valuable property and life are jeopardized there ought to be some remedy. {: #debate-13-s52 .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr GORDON:
Boothby .- The case cited by the Attorney-General where a pilot piled a big steamer on the rocks was an unfortunate one in support of this clause. In that case, there was the loss of a ship worth ^100,000 at the least, and the fact that the pilot was liable to be fined ^100 was no compensation to the owner, no satisfaction to the captain, and certainly no adequate punishment to the pilot. The test of skill for the pilot service must be a thorough examination. The Government of the day must be satis- fied that the servants employed by them to do this expert work are competent men, and the fact that a £100 penalty is hanging over their heads will not make them any more careful than they otherwise would be. As a matter of fact, the pilots will carry out their work to the best of their ability, not because they may be liable to a fine of ,£100 if they are guilty of neglect, but from fear of the loss of reputation, and of the power of dismissal, which the Government will always have. That is the penalty which should be imposed on a pilot if he is guilty of the negligence referred to in this clause. I was very pleased this afternoon to have an assurance from the Minister that all rights enjoyed by pilots in the various State services are to be preserved. Whilst I do not doubt the assurance, I should like a guarantee to that effect to be embodied in a clause of this Bill. We have had experience in the past, to which I shall not refer in detail, of persons employed by the various State Governments having been taken over by the Commonwealth, and their State rights not being preserved to them, although they had an equal assurance from the Minister of the day. If there is one thing which this Parliament should guard more sacredly than another it is the honour of the Commonwealth service. We should be prepared to give these men a statutory guarantee that all the rights they at present enjoy in the various State services shall be preserved to them. Such a provision would only apply to those already in the pilot services of the different States, as in the case of other public servants. Any pilot coming fresh into the service of the Commonwealth would enter it subject to any conditions which the Government of the day might impose. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The Navigation Commission pointed out that in most of the States the pilots were insufficiently paid, and expressed a hope that when they were taken over by the Commonwealth there would be a revision of their salaries. {: .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr GORDON: -- There was another point to which the honorable member for Hindmarsh directed attention just before dinner, and to which the Attorney-General did not reply. I mention it now in order that some Ministerial statement may be made upon it. One of the rights enjoyed by pilots in the service of one of the States is that they cannot be called upon to retire until they have attained the age of seventy years. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- That is the retiring age for pilots in South Australia. {: .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr GORDON: -- I repeat the honorable member's inquiry, and I ask now whether 011 coming into the service of the Commonwealth it will be compulsory for the South Australian pilots to retire at the age of sixty-five years? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- It would be under the Public Service Act. {: .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr GORDON: -- Then the honorable member for Hindmarsh has his reply : On coming into the Commonwealth service the South Australian pilots will have five years taken off their lives as public servants. That is a matter for consideration. We see at once that one right enjoyed by the State servants will not be enjoyed by them when they are taken into the service of the Commonwealth. It is just as well that we should clearly understand the position. {: #debate-13-s53 .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir -- I wish to say a word or two with regard to the preservation of existing and accruing rights of the men who will be taken over by the Commonwealth when this Bill becomes law. Clause 335 makes some attempt to preserve such rights. We must consider, however, that there is a great difference between the services rendered by pilots and those of public servants generally. There is in connexion with pilots a necessity for continual examination and test of their fitness for the performance of their reresponsible duties. Such .examinations and tests are provided for in this Bill, and at present by State Acts. The fact that the retiring age for pilots in South Australia is seventy years would not prevent them being retired at an earlier age because of a defect of eyesight, or any other disqualification due to advanced age. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- They are liable to that now. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr WEBSTER: -- That is so; and that condition of their employment would be preserved. If there is one matter which we should make clear, it is that affecting the rights and accruing rights of- persons now in the employment of the States, and to be taken over by the Commonwealth under this Bill. The Minister says that their rights will be preserved, and then admits that when they are taken over they will be subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act. That is a contradiction. It has already been admitted that, under the Public Service Act, the right enjoyed by the pilots of South Australia in respect of the age retirement will not be preserved to them. I think, with the honorable member for Boothby, that there should be some specific undertaking in this Bill which will remove all doubt as to the intention of Parliament. I am sure that no member of this Parliament desires that any person who is now in the service of a State shall, if taken over by the Commonwealth, be discharged if he is qualified for the duties of his position. The Bill provides that the holder of a licence granted by a State may, subject to the regulations, surrender it for a corresponding licence under this measure. Before the surrender takes place, the person interested may have to undergo a new examination under the Commonwealth Act. We have had considerable trouble in the Commonwealth over the alleged preservation of existing and accruing rights. The Public Service Commissioner found that the accruing rights of certain public servants taken over by the Commonwealth were preserved, and in other cases they were not recognised, with the result that there was discontent and dissatisfaction in the Service. This discontent and dissatisfaction would have been much greater had it not been for the fact that two-thirds of the appeals against the classification were allowed. Under this Bill, the Marine Board will be a Board of Inquiry. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- It will not be the Marine Board, but a Court of Marine Inquiry. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr WEBSTER: -- It will be a Board constituted of men capable and expert in matters of navigation. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- It will be a Court of record; a judicial Court. There may be assessors, but it will be a Court of Marine Inquiry, presided over by a judicial officer. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr WEBSTER: -- The inquiry will be conducted by experts capable of judging the qualifications of men. In that respect, the Bill is better than the Public Service Act, since it makes provision for a Court of Inquiry composed of men who will be competent to judge the qualifications of those employed under it by the Commonwealth. I hope the Attorney-General will see his way clear to insert a provision which will protect the accrued and accruing rights of pilots, especially as those rights, in the case of other transferred public servants, have proved such a fruitful source of trouble. In regard to the proposal of the honorable member for Hindmarsh, it does appear to me that, whenever the Government introduce a Bill to authorize the taking over of any large service, they are extremely careful to protect the Commonwealth itself, whilst imposing upon others a liability which they ought not to be called upon to bear. Clause 351 seeks to impose upon a pilot a penalty of *£100* should any mishap occur to a vessel whilst he is in charge of it, notwithstanding that clause 354 provides adequate punishment for any such offence. Should a pilot be liable to the disabilities imposed by clause 354 for the unskilful navigation of a ship, and at the same time be called upon to pay a fine of *£100* under clause 351 ? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- He would not be punished under both clauses. Clause 351 is intended to meet minor offences. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr WEBSTER: -- I take it that he could be so punished. For a minor offence, is he to be liable to a penalty of ^100? An engine-driver upon our railways is not liable for damages to the extent of ^£100. If an accident occurs as the result of negligence on his part, he is subject to certain penalties under the law. But I know of no case in which he is liable for damages up to *£too.* {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- If clause 351 be struck out, he will be liable for the whole lot under the common law. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr WEBSTER: -- If it is not provided for in this Bill, a fine cannot be inflicted upon a pilot. This measure will override the common law where it specially provides for the punishment of offences. My contention is that clause 354 adequately covers any case of neglect on the part of a pilot. I think that the Attorney-General might pay some attention to the arguments which have been adduced in this connexion. He stated that he saw no reason why this fine should not be imposed. But he did not refer to clause 354, under which adequate punishment may be inflicted for neglect on the part of a pilot. We are attempting to legislate the Commonwealth out of its liability for offences committed by its servants. We say to ship-owners that our pilots are qualified to take charge of their ships, and we compel them to employ those pilots. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- And we say that we will not accept any responsibility for their actions. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr WEBSTER: -- Yes. We say that, should any mishap occur while a ship is in their charge, we will not accept responsibility. The Railways Commissioners cannot repudiate liability for neglect on the part of their engine-drivers. Should a collision occur as the result of negligence on the part of a locomotive driver, the Railways Commissioners cannot repudiate responsibility. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- The liabilities of the Railways Commissioners are those of a common carrier. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr WEBSTER: -- To the extent that we compel ship-owners to employ our qualified men- {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- The liability must rest somewhere. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr WEBSTER: -- Why should it rest on the pilots? Why should we impose upon them- a penalty for a mishap which may occur in a congested harbor - a mishap over which they may have no control ? 1 hope that the Minister will recognise the wisdom of amending clause 351. {: #debate-13-s54 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs -- As a member of the Royal Commission on the Navigation Bill, I may say that we took evidence on this very point. The Commission included such men as the Attorney-General, **Senator Guthrie,** and **Senator de** Largie, and the matter was considered very carefully by us. Among the witnesses examined was **Mr. James** George McKie, secretary of the Marine Board of Victoria, who was asked by **Senator Guthrie** - >But does the clause provide that a pilot who is a servant of the Sta,te shall be liable to the extent of £100 He replied, " That is the inference." In answer to the further question, " Do you think he ought to be? " he said - >I think that a provision that a pilot shall be liable to some pecuniary penalty is a wholesome une. It makes a man careful. That evidence was given on 27th October, 1904. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- In reference to Victorian conditions. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It was the evidence of a Victorian officer. Tn Queensland we examined Captain John Mackay, portmaster of Queensland., harbor-master for the port of Brisbane, and Chairman of the Marine Board. The Chairman of the Commission referred him to this provision, which was embodied in clause 360 of the Kingston Bill. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- It has been in every Bill since 1904. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It was in the original Bill drafted by **Dr. Wollaston,** and the whole of the State officials of Australia recommended it. The Chairman, having referred Captain Mackay to the clause, asked him whether he approved of it, and he replied, "I do." The further question was put to him, " That being so, do you approve of their being Government servants also?" and his reply was, "I do." **Mr. Thomas** Alfred doherty, Government pilot in the service of the State of Queensland, was also examined by us. Clause 360 was read to him, and he said that he approved of it. He was further asked, " What is your position with regard to the Government of Queensland? " He answered, " We are not liable." {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- Did the Commission take evidence in New South Wales? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We did. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- The pilots there are not liable. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Some witnesses disapproved of the provision. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- Victoria is ruling us. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I do not think there was a Victorian member on the Commission. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I have put before the Committee evidence given in Queensland in support of this provision. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- They were referring to serious, and not to trivial, accidents. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No, they were dealing with the clause itself. It was read to them. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- But how many witnesses disapproved of it? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Several. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- Let us hear their evidence. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I can give the honorable member references to their evidence if he desires to see it. We were considering the question of liability, and this clause was inserted with a view of keeping down the liability of pilots. It provides that the liability shall not exceed a certain amount. The Imperial Committee on Pilotage reported - >It has been brought to our notice that it frequently happens that when the owner of a ship, or a wharf which has been damaged by the faulty navigation of a ship, is unable to recover from the owner of that ship, he seeks to recover what he can from the pilot. Our attention has been called to cases where the pilots have, in consequence, been made bankrupt. The Committee went on to refer to the undesirableness of having liability piled up on pilots in this way. They reported that it was suggested that the bond in the London district, which is £100 should be increased, but they went on to say - >We cannot agree with this suggestion. We do not consider it in any way tends to add to the care and efficiency of a pilot to place him under a crushing financial responsibility for the damage he may cause. . . . We recommend that at all ports the pilotage authority should have power to make by-laws requiring the pilots to give a bond, and that when such » bond is given the liability of the pilots should be limited to that amount, together with the amount of pilotage payable in respect of the vessel. A by-law of this nature should not be made unless it is desired by the majority of the pilots at the port. That is to say, the by-law limiting the liability of the pilots should not be made without the consent of the majority. The object of this clause is to cut down the liability. It limits the liability of the pilot by declaring that it shall not exceed *£i°o.* lt was inserted as a safeguard, and **Mr. J.** G. McKie, secretary of the Victorian Marine Board, declared that such a provision was a wholesome one; that it made a man careful. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- The men are careful. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- That is true. We desire to have in the service only efficient men, and we want those efficient men to exercise their skill and capacity. They are intrusted with very serious responsibilities, and we ought to have in the Bill whatever safeguards can be provided. If, as has been suggested, we were going to transfer the responsibility from the pilot to the master, there might be some reason for the attempt to remove this liability. If the pilot is to be in supreme command to the exclusion of the master, then the pilot should be made liable, and this clause should remain. If, however, we were going to adopt the suggestion that the master should be supreme, . and that the pilot should act only as an expert assistant to guide him, the relation of the two men would be altered, and there might be some reason for a change in regard to the matter of liability. Under the Bill as drafted, however, the master is to be entirely superseded. A master might arrive here in charge of one of the largest vessels from, oversea., and under this Bill as it stands he would1 have to give way to the pilot, who, because of his exceptional skill and liability in bringing the vessel into port, would be placed in supreme control. If the pilots are to be placed in that position some responsibility should attach to them. The Commission took evidence on both sides, and recommended the insertion of this provision,, which was urged as desirable, not by private individuals, but by competent authorities in the shipping world. {: #debate-13-s55 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I regret that we are discussing a series of clauses instead of dealing with each individually as we come to it. As I interjected whilst the honorable member for Darling Downs was speaking, clause 351 has been in all the Navigation Bills. The clause limits the liability of the pilot, and I am assured by the Attorney-General that if we leave it out the pilot may be liable for the whole of the damage, and so be absolutely ruined. If proceeded against under clause 354 for an indictable offence, he would probably be suspended for two or three months, while the trial was going on, whereas under this clause proceedings could be taken before the Marine Board, the whole affair would be over in a few days, and the man would go back to his work again after having been lined, if it was decided by the Court that he should be fined. Honorable members speak of the pilot as if Kie were an ordinary public servant, but he is not. He has been compared with the driver of a train, but if !the latter makes a mistake, and is brought before a Board, he may be reduced to the position of fireman or cleaner. A pilot, however, cannot be reduced to any other status ; he is either a pilot or nothing. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- You can dismiss him ; we only want capable men. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- He can be dismissed; but why should a man be dismissed on account of an accident? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- Why keep him on if he is not capable? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I will guarantee that the pilots of Australia do not want us to enact that a man shall be dismissed on account of a small accident, that might be due to an error of judgment. If honorable members say " Dismiss him for any accident that happens ' '- {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- I do not say anything of the sort. I say " dismiss him if he is incapable." {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- He would be dismissed if incapable of holding his position. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- Why not make it " serious damage " instead of " any damage " ? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- The object of clause 351. is not to injure the pilot. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- That is what it will do, and I have seen it work. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- It will not injure him. The same provision is in operation in Victoria to-day. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- The Victorian pilots are not Government servants to-day. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- They are in a better position. The Victorian pilots do not want to be taken over and made Government servants. It will not matter so much to them, but their successors will not be in the position that they are in to-day. A case happened in the Yarra, where one of the big vessels absolutely bridged the river, and did damage to the wharf amounting to over *£200.* The whole of the traffic was hung up, but the pilot, who could have been fined £100, was fined only ,£25: {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- He got off easily. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- He did. The case was taken to the Marine Board, who assessed the damage. Under a provision such as honorable members are asking for, that pilot would have been fined, perhaps, the full amount of the damage, and if that particular section had not been in the Victorian law he would have had to be dismissed. Something might have happened that he could not control. A sudden squall would have a great effect on some of the big liners, which are so high out of the water. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- That would not be the pilot's fault. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- It would not be. Perhaps, in that case, there was some such cause for the accident, and possibly the fine was made less for that reason. It will not injure the pilots to leave the clause as it is. I am anxious to do the best for them, and to safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth. I would not agree to strike out the whole of the clause. I think we should make the pilot responsible for a certain amount. He should know that there is some pecuniary penalty hanging over him. Without that provision, as one honorable member stated, he would have to be dismissed, and I do not think that would be a wise provision in the interests of the pilots themselves. {: #debate-13-s56 .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter .- The arguments of those who support clause 351 convince me more than ever of its futility. The Minister said that the clause was put in to deal with cases of minor accidents that were due, perhaps, to a mistake in judgment, but Ave contend that for that reason the clause should not be included, because a pilot should not be called upon to pay £100 towards the damage done by a slight mishap of that sort. A case such as the Minister cited just now, where a good deal of damage was done through the fault of the pilot, would really come under clause 354. If the Marine Board decided that the accident was due to culpable negligence on the part of a pilot, he could be dealt with for an indictable offence. We all admit that it is necessary to take some power to prevent carelessness on the part of pilots, but clause 351 makes it possible for pilots to be cast in damages for small accidents which cannot be avoided. Manysuch accidents will always happen in Newcastle harbor, although the pilots there are among the most careful in the Commonwealth. I understand that in Great Britain a man enters into a bond. That is quite a different thing from fining him £100. Fidelity guarantee bonds are common in many positions of trust. A pilot may have the misfortune in flood times to get two or three boats damaged, and mav be fined up to £100 for each, even though the accidents were due to no fault of his own. If the clause is allowed to remain in the Bill, it will hamper operations in Newcastle, because when the river is in flood, the pilots will refuse to take the risk of moving ships. No such provision as this exists in Queensland or New South Wales, where the pilots are in the employ of the State Government. If it is not necessary there, why insert it in this Bill ? Why make the conditions of the pilots in those States worse than they are to-day? Why not preserve their rights, and refrain from imposing further pains and penalties upon them? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- If the clause were struck out, what would follow? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- I want the clause struck out, because there would be sufficient power in the remaining clauses to deal with any man. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- I shall try to explain what would follow if that were done. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The Minister explained just now that if the clause were -struck out the pilot would be liable for the full extent of damages. If that is so. it is strange that no action has ever been taken in all these years to recover damages from the pilots in those States where this provision is not in force. It is now contended, that if we strike the clause out, we shall be making the pilots liable for the whole of the damage. There will be some difficulty in making them believe that, seeing that they have not had experience of it in the past. All that we require is sufficient power to deal with men who are negligent in the discharge of their duties, and we ought not to make pilots pecuniarily liable for any little mistake which may occur. A pilot's certificate might be suspended if the Marine Board thought that there was sufficient evidence to justify that being done. They might say, " We think that this pilot has made a mistake, and consider it necessary to suspend him for a week or a month." But, under clause 351, we are imposing a money penalty that may mean that pilots will be mulcted in large sums of money which they can ill-afford to pay. The clause will seriously interfere with the trade of one of the leading ports of Australia. The weather at Newcastle is often rough for two or three weeks together. The pilots are always willing to move vessels about when requested by the owners. They are themselves anxious to keep the collieries working. But if this monetary penalty were hanging over them, and if the result of trying to bring a vessel to the crane in bad weather might be that a pilot would incur a penalty of £100, he would not take the risk. It would be better for him to refuse to move the vessel, knowing that his salary would goon all the time. It must not be forgotten that the pilots of Port Phillip are working under a different system from that of the pilots of other States. It has been stated that the Government of Victoria lent them money to purchase equipment, and that it has been repaid, but, nevertheless, they are a private body. Are we to copy the conditions existing in connexion with a private concern, or should we not rather adopt a system applicable to the whole Commonwealth ? The pilots have given satisfaction to the State Governments, whose servants they are, and to ship-owners. Why, then, should the Commonwealth come along with a provision rendering them liable to heavy expenditure which they can ill-afford to incur? We are not justified in taking this course. When we reach the clause in question I shall vote against it unless the Government are prepared to do a fair thing. {: #debate-13-s57 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas -- - It would be well for the Minister to consider these clauses again in connexion with the question of liability. I have a doubt as to whether the master would be liable. We are proposing to change the English law, and we are declaring, by clause 352, that the owner shall not be exempt from liability by reason of the compulsory employment of a pilot. But from what does his liability arise? It arises from negligence. He can only be negligent if he is in charge. If the law takes charge from him by declaring that a compulsory pilot is in charge of the vessel, how can the owner be liable for negligence? If he is not liable for negligence, this clause cannot impose liability on him by saying that he is not to be exempt by reason of compulsory pilotage. In England the owner's liability for negligence is cancelled if there is compulsory pilotage. He cannot be negligent then. He is not in charge. Can we make him liable by taking charge from him and then declaring that he shall not be exempt? He must be liable before we can say that he is not to be exempt from liability. I am expressing a doubt for the consideration of. the Attorney-General as to whether this clause really does mean that if there is negligence, and it is the negligence of the pilot- as it must be, unless the captain interferes, or does not give advice where he ought to give it - the owner or master can be held liable. If the master is not guilty of either class of negligence - positive interference with the navigation, or neglect to warn the pilot against obvious danger - how can he be made liable for negligence? Does this clause make him liable? ft only says that he shall not be exempt. I am in doubt as to whether the clause does really imply that the master or owner will, in all cases, be liable where there is negligence on the part of the pilot, and no negligence is proved on the part of the master or owner. It is not, I think, a case in which the mere fact of a collision implies negligence. It is not a case for the application of the principle of *res ipsa loquitur.* You must prove, according to maritime law, that there is negligence. If a pilot takes charge of a vessel from the master, how can the master be liable for negligence? The only two classes of negligence, where there is compulsory pilotage, are those which I have mentioned. Tn the *Tactician* case, reported in 7 *Law Reports,* Probate Division, 1907 - a case in which the question of liability arose - Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton said, in the course of his judgment - >I am of the same opinion, and for the same reasons. I do not think this case raises in any way the question of the duty of the master not to interfere with the authority of the pilot, but I think that, just as the pilot is entitled to the assistance of the master and crew of the ship in obtaining information as to the surrounding circumstances, so, in the present case, he was entitled to the assistance of the master in calling his attention to the fact that the inferences he was drawing from the surrounding circumstances were such as a competent mariner ought not to draw. Now, *the* rule there is that the roaster ought not to interfere, because the navigation has passed out of his hands. Il it is free pilotage, it does not pass out of his hands, because he can, at any moment, assume the command of the ship. But if it is compulsory pilotage, he cannot interfere with the navigation ; and the duty cast on him therefore is not to interfere, and when there is an obvious misapprehension on the part of the pilot, to draw his attention to it. I think that something of the sort turned up in connexion with the loss of the *Australia* some years ago. If my memory serves me right, the question of the non-interference of the captain was mooted, and it was contended that the obligation upon him was to tell the pilot he was making a mistake. So far then as to the possibility in our changing the English law - I am only saying the possibility - of leaving the master not liable. Clause 352 may not accomplish what we intend. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- By another clause, the master is not relieved of his responsibility. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Yes; but the responsibility only arises where there is negligence ; and that is the point. No man can sue the master of a vessel for damages unless he can prove that there has been some negligence on his part. But if the law takes the control of the vessel out of his hands, how can he be responsible for negligent navigation ? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- The pilot here is regarded as a skilled adviser. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- That is the question of the liability of the pilot. What I am pointing out is that clause 352 does not clearly change the English law ; that it does not make the master liable, although it professes to do so. That is one point. Should the pilot then be liable to the extent of £100? That is a limitation. If a pilot is guilty of neglect of duty, he will be responsible for damages to the full amount of the liability otherwise prescribed. In England, that liability for all purposes is limited by the tonnage of the vessel; there is a liability of, I think, _£8 a ton. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- He is not relieved of the responsibility, but it would be a material element in determining the case. If the master or owner can show that the pilot was wholly to blame, it is questionable whether any Court would decide against the evidence. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I have passed on from the first point, and that is the possibility that we are wrong in saying that clause 352 makes the master liable. I think it is almost probable that, under the clause, unless negligence can be proved, the master will not be responsible; and, inasmuch as he is deprived of discretion as to navigation, he cannot be responsible for negligence, except that class referred to in the *2'actician* case; that is, interference with the duties of the pilot, or in not suggesting to him the possibility of his going wrong. These are the two questions. As regards the limitation of the liability, if we do not keep in this penalty of £100, there is no doubt that the pilot will be responsible to the full extent of the loss caused, except so far as it is limited by other parts of the measure. The Merchant Shipping Act does limit the liability for damages for loss of property to, I think, £8 a ton, and for loss of life or personal injury, to £15 a ton. I do not think that there is any limitation of that sort in this Bill; but the Merchant Shipping Act may apply. Section 502 of that Act reads - >The owner of a British sea-going ship, or any share therein, shall not be liable to make good to any extent whatever any loss or damage happening without his actual fault or privity in the following cases - {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Section 619 deals with the liability of the pilot. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I am dealing now with the liability in any circumstances no matter who is liable. I think that the Minister will find that in England there is a liability of £8 a ton in the case of damage not to life or limb, and of £15 a ton in the case of damage to life or limb. The matter was inquired into last month at the International Conference held in Brussels. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Our clause happens to be in accord with what they agreed to there. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- But it was only submitted in September last. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I have here the article of September. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The particular point of the total liability was to come before the adjourned Conference in September, 19 12. and I do not suppose that the Minister has got that yet. 0 {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- All the other nations have agreed, except Great Britain, which is holding back for the purpose of trying to get a "pull " on another matter. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The question to be considered was whether Great Britain was prepared to bring its law into line with the laws of other nations, and I do not think that the Minister has got the decision on the matter yet. What I wish to point out to the honorable member for Nepean is that, unless this limitation is kept in clause 351, the pilot will be responsible for the full value of the vessel lost, or full damages for the injury to life or limb. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Under the common law he will be liable. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- 1 agree with the AttorneyGeneral. An engine-driver, for instance, is liable for the full amount of the damage suffered in a collision. So is the Government. You can sue both together, or you can sue either, but you never sue the engine-driver in the case of a collision, for the simple reason that the Government is liable. But here we say that the Commonwealth is not to be liable, ls it right that we should always make the defendant the pilot? That is really the point, because if we say that the Commonwealth is not liable, who else but the pilot can be sued? In every case, therefore, if the master is not liable under clause 352, the person to be sued will be the pilot. I think it is just as well that we should consider this matter a little more. The Attorney-General is sure that the master is liable, but I think that there is some doubt about it. {: #debate-13-s58 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP -- The honorable member for Hunter has taken exception to clause 351, but I feel sure that he does not realize that the effect of its deletion will be to leave the liability both on the pilot and on the Commonwealth, to an extent commensurate with the damage whatever it is. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- How do you account for the fact that, although there have been accidents in the different States, no actions have been taken against the pilots? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- I do not know why they have not done it, but I do know that they do it in England, {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I want to point out to the Attorney-General that he has already spoken twice on this clause. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- By leave of the Committee, sir, he can speak again. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Attorney- General have leave to speak a third, time? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Now he can speak without limit. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- I invite the honorable member for Hunter to listen while I read the following paragraph from the report of the Departmental Committee on pilotage in 1911 - >It has been brought to our notice that it frequently happens that when the owner of a ship or a wharf which has been damaged by the faulty navigation of a ship is unable to recover from the owner of that ship, he seeks to recover what he can from the pilot. Our attention has been called to cases where the pilots have, in consequence, been made bankrupt. Both on the Clyde and in London it is a growing practice, we are informed, for pilots to be held liable for small amounts of damage. In the London Trinity House districts, and at some other ports, the liability of pilots is limited to the amount of a bond given by the pilot. In the London district the bond is ;£roo. The suggestion has been made to us that the amount of the bond should be increased. We cannot agree with this suggestion. We do not consider it in any way tends to add to the care and efficiency of a pilot to place him under a crushing financial responsibility for the damage he may cause. If the pilot is negligent, his licence can always be dealt with by his Pilotage Authority, and it is, in our opinion, wrong in principle that pilots should have, in addition to the responsibility of their work, the danger of financial ruin, just because lae profession which they follow entails the handling of property of great value. The fact that owners of property should have been driven to look to pilots for the damage done to a ship or wharf emphasizes the unsatisfactory state of affairs produced by the present state of the law. We recommend that at all ports the Pilotage Authority should have power to make by-laws requiring pilots to give a bond, and that when such a bond is given the liability of the pilots should be limited to that amount, together with the amount of pilotage payable in respect of the vessel. There you have a clear declaration of the state of the English law on the subject, which imposes no statutory limitation on the pilot's liability. If you strike out this provision, the pilot's liability, and that of the Commonwealth, will be limited only by the amount of the damage. No doubt in many cases the Commonwealth only will be sued, but probably the pilot will be often joined. If the honorable member for Hunter desires to exempt the pilot from liability for pecuniary damage, *he seeks* to do it in the worst possible way. It is better for a pilot to save himself from the consequences of his act by the payment of a pecuniary penalty than for him to be liable to suspension or dismissal. The honorable member referred to the New South Wales Act. Under the regulations provided for by that Act, it is prescribed that a pilot who is guilty of negligence or carelessness in the discharge of his duties, whether damage to property has been caused or not, may be forthwith suspended by the Superintendent, or, in the case of a pilot at Newcastle, by the Deputy Superintendent, who may require him to produce and deliver up his licence pending inquiry. The Superintendent may settle the matter, and the pilot may be dismissed, suspended, or degraded. Under the Merchant Shipping Act the liability of a pilot appears to be unlimited. At any rate, it is such that pilots have been made bankrupt. That is regarded as an unfair liability by the Pilotage Committee, from whose report I have been quoting. This Bill provides for a limitation of £100. The honorable member for Hunter takes the worst view of the position. I have not heard of an instance where a penalty has been exacted in Victoria, although the pilots here are liable. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- There was one case recently. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- In practice, a pilot would take out a policy in an insurance company doing this kind of business, and insure himself against the enforcement of the penalty by the payment of a yearly premium of, perhaps, 30s. or £2. A pilot will be liable to the penalty only if found guilty of want of skill or neglect, which must be proved before a Court of Marine Inquiry. It would be for that Court, or some other Court of competent jurisdiction, to say to what extent, if any, the pilot should contribute towards making good the damage resulting from his want of skill or neglect. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr Charlton: -- Does the honorable member say that he could not be made to suffer any other punishment under regulation ? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- The Department will have power to make regulations, but the report of the Pilotage Committee, which I have read, shows that it is not the practice to punish pilots other than by exacting this penalty. It is not suggested that their licences are forfeited, or that they are punished in any other way than by having to pay a pecuniary penalty. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the case of the *Queen* v. *Judge of City of London Court,* 1 Q.B.D. 286, in which the liability of a pilot at common law is laid down. Perhaps the honorable gentleman will read it to the Committee? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- The passage to which the honorable member has drawn my attention is the following statement by Lord Esher, M.R.- >The action is brought, on the Admiralty side of the City of London Court, by the owners of a barge against a licensed pilot who was the compulsory pilot in charge of a ship. The action is brought in respect of a collision which took place between the ship and the barge, and which, it is alleged, was caused by the pilot's negligence, and for the purpose of this appeal we must assume that the collision was caused solely by the negligence of the pilot. The question is, whether the City Court, on its Admiralty side, has jurisdiction to try the action. That it would have had jurisdiction if the action had been brought on the Common Law side of the Court cannot be denied ; the question is, whether it has jurisdiction to try the case on the Admiralty side. That goes to show that the pilot's liability at common law is undeniable. Clause 351 limits that liability to £100 where there has been neglect or want of skill. It would be a monstrous thing if both the liability of the pilot and that of the Commonwealth were taken away. Some one must be responsible. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- Could we provide for liability in case of " serious " damage? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- A pilot would not be required to pay a money penalty if the damage were merely trivial. I do not think that the insertion of the word " serious " would make any difference. It appears to be feared that the clause might be used to oppress and harass pilots in cases where the damage was trivial, say, the mere rubbing the paint off a boat; but I do not think that that is at all meant. If the Minister of Trade and Customs has no objection to die amendment suggested by the honorable member for Hindmarsh, I have not ; but beyond that I think clause 351 should stand. {: #debate-13-s59 .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert .- What does the Minister of Trade and Customs intend to do in regard to the Torres Strait pilot? This is the most dangerous piece of coast in Australia, and pilotage there must be compulsory. Will the Government take over these pilots, or will they not? Not only coastal boats, but oversea ships, come down the coast in Torres Strait. The Australasian United Steam Navigation Company employ their own pilot from Cooktown to Thursday 4258 *Navigation* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Bill.* Island and back again. He has been in the service of the company for many years, and, so far as I know, none of the officers in that trade are exempt. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Licences could be issued to those pilots. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr BAMFORD: -- Would they become liable under clause 351? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Their liability would be limited to £100. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr BAMFORD: -- But do they come under the clause at all? I do not think it is fair that these pilots left out, as the intention seems to be. They have an association, and all the earnings are pooled and divided every quarter, or. every half-year, as the case may be. They are receiving poor payment as compared with the services they render. The fees are based on the class of ship which travelled along the coast more than twenty years ago. Since that time the vessels have increased in size; and, under all the circumstances, I ask the Minister of Trade and Customs to give this matter careful consideration. Not only have the ships increased in size, but the passenger traffic has also increased, together with the cargo freight. Most of the pilots, whose services are absolutely necessary, are taken on board at Sydney, and travel with vessels to Thursday Island, from whence they get a return journey south. {: #debate-13-s60 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- The Torres Strait pilots are in a different position from that of any other pilots in Australia. Clause 331 specifically lays it down that the GovernorGeneral may proclaim the ports at which the employment of pilots shall be compulsory. In the Torres Strait it is not a matter of piloting from Cooktown to Thursday Island, but throughout the passage, and pilots are carried because they are necessary to enable vessels to travel night and day, instead of lying up at night. The case of the Torres Strait pilots has been considered, but it has not been decided whether they shall be taken over. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- What about the Australasian United Steam Navigation Company's pilot? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- He may be licensed as provided in clause *333.* {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Is he not one of the company's navigating officers? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I think he would be in a different position from any of the other navigating officers. It is not intended to take over the Torres Straits pilots at the present time. I understand that the position of those pilots is not so bad as the honorable member for Herbert has made out, because last year, I am informed, the share of one of them reached *£550.* Clause agreed to. Clause 332 (Power to refer charges and questions of unfitness to Court of Marine Inquiry). {: #debate-13-s61 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs -- This clause does not say by whom these charges are to be referred to the Court, and I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Customs look into the matter, in case there may be a defect in the Bill. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I shall look into it. Clause agreed to. Clause 333- (1.) The Minister may, subject to the regulations, license persons (in this Act called " coastal pilots ") to conduct ships from one port to another port in Australia. (2.) A coastal pilot shall not (except as authorized by his licence) act as a pilot for any port at which pilotage is compulsory. Penalty : One hundred pounds. Amendments (by **Mr. Tudor)** agreed to- >That the word " coastal," in sub-clause 1, be left out, with a view to insert the word " licensed." > >That after the word " Australia," the following words be inserted : " or to act as pilots for any port at which pilotage is not compulsory." > >That the word " coastal," in sub-clause 2, be left out, with a view to insert the word " licensed." {: #debate-13-s62 .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh -- I should like to know how coastal pilots will stand under this clause? There are pilots licensed by the Marine Board of South Australia who are very aged men. I understand that a coastal pilot is a pilot who can take a vessel, say, from Adelaide to Newcastle. Sailing ships frequently make use of the services of such men, because the agents or owners are of opinion that the captains do not know the coast very well. Are all these men to lose their livelihood when this Bill becomes law? I know of a case of a coastal pilot who is competent to take a ship to England. He left the pilot service in South Australia, and is now doing the work of a coastal pilot. That is an indication that he is over seventy years of age, which is the retiring age in the South Australian *Navigation* [15 October, 1912.] *Bill.* 4259 pilot service. If he were under the Commonwealth he would have to retire at sixty-five years of age. How will such men stand when this Bill becomes law? There is no question as to their skill and ability, and I should like to know whether they are to be prevented in future from getting their living as coastal pilots? {: #debate-13-s63 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- There will be two classes of pilots under this Bill : those who will be public servants, and licensed pilots. I think that such pilots as the honorable member has referred to can be licensed under the Bill, but I shall have the matter looked into, and if there is any doubt about it I will agree to the recommittal of the clause should the honorable member think it necessary to amend it. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 334 consequentially amended and agreed to. Clause 335 - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. All uncancelled and unexpired licences, issued under any State Act, authorizing any persons to conduct ships from one port to another port in Australia, shall continue as if issued under this Act, but shall be valid only for the purposes for which and to the extent to which, they would have been valid in accordance with the provisions of the State Act under which they were issued ; and for those purposes and to that extent the holder of any such licence shall be deemed to be a coastal pilot. 1. Any such licence may be dealt with as if issued under this Act. 2. The holder of any such licence may, subject to the regulations, surrender it for a corresponding licence under this Act. Amendments (by **Mr. Tudor)** agreed to- >That after the word " Australia " the following words be inserted : " or to act as pilots for any port at which pilotage is not compulsory under this Act." > >That after the word " shall," line 5, the words "subject to this Act" be inserted. > >That the word "coastal," line 11, be left out, with a view to insert the word "licensed." > >That after the word "pilot," line 11, the following words be inserted, " but no such licence shall entitle the holder to act as pilot at a port at which pilotage is compulsory under this Act." {: #debate-13-s64 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- The honorable member for Hindmarsh has properly displayed some anxiety as to the position of pilots licensed under State Acts when this Bill is passed. It seems to me that by proclaiming certain ports as compulsory pilotage ports the Minister will take away the licences already granted. I do not know what the policy of the Government in this matter may be. There are some ports which are compulsory pilotage ports at present. The policy of the Bill is to have compulsory pilotage ports proclaimed where necessary. We may, I think, assume that immediately upon the passing of this measure such a proclamation will be issued in respect of all ports that are compulsory pilotage ports under State laws. That, it appears to me, will mean that in respect of all such ports the existing licences will be of no use. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The case cited by the honorable member for Hindmarsh was that of a pilot taking a vessel from Adelaide round the coast, and calling at the various ports right up to Brisbane. A pilot could do that under this Bill provided he had a licence. Such a pilot would be engaged where the captain would not have an exempt certificate. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- But I am referring to ports that are proclaimed compulsory pilotage ports. Of course, a master who has an exempt certificate will not require a pilot, as his certificate puts him in the position of a pilot. We are making in this clause express provision that no existing licences shall apply in respect of any port declared under this Bill to be a compulsory pilotage port, and all the compulsorypilotage ports under State laws will be proclaimed compulsory pilotage ports under this Bill. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The men holding licences at present will probably be those who will obtain licences under this Bill. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- It seems to me that they will have to apply for licences under the Bill. I do not suppose that they will be very difficult to obtain, or that the Minister will, by regulation, prescribe additional qualifications. But I point out as the effect of the clause, that in respect of compulsory pilotage ports existing licences will be gone altogether. As regards ports that are not declared compulsory pilotage ports, will not the States pilotage laws apply? If they do, the retiring age for pilots will be seventy years in South Australia. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- If Port Adelaide or the Outer Harbor be proclaimed a compulsory pilotage port, the provision of the Public Service Act will govern the retiring age. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- There is no doubt about that. Then, if they are made compulsory pilotage ports, those ports must be piloted only by public servants who will have to retire at sixty-five years of age. 4260 *Navigation Bill.* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Motion of Censure.* {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Unless our Public Service Act be amended so far as pilots are concerned. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- It is clear, therefore, that if we proclaim pilotage ports, we shall make the pilots public servants, and they will have to retire at sixty-five years of age. {: #debate-13-s65 .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh -- The present practice of South Australia is to issue licences to these men, regardless of their age. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- They are not regarded as public servants there. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- They are licensed by the Marine Board. I do not see how compulsory pilotage affects them. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- In South Australia, there is no limitation as to age. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD: -- Their practice is to pilot the wheat ships; and, in doing so, they voyage from any port to any other port on the Australian coast. {: #debate-13-s66 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs -- It would be well, I think, if a clause were drafted to preserve the existing rights of those pilots who will become transferred officers. I think that there are pilots placed at many small ports along our coast line. I do not know whether the Minister has considered how many of those ports will be proclaimed compulsory pilotage ports. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I cannot say, definitely. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Has the Minister had any reporton the matter? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Not as to the places which we will proclaim compulsory pilotage ports. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I have been asked by the honorable member for Cowper the extent to which the Government propose to take over the pilots on our northern rivers. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 336 to 341 agreed to. Clause 342 (Exemption certificates). Amendment (by **Mr. Tudor)** agreed to - >That the following words be added to the clause : '' But nothing in this section shall affect the renewal of a pilotage exemption certificate granted before the commencement of this Act to a person who is not a British subject." Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 343 to 345 agreed to. Clause 346 (Flag to be hoisted on exempt ship). {: #debate-13-s67 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth .- I wish to ask a question in regard to mission ships. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- They are exempt. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Mission ships which are exempt from dues will, I presume, be allowed to use pilots, if they so desire, without paying pilotage dues ? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- If they employ a pilot, they must pay him. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I imagined that they were exempt from dues upon charitable grounds. There is no question of safety involved. The safety of the persons on a mission ship is just as important as is the safety of persons on a commercial ship. **Mr. Tudor.** - But the mission ships are smaller vessels, and are more easily handled. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- To a certain extent, that is so. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- It is so, absolutely. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Take the case of a vessel like the *John Williams.* {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I do not think that she is a vessel of more than 150 tons register. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- But a number of smaller ships than she is will be required to use the pilot service. I ask the Minister to look into this matter. Clause agreed to. Clauses 347 and 348 agreed to. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 4260 {:#debate-14} ### MOTION OF CENSURE {: #debate-14-s0 .speaker-KGZ} ##### Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle .- I desire to give notice that to-morrow I shall move- {: #debate-14-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member can give notice only by leave of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the honorable member have leave to give notice of his motion? Honorable Members. - Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Leave is granted. {: .speaker-KGZ} ##### Mr HEDGES: -- I wish to give notice that to-morrow I shall move - >That, in the opinion of this House, the decision of the Government to use karri sleepers, treated or untreated, in preference to other more suitable timbers, in the construction of the KalgoorliePort Augusta railway, is deserving of censure. {: #debate-14-s2 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP -- Is this notice of motion- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The notice of motion cannot be discussed. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I desire only to ask whether this notice of motion is given on behalf of the "Opposition ? Is it supported by the Leader of the Opposition? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- Yes. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Then we shall take it to-morrow, and finish it to-morrow. House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 October 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <>.