View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
3 October 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
ELECTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- REPORTED ADJOURNMENT OF SENATE
CUSTOMS BILL
EXCISE BILL
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL
BEER EXCISE BILL
DISTILLATION BILL
SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 5516

PETITIONS

Senator Sir FREDERICK. SARGOOD presented a petition signed by 368 merchants, traders, firms, and corporations of Melbourne and Geelong, representing 554 firms, praying that the Post and Telegraph department should at once enter into such a contract with the Eastern Extension, Australasian, and China Telegraph Company Limited, as would allow them and all other inhabitants of the State of “Victoria the same blessings of reduced cable rates as were enjoyed by the people of the contracting States.

Petition received, and read.

Senator CHARLESTON presented a petition from the Standing Committee of the Synod of the Church of England, in the diocese of Adelaide, praying the Senate to reject the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill.

Petition received, and read.

page 5516

-I have no objection to doing that.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

-I suggest that the VicePresident of the Executive Council is proposing to take a course that is somewhat novel - to give notice at one stage of the sitting of a motion to be moved later on. I think that is an absolutely new idea, which is not provided for in the standing orders, nor do I think it is done in the House of Commons. I suggest, however, that the honorable and learned senator should now move his motion, and I do not think there will be any objection to it.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I move-

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill relating to excise from passing through all its remaining Stages in the same sitting of the Senate.

Senator SirJOSIAH SYMON:

– May I suggest that the further consideration of the Bill will be contingent upon the report of the committee being adopted. I therefore suggest that there should be added to the motion the words “ contingent upon the report of the committee being adopted.”

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I will accept that suggestion.

Motion amended accordingly, and agreed to as follows : -

That, contingent on the Excise Bill being reported a second time from the committee of the whole, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill from passing through all its remaining stages in the same sitting of the Senate.

page 5517

ELECTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER, by leave, presented a special report from the Elections and Qualifications Committee.

Report ordered to be printed, and considered by the Senate on Wednesday next.

page 5517

QUESTION

REPORTED ADJOURNMENT OF SENATE

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether he has seen in a provincial newspaper of considerable influence in the State of Victoria, a paragraph to the effect that the Senate was to adjourn for three weeks ; and whether he has seen in another newspaper, also of considerable influence, a paragraph stating that the Ministry objects to the Senate adjourning for three weeks’! Has the Government given any authority for the publication of the paragraphs stating that the Senate wishes to adjourn ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I have not seen either paragraph, and I know nothing whatever about them. I have not given any consent to the insertion of any paragraph.

page 5517

CUSTOMS BILL

Royal assent to this Bill reported.

page 5517

EXCISE BILL

Resolved (on motion by Senator O’Connor) -

That the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering a new clause to follow clause 154.

In Committee :

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– On looking through this Bill it was found that there was an omission, which would have to be rectified by providing a clause regarding rebate of duty. There is a clause in reference to drawback, and it is necessary also to have one relating to rebates. I move -

That the following new clausebe inserted, to follow clause154 : - 154A. If any rebate is allowed in respect of any excise duty, the allowance shall be made and duty paid as prescribed.

New clause agreed to.

Bill reported with a further amendment.

Report adopted.

Bill read the third time.

page 5518

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

In Committee (consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments) :

– It is a question which has been considerably debated whether it is required or not, because as the Constitution defines exactly our powers in the matter it operates even if we say nothing as to it here, while, if we say something which goes beyond the Constitution, it becomes invalid. Still, it is considered that the clause as amended in this way will be preferable, and the plan has been adopted in every

Act that we have passed, that contains provisions repugnant to the State Acts, stating that fact in one of the sections. I think the expression used here is an improvement.

Motion agreed to.

Senator DRAKE:

– I move -

That the committee agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives omitting from clause 2 the words “ until rates and charges fixed by the Governor-General under this Act come into operation.”

This amendment is one of a very important nature, because it involves the whole question of the method of fixing rates. It is just as convenient, I think, to take this discussion now as at any other time. It really involves the question of whether clause 19 should or should not be struck out. The House of Representatives have omitted it. That clause provided that rates should be fixed by means of regulations to be laid on the- table of the House for a certain time, and if they were not dissented from they should become law. The view of the House of Representatives is that it is desirable that the power to fix and alter rates should be left in the hands of Parliament, no change being made except by Act of Parliament. The question was discussed at considerable length when the clause was before the Senate. I pointed out then, as fairly as I was able to do, the advantages and disadvantages of either course. I did not pretend that either course had such transcendent merits that nothing could be claimed on behalf of the other. The advantage of having the rates fixed by regulation is that it is easier to make alterations. In view of the probability of post and telegraph rates being varied at an early period, it seemed to me that the changes would be facilitated by adopting the principle of fixing the rates by regulation. On the other hand, I pointed out at the time that when rates can be altered only by Act of Parliament, a Minister for the time being, who may be pressed to make alterations in rates, is able to decline to do so on the ground of the difficulty there would be in getting the necessary Bill through Parliament. If we adopt the principle of fixing rates by Act of Parliament, it will fix them for the time being more rigidly and securely than if the rates can be altered simply by laying regulations upon the table of the House. [ do not feel very strongly about it myself, and it is not desirable that we should incur the possibility of any delay in the passage of the Bill by fighting a question of that kind.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I see a difficulty in the way of Parliament fixing postal rates. If it were merely a question of newspaper rates throughout the Commonwealth, or of penny postage, we might decide it, but to sa.y that members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives are to discuss and settle the many charges that have to be made by the Post and Telegraph department seems to me an unbusinesslike proceeding.

Senator Drake:

– It is so in Queensland, so far as postal rates are concerned. The rates cannot be altered there except by Act of Parliament.

Senator HIGGS:

– We might just as well in a State Parliament propose that Parliament should fix the railway rates to be charged. I do not propose to raise any objection to the acceptance of the amendment, because I was very much charmed with the way in which the House of Representatives met lis the other evening, when we insisted upon amendments in a certain Bill. I am very much in favour of maintaining the greatest harmony between the two Chambers. But I think the Postmaster-General and the Cabinet should be in a better position, generally speaking, than Parliament, to decide upon the rates which will make the Post and Telegraph department a businesslike establishment, and a paying concern.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I am rather amused at the honorable senator speaking of the difficulty which Parliament would have in the arrangement of half-a-dozen or twenty postal rates, when we are on the eve of arranging a Customs Tariff, which may possibly contain several hundred items. On further consideration, I am sure the honorable senator will see that if Parliament can deal with the hundreds of customs duties involved in .1 Tariff, we can, with a great deal more ease, deal with a tariff of half-a-dozen postage rates.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation of terms).

Senator DRAKE:

– The amendment next proposed by the House of Representatives is to insert a definition of the words “indecent or obscene matter.” This is a question that was discussed when the Bill was before the Senate, and I confess I do not like to see the thing in the Bill at all. I do not see that it is vital, or that there is any advantage in having it. I should like to hear the opinion of honorable senators with regard to it, as I do not care to throw my own personal views into the scale.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– I am exceedingly gratified to hear the view indicated by my honorable and learned friend the Postmaster-General. I think this amendment would be a pollution of the Bill, and it ought to be disagreed to without discussion.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– In connexion with this amendment, it is just as well to point out, as I endeavoured to do when the clause was under discussion before, that this provision was put into a special Act passed in Victoria in consequence of a break -down of justice in connexion with this matter, and because, until this interpretation of the words “ indecent and obscene matter “ became law, it was absolutely impossible to carry out a prosecution successfully.

Motion (by Senator Drake) agreed to -

That the committee disagree to the amendment of the House of Representatives.

Clause 7 (Future telegraph messengers to retire on attaining the age of .eighteen).

Senator DRAKE:

– The amendment proposed by the House of Representatives makes one vital alteration in this clause, but think it is an alteration in the right direction. lt provides that boys engaged as messengers shall cease to be employed as messengers when they are seventeen years of age. As we sent the Bill from the Senate the age stated was eighteen. The rest of the alteration proposed is merely a matter of drafting to carry out the intention suggested better. I move -

That the committee agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives omitting clause .10, and inserting the following new clause : - 9a. Every person taken into the employment of the department as a telegraph messenger after the commencement of this Act shall immediately on attaining the age of seventeen years cease to be so employed.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I think there is also another vital alteration, because, as the clause left the Senate, it provided that every person appointed as a telegraph messenger after the commencement of the Act should retire from the service of the department on attaining the age of eighteen years, “ unless in the meantime he has been transferred or promoted to some other position in such service.” I think that expression carries on the face of it the inference that, if possible, these boys should be transferred to some other branch of the service on attaining the age stated, and certainly no harm would follow if the words to which I have referred had been retained. The clause as we agreed to it certainly seemed to provide for a more humane treatment of these boys.

Senator Sir .FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I might say that I agree largely with what Senator Pearce has said; “ cease to be so employed “ may fairly be read “ cease to be employed in the service.” I think the wording of the clause as we passed it better indicates to the Minister or the head of the department that Parliament is desirous that if possible these boys should be retained in the service. It is just as well that the clause should express that view. I point out, also, that the clause, as proposed to be amended, uses the expression “ every person taken into the employment,” while in the Public Service Bill the word used is “appointed,” and I think that is the proper term.

Senator DRAKE:

– I heard this matter discussed in the House of Representatives, and a great deal of care was taken over it. It has to be clearly shown that this provision will not apply to messenger boys already in the service, and the question was raised whether their transfer to the Commonwealth service was an appointment in the sense used in the Public Service Bill. I think that under the Public Service Bill that is not considered an appointment, and it was therefore decided to adopt the phraseology “ taken into the employment.” With regard to the omission of the words referred to by Senator Pearce, it seems to me that they are all implied in the expression “ so employed.” So employed in the clause means employed as a messenger. And if a boy is transferred or promoted to some other position he is not employed as a messenger. That matter was the subject of careful consideration and skilful drafting.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– This is a matter which I think deserves some consideration. There are a number of boys employed as messengers continuously in the service, which they enter at from twelve to thirteen years of age. I think it is hard and harsh to provide that these boys may be retained for four or five years and then be subject to be sent adrift when they have arrived at the age of seventeen years, which is, perhaps, the most criticial period of a person’s life. That is how the matter strikes me, though it is possible that those who have to work a large concern like the Postal department may see difficulties in the way. I think it is our duty to arrange matters in such a way that these boys shall not be liable to be thrown out at the critical period of their lives when they might resort to idle habits and drift into channels of a more or less deplorable character, and when they might bring discredit upon themselves and be a source of pain and anxiety to their parents or relations. I should be sorry to agree with the proposal submitted by the House of Representatives unless strong reasons are given to show that it would be impossible to continue these boys in the department or to draft them to some other department.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I believe with the Postmaster-General that it is probably not necessary to have the additional words in, but I agree also with Senator Glassey that it would give some heart to these boys and to their parents if the intention which has been expressed was shown in the Bill.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

.- I entirely agree- with the remarks which have fallen from Senator Glassey. It seems to me that the alteration of the clause is merely a transference of phrases which can accomplish no good purpose, and the benevolent intention of- the clause as it left the Senate can only be shown by the retention of the words which the House of Representatives proposes to omit. As to the question of age, it is simply deplorable that the other House should have made the amendment we are asked to assent to. I shall want a lot of convincing before I shall vote to change the age from eighteen to seventeen. There are good reasons why, in my estimation, the age should be retained at eighteen.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– We had a very long discussion on this clause, and some of us voted to strike it out, and leave it to the PostmasterGeneral and his officers to determine when the time had arrived for messenger boys to be dismissed. I am afraid that if we agree to this amendment, we may do a very great injustice to some of the messenger boys who may be taken on. Supposing that a boy has entered the service at about fourteen, and that he is approaching his seventeenth year. His officer can see that changes will shortly take place which will enable him to give the youth a promotion, but if the Act is strictly administered, the youth cannot possibly be continued in the service. I see right through the clause a great danger of hardships being wrought. What the supporters of the clause desire most is to prevent young men being continued in the service, and practically rendering themselves unfit for any other work. If a boy is retained until he is eighteen or nineteen, he is then totally unsuited to learn a trade. At that age a boy would be unable to enter any other employment with profit to himself, and that, I think, is the reason why the other House inserted the amendment. I hope that the clause will not be administered too stringently, that if an opportunity arises for a boy to be promoted he will not be given his walking ticket simply because he is within a month or two of seventeen.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I think that the other House has made a mistake in lowering the age. .Although the provision in the clause is not mandatory, still it is an expression of the wish of Parliament that a boy should go, unless in the meantime he has been transferred or promoted to some other position. It is a provision to which a boy can appeal. He can say to his superior officer - “ If I have qualified myself for a higher position than that of a mere messenger, and there is a vacancy, it is your duty to employ me.” I feel certain that on reconsideration the other House will see. that the Senate acted more liberally than it did as regards the age, and express a pious wish that the boys will have a chance afforded to them to go higher in the service.

Senator DRAKE:

– I would not recommend the course which has been suggested by Senator Playford. There can be no doubt that the drafting of the clause is better than it was. There is a difficulty in regard to the use of the word “ appointment.” It is questionable whether a telegraph messenger is a person appointed to the service. He is employed as a messenger, but he is not appointed in the sense in which an officer is appointed. What Senator Glassey desires is, as he knows, what is invariably carried out not only in the interests of the lads, but in the interests of the department. The boys are employed for, say, four years, and it is from the ranks of the messengers that any vacancies in the department are filled. Practically they are in training for better positions, and the only case where a messenger boy would not be promoted would be where he had shown himself quite unfit. But still a certain age limit must be fixed. If a boy has shown that he is not fit for Ins work, it is just as well that his services should be dispensed with at seventeen as at eighteen. But every effort is made by the department to retain the services of those boys who have shown themselves worthy.

Senator Charleston:

– The Minister could not retain them after they were seventeen.

Senator DRAKE:

– Not messengers, because it says that from seventeen they snail cease to be so employed. If we decide to adhere to the clause we shall have to strike out the word “ so,” and then it would mean exactly the same thing -

Cease to be employed unless in the meantime he has been transferred or promoted to some other position in such service.

Is there any danger to a messenger boy in omitting these words which are admittedly in themselves meaningless 1 If he has been transferred or promoted then he has ceased to be employed as a messenger boy. The only question is whether the age shall be seventeen or eighteen, and seeing that every effort is made to find employment in other capacities for the lads I cannot see any objection to fixing the age at seventeen.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

– If a boy has to go through unfitness the sooner he goes the better. If he has to face the world it is better that he should start at seventeen than at eighteen. The longer a boy retains the position of messenger, the more is he made into a sort of civil servant, and, as we know, civil servants are not very well adapted to battle with the world. If a boy is fit and eligible he will be drafted into other branches of the service. If a boy ceases to be a messenger when he is twenty it is all the more difficult for him to adapt himself to his new surroundings. There is no indication that a boy will be drafted to another position, and if an amendment to that effect were inserted the clause would be perfect.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - May we not meet the general wish that these intimations should be retained by altering the clause so as to make it read -

Every person taken into the employment of the department .as a telegraph messenger .after the commencement of the Act, shall immediately on attaining the age of seventeen cease to be so employed unless in the meantime he has been transferred or promoted.

That the amendment be ‘disagreed with.

Senator DRAKE:

– I think we are giving almost too much time to the consideration of this amendment, because the question of whether a boy should be sent out at seventeen or eighteen is not a very important one. One boy at fifteen may be, in knowledge and manner, as old as another boy of seventeen or eighteen. It is purely empirical, but some age must be fixed upon. It is hardly possible for any one to say dogmatically whether seventeen or eighteen is the right age at which a boy should leave the service. With regard to the proposed insertion of the words “ unless in the meantime he has been transferred or promoted,” I do not think they would serve any useful purpose. That is covered by the word “so.” But if the committee wishes to test the matter by moving the omission of the word “ so,” and the addition of these other words, I shall offer no objection.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I understand the Postmaster-General is prepared to withdraw his motion for the present in order to allow another amendment to be proposed.

Senator Drake:

– Yes.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I have a suggestion to make which I hope will have the effect of meeting every one’s views. I agree with the PostmasterGeneral that the clause, as sent up to us by the House of Representatives, is better than it was when we sent it to them, so far as’ drafting and clearness are concerned. In the next place, the words -

Unless in the meantime he has been transferred or promoted to some position in such service- in the clause, as sent down by us, were not only absolutely meaningless and unnecessary, but quite inconsistent with the earlier part of the clause, because they made imperative retirement from the service at eighteen years of age, unless in the meantime the youth had been transferred. That, on the face of it, is an absurdity. Then I think the word “ so “ should not be struck oat, because it is merely from the particular employment referred to that the boy is to retire. I would leave the clause as it is, except as to the age, which I think should be eighteen, and at the end I would add certain words. The words “ cease to be so employed “ get rid of the particular employment, but in order to encourage the lads, and let them feel that under this hard-and-fast rule we do not absolutely shut them out from the service, I would add -

But shall be eligible for other employment in the service.

Senator Drake:

– A boy may not be eligible.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– He is eligible if the service chooses to employ him. He may be chosen if he Gan pass the educational standard.

Senator McGregor:

– Why not say “may be appointed if eligible ? “

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Yes ; I will alter my proposal in that way.

Senator DRAKE:

– I do not think it is advisable to alter the clause in that way, but to meet the views of those senators who have taken up this position with regard to employment in other branches of the service, I would make the clause read, “ cease to be employed as a messenger.”

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– But the word “ so “ does that.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I desire to point out merely that the retention of the word “ so “ implies that a messenger must be retained after eighteen. That would place us in the same difficulty as the Victorian department has suffered under.

Senator Drake:

– Oh, no.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The words suggested by the PostmasterGeneral would have the same result, but I think Senator Symon’s proposal will get over the difficulty. It is practically the same amendment that we had before but put in a different way.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggested to the Postmaster-General that he should withdraw his motion for the present, as several honorablesenators have indicated a desire to alter the new clause as brought up from the other place. By leave, the PostmasterGeneral withdrew the motion, and there was an intimation by Senator McGregor of his intention to move that the word “ seventeen “ be struck out.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives be amended by omitting the word “ seventeen “ with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ eighteen.”

Question - That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the amendment - put.

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 10

Noes … … … 18

Majority … … 8

Question so resolved in the negative. Motion agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Walker) agreed to-

That the words “ but may if eligible be appointed to some other position in the public service” be added to the amendment.

Amendment of the House of Representatives, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Officers of the department free from tolls).

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

-I move-

That the committee agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives adding to the clause the following words : - “The PostmasterGeneral may pay to the person entitled by way of compensation for the use of any pier, wharf, quay, landing place, or ferry in the landing, shipping, or conveying any material or tools for the construction or repair of a telegraph line, such sum as may be agreed upon, and in default of agreement as maybe settled by arbitration.”

This clause, I think, was passed rather hastily, but an objection was taken by Senator Playford in respect to the provision contained in paragraph (f), which provided that no duty or toll payable at or in respect of any pier or wharf should be demanded in respect of any material or tools used or employed in the construction or repair of any telegraph line. The honorable senator pointed out that it was not equitable to demand that perhaps tons of telegraphic material should be landed on a wharf without any payment. I think that we passed the clause without giving sufficient consideration to the suggestion made by the honorable senator ; but the amendment that has been adopted by the House of Representatives puts this question of landing of telegraph material on a wharf very much in the same position as we have placed the railways in regard to the conveying of mails. Under the amendment it is recognised that these dues should be paid, and it is provided that the amount to be paid shall be as agreed upon, and where there is no agreement that it shall be settled by arbitration.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia.

– I am very much gratified to find that another view of this matter was taken in the House of Representatives to that which was held here. I was sorry at the time that the Senate did not see eye to eye with me on the subject ; and it is pleasing to find that in another place they have done exactly what I wanted the Senate to do, and in a way which is satisfactory to me, and which will prevent the PostmasterGeneral from being able to use private wharfs or State wharfs for passing over hundreds of tons of material to be used in the construction of a line of telegraphs without paying a penny to the owner of the wharf. I see that under the amendment, where there is a difficulty in coming to an agreement as to the amount, it is to be met in the fairest possible way by arbitration. ‘

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I object to the PostmasterGeneral saying that we passed this clause rather hastily, because I know the matter was very warmly discussed by many of us, and it was only after fighting it for a long time, and finding ourselves in a minority, that we had to give way. It is very pleasing to find that the House of Representatives has introduced into the clause lettheCFOthatitdidntmakeanysensetoyou why something which many of us contended for in the Senate.

Motion agreed to.

Senator DRAKE:

– The next amendment proposed by the House of Representatives is the insertion of the following new clause after clause 15 : - 15a. (1) No contract or arrangement for the carriage of mails shall be entered into on behalf of the Commonwealth unless it contains a condition that only white labour shall be employed in such carriage.

This condition shall not apply to the coaling and loading of ships at places beyond the limits of the Commonwealth

– It seems to me that it does apply to that, because the word “arrangement” is used. We have one clause which provides for the GovernorGeneral making an arrangement, and another clause which provides for the. PostmasterGeneral making contracts. It does not apply in the case of putting a mail on a steamer, and I apprehend that we could put mails on the P. and O. boats in the same way as we do on other boats. The German or French boats carry our mails without any contract or arrangement. They carrry them simply by force of law. The amendment of the other House would clearly prevent us from entering into any contract or making any arrangement with those companies for the conveyance of mails. Under all the circumstances, I think the wiser course which can be adopted by the Senate is to accept the amendment. I move -

That the committee agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

-I congratulate the Postmaster-General upon finding it necessary to offer these wide apologies for this provision, and to do his best to explain away its operation. He has told us that it will not apply here and that it will not apply there, and he even has had doubts as to whether it would apply to the contracts with the great foreign going mail steamers. There can be no doubt that the clause has been drafted to apply not only to the contracts with the ocean going steamers, but to stop the conveyance of a letter on any vessel on which a coloured person is employed. At this time, especially when we are about to pass very drastic measures to conserve what we call a white Australia, we should be very careful indeed that we do not take any course calculated to bring ridicule and disgrace upon Australia.

Senator Higgs:

– Surely the honorable senator is not speaking on behalf of a white Australia.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I am, and’ have been, an advocate of the retention of Australia for the white race under proper conditions.

Senator Walker:

– Hear, hear ! “ Under proper conditions.”

Senator PULSFORD:

– I do not agree with the opinions which Senator Walker is known to hold. I do not believe in the division of Australia between the white and coloured races, and I hope the majority of the committee are at one with me in holding that the maintenance of the conditions we require for the inhabitants of Australia are very different from the conditions it is necessary that we should require in those with whom we are pleased to trade or have any business connexions. If we take it upon ourselves to say - “ We shall -ot allow any letter to be carried on a vessel in which coloured labour is employed,” surely it will gradually come about that we shall say - “ We shall neither eat nor drink any food which has been prepared by coloured labour in any part of the world. We shall not allow any tea to come in from China, India, or any other country where coloured labour exists. We shall have no sugar, no product at all admitted which has been denied by the touch of coloured ‘labour.” That is the natural result of such a clause as we have here. I desire honorable senators to see clearly the position to which it commits Australia. Australia is part of the Empire, which is committed to a certain course. There are hundreds of millions of the coloured races under the Crown of Great Britain, and it ill becomes us to throw a slur upon them. What possible good can result to Australia from this provision ? The insult to 200,000,000 coloured people would be ill compensated by any paltry employment such as might arise. Why should we have it, when the object to be gained is so paltry ? The advantages to be gained from it are most trifling, and the disadvantages, which are great, from the point of view of the Government of Great Britain, do not warrant us in taking upon ourselves the adoption of so drastic a provision. Surely it is driving it home in a most absurd way to say that not only contracts but any arrangements are to be avoided. In all sorts of ways our mail contracts would be affected. The forwarding of letters to the South Sea Islands, to all parts of Oceania, and many foreign countries, would be affected by the adoption of the word “arrangement.” I object not only to the word “ arrangement,” but to the whole clause. I object to the whole policy indicated in the clause which we are asked to accept. I do honestly ask the members of the Senate to look at the question in all its lights. They should look at it, not only from the point of view of Australia, but from the point of view of the Empire of which we are a part, and certainly hy no means an insignificant part. If we claim to share in the glories and prestige of the Empire, let us also be willing to share, to some extent, in its responsibilities, and, therefore, do not let us take the course indicated in this amendment, which will do us no good whatever, but will cast a slur upon hundreds of millions of our fellow subjects.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).I would direct the attention of the committee to the fact that this question was debated at great length on the 10th July, and on that occasion the Government declared for and voted in favour of the clause as it stood, before the amendment was made by the House of Representatives. By a majority of 17 to 8 the committee then negatived the amendment proposed by Senator’ Glassey. A reference to Hansard, page 2223, will show that the amendment proposed by Senator Glassey was to add to the clause the following words -

In all such contracts for the carriage of mails by sea there shall be inserted a term stipulating that the crew of any vessel employed in such carriage shall be white” men.

The Postmaster-General has endeavoured to show that the amendment of the House of Representatives, though it says, “ No contract or arrangement shall be entered into,” will not debar a black man who is a native of this country from being employed in connexion with horses used for the carriage of mails. I must ask the honorable and learned senator, in view of his previous expression of opinion, to be a little consistent in this matter. Nothing really new has turned up to warrant a change of opinion on his part. I shall not repeat what I said before upon this question, but I would point out to the committee that if no contract is to be entered into for the carriage of mails unless such a condition is included in it, the consequence is likely to be that there will be no regularity in the delivery of mails. The very fact of our being able to put mails on a vessel regularly is of great advantage to the commercial community. No such arrangement will be able to be made with a ship employing even a black cook. Nearly all sea-going vessels have mora or less coloured labour on board. I do not think that the stoke-hole of .a steamer in the Red Sea is a proper place for a white man, and if we debar black labour from being employed we shall debar some of the best and fastest vessels from coming here* It has been shown by Sir Thomas Sutherland, the chairman of the P. and O. Company, that the employment of white men only will not benefit the English-speaking race, because in the majority of cases the companies .will employ foreign seamen. Sir Thomas Sutherland also says that the giving up of black labour by the companies will” not really injure the companies. He spoke from knowledge as an expert.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– Does the honorable senator say that it will not injure the steam-boat companies 1

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

– Yes : Sir Thomas Sutherland says so, because they can get white labour almost as cheaply, if they can get it all. But the quality is so bad, so far as concerns the labour the companies get for the stoke-hole, that it will be very troublesome to enforce the employment of white labour only. We shall really be preventing ourselves from entering into contracts for our own benefit if this amendment is agreed to.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I intend to be consistent and to vote against this amendment. I draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to the fact that, if the amendment is agreed to, it will prevent the employment of MaoriesIs not a man to be at liberty to employ a Maori on a steamer 1

Senator Drake:

– If the honorable senator starts by making distinctions like that he will not be finished by the time the sun goes down.

Senator WALKER:

– The PostmasterGeneral says that Australian aboriginals would be able to be employed in some cases. But what about the sons and daughters of people who may happen to have what is called a dash of black in their blood 1 Are they not to be allowed to be employed, although those sons and daughters may have been bom in Australia 1 The whole proposal is so monstrous that I can hardly find language sufficiently strong to express my contempt for it. I sincerely hope that the Postmaster-General will not make the question a party one at all, but that the committee will vote upon it on its merits, and that we shall have u repetition of the division which was previously taken.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– The committee are placed in a very unfortunate position in regard to this question. I would call the attention of the representatives of the Government to the situation in which they have helped to place us if we are now going to pass the clause with this amendment in it. I think the Prime Minister has given way very weakly upon a question which he must know vitally affects the Empire. I read with very great annoyance and disappointment that my right honorable friend the Prime Minister had decided- to support the amendment moved in another place upon the clause as it originally stood, though that amendment, or a similar one to it, was opposed conscientiously and from conviction by the representatives of the Government in the Senate. I am happy to say that on the last occasion the members of the Government in this Chamber assisted in defeating Senator Glassey’s amendment ; and I think that constitutionally and in hon our they are not bound to follow their leader, who has changed the policy of the Government in another Chamber. After the Prime Minister had made, as I believe he did, a most admirable speech about the relations of Australia to the Empire, he changed his policy in the direction of preventing the employment of British subjects upon vessels where they have been employed for 50 years. The policy of a white Australia every one of us admits to be a true policy, and we are all in favour of it. But the whole point lies in the application of that doctrine. Do not my honorable friends know that all through their lives there are doctrines which have to be applied with discretion? Do they not recognise that it will be a cruelty and an injustice to vote simply for a craze regardless of its consequences ? Honorable senators recognise that we are a part of the British Empire. We are proud of being members of the British Empire. That being so, are we going to follow a cruel course that will take the livelihood from men who are our own fellow subjects t Honorable senators know that our King is Emperor of India. Is it not a fact that only recently it cost a million of money to keep people in India from starving from famine, and that, notwithstanding that, 800*000 of them died ? Is it not a fact that some years ago a million and a half of people in India died from famine, and that oil ‘a previous occasion some two or -three millions died from the same cause ? Yet, in view of those facts, because only 36,000 of these people ave employed by British steam-ship companies throughout the world, it is desired to take away their livelihood, and to force our Ministers not to enter into any contract with any steam-ship company on whose vessels black labour is employed. This policy will -make Australia the laughing-stock of the thinking people of the world. Another question arises in connexion with the defence of the Empire. There may come a time when the Empire will have to fight for its life, and when the people of this country will have to fight for their commercial and industrial freedom. At such a time the black crews employed on British merchant vessels may be the saving of the British navy. It is proved beyond a doubt that there are not sufficient English seamen in the British mercantile marine and the British navy to man the ships. Is that denied ?

Senator McGregor:

– We all deny it.

Senator DOBSON:

– Then all I can say is that I shall be happy when the debate is over to obtain some of the superior knowledge that my honorable friends appear to have. But, from the papers I have before me, let me inform them that the British navy and the British mercantile marine are increasing by leaps and bounds ; their vessels are becoming more numerous, and there can be no doubt that in the future there will not be enough British sailors to man the ships.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– There are not enough now.

Senator DOBSON:

– Let me put this point to my honorable friends. I suppose - although 1 hope it will never happen in my time - that a great naval war is bound to take place some time. In that event, the 36,000 lascars employed in our ships may be the very saving of the British Empire ; because 10,000 or 15,000 of our own seamen may be drowned or killed, and then the men of the mercantile marine will have to come forward. We may then be glad of the services of these sober, worthy, and industrious lascars. The paper I hold in my hand shows that the Royal navy will, in the near future, inevitably have to get additional men, and that the men they are now able to obtain are not sufficient for the requirements of the service. In this paper, which deals with Iascar crews, I find the following passage : -

I have also pointed out that the bulk of our foreign seamen are down from the Scandinavian countries, and it is not within the bounds of possibility that we shall ever be at war with those countries. Again, large numbers of lascars are employed. They are our Indian subjects, and therefore our fellow subjects, but as we are not likely to be.at war with them, their employment in the merchant lines tends again to release a number of British seamen for service in the navy.

Lord Dudley, speaking in the House of Lords upon the- subject, said -

It was obviously impossible to rel3’ upon the merchant marine as a reserve for the navy in anything like the same proportion as in days gone by, but 30 years ugo the figures were 197,000 and 48,000 respectively. If all the merchant seamen were British, they would not constitute a source of supply to meet the wastage of a great naval war in anything like the proportion of past times. He could not agree that the employment of fo.reign seamen in the merchant marine necessarily constituted a source of danger in time of war, because the seamen were drawn from so many nationalities. Even during the pressure of the great French war in 1803, the navigation laws were partially suspended to allow threefourths of the crews of British ships to be foreigners.

I do not hesitate to say that when this miserable attempt at legislation - this poking of our noses into matters that do not concern us - comes to be applied four or five years hence, when the present contracts expire, the Postmaster-General of the day will enter into contracts with British ship - owners for the carriage of mails, whether they employ lascars or not. I should like to see the set of men who would move a vote of confidence in a Government that adopted that course. Day after day the question of Empire becomes more important. My* honorable friends know that, and if some of them are not proud of the Empire now, they will, perhaps, be proud of it in four years’ time. I heard one honorable senator laugh at the idea that the Empire should be put first and Australia nowhere. I put the Empire first always, and Australia second. Any one who talks to me of putting Australia first, of putting the interests of our little Commonwealth before the interests of the mighty Empire, loses my respect for his politics. What did one of our admirable morning journals tell us the other day 1 It showed that the whole Commonwealth is girdled round with the fighting ships of our Empire, that the very confidence with which this clause has been inserted, is due to the fact that we are British subjects, and have a British navy to protect us, and that we have lascars doing their duty on British ships as well as any others. It is because of our connexion with the Empire, which some honorable senators desire to slap in the face, that we have the confidence and the strength to propose the insertion of this clause. If the Empire were to raise its hand and allow us to act for ourselves, we should no more dare to pass a clause like this than we should dare to jump into a fiery furnace.

Senator McGregor:

– Nonsense.

Senator DOBSON:

– I read in the Times a most interesting speech made by Lord George Hamilton in delivering the Indian Budget, and I was perfectly astounded to learn of the prosperity of that portion of the Empire in view of the severe famine, through which it has passed. In the report of the debate I caught sight of the name of Sir M. Bhownaggree, a native of India, who has been educated in Britain, and for the last eight or ten years has been a member of the House of Commons. We might say that he is an educated English gentleman, except that by birth he is an Indian.. He said -

With regard to the unfair treatment of Iascar seamen he submitted that it was in the power of statesmen here to adopt measures to give justice and deserved rights to those poor people. If lascars were to be employed at all on board British ships, it would be because it was profitable to the owners to employ them. He did not see why men whose frugal habits and hardy pursuits adapted, them for such service should not be employed on terms which they themselves were willing to accept. To deprive lascars of this opportunity of employment robbed the industrial classes of India of one of the few means of livelihood left to them. He believed that those placed in office were not wanting in sympathy -

I hope that applies to my honorable friends iri the labour corner - and were doing their best to safeguard the interests of the people of India, but that all the people knew what were the results.

In conclusion he said - and I would call the attention of Ministers to this last paragraph -

If Imperial statesmen were to throw up their hands and say that, because they had given selfgovernment to the colonies here and. there, those colonies could not be touched when they trampled in the dust the great traditions of the British rule, then the right to govern India from here would be to a large extent modified in the eyes of the natives of India and other foreign countries.

No words of mine could put the matter stronger than that. When I spoke on this subject before, I called the attention of the Senate to a statement made by Sir Thomas Sutherland, who pointed out that upon the opening of the Suez Canal the P. and O. Company tried to do away with lascars, because there was a prejudice against them, many people thinking they were not good seamen in a storm. The company tried most persistently to do away with them ; but owing to the desertion of white crews, and the fact that the great strain attendant upon working in a stoke-hole engendered habits of drunkenness in white men, it was found impossible to make the change. The company had to take back the lascars. Within one week of the debate in which I drew attention to this fact last July, the Orient Company, whose passengers and clients had always boasted that no blackfellows were employed on the line, announced that they had decided to employ lascars in the stoke-holes of their vessels, because the work was not fit for white men to discharge.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– That is absurd.

Senator DOBSON:

– Will my honorable friends in the labour corner, who profess to represent the true opinions of labour, listen to me t Men who have had years and years of experience say that in hot weather and in tropical parts a stoke-hole is not a fit place for a white man. All the evidence goes to show that when white men are sent into stoke-holes in such places over one-half of them become more like beasts than human beings.

Senator McGregor:

– That is a libel.

Senator DOBSON:

Senator O’CONNOR:

If the amendment is carried, it will be mandatory that in all such contracts there shall be inserted a stipulation that the crew shall be white men.

A cast-iron direction in an Act of Parliament is what my honorable friend denounced in the most emphatic form a few short weeks ago, but it is what he appeals to the Senate to swallow now. On that occasion be gave us an excellent illustration. He said -

Is it right that the Postmaster-General, who will have to deal not only with Inter-State contracts, but with contracts in which he shares with the British Government in subsidizing companies for possibly the delivery of mails to some islands in the Pacific - with which our trade will grow in time - should have his hands tied, so that he cannot make a contract with the companies which employ black labour?

He saw that the effect of this provision would be to defeat the possibility of our sending mails at all to the islands of the Pacific, and he implored the committee not to assent to a cast-iron direction in an Act of Parliament, which might, possibly, in years to come, have that most mischievous result. I ventured to interject -

One coloured man in a crew would vitiate the whole contract.

And my honorable and learned friend - we were in absolute harmony then - said -

Exactly ; any coloured person might vitiate the contract.

Senator O’Connor:

– Hear, hear.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– My honorable and learned friend cheers that because it is impossible for him, as a gentleman greatly learned in the law, to differ from it. We are not leaving it to administration, but we are putting it as a cast-iron condition in an Act of Parliament, from which there can be no deviation, and under which we shall have to abstain from entering into any contracts of that description or run the risk of their being vitiated in that way. He said to-day it was to be left as a matter of administration. I quite agree that he said so before; but to what extent? -

What danger is there in leaving it to the Government to carry out this policy wherever it is possible ?

Senator GLASSEY:

– I have lived in Queensland for seventeen years. Again and again I have sailed in these vessels in the tropics, and have never known a vessel to be hung up for a day from an insufficiency of white men. Why is there an abundance of white men in the tropics ? Because they are reasonably paid and live under reasonable conditions, although in some cases 1 admit that there is room for improvement. For the reasons I mentioned, these ships are manned to the full, and a number of men cannot get employment. I have been in the Bed Sea, in vessels manned by lascars and in steamers manned by white men. I have seen the trials of the black men. I have seen them carried up and laid on the deck through excessive heat. I have seen the same thing happen in North Queensland, but only once have I seen a white man so prostrated that he had to be treated in that way. To say that white men have not the vital force to endure any hardship or any heat which the lascars can endure is to make a statement which cannot be borne out by the facts. The objection to the employment of men of ourown colour in place of these lascars arises from the fact that white men demand to be treated, not as mere serfs, but as men to be reasonably paid and to live under fairly humane conditions. Do that, and I venture to say there will be no difficulty in getting any number of them. During one speech Senator Dawson interjected - What about the deep mines, which are excessively hot, and which are more difficult for men to work in, because the labour is longer and more continuous 1 A stoker has to work from two to four hours at a stretch, but a miner has to go down into the mine and work a whole shift of eight hours. Again and again I have seen men working in the mines practically in a nude condition. Without lifting a pick, or a shovel, or a hammer, or a drill it is impossible for men to work there with any degree of comfort. The perspiration simply streams out of them from the moment the men enter the face till they come away. Take some of the coal mines of Queensland, which, as a member of the Royal commission, I have examined quite recently, and in which some of my friends, both old and new, have worked for many years. What is their condition 1 I have seen the miners carrying in a handkerchief or in a large billy-can the clothes which they wore in the mines. They could not go home in their working clothes. Can you get anything worse than that in the vessels in the tropics 1 This is not an isolated case. In numbers of mines yon will find men working under these conditions - in Queensland and elsewhere, particularly in the deep mines in Charters Towers, Gympie, and other places. The same thing happens, I suppose, in some of the mines in Victoria, for instance in Bendigo. Why is there nodifficulty in securing miners to perform this very arduous, dangerous, and oppressive work ? It is because they are fairly reasonably paid. They get the wages which are ruling. In Charters Towers men get their £3 a week, in Gympie £2 10s. a week, and so it is elsewhere. Right in the tropics of Queensland, 1,500 miles away from the capital, you will find men working in little shallow mines, cutting the jungle, toiling in railway cuttings, maintaining railways, and operating locomotive engines. In every instance, no matter how difficult the work may be, or how hot it may be, you can get abundance of men. It is all moonshine for honorable senators to state that white men cannot be got. They have given no proof in support of their statement. It is a mere cry. Senator Downer said that the question of a white Australia was a cry. So far as the principle of a white Australia is concerned - a principle which some men proclaim they believe in, but which their whole action disproves - the cry is on the other side. Then it is said that it will be very inhuman to turn the lascars out of the vessels. Senator Dobson used that argument on a previous occasion, and it is not necessary for me to refer to- it now. The inhumanity is all the other way. It consists in depriving our own men of the means of earning a livelihood. In my judgment, our own men have a prior claim to our consideration. I would not treat lascars inhumanely.

Senator Dobson:

– No, but the honorable senator would turn them out to starve.

Senator GLASSEY:

– Certainly, I would turn them out when the ships are subsidized by our own money. I would rather see our own men employed than lascars. Senator Symon used a most peculiar argument. He described thisproposition as a policy of boycotting. Where does the boycott come in 1 I cannot see it. He says it simply means, if carried, the exclusion of ships belonging to one or two companies. It excludes the ships of no company. It simply provides that when the mail contracts expire, the companies shall tender for the service under certain conditions. If Senator Symon or any other senator was going to let a contract for the building of a house or any other contract, would he stipulate the conditions under which it should be carried out, and because of the existence of those conditions would it be said that any one was boycotted ? Not at all. It is unworthy of the ability, and certainly unworthy of the master mind of ienator Symon to argue that it is a policy of boycotting. If the P. and 0. Company do not like the conditions, they do not need to tender, but there is no intention to boycott them. They do not carry the mails out of philanthrophy or charity. They enter into the arrangements with their eyes open, and with a view to making a profit. If the P. and 0. Company or any other company do not wish to secure the contract under our conditions, the fault does not rest with the Commonwealth, and there is no boycotting or the slightest intention to enforce a boycott. Senator Smith referred to a statement which has been made, and which has not been contradicted, namely, that the Orient Company have chartered four ships to do a portion of their work, but there is a stipulation that each ship shall be manned by a white crew. If that be the case where then comes the argument that we should reject this amendment because of the inability of that company to obtain white men to go into the stokeholes ? I think that was very well answered by Senator Pearce. The Orient Company have to compete with the P. and 0. Company and other companies who carry cheap crews, and it is in consequence of that competition, and not from the want of men willing to work under fair conditions, that they have come to that conclusion. Then the question arises whether the Iascar or the white man has the first claim to our consideration as a Senate not appointed by the Prime Minister and indorsed by a Governor-General, but elected by the free choice of the people. As regards finding employment and securing reasonable pay in the ships subsidized to do the work of the Commonwealth, those who have my first consideration are men of our own race and colour, men who have done something to build up and maintain the British Empire, who have ploughed the fields, cleared the jungle, sunk and worked mines, laid down railways, and manned locomotives, who have manned the ships and carried the British flag into all parts of the world, who have done credit to themselves, and upheld the honour and prestige of the British Empire.

Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia). - On a previous occasion I stood on the side of the Government, because in my opinion it was not the time or the place to introduce such an amendment. I was strongly in sympathy with Senator Glassey who moved the amendment, and I said -

I cannot support the amendment now because I believe this is not the time or the place to affirm the principle.

– I claim that we could under the 67th clause.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- I claim that we could not; however1, if the honorable and learned senator wishes to go into that discussion-

Senator Drake:

– No I don’t. I withdraw.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– Very well, that will save us trouble. I have had some little experience in these matters, and holding that view I am going to propose an amendment which I believe will get over the difficulty. I propose to move the insertion of the words “ to agreements limited to single voyages nor” after the word “apply” in the second sub-clause of the amendment, so that that sub-clause would then read -

This condition shall not apply to agreements limited to single voyages nor to the coaling and loading of ships at places beyond the limit of the Commonwealth.

I want to make it quite clear that the clause shall not be read to prevent the carriage, for the convenience of the Commonwealth, of a bag or a dozen bags of mails by a ship which happens to have some coloured people on board. Of course there are all kinds of difficulties surrounding this provision. “We might start with a white crew and finish up with a coloured one. Such a thing might be a necessity Supposing that a vessel arrives at Ceylon with half the crew sick, how are you going to replace them with white men? You must take coloured men to finish your voyage That is not provided for. If we are to have a hard-and-fast rule, which admits of no variation, then the Government are inviting the Chamber to adopt something winch in working will be found unsatisfactory. There may be a difficulty in respect to my moving an amendment unless Senator Drake will be courteous enough to allow me an opportunity, as is the rule in committee.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I have very little more to say. As regards Imperial mail contracts this clause will not be found operative. It will be found simply a difficulty, and will have to be revoked before we can enter into any contracts, and it is for that reason that I do not take so strong a view on the subject as many honorable senators do. If my amendment is inserted there will be no harm done if we pass the clause, because it will be simply inoperative. If my amendment is adopted, I take it that we shall be free to have our letters- carried where necessary on a single voyage by simply saying to a captain - “ We want you to cany these letters, and we shall pay you a small sum for the service,” and there the whole transaction will end. I am certainly not in favour of encouraging any form of arrangement that will needlessly bring about the employment of coloured men to the exclusion of our own people.

Senator McGregor:

– What about a wooden leg ?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- I have little or no knowledge regarding wooden legs, but I possess some regarding wooden heads. At any rate I come across the latter pretty often. ‘ I am absolutely in favour of a white Australia, and I entirely agree with those who hold that this clause has nothing to do with a white Australia. It will have no more effect on a white Australia than will a few gulls on the coast, affect the breeding of our barn-yard fowls. The Government seem to be in very close communion with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in certain ways, for we are given to understand that their policy has some source of inspiration from the other side of the world, and if they are prepared to take the risk they take it with their eyes open. I do not know whether I shall vote with or against them if the amendment be inserted, but not for the reason which Senator Charleston gave - that he followed the Government once and is prepared to follow them again. I do not take that attitude at all. I think this is a kind of tomfoolery which means nothing, and which comes to nothing. If the Government like to enact a little jocularity, I do not see that we need trouble ourselves very much. But if the clause passes in its present form it will cripple and interfere with details of Australian development in a very cruel, uncertain, and irregular manner. For that reason I wish to see the clause amended. I move -

That the amendment be amended by the insertion after the word “apply,” in sub-clause (2) of the words - “to agreements limited to single voyages nor.”

page 5565

DISTILLATION BILL

The PRESIDENT reported the receipt of a message from the House of Representatives, stating that they had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this Bill with the exception of amendments Nos. 8, 19, and 20.

page 5565

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL

The PRESIDENT reported the receipt of a message from the House of Representatives, stating that they did not insist upon their amendments in this Bill, with which the Senate had disagreed.

Senate adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 October 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1901/19011003_senate_1_4/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 3 October 1901

PETITIONS

Senator PLAYFORD:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Playford:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Playford:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Major Gould:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Playford:

The PRESIDENT:

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Senator O’CONNOR:“Vice-President of the. Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:South Australia

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator SirJOSIAH SYMON:

Senator O’CONNOR:

ELECTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE

QUESTION

REPORTED ADJOURNMENT OF SENATE

Senator HIGGS:QUEENSLAND

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

CUSTOMS BILL

EXCISE BILL

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Lt Col Neild:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator PLAYFORD:South Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

Senator DRAKE:PostrnasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Major Gould:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Playford:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator DRAKE:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator Drake:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:South Australia

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:Victoria

Senator DRAKE:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator DRAKE:

Senator GLASSEY:Queensland

Senator WALKER:New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator CHARLESTON:South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:South Australia

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Charleston:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator FRASER:Victoria

Senator Drake:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

Senator Drake:

Senator DOBSON:

Senate
3 October 1901

Senator PLAYFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’CONNOR:
“Vice-President of the. Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator DRAKE:
PostrnasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:
Victoria

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT