Senate
6 December 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- CHRISTMAS ADJOURNMENT
QUESTION
- POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH RATES
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
VENTILATION OF SENATE CHAMBER : LATE SITTINGS
PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS BILL
LAPSED BILLS
QUESTION
- POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT
SITE OF FEDERAL CAPITAL
IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION BILL
PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS BILL

The President took the chair at 10.30a.m., and read prayers.

page 8364

QUESTION

CHRISTMAS ADJOURNMENT

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

– The adjournment which the Senate makes over Christmas docs not necessarily indicate the time’ of the adjournment of another place. , The two Houses need npt necessarily act identically in that respect. The present intention of the Government is that the Senate shall adjourn on the 13th or 14th December. It may be necessary to ask the Senate to sit on Saturday if we cannot finish the business before us next Friday. Then we propose to meet again on the 15 th January. That arrangement is of course subject to the exigencies of public business/ That is to say, I do not bind myself in any way to that date. For instance, should the Tariff be passed by the House of Representatives before Christmas, it might possibly become necessary for the Senate to meet earlier. I cannot say anything more at present.

page 8364

QUESTION

POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH RATES

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Postmaster-General, without notice, whether he will have prepared and ready for “Wednesday next, when the Postal and Telegraphic Rates Bill is to be introduced, a statement of tho charges and rates of postage on letters, papers, and telegrams, and also some- statement of the changes .in revenue that will be brought about in the various States by the proposals of the Government ?

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– I am having prepared a table of the rates in force at the present time in the different States of the Commonwealth. With regard to the latter part of Senator Pulsford’s question, I hardly think that his proposal will be feasible. I am collecting all tho information on the subject, and hope to be in a position to give it to tho Senate; but the figures in every case will be only approxi-. mate- I. think it better that I should, in giving the figures, be able to make explanatory statements in connexion with them.

page 8364

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

page 8364

VENTILATION OF SENATE CHAMBER : LATE SITTINGS

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to make a statement concerning two matters which were brought up yesterday. One is as to the ventilation of this chamber. I have learnt since yesterday that it has been the practice in the State Parliament to take down the curtains at the sides of the chamber directly the warm weather commenced. I am informed that to do so will greatly increase the ventilation. I propose to take action to have the curtains removed.

Senator Glassey:

– It is too early; we have had no warm weather yet.

The PRESIDENT:

– Of course it is a matter for the Senate to determine. Some honorable senators have complained that we have not sufficient ventilation, whilst others have complained that we have too much. Evidently I cannot please every one. But I propose, if the Senate does not object - perhaps after the Christmas adjournment - to take down the curtains. As to the other matter, Senator De Largie asked me a question concerning the officers of the House and late sittings. I do not think that the late sittings of the Senate itself have been sufficiently numerous to necessitate any action, but there are certain officers of the Senate who, in consequence of late sittings in the House of Representatives, have been kept at their duties for very late hours, and sometimes all night. Arrangements have been come to to give them some compensation.

page 8365

PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS BILL

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, how it is that a purely formal matter, the third reading of the Pacific Island Labourers Bill, has been placed second upon the business-paper t

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The arrangement of business must be left to the Government. If they are to have control of the business of the Senate, it will be quite apparent that they cannot be expected to give reasons for the arrangement of business in any particular matter. Therefore, although I will answer the honorable senator’s question on this occasion, I do not think it is one of those matters with which the Senate generally has much to do, unless it is a matter which really concerns some particular piece of business.

Senator Higgs:

– It is only giving opportunities for planters to introduce more kanakas.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– If the third reading of the Bill is to be taken as a formal matter, there is no reason why it should not be gone on with, but otherwise it is in its proper place.

page 8365

LAPSED BILLS

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to introduce this session a Bill by which Bills introduced into Parliament may, in a subsequent session of the same Parliament, be proceeded with at the stage they had reached before the end of a parliamentary session ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– This matter is provided for in the different standing orders, in reference to which notice of motion has been given to-day by me.

page 8365

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Senator MCGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Are there any officers in the Postal Department of South Australia, or of any other State, who are entitled by regulation to periodical increases of salary ; if so, have these increases in all cases been allowed ; if not, why not ?

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– There are officers in the Postal department in South Australia, and in some other States, who are entitled,either by statute or regulation, to periodical increases in salary ; such increases have in all cases been allowed.

page 8365

SITE OF FEDERAL CAPITAL

Ordered (on motion by Senator Walker) -

That there be laid upon the table of the Senate a précis of all correspondence between the Government of Now South Wales and the Government of the Commonwealth with reference to the proposed site for the Federal Capital.

page 8365

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 5th December, vide page 8323) -

Clause 4. - The immigration into the Commonwealth of the persons described in any of the following paragraphs of this section (hereinafter called “prohibited immigrants”) is prohibited, namely - upon which Senator McGregor had moved -

That the following paragraph be inserted: - ” (a) Any person who is an aboriginal native of Asia or Africa, or of the islands thereof.”

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– When my speech was interrupted last night I was criticizing some remarks made by Senator Symon, and to-day I shall dwell upon three or four points which will enable me shortly to express my views upon the matter, and at the same time show, as I think I can, how ineffectual and weak were the arguments of my honorable and learned friend. This is an Imperial matter, and I am too good and loyal an Imperialist to let pass remarks such as those uttered by Senator Symon without venturing, as well as I can, to criticize them, and to show how dangerous they are. The honorable and learned senator said that the method proposed by the Bill is a subterfuge, a cheat, and a fraud, that the Bill does not speak the truth, and that it does not. say what we mean. My answer is that paragraph (a) is so plain, that even a fool can understand what it means.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The paragraph to which the honorable senator refers’ has been deleted.

Senator DOBSON:

– It is utterly impossible to discuss the amendment, without dealing with the paragraph which has been deleted. My honorable and learned friend has argued as if the people constituting this Commonwealth are to conduct the policy of the Empire upon what is an Imperial question.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– We should conduct our own policy.

Senator DOBSON:

– It is not our own policy. It is one which affects Australia on the one hand and the Empire on the other. What I complain of is that Senator Symon has left out the Imperial aspect of the question. He has absolutely ignored it. When I express regret that my honorable and learned friend is “not a true Imperialist, he replies that he is as true an Imperialist as I am. On this point, however, my honorable friend’s remarks appear to me to be those of an Australian Jingo. In dealing with Imperial matters I do not agree with him. I would remind- him of the phrase “ loyalty with a latch-key,” which I think was coined by Dr. Parker. No doubt Senator Symon is an Imperialist with a latch-key.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– We all like a latch-key.

Senator DOBSON:

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the amendment be amended by the omission of the words “ is an aboriginal native of Asia or Africa, or of the islands thereof,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “when asked to do so by an officer appointed under this Act; shall fail to himself write out and sign in the characters of any language of Europe, an application to the Minister, in the form get out in the schedule.”

My amendment is designed to bring the clause into line with the Natal Act, which has. met with the approval of the home authorities. I think that, in supporting Senator McGregor’s amendment, honorable senators in the labour corner are preparing for themselves a political rod, in a political pickle-bottle, for their political backs.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– I take it that the object of the honorable senator is to carry out the views expressed by himself and others, including Senators Macfarlane and Neild. Their objection to the Bill is that it does not follow the Natal Act, and I understand that those honorable senators are prepared to support a clause which will follow the Natal Act. I remind the honorable senator that there is one feature of the Natal Act which in Natal and elsewhere makes it obviously and admittedly ineffective, and that is that words of the test are contained in the schedule to the Act so that any one may learn them off. If the honorable senator is prepared to leave the form of words to be submitted to the discretion of the officer by omitting the words “ set out in the schedule” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ prescribed,”I shall be disposed to accept the amendment.

Senator Walker:

– I am willing to agree to that.

Amendment amended accordingly.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– It is not necessary to take up time discussing the matter at greater length. I should very much prefer the form proposed by the Government because it would give a much wider discretion to the officer administering the Bill, and could be made applicable to the extent of prohibition if necessary. This amendment follows the same principle as the Government proposal, and as the latter” has been defeated, we now feel it to be our duty to support Senator Walker’s amendment. I hope that honorable senators who have said that they would be prepared to support the Natal provision will be found supporting this amendment.

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

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 11

Noes … … … 12

Majority … … 1

Question so resolved in the negative.

SenatorPEARCE (Western Australia).Before a division is taken upon the words proposed to be inserted by Senator Walker. I should like to be sure as to what the exact test will be, and whether “prescribed” means as “ prescribed “ by regulation, or as prescribed by the officer.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– “ In the form prescribed “ will mean as prescribed by regulation. A regulation will have to be framed, prescribing from time to time what the test will be. If these words are inserted in order to make it effective, it will be necessary to have the words of the test left to the discretion of the officers, so that they may be changed from time to time.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I understand that the object of Senator Walker was to secure honest administration, but it is quite clear from what Senator O’Connor has said that by the adoption of this amendment Senator Walker’s object can be defeated. Under the amendment as now proposed, if a German seeks admission to the Commonwealth, the test may be put to him in Polish. If the amendment is to beadopted, because it is honest, and puts upon the face of the Bill that which we desire all intending immigrants to understand, it should be provided that the test shall be in the English or some other language. It must not be left to the officer to say in what language the test shall be applied. If I as an American were to apply for admission into Australia, the Government could test me in the Russian language, which I could not understand nor could I write out the form which would be placed before me. ‘ Although this is intended to be an honest amendment, it is not, because it would keep out any European whom the Government desired. Senator Walker has been completely got at, and all he desires to accomplish will be defeated. This is an educational test which can be applied in exactlythe same way as one we rejected last night.

Question - that the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put.

The committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 12

Majority … … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I move -

That after the words “ Any person who,” the following words be inserted : - “by proclamation of the Governor-General of the Commonwealth is declared to be an undesirable immigrant.”

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I shall oppose the amendment. The power, no doubt, always exists in the Government to shut out, according to their discretion, any person who they think ought not to be a member of the community. But it seems to me that it would be giving too great a power altogether to leave it entirely to the discretion of a Government to say who should or should not be proclaimed prohibited immigrants. If there is to be a law regulating these admissions, there ought to be a provision in it much more definite than that.

Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– I concur in almost every word which Senator O’Connor has said. It would be a pity if we should leave on the face of the Bill any degree of uncertainty in any direction which we can possibly avoid. My strong view in regard to the Bill as it stood originally was that everything was left to the discretion of the Ministry or an officer as to who should be admitted and who should be excluded, and that it would be entirely inefficacious for the purpose intended of securing the exclusion of Asiatic races. This amendment would leave it equally indeterminate. I know, and we all know, that in another place a provision was sought to be inserted with the view of providing for the exclusion of those who might be declared by resolution from time to time by Parliament to be undesirable immigrants - I think it was moved by Mr. Isaacs- - and that was open to the same objection. We ought to have a clear and determinate rule as to who are to be excluded and there ought to be no scope for discretion which may render the administration of the Act absolutely inefficacious. The object we have in view is clear. Let us carry it out if we can, and put straight on the face of the Bill what we mean to do, so that no officer- ‘from a Custom-house officer of low grade, up to the Governor-General in Council - shall have power to make fish of one and flesh of another.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I do not think that the amendment will meet the case of those who are in favour of a “ white Australia.” I regret very much to find myself in an unfortunate position this morning. There was a considerable majority in favour of Senator McGregor’s amendment for direct exclusion, but owing to the forms of the House requiring certain propositions to be submitted before others, a blank has been created, and his amendment has been defeated, and we are now in a worse position than we were in before. We have to consider how this state of things came about, and whether those who have been supporting the plan of direct exclusion, are going to carry out their intention to the uttermost degree. Instead of beating about the bush any further, and trying to fill the blank, we had better endeavour, by some means or other, to get into a position to reconsider the clause and restore the Government proposal, which is far better, I think, than Senator Walker’s ‘ amendment, or any proposal except Senator McGregor’s.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

– I very much sympathize with what Senator Higgs has said, not only because I agreed with the original proposal, but because, looking at the probability of an eternal session, it is expedient that we should not throw on another House the re-opening of a big question with an interminable discussion. There must be an end to all these things at some time or other. This is only an_end’ in a way, because afterwards it can be altered. We are in a species of deadlock. One party who are divided very much amongst themselves defeated the Government.’

Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia). - I think it would be much better to go on with the remaining clauses, and on recommittal to consider whether Senator McGregor’s amendment should be inserted.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– Perhaps it may shorten discussion if I state what seems to me the course which must be taken. I propose that we shall go to a division at once if Senator Stewart persists in this amendment. I, however, trust that we shall dispose of this clause, and when we have gone through the Bill it can be recommitted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paragraph (g) -

Any persons under a contract or agreement to perform manual labour within the Commonwealth : Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to workmen exempted by the Minister for special skill required in Australia, or to persons under contract or agreement to serve as part of the crew of a vessel engaged in the coasting trade in Australian waters if the rates of wages specified therein are not lower than the rates ruling iu the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– This paragraph is, strictly speaking, foreign to the object of the Bill, which has been introduced to insure a white Australia. The paragraph raises the question of the engagement, not of coloured races, but of labour of other kinds,, whether from the old country or otherwise. Whatever may be the desirability of granting such power to the Minister as this Bill provides, this is not the measure in which it ought to be introduced. The paragraph opens up a very large question which has not yet been dealt with in any one State. It practically means that Australia is to be kept, as far as manual labour is concerned, entirely for those who are already in the country, subject to the consent of the Minister of the day to the introduction of skilled labour. I do not think that such a provision is in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole, and I am certain that it is not in the interests of the labourers of Australia. At the time when there was a steady stream of immigration into ‘Victoria, at the rate of 1,000 a week, we were paying 17s. 6d. a day for manual labour. In those days there was a continuous immigration to the goldfields. It is in the interests of the working classes themselves that there should be a stream of immigration into the country. Such a paragraph as this is, -so far as I know, contrary to the wishes of the general public, and the question it deals with certainly was not mooted in Victoria at the Commonwealth elections. It will allow the Minister to stifle industries that may require the importation of specially skilled men, and the consequence will be that capital that might profitably be employed in developing industries will be unable to be so utilized. I feel strongly on the subject ; not that it will affect me personally, but because I feel sure that it will injure those whom it is intended to protect.

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

– I agree to a great extent with what Senator Sargood has said in regard to the advantages that have resulted to Australia from the influx of population in the past, but his remarks as to the benefit of immigration to Victoria in the time of the gold discoveries do not affect this question. The paragraph deals with indented labour. We all desire that in the future Australia shall be made so attractive to persons of all classes that there will be a considerable amount of free labour introduced. But this paragraph will not affect that immigration. It may be true, as Senator Sargood says, that at the federal elections in Victoria nothing was said about indented labour, but I know that in Queensland a considerable amount of interest was taken in the question, and indeed ever since I have been in political life there has been a strong feeling in that State against the introduction of indented labour. That is to say, employers of labour - say, a big contractor - engages workmen in a country where wages are lower than they are here, for the purpose of doing a certain piece of work cheaply. It is recognised by most people that a practice of- that kind must have the result of introducing into Australia a number of persons who will work for a lower rate of wages than is generally paid, thereby causing dissatisfaction, and diminishing the attractiveness of Australia to people of the class whom we desire to bring here. There is a special exemption for skilled men, so that the honorable senator has no ground to stand upon in his objection to the paragraph. In the United States of America there is a similar provision to this, amounting to a direct prohibition of indented labour. That is a proof that 70,000,000 of the most intelligent people in the world have come to the conclusion that this is a restriction that ought to be imposed in the interests of working people. We cannot do better than follow such a lead.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).This paragraph would prohibit any person from engaging domestic servants abroad and bringing them into Australia.

Senator Drake:

– Are there not plenty here ?

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

– I remember the .time when domestic servants were imported into Queensland at the instance of the Government, and there was such an inquiry for them that they were rushed by ladies who wished to engage them! That shows that there is a great demand for this class of manual labour. It would be monstrous to prohibit any one from engaging a few domestic servants abroad if he wished to do so.

Senator Drake:

– If there is a scarcity in one State, they can be engaged in another.

Senator MACFARLANE:

-I am afraid that there is a scarcity in all the States. Only last week I had to engage in Melbourne some domestic servants for Tasmania. I shall certainly vote against this paragraph.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I cannot allow the paragraph to pass without making a protest against it. What Australia needs most is more population. There may be a surplus population here and there. There might be a surplus of labour for a time, but I am certain that the one great need of Australia is a greater population, . which would help to lighten the burdens that rest at present on the shoulders of the three or four millions of inhabitants of the Commonwealth. I do not apprehend that there is any danger of the wages rate in Australia suffering from the bringing in of new labourers. It rarely happens that labourers are introduced into Australia from Europe under the conditions hinted at in this provision, and I see no reason why it should be inserted.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– As one who would like to see the influx of a large European population into Australia, I shall be obliged to vote against this clause. In days gone by a squatting firm in Northern Queensland introduced gardeners from Scotland, and farm servants f rorn Norway, who became in time excellent bushmen and splendid colonists. We hear a great deal about a white Australia. I am afraid that what some honorable senators really want is an Australia for the whites already here. They do not want any one else to come in. If they had any sense of humanity they would see that there are numbers of white people who would like to come here, and they would endeavour to assist them. Many of these people cannot afford to pay their own passages, but employers would be able to bring them out under indenture for three years. That could be done in the case of Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes, for example, and no one would say that people from those countries are not amongst some of our most excellent colonists. Some persons deny that labour, like any other commodity, may be bought and sold. A notable instance of the fact that it is a purchasable commodity, however, is afforded by the offer of £2,500 a year made recently by the Victorian Government to oneof the New South Wales Railway Commissioners. He said he preferred to remain where he was if the Government there would consent to raise his salary from £1,500 to £2,000 a year, and the Government of New South Wales are bringing in a Bill to enable them to pay him that salary. Would the people of Victoria have found fault with the Government if it had entered into an agreement to bring him here 1 This provision in the Bill is a dishonest attempt, under the plea of a white Australia, to prevent from coming here Europeans who would be able to secure in Australia terms superior to those obtainable in their own countries.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - It is all very well for honorable senators who have mortgages over saw-mills, and who are apparently in a very comfortable position in life, to speak of the want of humanity shown by those who desire to insert a provision in this Bill, which will prevent employers, who are anxious to get rich very rapidly, from bringing into Australia white labour under contract, to work probably at very low wages.

Senator Walker:

– Surely we should have freedom of contract ?

Senator HIGGS:

– Freedom of contract has a very great charm for those who have good bank balances, but for the man whose bank balance is his capacity for toil, and who has to compete for hisdaily bread in an over-flooded labour market, it has no attractions. If Senator Walker had been employed during the last six months at the Broken Hill mines, and had been discharged owing to scarcity of work, he would object to the importation of labourers under contract at low wages.

Senator Walker:

– I should go elsewhere.

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– There were some 9,000 miners employed in Broken Hill a few months ago, but there are now only 5,000. We have heard a good deal of the poor kanaka, who has settled down with his family in Queensland. What about the poor miners who have settled down and got their families round them in Broken Hill, but are now out of work? Of course they can go elsewhere. They can break up their homes, and go first class to the other end of the Commonwealth. Senator Walker knows that in all probability the white workers at Broken Hill, who are out of employment, will have to roll up their swags, and leave their families in search of work. It is all very well to introduce the domestic servant problem into this question. The scarcity of domestics is due to the fact that a very large number of mistresses do not know how to treat their servants properly. Many of them have been servants themselves, and probably because the)7 have had to work hard they have made up their minds that their servants shall do the same. We do not want any indented labourers here, and I sincerely hope that Senator Sargood will withdraw his objection. He is a good employer himself, and probably he thinks that every one else is. He must know, however, that some of the bitterest strikes that have occurred in America have been due to the introduction of labourers under contract.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - It has been stated that our object in opposing this paragraph is that labour may be introduced at wages lower than current rates. That is not my desire, and I propose to amend the paragraph in a way that should meet the views of all honorable senators. I move -

That the words “at wages below current rates,” be inserted ‘after the word “Commonwealth,” line ti.

While I have no desire to introduce labour at low rates of wages, I want to see that we do nothing which will impede the increase of our population by means of immigration.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I wish to correct a statement made by Senator Walker in regard to the effect of this paragraph. He suggested that its. provisions would operate against the introduction into Victoria of a Commissioner of Railways under agreement to do special work. He will find, however, that it would not affect a case of that kind. Such a man would be exempt as one having special skill.

Senator Walker:

– My only object in citing that case was to show that labour is a commodity which may be bought and sold.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The ordinary manual labourer will come under this paragraph, but a skilled labourer will be exempt. It is absolutely necessary that a provision of this kind should be inserted in the Bill, and

I hope the Government will adhere to it. In Queensland we have experienced the necessity for such a provision. In order to get over the difficulty of producing sugar without black labour, Sir Samuel Griffith, same years ago, conceived the idea of introducing a number of Italians to work in the cane-fields of Queensland. Large numbers of Italians were brought out, with the result that they broke away promptly from their agreements, and went to different parts of Queensland. Some of them were almost paupers, and until they placed themselves on something like a sound footing, they gave the Australian workmen a very bacl time of it.

Senator Drake:

– Some of them are now working on the share system round Cairns,’ and doing very well.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Yes. At first they took contracts for supplying the mines and mills with firewood at very low rates. But as -soon as they established themselves upon a sound footing, they fell into line with the conditions that had prevailed before their arrival in the State, and did not take contracts at rates lower than those at -which others were prepared to accept them. For a considerable time, however, the Queensland workman suffered severely, and I hope no action on the part of the Senate will bring about such a state of affairs again.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I take it for granted that Senator Pulsford and other honorable senators have no desire to reduce wages, but I should like Senator Walker and Senator Pulsford to be forced to compete in the labour market as I have had to do. It has often happened that a combination of employers has brought about a state of affairs which has made it absolutely necessary for their workmen to strike for better conditions, apart altogether from wages. When a strike has been forced upon the workmen the emjployers have been prepared to indent labour, even at higher wages than they were giving, in order to defeat the strikers. When the strike, is over, and when there are two applicants for every billet it is very easy for employers to make a proposition either to reduce wages or to harden the conditions in other directions. And the men through the force of circumstances are compelled to accept those conditions. We do not wish anything of that kind to occur. The expression “wages below current rates “ would not protect

Australian workmen from any conditions that might be imposed apart from wages altogether. I hope Senator Pulsford will withdraw the amendment on my assurance that it would not have the effect of keeping up wages in Australia at a rate which ought to obtain in this country.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I desire to draw Senator McGregor’s attention to the fact that Australia is some thousands of miles away from the chief labour recruiting ground, and in the case of a strike, or anything of that sort, there would be no reasonable opportunity for the introduction of men from Europe, with a view of interfering with the men on strike. I do not think Senator McGregor wishes us to understand that we are to insert a clause in this Bill to make it impossible for more labour to be imported, and I can see no objection to providing that they shall not be brought in to work for wages under the current rate of wages.

Senator McGregor:

– I know where higher wages were offered.

Senator PULSFORD:

– Why on earth should we object to the introduction of labour at higher rates of wages than those current locally?

Senator O’Connor:

– It has been explained that that may be a mere device.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I wish to point out to Senator Pulsford that if the wages for eight hours were 10s. per day, and an employer offered 11s. per day for twelve hours, it would be a reduction of wages. Senator Dawson has shown us that it is not merely a question of wages which causes labour disputes, but very often the conditions and hours of labour. We know that although America is some thousands of miles from Europe thousands of men have been imported from European nations to take the place of American citizens, in some cases to bring down the rates of wages and in other cases to break up the unions which the men had formed. Domestic servants have been referred to, but what is to prevent people from bringing domestic servants here and making their engagement with them on the spot when they may know what are the local conditions and what is a fair wage? The objection is to the introduction of people under contract who are not aware of the local conditions.

Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia), - I may give an illustration which may help honorable senators to understand that it may sometimes become necessary to have such a provision in the Bill. Honorable senators from South Australia will remember that it was decided to construct a large reservoir and reticulate a large part of the country called the Beetaloo area. There were some ideas of protection prevalent at the time, and it was decided that the pipes should be manufactured in the State, even though the contract amounted to £34,000 more than it would have been necessary to pay if the pipes had been imported. The contractor introduced a number of workmen under contract from Scotland, and the men, after working for some time, discovered that the terms’ and. conditions under which they had been engaged were less favorable than those under which they had worked in Scotland. The result was a serious strike, and the men. were brought before the court. That led to a provision being inserted in one of the South Australian Acts to the effect that no contract made outside the State for labour should be valid until it had been re-signed in the State.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– We need not go to South Australia for an example because we have one in the State of Victoria. Some honorable senators will remember that Cornish and Bruce imported 100 Italian immigrants in connexion with the contract for the Mount Alexander line, . under a contract to work for more than eight hours a day, and at less than the rate of wages which was considered reasonable. It turned out a failure, because the Italians did not adhere to the agreement made with them in Italy for about half the rate of pay which was current here at the time. An. attempt was made to get over the difficulty by substituting a lot of brick-work for stonework, because the masons caused a lot of trouble to the contractors, and worked under the eight hours system. Cornish and Bruce looked upon it as their right to import men at any price at which they could get them, and at the time I speak of masons’ wages here were from 1 5s. to 1 6s. a day.

Amendment negatived.

Paragraph (k) -

The master and crew of any other vessel landing during the stay of the vessel in any port in the Commonwealth. Provided that …. if it is found that any person . . . who would in the opinion of the officer be a prohibited immigrant … is not present, then such person shall not be excepted–

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).I move - r

That the words - “ not being of European race or descent,” be inserted after the word “ person.”

I do not see why if the absent seaman is a European, the officer should have the absolute power to declare him a prohibited immigrant if he does not turn up when the ship is going away. The shipping companies suggest that as all whites, whether passengers or crew are professedly to be free to enter the Commonwealth, words should be introduced in this paragraph limiting its application to Asiatics. It is admitted that an Asiatic member of a crew should not be allowed to land, and that if he does not return to the ship before she leaves, the owners of the ship may fairly be held responsible for the introduction of a prohibited immigrant. But they ought not to be “held liable in the case of a European. Under this provision if a white man does not appear when the crew are mustered, he may be considered a prohibited immigrant. That is very hard on the master of the ship. He is not the keeper of a member of the crew who is legally allowed to walk about the streets of . Melbourne or Sydney, because he is a free person.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– Therefore he cannot be treated as a prohibited immigrant. .

Senator MACFARLANE:

– He may be taken up and called upon to pass an educational test.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– He will be in no worse position than if he had been called upon to do so in the first instance. When the ship comes in he may be called upon to pass the test, but he is not likely to be.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– The hardship is that the ship should be liable for his misdeeds.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales.) - I doubt if the committee grasp the point. The paragraph exempts from the operation of the Act the crew of a vessel, and the ship-owners ask that this should be made clear, as being applicable to coloured sailors in case any of them should be missing when the muster is made. It seems fair that the penalty should only be put in force in the case of coloured sailors. I think it is a fair amendment.

Senator McGREGOR (South Australia). - Senators Macfarlane and Pulsford suggest amendments without having considered anything in the Bill but the line immediately in front of them. Can they not see that there are other prohibited immigrants than coloured men 1 Idiots, paupers, and undesirable immigrants of other descriptions might be- on the ships as well as coloured people, and if those honorable senators will read the Bill and understand it, and then move intelligible amendments, we might listen to them.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I know something of the clauses we have discussed, and those we have yet to discuss, and I venture to say that this amendment which has been put forward at the suggestion of important shipping companies is at least worthy of the attention of the committee. If Senator O’Connor is quite certain that the shipping companies would not be at any time liable to ‘ be fined because any white sailors had absconded, I am willing to allow the paragraph to pass as it is.

Amendment negatived.

Paragraph (n). - Any person who satisfies an officer that he has formerly been domiciled in the Commonwealth or in any colony which has become a State.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).The shipping companies, who of course are supposed to know their own business, and who represent a large amount of intelligence in this community, point out that there are many alien white and coloured people who have been resident in the States for many years, but who are without domicile in the legal sense of the word. They suggest the use of the words, “ a resident for at least two years.” I move - “ That the word “ domiciled,” line 2, be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words “ resident for at least two years.”

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I object to the amendment, ‘which makes the provision much more stringent against my honorable friend’s view than it is.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I cannot quite see with Senator O’Connor that the amendment would make the provision more stringent than it is. The word “ domiciled “ has a legal meaning. I understand that before a man can be regarded as having become “domiciled” there has to be the clearest evidence placed before the court that he has absolutely left his native country for good, and means to take up his permanent residence in the new country. If that is not the law, I should be glad if Senator O’Connor would point out what it is. I do not think that the words of this amendment are quite so strict as the word “ domiciled,” which may require every case to be judged on its own merits.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– The word means that a man has made his home in a country. If a man brings his wife and children here, and lives in this country, and has given up his other home, then he is domiciled here, and that may take place in a week or a month. Of course it may be a question of evidence whether a man has become domiciled in the country. If a man has a home in England, and he leaves his wife there and comes out here and establishes another home, it may be that he is not domiciled, but surely it may be left to the Government to decide under the particular circumstances whether a person is domiciled or not. What <io we aim at here? We aim at reaching those persons who have actually made their homes among us. That is a perfectly simple thing to decide. There is no reason why an officer should not decide it.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– It seems that there is some little misconception as to what this paragraph is intended for. This is an exception. The previous paragraph deals with prohibited persons, but there are certain classes of persons who, when they come here even if in other respects, they might be within the prohibited class, are not so if they can satisfy the new conditions. One of these conditions is that if a man has been domiciled in Australia either through having been a native of it, or having had his home here for a number of years has gone away and has returned, he is to be admitted, as a matter of course, as he ought to be. It seems to me that the paragraph is perfectly clear, and is intended to except a class of persons who would otherwise be prohibited.

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- It appears to me, notwithstanding what Senator Symon has said, that this matter is not clear at all. Seeing that our legal authorities are not agreed as to the meaning of the word “domiciled,” I think it would be much better to insert the words - “resident for six months.”

Senator WALKER (New South Wales). As it is possible for a man to be resident in a State and yet not to be domiciled therein, would it not be better to use the words “domiciled or resident for two years?” That would cover both cases. 24 p 2

Senator O’Connor:

– I am sorry that I cannot accept the honorable senator’s suggestion.

Senator DOBSON (Tasmania). - This amendment has been suggested and prepared by one of the ablest solicitors in Victoria, at the request of the shipping companies. Like all lawyers, he does not quite like the word “domiciled,” because, as Senator Walker has stated in a nutshell, a man may be resident in a place for years and yet not have a domicile there. When we use the word “ domiciled “ we use a word which has two meanings.

Senator O’Connor:

– Because we do not mean resident, but domiciled. We mean that a man must have made his home here.

Senator DOBSON:

– Why not put in the words - “ made his home or been resident here for two years 1”

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (Powers to enforce Act).

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - This clause reads - “ Every member of the police force of any State.” Have we any power over the police forces of the States ?

Senator O’CONNOR:

– The clause simply gives power to arrest. If the authorities of a State prevent their police from acting, of course the clause will not apply. The clause does not force’ them to act.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (Regulations).

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I think we ought to insert in this clause the words “ not inconsistent ‘ with this Act.”

Senator O’Connor:

– If any regulation were inconsistent it would be ultra vires.

Senator PULSFORD:

– It is sometimes desirable to let a Government know that they ought not to make regulations which are ultra vires. It is often advisable, to use a phrase sometimes used by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, and to insert words in an Act of Parliament in terrorem so far as concerns evil doers, who are sometimes to be found even in Cabinets. However, I will not move an amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 -

The Minister ‘shall cause to be made annually a return, which shall be laid before Parliament, showing the number of persons refused admission into the Commonwealth on the ground of being prohibited immigrants, the nations to which they belong and whence they came, and the grounds on which admission was refused ; the number of persons who passed the test prescribed by paragraph (a) of section 4, the nations to which ‘ they belong and whence they came.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the following words be added to the clause - “ the number of persons admitted to the Commonwealth without being asked to pass the test, the nations to which they belong, and whence they came.” «

The clause provides that a return shall be laid before Parliament showing the number of persons refused admission to the Commonwealth on the ground of being prohibited immigrants. I should like words to be inserted providing that all those persons who are admitted without passing the test shall be included in the returns. It is a reasonable proposition, and will furnish us with evidence as to whether the Government are carrying out the measure as Parliament intended that they should.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I draw attention to the fact that paragraph (a) of clause ‘4, which is referred to in clause 18, has been excised from the Bill. Therefore, I presume that the Government will withdraw clause 18 altogether. At any rate, it should be postponed.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I hope the clause will not be postponed. When we were debating this question on the motion for the second reading we were unable to say whether this clause would work well or not, owing to the fact that in Acts of Western Australia or New South Wales there was no such provision.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The objection of Senator Pulsford to this clause may be technically correct, but we are dealing with things in a practical way ; and I take it for granted, after what has taken place in connexion with clause 4, that it is the intention of a number of honorable senators, including Senator McGregor himself, to support the proposal of the Government when that clause is again considered. I gather that that is so from an interjection made by Senator Higgs. If that be the case there will be no use in postponing clause 18. T am quite willing to consent to Senator Higgs’ proposal. If the statistics are to be kept at all, they should be perfect statistics, and there is no doubt that some such particulars as he proposes should be given. If clause 4 remains as originally proposed by the Government, Senator Higgs’ amendment might very well be agreed to. I appeal to I the committee not to waste time over a technical objection.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I object altogether to what I have said regarding clause 18 being described as a technical objection. It is absurd to ask us to pass a clause which refers to another provision that has been excised from the Bill. We ought to have some respect for ordinary usages and for common sense in the matter. I again suggest that this clause be postponed.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I cannot help admiring the very ingenious way in which the Vice-President of the Executive Council has tried to commit the labour party to the abandonment of Senator McGregor’s amendment. I did not understand Senator Higgs to convey anything like - what has been suggested by Senator O’Connor. In view of the great probability of Senator McGregor’s amendment being carried, we certainly might postpone clause 18.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland).- What I said was that, in view of what had been done by certain honorable senators in creating a blank in the paragraph, it would bo necessary for some of us to reconsider our position. I am very glad at all times to accept advice from Senator Pulsford ; but, inasmuch as he wants to see this Bill wrecked, I do not feel inclined to fall in with him on this occasion. In any event, this clause is necessary ; but if it will facilitate business, I will withdraw my amendment for the present, until after clause 4 has been recommitted.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– I think Senator Higgs is adopting the proper course; because, in spite of what Senator O’Connor says, we are satisfied that our friends who proposed and supported the amendment to paragraph (a) of clause 4 are perfectly sincere in what they have done. As far as I can see, it would be an absurdity to pass this clause in such a form that in any event we should have to reconsider it. Returns must be obtained in whatever form clause 4 remains. I intend to pursue the course I have hitherto followed in regard to this matter, and when a reconsideration of clause 4 takes place, and the issue in regard to supplying the blank in paragraph (a) is decided, we can deal with the nature of the return which shall be required.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

First schedule (State Acts Repealed).

Senator O’CONNOR:

– It may be remembered that when this Bill was first taken into committee the question was raised of whether clause 3 was in the proper, form. After consideration, it appears to me that it would be better to omit the clause, which it will be seen, refers to this first schedule. If the clause is omitted, this schedule must go. The position would thus be left in the way in which the Constitution operates. I move -

That the first schedule he omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Postponed Clause 3 negatived.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland).- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted to follow clause 8: - Any aboriginal native of Asia or Africa or the islands thereof, who arrived in the Commonwealth prior to the passing of this Act, shall, after the 1st day of January, 1892, pay a fee of £5 per annum during the time he remains within the Commonwealth.

Neglect to comply with this clause shall render the offender liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months; and in addition to or in substitution for such fine or imprisonment shall be liable, pursuant to any order of the Minister, to be deported from the Commonwealth .

Provided that the imprisonment may cease for the purpose of deportation if the offender finds two approved sureties, each in the sum of £50, for his leaving the Commonwealth within one month.

The object of this amendment is to meet the case of the 80,000 coloured aliens, or something like that number, who are within the Commonwealth at the present time. Of course, there are exceptions, but, as a rule, these aliens do not adopt our standard of civilization. They live very cheaply, they contribute very little to the cost of the government of the country, and in many cases their sole -aim is to acquire as much wealth as they can, and leave the country as quickly as possible. The, majority of these aliens reside in very poor habitations, a crowded room, or a hut, sufficing in many instances as a sleeping apartment for sixteen or twenty of them.

Senator Charleston:

– How could that happen under the Health Acts of the different States ?

Senator HIGGS:

– Apparently those Acts cannot be administered to cope with this great evil. Municipal councils have appointed officers to administer the Health Acts, but find ifc impossible to deal with the Hindoos and the Chinese. I desire to compel these aliens to pay something towards the government of the country, and I think that the proposition that they shall pay a tax of £5 per annum is a very reasonable one. I noticed in a Brisbane paper the other day a paragraph, setting forth that hordes of Hindoos, Chinamen, and other Asiatics are concentrating in the northern portion of Queensland. The paragraph stated that the Premier of Queensland, when interviewed on the question, said that the Government had official intimation that such was the case, and that he had no doubt that these aliens were being brought into the north of Queensland to meet the kanaka legislation of the Federal Parliament - to supply the places of the kanakas who will be deported in course of time. These Hindoos and Chinamen will compete with our workers in many ways, and I am anxious that we shall not make their stay in the Commonwealth too rosy. If we can, by the imposition of a tax, prompt them to leave the country, I think we ought to do so. I have proposed that the tax shall be £5 per annum, because I think that is a fair compromise. Personally, I should like to make it £20. There may be something in the contention that those who have already paid a poll tax of £100 should have some special consideration, and I am quite willing that they should.

Senator Dobson:

– Can we legally have a black man’s tax under the Constitution ?

Senator HIGGS:

– I think it will be perfectly constitutional for the Senate, to give effect to this proposal. We find that we cannot get at these people through the Customs, or by means of an income tax, and I think that we should tax them in this way.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I must oppose this amendment. It goes altogether beyond the necessities of this measure. This Bill is to regulate immigration, and it seems to me that it would be a verv unnecessary and harsh proceeding to place under special disabilities aliens who are already in the Commonwealth. If it is found that, in carrying on the business of the Commonwealth, it is necessary to make special laws dealing with any particular class of coloured aliens, there will be power to do so under sub-section (26) of section 51 of the Constitution. That, however, should be done only by some special Bill, and not by a side wind.

Senator Higgs:

– Is Senator O’Connor favorable to special legislation of the kind?

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I have not seen sufficient evidence to justify it, hut if the occasion should arise, it might be considered. I do not want to touch upon the constitutional aspect of the question now, but I should not like to be understood to say that it would be right constitutionally to insert a provision of the kind in such a measure as this.

Senator Higgs:

– By leave, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– I move -

That the Chairman leave the chair and report the Bill to the Senate with amendments.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– As an amendment upon that motion I move, under standing order 294 -

That clauses 4 and 18 be reconsidered.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 -

The immigration into the Commonwealth of the persons described in any part of the following paragraphs of this section (hereinafter called ‘ ‘ prohibited immigrants “)is prohibited, namely : -

Any person who–

– And the Government dropped that Bill after the conference in London.

Senator Major GOULD:

– One moment, please. It also repealed the provision in the Chinese Restriction Act which exempted British subjects from its operation. The Bill was framed with the express purpose of dealing entirely with coloured races in the same drastic manner as Senator McGregor’s amendment did. It is true, as Senator O’Connor has interjected, that the Bill was subsequently put on one side, in order to submit another. But it was passed through both Houses, and reserved, and at the conference of Premiers, Mr. Chamberlain said that the Royal assent would not be given, and suggested the adoption of the educational test in the Natal Act. Returning to New South Wales, the Premier submitted a Bill on those lines, because clearly it was the only legislation he could get of the kind which was desired, but it was thoroughly understood at the time that it would be a question for the Commonwealth Parliament to deal with by and by. Therefore the attitude which was taken up by the Reid Government, and the attitude which was taken up by Mr. Reid in the House of Representatives, in supporting an amendment similar in character to that of Senator McGregor, has been consistent throughout. I also claim to be followinga consistent course of action. I find that when the Bill I mentioned was being dealt with in New South Wales, one honorable member said -

I intend to vote for the second reading of the Bill, believing, as I do, that it rests upon a. principle which must be applied in the building up of Australia ; believing, as I do, that it rests upon the principle of self-preservation, which we must begin now, at this early period, to adopt ; believing, as I do, that it supports that principle, although it may lead, perhaps, to some discussion, and perhaps tosome official complications in the British Empire.

Senator O’Connor:

– That was a speech of mine?

Senator Major GOULD:

– Yes.

Senator O’Connor:

– It was very well put, I think.

Senator Major GOULD:

– It was very well put, indeed. Then the honorable and learned member said : -

It is an instance in which the law of selfpreservation makes it imperative upon us to take up the position that we shall have to preserve Australia for the white races, even if we have to exclude British subjects in the process; and when you remember that the British Empire includes every nationality and every colour under the sun, whenyou remember that the British Empire includesalmost everyclimein the world, it is impossible to say that it is not right for one portion of the British Empire to say that it shall prevent from encroaching within its limits, members of other portions of the Empire.

The honorable and learned member also said -

I am so much impressed with that principle that I would extend the provisions of this Bill, not only to coloured aliens, but to any race or class of persons whom we considered to be a menace to our civilization, or whom we considered unfit to be members of our community.

– We were betrayed. Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON. - My honorable friend knows that when his amendment to omit paragraph (a) of clause 4 was put to the committee last night the voting was nine to fifteen in his favour. Who failed him to-day? Who was the one who was absent? It was Senator Smith, in whom Senator McGregor has perfect confidence, and whose sincerity he pledges. Every one represented in the list of voters with the “ Noes “ waspresent to-day with the exception of Senator Smith.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Where was Senator Clem on s ?

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Senator Clemons paired with Senator Walker.

Senator Pearce:

– And where was Senator Neild.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Senator Neild declared in my hearing last night before the amendment went to a division, that he was in favour of the Natal test.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– And I voted for it to-day.

SenatorSir JOSIAH SYMON.- What right has the labour party to bring forward this petty pretext for the abandonment of their principles ? If they had stood up and said - “ We have changed our mind; we do not care two pence for securing a white Australia by means of a policy of direct exclusion, and we have thrown aside this majority of 15 to 9,” none of us would have a right to complain. A man has a right to change his mind, but what I complain of is the apparent subterfuge. The fever has been catching, and seems to have taken possession of honorable senators. I was afraid it would after what happened last night. I was present, and can corroborate what has been said by another honorable senator, that there was no voice from the labour corner calling for a division. They were going to let the question go on the voices. That shows the absolute sham ! Who have been betrayed? Those who voted with the labour party upon this, and who are prepared and intend to vote again upon the same question.

Senator CHARLESTON (South Australia). - Surely there was no reason why Senator McGregor should have deserted his amendment so quickly. The statement that there were fifteen honorable senators pledged last night to vote for striking out the clause does not bear on the point at all. I grant that in the group of fifteen senators some voted to strike out the clause, so that they might insert the provision in the Natal Act, andothers, so that they might insert the amendment of Senator McGregor. This morning the vote was taken more quickly than was anticipated by some honorable senators who had supported Senator McGregor, and was lost. With what result? We were in exactly the same position as we were in last night, and Senator McGregor could have again moved his amendment and seen what effect it would have. He failed to do so, and therefore he deserted his guns. I came into the Senate with a free and open mind in regard 24 g 2 to these great questions. Only once, I bebelieve, during ray campaign, was I asked the question, “ Are you in favour of a white Australia?” And I said, “Yes.” In my manifesto I inserted the words, “ I am in favour of the supremacy of the white races.” I came here so that I might hear from the representatives of Queensland who have had experience of the kanaka traffic, and from other honorable senators, what the effect of these Bills would be. What was the result? From all I heard on both sides here my sympathies went out to the kanakas. We were told of the great wrong which was done to them. What did I do ? I gave my worthy friends in the labour corner an opportunity to stop that wrong at once. Were they found voting on that side? No. Therefore they proved again their insincerity. They declaimed against that traffic, yet they were willing that it should be continued for another five years. In this Bill they have had another opportunity of declaring for a white Australia, and of protecting Australia entirely from the incursions of coloured people. Again they have deserted their guns, and they are prepared by their vote to admit black races from any part of the world. It is useless for them to say that the administration of this measure will give them all they want. That may be the case with the present Ministry, but if a Government came into power which was opposed to the measure, what would be the result ?

Senator McGregor:

– Hear, hear.

Senator CHARLESTON:

– I am very glad to find that these honorable senators are prepared to cheer the mention of what they say they want, although they are not prepared to act according to their professions on the public platform. They stand condemned before every constituency in Australia.

Senator De LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I can quite believe that, in view of the position which the labour party occupy at the present moment, they may be liable to be lectured. If the lecture comes from those who are justly entitled tolecture us, we will not mind it. An honorable senator in the position occupied by Senator O’Connor or Senator Symon might very well criticise our situation at the present time, but when a political wobbler, like Senator Charleston, has the audacity to lecture the labour party, not .only in regard to their attitude on this measure but in relation to the Pacific Island Labourers Bill, I think he is going a little too far. I must protest against being lectured by an honorable senator of his standing. No matter how inconsistent our present position may appear to be, we shall always receive a great deal more credit for political straightforwardness than Senator Charleston is likely to secure. There is no honorable senator whose opinion upon any question is so difficult to ascertain until he actually votes. He wobbled right through the debate on the Kanaka question, and it is only now, when he sees an opportunity of gaining a little political capital, that he takes up a definite attitude. Those who know him best will have no difficulty in seeing through the little game.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The com-* niittee divided -

Ayes . . … … 18

Noes … … … 7

Majority

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment (by Senator Charleston) proposed -

That the following new paragraph be added to the clause, “Any person who is an aboriginal native of Asia or “Africa, or of the islands thereof.”

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

……… 6

…… 17

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Paragraph (h) consequentially amended.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 - (Annual return showing persons refused admission).

Amendment (by Senator Higgs) agreed to-

That the following words be added to the clause : - “ the number of persons admitted to the Commonwealth without being asked to pass the test, the nations to which they belong, and whence they came.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I moveThat so much of the standing orders as would prevent the Bill passing through its remaining stages without delay be suspended.

We are very anxious that this Bill should become law by the 1st January next. If that is to be done, it is necessary that the Bill should go down to the other place today. To wait until next week would only be a matter of form, and now that the question has been settled, I shall ask the Senate to help the Government in their desire to make the Bill law as soon as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted.

Bill read a third time, and passed. PAPER.

Senator DRAKE laid upon the table

Copy of correspondence relating to the erection of a new post-office building at Hobart, Tasmania.

Ordered to be printed.

page 8392

PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS BILL

Bill read a third time, and passed. Senate adjourned at 4 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 December 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1901/19011206_senate_1_6/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 6 December 1901

QUESTION

CHRISTMAS ADJOURNMENT

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

QUESTION

POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH RATES

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE:Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

The PRESIDENT:

VENTILATION OF SENATE CHAMBER : LATE SITTINGS

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Glassey:

The PRESIDENT:

PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS BILL

Senator HIGGS:QUEENSLAND

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

Senator Higgs:

Senator O’CONNOR:

LAPSED BILLS

Senator WALKER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Senator MCGREGOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE:Protectionist

SITE OF FEDERAL CAPITAL

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION BILL

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Playford:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Pearce:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Stewart:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator WALKER:New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator Walker:

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

Senator CHARLESTON:South Australia

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator O’CONNOR:

Sir JOSIAH SYMON:South Australia

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:South Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:Victoria

Senator DRAKE:PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Drake:

Senator MACFARLANE:TASMANIA

Senator Drake:

Senator MACFARLANE:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator WALKER:New South Wales

Senator Walker:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Walker:

Senator HIGGS:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator Walker:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator Drake:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator McGregor:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senate
6 December 1901

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

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator MCGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP