Senate
11 December 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- STANDING ORDERS
POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL
- Second Reading

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

page 8494

PETITION

Senator DRAKE presented a petition from residents.of- Queensland praying that the Commonwealth Government would retain control of the sale of intoxicants “within the federal capital.

page 8495

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS

Temporary Adoption

Sir JOSIAHSYMON I wish, sir, to ask whether the notice of motion in the name of theVice-President of the Executive Council, for the adoption, until otherwise ordered, of the draft standing orders is in order? On the 5th June, the PostmasterGeneral moved -

That until the Senate shall haveadopted standing orders, on the report of the committee to be appointed to prepare them, the draft standing orders laid on the table of the Senate on the 23rd of Maybe temporarily adopted.

At my instance the question was amended to read -

That it be referred to a committee consisting of the President and Senators Drake, Gould, McGregor, and Sir William Zeal, to inquire and report to the Senate to-morrow whether they recommend any and which standing orders now in force in either branch of any State Parliament with or without verbal modification for temporary Adoption by the Senate until it shall haveadopted standing orders upon the report of a committee to be appointed to prepare them.

On the following day the committee brought up a report recommending that, with certain modifications, the standing orders under which we have been acting since then should be adopted until the Senate had adopted standing orders on the report of a committee to be appointed to prepare the same. That report was agreed to. The resolution of the Senate is in full force, and until it is rescinded I apprehend that it is not competent to move this motion, which is intended to bring into operation another set of temporary standing orders. In effect it would operate as a rescission of the resolution, but that, I apprehend, cannot be done under Standing Order 187, which reads -

A resolution or other vote of the House may be read and rescinded, but no such resolution or other vote may be rescinded during the same session except with the concurrence of an absolute majority of the whole. House, and after seven days’ notice.

If the motion is intended as a recision of the resolution it is not in conformity with the standing order, as the requisite notice has not been given. If it is not intended as a recision, then it is in conflict with the resolution of the 6th of June.

For temporary adoption by the Senate until it shall have adopted standing orders, upon the report of a committee to be appointed to prepare them.

- Senator Drake is. moving the motion : otherwise he could notspeak.

Senator DRAKE:

– I will move the motion standing in the name of Senator O’Connor, and then, if any honorable senator likes to move the adjournment of the debate, I will offer no objection to that.. There must have been probably five-sixths of the members of the Senate who knew nothing whatever about those standing orders of the House of Assembly of South Australia. If no objection was raised then to their temporary adoption, on the ground that probably five-sixths of the Senate knew nothing about them, why should it be an insuperable obstacle to the adoption of these draft standing orders, that some’ honorable senator may not be acquainted with them. They have been lying upon thetable of the Senate for about a month. Surely there has been an opportunity for honorable senators to make themselves acquaintedwith them. It is admitted, I think, that the standing orders under which we have been working, though no doubt very good from many points of view, are in some: respects faulty, inasmuch as they do notmake provision for certain circumstances thatare almost bound to arise in the near future.. My object now is that the Senate may provide itself with some standing orders which will be equal to any occasion that is likely to arise. By adopting them temporarily we shall have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with them, before the time comes when they will be adopted permanently. Some objections may be raised from various points of view to some of the provisions, but it is impossible to arrive at any standing orders that will exactly meet the views of every one ; and unless there is an objection that is almost insuperable, the Senate might fairly adopt these standing orders temporarily. I beg to move : -

That the draft standing orders laid on the table by the President, on the 9th day of October last, be the temporary standing orders of the Senate until otherwise ordered ; and that the standing orders temporarily adopted on the6th day of June last cease to be of force and effect.

Debate (on motion by Sir Josiah Symon) adjourned.

page 8497

POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

. -I move : -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

– The date will be fixed by proclamation.

Senator PULSFORD:

– Is there any intention in the Minister’s mind to bring the Bill into operation on that date.

Senator Drake:

– It has to go toanother place.

Senator PULSFORD:

– The Minister declines to answer the question. I submit that he has an intention, if Parliament puts him in the position, to bring the Bill with all its important alterations into effect on the 1st January. On a previous occasion he hinted at the possibility of doing something of the . sort. If he has no desire to bring the Bill into operation on the 1st January, there is no occasion for us to be forced into a premature consideration and determination of the rates. It would be a most improper thing for us to decide to impose newspaper postage on three States which have been exempt, and to bring those rates into effect a few days after they had been sanctioned by Parliament. In New South Wales I believe that over. 1,000,000,000 newspapers have passed through the Post-office, and at the present time 46,000,000 or 47,000,000 pass through the Post-office every year, or nearly 1,000,000 per week. Surely it would be amonstrous injustice for Parliament to say, “We shall bring about a change so radical as the imposition ofpostage rates after only a few days notice.” Every one who is conversant with newspaper business must know the large number of yearly subscriptions, and the loss that can be caused by a great change being brought about without giving due notice of it. One great objection to this Bill is that it is only a partial one. We ought to wait until we can have a complete measure dealing with newspapers, telegrams, letters, postcards, books, parcels, and everything. This Bill deals with only newspapers and telegrams, leaving an immense amount of business to be dealt with in the future. The Senate may congratulate itself onthe change which was made in the Post and Telegraph Bill making it necessary for the Government to bring before Parliament its rating proposals. It is quite evident that the Government are acting largely on a wrong principle. Senator Drake has repeatedly harped on the idea that there would be so much loss on telegrams, and so much gain on newspapers. Certainly, he admitted that the loss and the gain would not be equal in the various States, but he did not give us the figures showing that in certain States there would be a material loss and no gain, that is that the loss on one transaction would more than counterbalance the gain on another.I believe that Western Australiawill be the worst hit of all in regard to loss of revenue from the change in telegraphic rates. When we know that the Tariff is bringing about changed conditions, which are arousing a good deal of anxiety in the States to which I have referred, it would appear to have been a judicious thing to defer any proposal on these matters until the full effect of the Treasurer’s proposals with regard to customs duties had been seen. With regard to the Bill itself, honorable senators will observe that there are in it matters of a very debatable character. In the first place, there is the question of the transmission ofnewspapers in bulk. That is a very big subject. Then there is the weight to be allowed for each single newspaper. With regard to telegrams,we have, in the first schedule, three distinct divisions - telegrams to town and suburban places, messages to places within each State, and Inter-State telegrams. There is room for considerable debate and difference of opinion upon this point, and a necessity for careful judgment, and perhaps for long deliberation in regard to it. For my part, my idea of a federal telegraph rate is one that is uniform throughout the whole of Australia. Such a rate suggests difficulties, of course; and it would have been better for us to wait a little longer until the finances, which are obscured at present by the changes in the Tariff, had become clear. The PostmasterGeneral would then have been able to bring before Parliament a Bill dealing with everything of this character, and enabling us, when we were not so stale with legislative work as we are at present, to deal with the question in such a way as was necessary. Press telegrams are mentioned under two heads. We have press telegrams to places within a State, and Inter-State telegrams, the latter being for nonCommonwealth work. There are, therefore, two divisions with regard to ordinary press telegrams, and then as to messages relating to Parliamentary and Executive proceedings of the Commonwealth, we have, what I have said is desirable for all Australia, uniform rates from end to end of the Commonwealth. I have shown the Senate that there is need for longer time, and for a further opportunity for careful consideration, than the arrangements made by the PostmasterGeneral allow to us. That the Senate may understand a little more of the difficulties in which this question is involved, I will read a statement which has been prepared by the Metropolitan Press Association, which I believe mainly represents Sydney. It says -

The PostalRates Bill provides for the carriage of newspapers, posted by registered newspaper proprietors, or by newsvendors, at1d. per lb., and also for the carriage of single newspapers at ½d. for 8 ozs. The1d. per lb. rate would no doubt meet the case for the distribution of small numbers sent to remote distances ; but such a rate would be prohibitive in the case of bulk parcels containing large numbers to be carried short distances. There is a wide distinction between the carriage and delivery of 1,000 newspapers addressed to separate and distinct persons, and 1,000 newspapers in one parcel requiring only to be carried to and dropped at a particular post town where the.agent calls for it and takes it away. The two services are of an entirely different nature, and should be provided for under separate scales. If this be not done every newspaper publisher will be compelled to start a miniature post-office on his own account, and will require to arrange with the Railways Commissioners for the carriage of parcels to the railway station nearest to the post town, and then to make a further arrangement with the coach proprietor to carry onhis parcels to the points of distribution. This will have to be done by everynewspaper throughout the Commonwealth, with respect to every mail route over which his newspapers travel. This would be a costly multiplication, which could only be regarded as demonstrating the impotence of the Postal department.

The rates charged by the Railways Commissioners for the carriage of bulk parcels of newspapers in most of the States represent about 8d. per cwt., aggregate weight. The Postal department for a similar service would suffer no loss if it carried bulk parcels at ls. per cwt. , and it would perform one of the most important services for which it exists. If the department does not provide for this service it will lose the revenue which ‘it might obtain,and it will not be in a position to save any material expenditure. It will not be able to abolish one single post-office, nor one single postmaster, nor one single mail contract. ‘ All the machinery, and practically all the expense, will have to be incurred and maintained whether it undertakes the service or whether, by declining to do so, it places newspapers and their readers at a serious disadvantage. There need be no apprehension that large parcels would have to be carried great distances by coach routes, as it is obvious that the bulk of newspapers are distributed near to the point of publication. The greater the distance the smaller the number sent, and these smaller numbers would in many cases come under the Jd. per lb. rate. The service herein suggested might be provided for by adding the following clause to the first schedule of rates, viz. : - “ That the rate for bulk’ parcels of newspapers of more than 1 lb. each parcel, posted by the publisher for carriage to post towns only, and not for delivery by lettercarriers, shall be ls. per cwt. on the aggregate weight of newspapers so posted.” It is reasonable to suppose that Parliament will require the Postal department to render the services to the public for which it exists, and that it will not adopt a course which would compel newspaper publishers to make separate mail contracts, on their own account, as would be the case if the prohibitive rate at 9s. 4d. per cwt. were charged for a service which could be performed without loss at ls. per cwt. The Jd. postage on single newspapers should be sufficient to frank a newspaper without such a narrow limitation as to weight. Such a limitation as this Bill proposes would exclude some of the largest and best newspapers published in the Commonwealth. Instead of decreasing the weight from 10 oz. as at present to 8 oz., it might very well be increased to 12 o/.., seeing that postage will have to be paid in the whole six States, whereas it has hitherto been absolutely free in three out of the six States of the Commonwealth.

Those are the comments made by the Press Association with regard to postal rates. I will now read what they say in regard to the charges for press telegrams : -

The Postal Bates Bill provides for certain alterations in the rates charged for press messages, the principal alteration being an increase of 50 per cent, in the charges for transmission within the State of messages exceeding 100 words. The present price, after the first 100 words, is 6d. for every additional 50, and it is proposed to increase it to 9d. for every additional 50 ! The effect of this alteration would be that little messages of minor importance would go through without any increased charge, and long messages of great interest to every member of the Commonwealth would be subject to an. exorbitant rate. In the interests of the public the speeches of State Ministers of the Crown, and those of other leading politicians, should be transmitted at the rate which for years past has been regarded as fair and reasonable, and there should not be any handicap placed upon those newspapers which are prepared to pay for their transmission as well as for the transmission of full reports of any matter of more than ordinary public importance. This is, however, the special kind of telegraphic despatch which the proposed new regulation would penalize. Long messages costing large sums of money for transmission are not more expensive for delivery than short messages carrying a charge of only a few pence ! It is worthy of particular notice that the messages upon which this large increase is sought to Be made are exactly those upon which the department already makes the largest profit. An expert operator is capable of sending at the rate of 30 words per minute. He would, therefore, earn for the department nearly £1 an hour without making any increase whatever in the charge. His salary would probably be about £3 a week. What justification can there be for this extraordinary proposal? The effect of the proposed increase would necessarily curtail telegraphic messages, whereas the purpose of the department should be to extend business. A policy of expansion rather than one of contraction should be favoured by Parliament in this important matter. Each of the principal newspapers in the Commonwealth is now spending between £6,000 and £7,000 per annum for telegrams, exclusive of the cost for cable messages. The imposition of the proposed additional charges would not be likely to increase revenue. The effect would be to deprive the public of information it has hitherto enjoyed. It is submitted that the rate for every additional 50 words after 100 words should be kept at 6d. , and that Inter-State telegrams should be made 2s. per 100 words instead of 3s., as 2s. now represents the two local rates. It is a wellknown fact in connexion with telegraphic services that low rates lead to increased business and larger profits than could be obtained from a higher scale of charges.

The comments there made in’ regard to press telegrams are very noteworthy, it seems to me, and although the general revenue from telegrams is to be largely decreased, yet, in one of the main rates - namely, the press rate - there is to be an enormous increase under the one heading under which the great bulk of press telegrams are conveyed. With regard to federal matter - that is the press matter which comes under the heading of “ Commonwealth press messages “ - the Press Association say : -

On the assembling of the first Commonwealth Parliament in Melbourne it became important that the people of the other States should be placed as nearly as possible on an equality with the people of Victoria with respect to all federal political news. The fairness of this course was obvious, and the Postmaster-General ordered that all ‘ ‘ Federal matter “ should be transmitted at a special rate lower than that charged for ordinary press telegrams. It therefore became necessary to define what should constitute “Federal matter.” It was suggested on behalf of the metropolitan press that “Federal matter” should include -

Reports and summaries of Federal parliamentary proceedings and paragraphs relating thereto.

Reports of deputations to Federal Ministers.

Parliamentary papers and Bills or summaries thereof.

Order of business, notices of motion, and information given by Ministers for publication.

Tactics of the Opposition.

Ministerial manifestos made in one State to pass to another.

Opposition manifestos made in one State to pass to another.

Federal candidates’ addresses, and other matters of a like nature.

On the 11 th September the newspapers were informed that “ Federal matter “ had been defined so as to include reports of the meetings and proceedings of the Federal Executive and Cabinet, reports of what actually takes place in both Houses of the Federal Parliament, and Gazette notices arising out of Federal Executive action, but not to include comments and political gossip.

This fell short of the necessities of the case, and on the 10th October the newspapers were informed that his Excellency the Governor in Council had approved of the definition being enlarged so as to include, in addition to what had already been approved, the following -

Parliamentary papers and bills or summaries thereof, without notes or comments.

Information given by Commonwealth Ministers for publication.

It will be seen, therefore, that everything has been authorized to be sent at the reduced rate except any speech or action on the part of the Opposition or of the labour party, and that all comments are denied under the penalty of paying three times the amount for transmitting, except in the case of the Melbourne press, which is not dependent upon the telegraphic service. This cannot be satisfactory to the Opposition or to the labour party

Ifa deputation from Queensland were to wait on the Minister in connexion with the sugar duties the Ministers explanations could be transmitted at a lower rate ; but if the same deputation waited upon the leader of the Opposition or the leader of the labour party their views could only be sent through under the penalty of paying three times as much.

The transmission of “Federal matter” throughout the Commonwealth at a special rate was no doubt a wise and proper concession ; but to set up a distinction between different classes of “ Federal matter,” so as to favour the Government of the day and place the Opposition and the labour party at a disadvantage, could result only in serious complications and universal discontent.

An opportunity for remedying this inequality will be afforded to members of the Commonwealth Parliament during the discussion of the Postal

Rates Bill. This could be done by enlarging the definition so as to include all matter relating to Federal politics as well as Federal parliamentary and executive proceedings.

I have read these three statements in full, because they give the Senate a very fair idea of the important issues involved in the few innocent looking clauses of this Bill. In my judgment they justify me in appealing to the Postmaster-General to postpone further consideration of this Bill, until at least sometime in J anuary next.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– This Bill deals only with the question of newspaper and telegraphic rates. Therefore there is some merit in the suggestion that the second reading should be postponed until January next. This Bill has been brought before the Senate very suddenly. It was only on Thursday last that it was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for to-day. The figures which have been produced by Senator Pulsford cast an entirely different appearance upon the whole of the proposals submitted by the Postmaster-General, especially so far as newspaper postage is concerned. I do not believe that there would be much, if any, objection to the establishment of a uniform postal rate of ½d. on newspapers posted separately. It is desirable, however, that some consideration should be given to the protest against charging the1d. per lb. where newspapers are posted in bulk, more especially if it be true that inVictoria newspapers, in bulk, are carried over the railways at the rate of 13s. per ton.

Senator Drake:

– We do not want to interfere with that system.

Senator Major GOULD:

– But if the newspapers go through the post they will be charged £9 or £10 per ton, as against 13s. per ton when carried by the railways. That will be a very great handicap upon the press, and more especially in those States where there is not that close railway communication which exists in Victoria. In Victoria newspapers can be conveyed practically within measurable distance of any town, where there would be any demand for them, by means of the railways. But in other States, where the area is larger, or the mileage of railways is less, this charge will be a very much greater tax upon newspaper proprietors. Even if arrangements were made with the railways in other

– Half of them are trade circulars.

Senator DRAKE:

– When the Postal Bill was before us a number of alterations were made, enlarging the definition of newspapers. I told the Senate at the time that the door was being opened to allow all sorts of publications to pass through the post as newspapers. When we have 612 publications registered as newspapers in Victoria, how many can there be in the whole Commonwealth ? The position we take up, as between those who think we ought to charge a higher rate, and those who think we should carry newspapers free - I am sure that Senator Styles, on consideration, will change his mind - is that we propose to impose a reasonably low rate which may fairly be accepted. Senator Playford seems to be of opinion that the result of this proposal will be that South Australia will have to resort to . additional taxation. I do not think there need be any fear of that. While the returns, which I have had prepared, show that there would be a loss of revenue to Senator Playford’s State, if these new rates were adopted,I can assure him that in the department in South Australia, as well as in the other States, we are endeavouring to practise economy so as to insure that there will be no necessity for increased taxation in order to keep the Postal department straight.

Senator Playford:

– There is not much room for further economy in the South Australian department.

Senator DRAKE:

– I believe we can find some room for economizing in the department even in South Australia, and we are continually endeavouring to do so. I think it will be seen, when we take into consideration the increased amount of business which will result, that additional taxation will not be required. I would point out that we are more likely to obtain increased business by a reduction in telegraphic charges than by lowering any other rates. In addition to the prospect of being able to recover our position through the increased business, we have to remember that there is nothing more calculated to bring the States together and to facilitate business between them than the cheapening of telegraphic rates. Although, according to these returns, it appears that the first result will be a loss of revenue, I think that in the long run the reduction in the telegraphic rates will be found to be in many cases a blessing to the people of the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee : -

Clause 1. -

This Act may be cited as the Post and TelegraphRates Act 1901.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– As we are so near the close of the year, and it is very doubtful whether the Bill can pass before the holidays, I would suggest that it would be better to insert the figures 1902 instead of 1901 in this clause.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– Senator Pulsford can hardly ask meto make that alteration, in view of the fact that the Bill is introduced in 1901. We have to deal with the work before us. If the other place finds that the Bill cannot be passed during this year, they may alter the date.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement). -

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– This clause provides that -

This Act shall commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

I propose to add -

But not before the 1st day of April, 1902.

Senator Drake:

– I think that is an insult to my Bill.

Senator PULSFORD:

– Very well ; I will alter my proposal. I move -

That the following words be added to the clause, “but not till after the 31st day of March, 1902.”

Three months is a very brief time within which to expect newspaper proprietors in the three States in which newspapers have “been carried free to complete the whole of the important arrangements with their subscribers that will be necessary, in consequence of this change.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– I do not think there can be any harm in allowing the clause to pass .as it is. The Bill, of course, has to go to another place. We do not know how long it will take to pass through that House. Then it will have to receive the Royal assent, and .a proclamation will also be necessary.

Senator Major Gould:

– Then why not assent to Senator Pulsford’s proposal %

Senator DRAKE:

– Because I think it is unnecessary. If we can be prepared to bring the Bill into operation by the 1st of March next, why should we not do so ? When the alteration was made in Queensland in 1891, no time’ was given. I will, however, see that reasonable notice is given to the newspaper proprietors.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I suggest that the time at which the Bill be brought into operation should have some regard to the usual quarterly periods governing newspaper subscriptions.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales) - On the understanding that Senator Drake sees the importance of the concession I have asked for, and will do his best in the direction indicated, I will, by permission of the committee, withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 -

Postage rates for the conveyance of newspapers posted within the Commonwealth shall be as set out in the first schedule to this Act.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– In order to make clause 6 uniform with clause 7, I move -

That the word “postage” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ The.”

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– I desire to secure that newspapers shall be carried’ free. There is a reference in this clause to the rates to be charged, and I wish to know whether if it is passed I shall be prevented from moving an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

-‘The honorable senator’s proper, course will be to vote against the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator STYLES (Victoria). - I should like to give some reason for my proposal. I think the Postmaster-General, told us that the proposed reduction of the telegraphic rates will mean an increase of revenue eventually.

Senator Drake:

– That is problematical. It will take a long time, while the loss will be immediate.

Senator STYLES:

– I am not going to build upon that, but I wish to say that, notwithstanding that there will be a loss, the telegraphic rates, which do not affect the great bulk of the people, are to be reduced. It is true that they affect a great number, but the great bulk of the people of the States never send a telegram. The same remarks apply to the postage on letters. It is admitted that a great loss is involved in the reduction in the letter rate from 2d. to Id., though I think we were told that it would balance itself after a little while. I wish to point out that, although the PostmasterGeneral knew there was to be a great loss, the Id. postage was carried. This Id. postage benefits the business people of the States, but not the great mass of the people. Many business houses in Melbourne will save £200 a year by the change from the 2d. to the Id. postage rate. I wonder how much a man getting 7s. a day will save in the course of a year as the result of that change. Not Id. a month.

Senator Pearce:

– Who- will benefit by the abolition of the newspaper rate 1

Senator STYLES:

– I believe the benefit will be to the poorer classes. We were told at one time that the price of the Argus would never come down, but it came down from 3d. to 2d., and later to Id. It seems to me that, having gone so far in the reduction of telegraphic and postal rates, we might go a little further, and insure the distribution of newspapers as cheaply as possible throughout the back-blocks of the States. We have made a considerable concession to the people who largely use the telegraph-office and the post-office, and I think we should make a concession to the people who read newspapers.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– If the contention of the honorable senator that the great bulk -of the people would share in the benefit conferred by the free postage of newspapers were correct, he would get some support for his proposal. Is it not a fact that the benefit would be confined chiefly to the proprietors of two or three large metropolitan newspapers in the capitals of the various States, who are already reaping benefit by the practical monopoly which they hold of the newspaper business in their respective States ? It would be playing into the hands of those large newspapers to the detriment of the smaller newspapers in the States. We know that the larger newspapers in each of the capitals are not necessarily the best educators of public opinion, because they take one side of a question, and keep from the public every statement that may tend to educate them in a view of the question to which they are not committed. Where the distribution of information is in the hands of a number of people, and is not confined to a few, there is some prospect of the people hearing every side of a question. This is a sacrifice which the Commonwealth is not prepared to make in order to give a present of £35,000 to the proprietors of large newspapers. It would give the people no corresponding benefit, because Senator Styles cannot give us any guarantee that the cost of the newspapers be reduced. If it were it would be reduced, not as the result of imposing the rate, but as the result of competition. In my opinion the committee is not justified in granting the concession which is asked for.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– It always strikes me as a peculiar thing that persons will insist that free postage is a concession to the proprietor of a newspaper, and not to its readers. At one time, when a postal rate was imposed on newspapers in New South Wales, I had to pay it, and I am informed that in- Victoria any man whose newspaper is sent by post has to pay the postage. It affects the proprietor of a big newspaper in this way, that it may reduce his circulation, because, while a man may be willing to give 6d. a week for Ins newspaper,, he may not be prepared to pay 9d. If a £d. rate is imposed, the man who lives in the big city or in the metropolis will get his newspaper at Id., but the man in the back-blocks will have to pay 1 1/2 d. The Bill is imposing a rate very much in excess of the cost for the carriage of mail matter. It is a mistake to suppose that if we impose a postage rate we make the proprietor pay,’ or that by having no rate we necessarily put a large sum into his pocket.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– It has been stated by Senator Pulsford that in

New South Wales 46,000,000 newspapers pass through the post-office every year. If the amendment of Senator Styles, for whom I have the very highest esteem, is carried, it . means, according to the statement of the Postmaster-General, an additional loss of £35,000 a year. The committee, therefore, must make up its mind to face a direct loss of £60,000. Is it prepared by some other means to make up the loss ? In Queensland we do not favour the free carriage of newspapers. Many years ago I viewed this question differently, and thought that a postage rate would injure a number of newspaper readers in the country. I opposed to some extent the imposition of the £d. rate, but after travelling through the State and getting fuller information I found that it inflicted no great hardship on them, and ultimately newspaper readers came to regard it as a fair impost. I admit that it would be very desirable to have uniform postage throughout the Commonwealth, but I submit that if this amendment were carried it would cause a good deal of dissatisfaction in the States. In every Postal department the greater proportion of the labour is employed, not in the handling of letters or telegrams, but in the handling of the enormous number of newspapers. I value a newspaper just as highly as does any honorable senator, and would deeply regret to limit the dissemination of knowledge in that way. But I feel satisfied that the imposition of a postal rate will not be detrimental to the interests of the people. In New South Wales the Postal department has to handle about 1,000,000 newspapers a week. Vans have to be employed, and the bags have to be carried by train and coach to remote parts of ‘the State. All this work is done free of charge. In Queensland, notwithstanding the imposition of a 1/2 d. rate, the department . has never been able to pay. If the newspapers were held back for a week it would reduce the work of the Postal department by three-fourths. In my time I have helped to handle and sort many thousand^ bags of newspapers. It would be manifestly unfair to the States to add, as Senator Styles proposes, to the loss which’ must inevitably occur under the proposals of the Postmaster-General. For what purpose are postal officials expected to handle millions of papers, pack them, bag them, and put them into conveyances and vans and carry them free? It is done largely for the benefit of a number of proprietors, and not for the benefit of the people of the Commonwealth to any appreciable extent. I think that the rates fixed in the Bill are exceedingly reasonable.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– In Great Britain there is a charge of ½d. on each newspaper which goes through the post-office. Senator Drake has told us that he expects to make a revenue of £35,000 a year from the carriage of newspapers in the Commonwealth. To obtain that sum through the Customhouse, it would be necessary to impose duties to the extent of £140,000. When it is regarded from that stand-point, Senator Styles will see that it would be quite unreasonable to so tax the people in order that certain persons might have the benefit of free carriage of newspapers. No one here has a higher opinion of the great good which is done by a high-class popularly - conducted newspaper than I have, but it is our duty to strengthen the hands of the Minister, and not to sanction the enormous loss which the granting of this concession would entail.

SenatorPULSFORD (New South Wales). - It will be interesting if I quote to the committee the exact figures of the New South Wales revenue last year as given in the Statistical Register part “Miscellaneous.” It says -

The total receipts of this department during 1900 were £1,017,050, and the expenditure was £919,913, showing a profit on the transactions of the year of £97,137. Adding the interest (£33,830) on the cost of buildings owned by the Government, and used as Post and Telegraph Offices, the interest (£39,642) on the cost of construction of Telegraph lines, and the expenditure from votes under the control of other Ministers (£22,807), the total expenditure was £1,016,192, making a total profit during 1900 of £858.

The number ofnewspapers conveyed in New South Wales for the year 1899 was between 46,000,000 and 47,000,000. Last year, however, the total amounted to 51,500,000 - nearly 1,000,000 a week. Iam of opinion that postage should be charged on newspapers. I believe in payment being made for services rendered. Whilst I am going to use my best efforts to secure what is fair for the newspapers, I am also going to do my part to get what is fair from the newspapers. I think that a halfpenny postage will not do any material harm to the press which we all respect and desire to encourage, whilst it will have some influence in checking the press that we do not desire to encourage, and will put a stop at once to the sort of competition which the legitimate press has to face from thousands of papers that are conducted under the guise of newspapers, but really are nothing more nor less than trade circulars.

Senator STYLES (Victoria). - I should like to check an error into which apparently Senator Glassey has fallen. He appeared to think that the cost of sending newspapers in New South Wales was exclusive of the figures quoted. It now seems, from what Senator Pulsford has said, that everything was included, and yet the post-office of that State is a paying concern.

Senator Playford:

– I very much doubt it ; Coghlan gives very different figures.

Senator Pulsford:

– The figures I quoted were Coghlan’s.

Senator STYLES:

– I am accepting the figures quoted by Senator Pulsford as correct. It seems to me to be inconsistent to make concessions to those who use the Post and Telegraph departments for sending letters and telegrams, and not to make a concession to the man who is working back in the bush. We make him pay a halfpenny postage on a penny paper. No concession is made to him at all.

Senator Drake:

– Yes there is.

Senator STYLES:

– The department is going to charge a halfpenny on a single paper, or 50 per cent. on the cost, simply for carrying it.

Senator Drake:

– We cannot carry it even at that rate without a loss.

Senator STYLES:

– If the committee would follow my lead in this matter, I should propose to carry the newspapers at even a greater loss, and should still think the country would benefit in the long run. We build railways, in many cases, knowing perfectly wellthat the revenue will not come up to the working expenses and interest for generations to come. The general taxpayer knows it also, but Parliament, in its wisdom, considers that it is a proper thing to build those railways. In this case, it appears that there will be a loss of £35,000 a year if newspapers are carried free of cost. Senator Barrett has asked me how I would raise that money. My reply is that that is a matter for the Barton Government to consider. I am not in office just now. Perhaps I should be able to answer the question if I were. It is no part of my duty to tell the Government from what sourcethey are toget their revenue. Tor my own part, . I believe they will obtain plenty of revenue, no matter what they say.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8-

The power of the Governor-General under section 97 of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901 to make regulations shall include the power to make regulations for prescribing the limits within “Which the rates for town and suburban telegrams and letters shall have effect.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– I propose to add a few words to this clause, to make it perfectly clear that the charges for transmitting a telegram do not include the charges for porterage. I am not quite sure whether it is necessary to add the words, but it is just as well to make the matter clear. I do not propose to make any alteration in the rates that are fixed by regulation, but from time to time it will be necessary to make the rates uniform, and I merely want to make it clear that this is a matter to be dealt with by regulation. I move -

That the following words be added to the clause, ‘ ‘ and for prescribing charges for the porterage of telegrams.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1. - (Newspapers.)

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– This schedule has regard to newspapers -

Posted by registered newspaper proprietors or by news-vendors or returned by a newsvendor to the publishing office.

– Is it the practice to take the whole as going to one place % Or is it the practice to say that there are so many for such and such a place, and they weigh so much, and so many for such another place, and they weigh so much 1

Senator DRAKE:

– That does not matter. It is not as if, it were a 14-lb. bundle. The bundle of papers delivered may come to any weight, and the postage charged is per lb. Except that some questions might arise at the fractions of a lb., it is quite immaterial. The honorable and learned senator, speaking of the Australasian, raised the question as to what would happen where there was only one going by post. Supposing it weighed 10 ozs., if weighed in bulk the charge would be, as I pointed out before, five-eighths of a penny.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales.) Senator Symon objected to the proposal which was made in regard to newspapers, not on the score that it dealt harshly with them, but on the score that it dealt harshly with the Postal department - in fact, took undue advantage of it. Wherever Englishmen are found they are proud of tHeir postoffices, because of the facilities they give, and the large amount of work they do in an excellent way. I feel quite certain that, were any serious obstacles offered to a fairly rapid delivery of newspapers in country towns, there would be widespread dissatisfaction. Therefore, while doing all that is right and proper to conserve the revenue, we should be careful how we lessen the advantages and the benefits which the Post-office, by its ramifications and splendid organization, is able to give to the people. Whilst the rate of Id. per lb. might be fair and moderate for the sending of newspapers in bulk, I think it must be admitted that it is a heavy charge on unsold newspapers returned to the publishing office. I propose that the schedule should be altered to read in this way-

On all newspapers, in addressed wrappers without condition as to the number contained in each parcel posted by registered newspaper proprietors, or by news vendors delivered by the postmen, Id. per lb. on the aggregate weight o£ newspapers, so posted by any one person at any one time. On ail newspapers not in wrappers, sent separately addressed posted by registered newspaper proprietors, or by news vendors, or returned by an agent or news vendor to the publishing office, the addressee to take delivery, Jd. per lb. on the aggregate weight of newspapers so posted by any one person at any one time.

One farthing per lb. on newspapers, sent or returned in bulk, is equal to £2 6s. 8d. per ton. There is a great deal in Senator Drake’s contention, that it is not desirable, that the Post-office should be made to convey large bulk parcels. I should not object if the amendment I have drafted were altered to limit the weight of the parcel to be sent by. one person at one time, to 14 lbs., so as to allow newspapers and newspaper agents to take advantage of the Post-office system, where they could not make better terms by arrangement with the railway authorities. There are a great many post-offices to which the railways cannot take parcels. My amendment would leave three methods open to newspapers, first, to arrange directly with the railway authorities for the conveyance of large bulk parcels, secondly, to arrange with the Post-office for the conveyance of bulk parcels, if you like, not exceeding 14 lbs. at id. per lb., through the agents and back to the publishing office, and thirdly to pay a penny per lb. as suggested by Senator Drake on parcels of addressed papers which went separately addressed. By this arrangement we should be able to do fairly all round. In” the first instance I move -

That after the word “ newspapers” the words “ in addressed wrappers “ be inserted.”

Senator DRAKE:

– I could not possibly accept the amendment. It means that in five of the six States we shall reduce the rate for bulk parcels from One penny to one farthing per lb. simply to enable the proprietors to send their newspapers in bulk to the agents. One penny per lb. is the lowest rate we can possibly fix. In the case of the five States we make a very great concession by consenting to deliver the newspapers separately, and that is made a stepping-stone for a demand that we shall accept one fourth the amount if they are transmitted in bulk. The proprietors can get their newspapers carried on the railways at a very low rate, but Senator Pulsford proposes that wherever our postal service extends we shall carry newspapers in bulk and deliver them for one farthing per lb: It is to be borne in mind that we have to carry the newspapers notonly by rail, but also by coach or on horseback.’ There has been one case recently in Queensland where a man carried a mail on his back. He had no horses, owing to the drought, and being under contract, he put the mail on his back and humped it like a swag. The fact that New South Wales has been carrying newspapers free saves the proposal of Senator Pulsford from being justifiably described as unreasonable. I think we should not be justified in making a further concession.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I think the Postmaster-General does not recognise that the majority of the newspapers could not possibly be addressed separately, because they are sent to country news-agents for sale, and, of course, the proprietors do not know who ultimately will get them. The stray purchasers vary every week I suppose, and to say that you have made an arrangement for the delivery individually is quite a misapprehension. I suggest that where newspapers are addressed for individual delivery, the arrangement proposed by Senator Drake can fairly stand, but that parcels sent for sale in bulk and parcels returned in bulk. - not delivered by postmen, but only carried from station to station - may fairly be dealt with at a rate which would be equivalent to £2 6s. 8d. per ton. I think that is somewhat different from the terms in which Senator Drake spoke of this matter, and it is a fair arrangement, especially if - as I am quite willing should be the case - there be a concession made to limit the weight to 14 lbs., so that the really heavy bulk traffic would have to be arranged for between the newspaper proprietors and the railway authorities.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

– One farthing per lb. would be less than the price for which produce is carried on the railways ? Therefore, I could not agree to that rate. But I do suggest that the rate in the next schedule should be increased. The reduction proposed by Senator Pulsford would make the rate only £2 6s. 8d. per ton ; and to carry newspapers for that price is perfectly absurd. One has to pay more than that for the carriage of tea.

Senator Playford:

– It depends upon the distance.

Senator FRASER:

– If I send a ton of tea to Echuca, I have to pay £5 for the carriage of it. Certainly the freight is less in the case of wheat, because the wheat-grower could not stand so high a charge. But no one will say that the newspaper proprietors could not stand it. They are making very good profits. Therefore, a fair rate should be fixed. I thi ok that the rate proposed in the first schedule is reasonable.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– - Senator Pulsford’s idea, which is reasonable from his point of view, is that it is unfair to ask newspaper proprietors to pay the same for sending back parcels and returns as for sending out papers in the first instance. But he need not be afraid on that score. 1 have had some experience in connexion with the sale of newspapers, and the general rule is that the newspaper proprietors, when they have an agent in a district, only send a certain, number of copies, as ordered by him. Thereby they obviate what was the previous practice of sending back parcels of unsold papers. The agent orders enough to supply the subscribers, and in many country places one cannot buy a copy of a metropolitan daily paper unless one is a subscriber. The few unsold copies are counted up by the agent and the publisher takes his word.

Senator Drake:

– The agents clip out the dates from the unsold copies and send them on by post.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Whi Whilst speaking to the schedule, I would say that to a certain extent I sympathize with Senator Pulsford, who has expressed his desire that newspapers should be made as cheap as possible to the subscribers. I do not agree that it is the newspaper proprietor who will pay the extra charge. In most cases it is the subscribers who pay the postage. Were it not for the financial exigencies of Tasmania I should have felt bound to support Senator Styles’ proposal to have newspapers sent through the post free. But having in view the fact that Tasmania is going to lose a large amount of revenue, I could not support that proposal, nor can I very well support an amendment having for its object the reduction of the rate proposed in the schedule.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– As to what Senator Pulsford has said in regard to returns of newspapers, I may mention that some time ago I was at Port Adelaide when I saw a news-agent cutting off the dates from copies of the Age and Argus. I asked him what he was doing, and he explained that he would post these cuttings back to the publisher, that they served the purpose of sending back the papers, and that a refund would be made to* him on account of the unsold copies.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - With the permission of the committee I will withdraw my amendment, and move another, which will simplify the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Pulsford) proposed -

That the following words be omitted from the first schedule - “ Or returned by a news-agent or news-vendor to the publishing office.”

Senator DRAKE:

– I have no objection to allowing newspapers to be sent back to the publishing offices at the rate of Id. per lb., though I do not think that the privilege will often be used. It is not customary to send back unsold newspapers. But I strongly oppose the proposal that papers shall be sent back to newspaper proprietors at anything less than Id. per lb., because that is a disastrously non-paying rate, and to ask the Postal department to carry waste paper at id. per lb. seems to me to be preposterous.

Senator FRASER (Victoria).- So far as I am aware, the proprietors of newspapers know within a very few copies how many each agent requires in each district, and no more are sent except there is a rush on, -when extra copies may be supplied on “spec.” But unsold copies are not returned, and have not been for years past. Even if they were to be returned, we could not reasonably ask the department to carry them for £d. per lb.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - I would direct the attention of the committee to the fact that the rate of Id. per lb. is higher than is being charged on our railways for the conveyance of some kinds of produce. The railways differentiate between the value of goods. High priced goods are carried at a rate for which the railways would not carry low-priced articles like wheat and coal. There should not be the same price charged for the carriage of a low-priced article like a newspaper, as is charged for articles of greater value. -While it is perfectly true that all the newspapers sent through the post cannot be carried by train, yet it has to be remembered that it is only the very small parcels that have to be conveyed by coach or on horseback. The parcels which are sent to’ the larger centres of population will be despatched by train.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The amendment would simply be a concession to the big daily newspapers in the metropolis.

Senator Major GOULD:

– It would not be a concession to them any more than to the people who read the newspapers. If the Post-office charges Id. per lb. for newspapers carried in bulk, they will not carry any, so far as the great centres are concerned, because it will not pay the newspaper proprietors to send their newspapers in that way. They will only send the smaller parcels by post. By reducing the rate, we shall be giving the people in the back blocks an opportunity of obtaining these newspapers at a lower cost than would otherwise be the case. I do not ask the committee to consider the newspaper proprietors, but the people who live up country, and I hope that honorable senators will be inclined to extend to them some consideration.

Amendment negatived.

Senator O’KEEFE (Tasmania).- I cannot agree with all that has been said as to this charge of 1/2 d. for each newspaper falling solely on the proprietors of the big journals. In very many instances the charge of 1/2 d. per newspaper will fall on the subscribers. There is not a daily newspaper in Tasmania that can afford this extra ‘ postage. The proprietors will simply add to the ordinary subscription an extra charge of 3d. per week on newspapers sent out in single wrappers.

Senator Drake:

– Why send them out separately ?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I - In view, however, of the fact that they will be able to send them through the post in bulk at the rate of Id. per lb., and that these newspapers will run six or seven to the lb., the additional charge will not be very great upon the proprietors. I simply mention this fact to show that Senator Styles’ proposition can be looked at in several different ways. I cannot agree with the PostmasterGeneral’s contention that* this is a disastrously low rate. It seems to me that £9 6s. 8d. per ton should be a paying rate if we take the average distance over which the newspapers have to be carried. In view of the financial exigencies of Tasmania under federation, I do not feel disposed to agree to a reduction, but I am sorry that I cannot vote for the free carriage of newspapers. It would be a great benefit to the people in my own State.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - The second paragraph of the I schedule reads - “ On all newspapers posted within the Commonwealth for transmission therein.” I move -

That the word “ transmission “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ conveyance. “

In clauses 6 and 7 reference is made to the conveyance of newspapers and the transmission of telegrams, and I think therefore that this amendment should be made.

Senator Drake:

– I think “ transmission “ is good enough.

Amendment negatived. .

SenatorFRASER (Victoria). - I move -

That the word “eight” in the second column of the first schedule be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ten.”

Hitherto the limit in this State, and also in South Australia and Queensland, has been 10 ozs., but under this schedule it is proposed to allow only 8 ozs. to be carried for½d. As the weekly papers weigh more than. 8 ozs., the proposal in the schedule as it stands will double their postage at once. It will double the postage on such papers as the Australasian, the Town andCountryJournal, the Sydney Mail, and the Adelaide Observer.That would be unreasonable. Surely a difference of 2 ozs. is not very great ! The Postmaster-General should agree to allow newspapers weighing 10 ozs. to be transmitted at the present rates.

Senator DRAKE:

– SenatorFraser ap parently has not heard my explanation in regard to this matter. The reason - and it ought to be an all - sufficient reason - for not increasing the limit from 8 to 10 ozs. is that if we did so we should allow a single newspaper to be carried at a lower rate than that charged for it when carried in bulk. That seems to be absurd. The rate of postage will not be doubled except in the case of newspapers weighing over 8 ozs. which are posted singly. If they are posted in bulk by the proprietors or agents, the charge for the Australasian and other papers mentioned by Senator Eraser will not be1d., but fiveeighths of1d. per copy, if the newspaper is exactly 10 ozs. in weight. If they are re-posted subsequently, the charge will be 1d. for a single copy, and I do not think that can be considered excessive in the case of a large newspaper, which, as a rule, commands a considerable price.

SenatorFRASER (Victoria).- Most, if not all, of these newspapers are distributed very largely in and around the cities in which they are published. In the case of newspapers which are published here, for example, and posted to Ballarat, Bendigo, or other distant cities, the proprietors can make their own arrangements with the Railways Commissioners, and need not employ the Postal department. But a great number of these newspapers are posted direct to the subscribers in and around the great cities where they are printed.

Senator Drake:

– But not one at a time.

SenatorFRASER. - A great many of them are. I feel sure the committee will not object to the continuance of the present rate in respect of the great weekly newspapers, which give so much information to the public.

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

The committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 5

Majority … … 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Second schedule. (Telegrams.)

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).Immediately under the table of rates provided for in this schedule I find a foot note to this effect -

On telegrams from and to Tasmania the charges to be those mentioned above, with cable charges added.

I should like to know if that foot note is to be considered as part of the schedule? It will also be found attached to the second part of the schedule dealing with press telegrams.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I asked the question because if these words are considered to be a part of the schedule, I am prepared to move that they be omitted. I am glad that we have the sympathy of the Postmaster ^General in the matter, and I am also glad to see that the honorable and learned senator recognizes that it would be only equity to provide for uniform rates throughout Australia. Tasmania is very much a loser financially in this matter, and as pointed out by the Postmaster-General, the loss to the Commonwealth will be almost nU during the the book-keeping period.

Senator Drake:

– Yes, but what advantage will that be to Tasmania if we have to debit Tasmania with what we pay to the company t

Senator MACFARLANE:

– It will possibly be a benefit to the individul, and it will certainly be a benefit after the book-keeping period, and will give us the advantage of auniform rate throughout the Commonwealth.

Senator Drake:

– Tasmania will not care to allow the individual to send a message for a shilling, for which the State will be debited 2s.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– In my opinion it is worth a great deal to secure a uniform rate throughout the States, and I move -

That the words “On telegrams from and to Tasmania the charges to be those mentioned above, with cable charges added,” in Part I. “ordinary telegrams,” be omitted.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - Before Senator Macfarlane’s amendment is dealt with, I wish to draw attention to the real substance of this schedule, and that is the matter of charges. We have just passed a schedule establishing a uniform rate throughout the Commonwealth for newspaper postage. Now we come to deal with telegrams, and for private telegrams there are three distinctions - Town and Suburban, State, and InterState. Then under the heading, “ Press telegrams,” we have two divisions - State and Inter-State - and we come then to telegrams dealing with federal matters, and revert again to the Commonwealth system of having one uniform charge for them. The first division, I take it, deals with private and mercantile telegrams, in contradistinction to press telegrams. Whereas the rates generally for press telegrams are to be raised, the rates for mercantile and private messages are to be considerably reduced. I should like to know from the Postmaster-General whether there is any altogether insuperable difficulty, on the ground of finance, in the way of establishing a uniform Commonwealth rate 1 I am sure that Senator Drake, and every other honorable senator present, would very much prefer to see a uniform telegraph rate established throughout Australia. I should like to point out that the rates as here arranged may work out very unfairly. For instance, if anybody wishes to send a telegram from Albury to Wodonga, only a few miles distance, the cost is ls., as it would be an InterState telegram. If a person, on the other hand, desired to send a similar telegram all the way from Brisbane to Thursday Island, some 1,600 miles he could send it for 9d. That seems slightly ridiculous.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– We must draw the line somewhere.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I agree that there must be absurdities more or less, but we get the maximum of absurdity if we adopt these rates as they stand, and if we do not arrange for a uniform Commonwealth system. I should be glad if Senator Drake would enlighten us with some information as to the financial result of the operation of these proposals in parts I. and II. of this schedule, that we may be able to form some judgment as to whether we can really indulge in the luxury of a uniform Commonwealth rate. ‘

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– There is a good deal in what the PostmasterGeneral has said with respect to Senator Macfarlane’s suggestion, and the effect of carrying it out. Tasmania would have to be debited with the actual amount which the service costs her, as at the time of “taking it over by the Commonwealth. At the same time, the Postmaster-General was forgetful of the actual state of the relations between the State of Tasmania and the cable company. On a previous occasion in the Senate, I stated what the position was. I need not go into it fully now, but I desire to refer to two circumstances which characterize those relations. The first is that from the inception of the company’s operations in the establishment of cable communication between Tasmania and the mainland, they have received a subsidy of £4,200 a yeal1 in addition to other concessions. A subsequent arrangement was entered into between the company and almost the whole of the S’tates of Australia, under which the principal provision is modified to the extent that it is not Tasmania alone which is now responsible for the payment of the £4,200 a year. Some of the other States are participating in that responsibility in consideration of Tasmania accepting a share of that responsibility in which they had involved themselves with the company for the maintenance of communication between Australia and the old world. The last agreement entered into between Tasmania and the cornpany in 1889, provided that the company was still to receive the annual subsidy of £4,200, being 6 per cent, on its estimated expenditure in establishing a cable which was set down at £70,000, and it was to receive a proportion of the revenue from the messages, and if its proportion of the message receipts fell short of £5,600 a year, Tasmania guaranteed the deficiency. What has been the result ? I have some figures here as to how far Tasmania has been called on, or rather has not been called on, in the last few years to comply with this guarantee.

To very briefly summarize, for the next eight years, this company is to be yearly subsidized with £4,200, and also guaranteed a minimum of £5,600 in messages - total, £9,800. This realizes 14 per cent, on the original cost of construction. There was, in 1896, an excess of message earnings by the Eastern Extension Company over the £5,600 stipulated minimum, as follows : - 1896, £6,818 ; 1897, £7,714 ; 1898, £8689; 1899, £8717 ; 1900, £8743.

During the last five years, the company has received nothing more than the fixed subsidy of £4,200, and the State has never been called upon to pay any part of the conditional guarantee of £5,600. During that period the revenue has gone up, until it is now nearly £9,000. A ten-word telegram from Victoria to Tasmania costs 2s., and of this sum Victoria gets 6d., Tasmania 6d., and the company ls. If you can establish a uniform rate of ls. for ten words, I venture to say that if you do not increase the messages 100 per cent, you will increase them to such an extent that there will be nothing further to pay to the company than a fixed subsidy of £4,200. If you grant facilities for communication, you may be sure that the people will avail themselves of such, and I believe that the Commonwealth will not be called upon, after the first year at any rate, to make up the guarantee of £5,600. Under present conditions, assuming that the company had cut down the rate by one half,” and had done only the work they did last year, in 1896 they would have earned £3,409, in 1897 £3,857, in 1898 £4,343, in 1899 £4,309, in 1900 £4,371. Surely with the breakdown of the barriers, which have hindered commerce between the States, and the growth of communication which must necessarily follow with the mainland, we can reasonably afford to put Tasmania in the same position as the other States. Senator Macfarlane has said that it made a sacrifice to go into the union. I do not rest its claim on that fact. We freely entered into the union, and recognised its possibilities. We do not ask for sympathy, but for justice. With the present state of business, with our past restrictions on Inter-State intercourse, this company is earning from 70 to 80 per cent, over the guarantee of £5,600, which has eight years to run. At the present rate of progress and with the possibilities which are extending to us under the new regime, the administration should have no difficulty in saying “We are not going to put Tasmania in an anomalous position. We are going to see communication throughout the Commonwealth established on uniform lines and wherever a State may be, its people shall be entitled to participate in the benefits of uniform control of this department.” I venture to think that the Commonwealth will stand to lose nothing if that principle is followed. I cordially support the amendment.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I think the Postmaster General will see that his attempt to make uniform rates throughout the Commonwealth breaks down. Here we have” Tasmania placed in a very awkward and unfortunate position, and if uniform rates are established to the tight little island, the rest of the community will have to stand the loss which must accrue. A very great mistake has been made by the Minister in attempting under any circumstances to establish uniform rates throughout the Commonwealth. It is preposterous when one comes to look at the conditions laid down in the Bill. The minimum charge for a ten word message is to be 6d. in towns and suburbs ; to other places in each State it is to be 9d., and for InterState telegrams it is to be only ls. Therefore, a man at Port Darwin will be able to send a telegram to the far end of Queensland - over thousands of miles of lines, constructed at very great cost - for only threepence more than a man will have to pay who sends a telegram to a neighbour only a few miles away in his State. Necessarily this means a very great loss to the revenue. If a man sends a wire to Queensland from the goldfields of Western Australia he pays ls. each to Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, and it is proposed to reduce the cost of that message from 5s. to ls. For transmitting a telegram through its territory a State will get 2£d. instead of ls. It will involve a frightful loss of revenue. Not a single telegraph system in the Commonwealth is paying its way, and the additional loss will have to be made up by the unfortunate general public, the great majority of whom never use the wires. The men who will get this advantage will be men engaged in trade and commerce, and the deficiency will have to be made up through the Customs-house, and in a variety of ways by the hard-working and’ hornyhanded sons of toil. It will be a mistake, even in the future, to have uniform rates. When the book-keeping period expires this immense continent ought to be divided into zones, and the charges fixed according to the zones. To charge a message to go only a few miles at the same rate as a message to go 3,000 miles is absurd. ‘ It is not done anywhere else that I know of. If it is said that in England one can send a wire from one end of the country to the other, it must be remembered that it is a very small place compared with Australia. I do not know whether there is a uniform system of telegraph rates in England. It was a mistake on the part of the Government to interfere in this matter at all. We in the smaller States are standing to lose a large amount of money. The PostmasterGeneral informs us that the estimate which he has given us is of doubtful authenticity, but as far as he can guess the loss will be £45,000. I question whether it will not be in excess of that. We in South Australia cannot afford to lose that money. In fact, at the present moment we do not know how we shall stand, because there is another financial problem before another House, which may turn out in a manner that will add further to our troubles. The proposal of the Government is a mistake in principle. If they want to do anything of the sort, they should adopt the zone system, and charge uniform rates within the zone ; but they should not have one uniform rate for telegrams for the whole continent. Look at the line which has been constructed from Adelaide to Port Darwin. It cost £600,000. Yet a man in Port Darwin will only pay 3d. more for his telegram to Carpentaria than a man in South Australia, who is sending a message to a person a few streets away. The Port Darwin man’s telegram will have to go through South Australia, through Victoria, through New South Wales, and through Queensland to Carpentaria. The extra charge will only be 3d. It is preposterous. We are sorry for Tasmania, and regret that she has tied herself up for so many years in regard to the cable. But Tasmania knew what she was doing when she entered into that arrangement on such terms. She cannot ask the Commonwealth, until the bookkeeping period expires, to pay the extra cost. In fact, this proposal “ won’t wash.” When a telegram is sent from Western Australia only ls. will be paid on it. It will be taken through South Australia, which will want her share. Then Victoria will want something. What will be left to pay for the cable, and how much will remain for the Tasmanian Government 1 Practically nothing. Therefore, I intend to vote against this schedule altogether.

– In 1889 or 1s90 a penny postal rate Vas adopted for Victoria. The volume of business increased to a very large extent, but it did not increase immediately to such an extent as to war- ‘ rant the State in continuing it during .the years of depression which followed 1891, and that was the reason why it reverted to the old system. Senator Walker is anxious to know the amount which the cable company receives for each word it passes over its cable. Under the original agreement certain terms were settled between the colony and Tasmania. In 1889 the agreement was varied. The original term of twenty years was extended by twenty years ; the fixed annual subsidy of £4,200 was continued, and the Government was empowered to reduce the rates to whatever it pleased on condition that the company had as its proportion a message receipts revenue of at least £5,600 per annum. If the Commonwealth Parliament chooses to adopt a rate of ls. per message between the States on the mainland and Tasmania, all it has to look to is that the company shall get as its proportion of the revenue £5,60.0 a year. If it should get in message receipts more than that sum per year, Tasmania is not responsible for one penny, but still has to pay the fixed subsidy of 4,200. Throughout its dealing with Tasmania, it has followed the policy of “ heads I win, and tails you lose.” The suggestion that the company is entitled to receive so much per word is not in point at all. The volume of business over its cable, as evidenced by the returns I have quoted, during the last five years has shown a very creditable increase ; and, under present conditions, receiving ls. for every ten words, or Id. per word, it gets a revenue of nearly £10,000 a year, with the conditional guarantee of £5,600. We are in a position to establish a uniform system, and if it should cost Tasmania £1,200 or £1,500 a year for the first year or two - assuming that the volume of business did increase, and that the rates were reduced - I think the people of that State are quite prepared to pay that amount for one year or two. I feel confident that, with a reduction of rates, the increase in the volume of business will be so large during the first two or three years that there will .be no necessity to take any thought as to providing -for ‘a deficiency. I intend to support the amendment. . -

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I am in favour of this amendment. 1 I certainly agree that it is best to legislate in the direction of uniformity, and, certainly, of uniformity of ra’tes. I am inclined to agree with those who think that £10,000 a year to start with is not too dear a price to pay to enable us to make the Commonwealth one telegraphic area, and to send a message for ls. from one end of it to the other, without regard to distance. If we are to legislate in the direction of uniformity, I ‘ certainly should not like to see the ocean State left out in the cold. If the Commonwealth can afford to send a message from Perth to the Gulf of Carpentaria for ls. we ought to be able to cable from Tasmania’ to any State for ls. The effect of striking out the words that the cable rate shall be added to the charge will be to make the Federal Government who took over all our contracts and obligations liable for this money, but -for the first five years I suppose the Postmaster.-General will debit to Tasmania whatever deficit there may be in the message receipts. The whole matter will have to be considered when we come to discuss the financial problem. Several States will be very short in their revenue from the Tariff, and the position of Tasmania will have to be considered most seriously. This amendment will still further increase our liability. It appears to me to shift the onus of paying the extra shilling from the commercial, professional, and wealthy men to the general taxpayers of Tasmania. I should certainly hesitate to do anything which would transfer a burden of £3,000 or £4,000 a year to the shoulders of the general taxpayers if I thought that that would be the result. But I agree almost absolutely with what Senator Keating has said and he has given figures which support his statement that within three years the loss will absolutely cease. I recollect the figures quoted in reference to the operation of Id. postage in New Zealand. I think that the department estimated that at the outset it would cause a loss of £80,000, but that in the third or fourth year the loss would probably be overtaken. In the first year the estimated loss was exceeded ; in the second year the estimated loss was decreased a great deal more than was anticipated ; and in the third year, not only had the loss been wiped out, but there was an absolute gain in comparison with the former receipts from 2d. postage. What has been experienced in New Zealand has been experienced throughout the world, I understand. Senator Keating has brought before us a very admirable argument, to show that we ought not to be frightened by the bogey that there is a considerable annual loss tobe made up, and that we are putting the loss on to the wrong shoulders. I believe most firmly that in the third year there will be no loss, and, from the figures given to us, that there will be very little loss during the first and second years. And, considering what an advantage it will be to the people of Tasmania and of other States to be able to send a wire across the straits for ls., I believe that the increase in the number of messages will be exceedingly large.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I should have been prepared to allow the Bill to go through almost as it was introduced had it not been for this amendment. I have a very great amount of sympathy with the “ representatives of Tasmania, because I believe that they are looking at the question from the common-sense point of view, and thatthey are prepared to make a sacrifice in the first place, so that ultimately they may gain a.great benefit. It has been said that of course a concession of this description is only given to benefit business people.

If business people are charged 2s. or 5s. for a telegram, they transfer that liability to those with whom they do business, and the consumers ultimately have to pay. If the guarantee of £5,600 to the company has to be paid, it has to be distributed all over Tasmania; and if the business people of a State get cheaper cable rates, the general public will gain a benefit. I have not the least doubt that, long before the expiry of the five years’ bookkeeping period, any loss will be made up by the increase of business, and that the Commonwealth will be really safe. I am inclined to do all I can to assist the representatives of Tasmania to get this small concession. What did that State or any other join the Commonwealth for? Every advocate of federation pictured the grand conditions that would arise when everything was made uniform and there ceased to be any confusion. This uniformity, so far as Tasmania is concerned, will cost the Commonwealth nothing,and if the people of that State are prepared to make the sacrifice, why should we complain? I hope that the amendment will be made, and that the Bill will be passed as soon as possible.

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

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … … 7

Noes … … … … 15

Majority……… 8

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments (by Senator Drake) agreed to-

That the following words be added to the schedule - “ The foregoing rates are exclusive of porterage charges.” “A fraction of a penny occurring in a charge calculated according to the foregoing rates is to be charged as a penny.”

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– The question of press telegram rates, which is dealt with by part 2 of this schedule, merits some consideration. In some instances the rates now proposed are higher than those charged at the present time. Every additional 50 words of a press message within any State is charged for under this schedule at the rate of 9d., whereas the present charge is 6d. I submit that that would be a fair rate to charge in the future. So far as time and labour are concerned there would be a gain to the Government in charging 6d. for every additional 50 words, because I understand that an expert telegraph operator can put through 50 words within a couple of minutes. I think the rate for a good operator is 30 wordsper minute. We want to encourage the use of telegrams by the newspapers as much as possible, and to increase the cost is to take a backward step. Hitherto the attitude of the PostmasterGeneral in regard to these telegraph rates has been to make reductions, and it would be a pity if he were to turn his back on that policy in regard to press messages. I therefore suggest that the line “every additional 50 words, or portion of 50 words, 9d.,” should be altered so as to make the charge 6d.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– The rate referred to is for press messages within a State. The rate is1s.6d. for 100 words, and in most of the States 6d. for every additional 50 words. In only one State is the rate for every additional 50 words 9d. I am very anxious to adopt theprinciple of taking the lowest rate which we can possibly charge, and in the matter of press telegrams it is right to be as liberal as we can, following out the policy adopted hitherto. I therefore move -

That the word “ ninepence,” after the words “Every additional 50 words, or portion of 50 words,” be omitted, with the view to insert in lieu thereof the word “sixpence.”

It is to be understood that I cannot consent to any reduction on the charges for Inter-State telegrams, because the rate now is the lowest charged in any State. We propose to take the lowest rate prevailing in any of the States, and make it apply to messages between one State and another, however distant they may be.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - I should like todirect the attention of the Postmaster-General to the next division relating to press telegrams within the Commonwealth. At present the rate charged for messages relating to Commonwealth news is ls. for any portion of 100 words, or one-third of the rate charged for ordinary press telegrams within the Commonwealth.

Senator DRAKE:

– No. When it was proposed to carry telegrams relating to Commonwealth news at what is called the single rate, the rate we adopted was the lowest in Victoria and New South Wales, namely, from 8.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m., not exceeding ten words, sixpence ; for every additional word up to 34 words, 1/2 d. per word, and between 34 and 100 words, ls. 6d. When a message goes beyond 34 words, payment has to be made as for 100 words, and then for every additional 50 words, or portion thereof, sixpence. That is the rate I put in the Bill first of all. It appeared to me, however, that if we adopted that rate we should be charging ls. lid. for a message of 44 words, which according to our ordinary .Inter-State rate for press telegrams could go for ls. 6d. What I have done is this : I have taken the rate which we have been charging for Commonwealth telegrams, and I have reduced it again, so as to make the charge for the shorter telegrams the same as the charge for the ordinary press telegrams. The charge for a short message, up to 50 words will be the same as that for the ordinary press telegram. The difference is that for an ordinary Inter-State press telegram of 1.00 words a charge of 3s. is made, whereas for an Inter-State message conveying Commonwealth news it is only ls. 6d. per 100. If I had not made the alteration we should have been charging on a higher scale for short press telegrams relating to Commonwealth news than for the ordinary press messages. There has been no addition whatever, but a reduction in regard to short messages.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales.) - This matter was brought under the notice of the Government some time ago, and a special concession was made. I thought it was practically a reduction to one-third of the ordinary press charges. Now I understand it was only equivalent to half.

Senator DRAKE:

– We deliver such a message either in New South Wales or Queensland at the single rate. A message going to Queensland would be charged onethird of the ordinary rate, because instead of being charged the Victorian, New South Wales and Queensland rate, it is conveyed over the three States at the single rate fixed in New South Wales and Victoria. I have made the rate lower seeing that we are proposing to take all press telegrams up to 100 words at a lower rate than that fixed by New South Wales and Victoria.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - I should like the PostmasterGeneral to see whether it is not possible to further reduce the charge for telegrams relating to Commonwealth news. My reason for urging a further reduction is that it is advisable that the whole of the people of the Commonwealth should be cognisant, as far as possible, of what goes on in connexion with Federal Parliamentary matters.

Senator Drake:

– That was the reason for the reduction.

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Major Gould:

– There are many tilings done outside Parliament about which the public wish to know.

Senator DRAKE:

– The demand now made apparently is, that representatives of the pressmay go round and button hole Ministers or other Members of Parliament, get information from them, and send it at this low rate. The rates we have in Australia for ordinary press telegrams between one State and another are very low indeed, and I do not think there is any justification for a further reduction of the rates proposed. The rates proposed here are phenomenally low, especially when it is considered that these messages are sent over half a continent. The rates are - not exceeding 25 words1s., exceeding 25 words, and not exceeding 100 words1s. 6d., which is half the very low rate we are charging at the present time for ordinary press telegrams and for every additional 50 words, or portion of 50 words 6d., which is only onethird of what we are charging for ordinary press telegrams; These rates are so very low that I think honorable senators should not press for any further concession.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - I should like to say with regard to the remarks made by Senator Drake, that I did not propose to make any amendment upon the rates proposed here. I am prepared to accept the position as it is today withregard to the charges; but, with regard to the information, I should like to point out that only information given by Commonwealth Ministers for publication is sent at the lower rate. That means, that supposing there is a caucus of Ministerial supporters, and some particular conclusion is arrived at, Ministers give the information to the press and it is sent at the reduced rate. But if a caucus of the Opposition or of the labour party is held, and the conclusions come to are given to the press, the public are to be debarred from getting them, so far as the Government are in a position to debar them, by refusing to send that information at the lower rate.

Senator Drake:

– I think the best way to cure that would be to restrict the definition rather than to extend it.

Senator Major GOULD:

– I do not agree with the honorable and learned senator. I think that the fullest possible information should be given to the press in connexion with our parliamentary duties. Of course, if a Minister takes a trip to Queenscliff for the benefit of his health, it would be absurd to telegraph thatat the cheaper rate ; but where the matter is one in which the public are interested it is different.

Senator Drake:

– A matter such as the honorable and learned senator refers to would be dealt with in a short message, and would be at the same rate as ordinary press messages.

Senator Major GOULD:

– I do notpropose to submit anyamendment afterthe statement which the Postmaster-General has made.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Senate adjourned at 10.39 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 December 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1901/19011211_senate_1_7/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate11 December 1901

PETITION

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Playford:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Playford:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DRAKE:PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DRAKE:

POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE:PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Playford:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Higgs:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Best:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Best:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Playford:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Higgs:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator Playford:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator McGregor:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Drake:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Drake:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Major GOULD:New South Wales

Senator Drake:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Higgs:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Drake:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator Pulsford:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Drake:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Pearce:

Senator STYLES:

Senate
11 December 1901

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist