1st Parliament · 2nd Session
The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and readprayers.
page 4182
Senator WALKER presented a petition from eighty seven electors of New South Wales, praying the Senate to prohibit the introduction, sale, and manufacture of intoxicating liquors in British New Guinea.
Senator MILLEN presented two similar petitions, from the Independent Order of Good Templars, and from forty-one electors of New South Wales.
Senator DAWSON presented a similar petition from the Unity Lodge of the Independent. Order of Good Templars, Ipswich, Queensland.
Petitions received.
page 4182
Senator DRAKE laid upon the table the following papers : -
Proposed electoral divisions of Tasmania- map showing.
Proposed boundaries of Commonwealth electoral divisions of West Australia- map showing.
page 4182
ask asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows : -
The name of Perth, a postal town in Tasmania, could not be changed except by the State Government, and unless such change of the name of the town is made, the name of the post-office in the town cannot be altered.
page 4182
Debate resumed from 26th June (vide page 1476), on motion by Senator Pearce -
That, in the opinion of the Senate, it is advisable that the manufacture and sale of tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes should be a national monopoly.
– I anticipate that this motion will meet with very little opposition in the Senate, because I think it is generally admitted that there is great doubt about our ever being able to otherwise raise sufficient money for the public works which the- ‘ Commonwealth is obliged to carry out. When we remember the Kyabram movement, which is spreading all over the country, I feel sure that a proposal which purports to discover a new source of revenue will meet with the approval of all parties in the Chamber. That mayseem rather a bold statement in face of the fact that on a previous occasion it was rejected. On that occasion it was stated that if it were submitted under new conditions it would be supported bymany honorable senators who then voted in the negative. If that is so, those honorable’ senators who believed that it was wrongly proposed during the debate on the Tariff will have an opportunity of redeeming their promise. Since that time the reform movement has grown apace, and no doubt politicians are taking notice of its progress . The money market, so far as Australian borrowing is concerned, has considerably hardened, and public opinion in the States has hardened against the borrowing system which has been carried on by past Governments.
– Money will come down when we get the new fleet.
– I have no doubt that money can always be borrowed if we are willing and able to pay a ruinous rate of interest. The interjection reminds me that our interest bill is almost as large as our Customs revenue. Viewed from the taxation stand-point - and I think that practical politics to a great extent centre round taxation - I anticipate that the motion will be received here with much favour. Whilst we may be opposed to a borrowing policy, we must recognise that there are certain public works which the Parliament is pledged to carry out. We have just decided to have a fleet at a cost of £200,000 a year. We know that the representatives of New South Wales will not be content until the question of the Federal capital has been settled. It is only natural that they should expect a Federal compact to be carried out with all proper speed. The construction of a transcontinental railway is another Federal compact, which, although it was not expressed in black and white in the Constitution, the representatives of Western Australia will require to be carried out. A number of other things could be enumerated, but I think I have mentioned sufficient to show that we must get money in some way. Both fiscal parties agree that no direct taxation should be levied by this Parliament. I think it is generally recognised that we raise as much money through the Customs-house as it is possible to do. If it is not intended to raise fresh revenue by direct taxation, it must be obtained by means of some such proposal as that submitted by Senator Pearce.While it contains a certain element of socialistic politics, the system has existed so long in other countries that it is nonsensical to talk of it as an experiment. When it is remembered that it has existed in nearly half the European countries for a very long period, and has been extended to some Asiatic countries, it will be perceived at a glance how very far Australia as well as the United Kingdom and the United States are behind other nations in the matter of raising the largest possible revenue from narcotics, which every one agrees are a fair subject for taxation. The tobacco industry was nationalized in Japan four years ago. Unfortu nately I have been unable to obtain any figures to prove the success of the monopoly in that country, but I have procured some figures which show how well it has worked in those countries in which it has existed for the longest time. The industry was nationalized in Austria thirty years ago, Roumania thirty-four years ago, Italy thirty-four years ago, Hungary fifty-one years ago, and France ninety-two years ago. In thelatter country not only the manufacture but the retail sale of the article was nationalized ninety-two years ago. I have obtained some information which I think will be very instructive to the Senate on the manner in which the tobacco industry is carried on in that country. The Tobacco Trade Review of October last publishes a report by the United States Consul, at Lyons, to his Government -
The retail shops are generally kept by women, the widows of soldiers or officers, often by soldiers themselves. I am told that the widow of an officer of high rank sometimes finds it necessary to petition for permission to keep a retail tobacco and cigar store, which she places in the care of an agent, and her connexion with it remains entirely unknown. In all the large cities of France there are also establishments called tabacs de luxe, where the finer kinds of cigars and tobacco are sold and imported.
It enumerates the number of factories, and then it goes on to say -
The tobacco sold in France annually aggregates to the State about 79,137,137 dols. The expense to the State in buying raw material, labour, freight, &c. , is 14,535,324 dols., leaving the very handsome profit of 64,601,813 dols. The State factories use 26,769,310 kilograms (59,026,325 lbs. ) of domestic tobacco and 1 5,000 000 kilograms (33,075,000 lbs. ) of imported leaf. The domestic costs 17 dols. 27 cents per 220 lbs., and the imported 27 dols. 88 cents per 220 lbs. Thirteen million kilograms(28,665,000lbs.)of the imported tobacco comes from the New World, mostly from the United States, and the largest quantity of this (called “ Burley”) is from Kentucky. The director of the works in Lyons gave me particulars about the business here and in other parts of France There are twenty factories in France - three in Paris, and the others in the large cities. In 1899 they employed 17,184 hands, 15,732 of whom were women and girls. Besides these there are714 persons employed as directors, overseers, foremen,&c.
I shall not weary honorable senators by quoting the whole of the article, which is rather length)’, but its salient features are summed up in the following passage : -
The tobacco business in France is a very important source of revenue to the Government. The capital invested in the buildings, machinery, &c., is 10,385,216 dols., and the Government generally realizes a profit of between 60,000,000 dols. and 80,000,000 dols.
The figures which I have just given apply to 1901 ; but those for a later year show that the profit is even greater. The United States Consul would naturally be very careful in the preparation of his report. One of the most powerful trusts in his country is a tobacco trust, and no doubt if he made any statement which might be calculated to injure their industry they would come down upon him and expose his misstatements. Therefore his report ought to carry some weight with honorable senators. The capital invested in twenty factories in France is £2,163,386, while the receipts for the sale of tobacco amounted to over £16,000,000 for the year. Allowing for a sinking fund of 4 per cent. on the £2,000,000, which would give £80,000, there would still be a profit of £13,500,000. These figures prove that the people of France showed very great wisdom in maintaining this monopoly in their own hands. The profit which is quoted by the United States Consul is the best proof that they are making something out of the industry, and that the country as a whole is benefited.
– We make it out of Customs taxation.
– But not to anything like the same extent. If we made the percentage of profit on the tobacco trade which is made in France we should get at least double the amount that we do.
– What does England get from her tobacco duties ?
– I do not remember the figures at the moment, but it must be remembered that; in France the price of tobacco is very cheap as compared with Australia. On a previous occasion, the honorable senator said that French tobacco is of a very inferior quality.
– So it is.
– I can scarcely believe that the people of France would tolerate an inferior kind of tobacco.
– It is all a matter of taste.
– The French people are known to possess as good taste as the people of any country. They are very fond of luxuries, and I dare say they like a good cigar just as they like good wine.
– They are very fond of garlic, but I do not think that we care very much about garlic.
– These articles are luxuries all the same. On a previous occasion Senator Drake referred to the very small shops in which tobacco is sold in France. Because a cigar is bought in a small shop it does not follow it must be of an inferior quality. Because the French Government do not incur the great expense of building elaborate shops for the sale of tobacco, it does not follow that the article is of a very inferior quality. It only proves that they do not care to go in for very costly buildings. The size of a shop does not. affect the quality of a cigar at all. These are the profits as given up till last year, 1902, in an article in the Petit Journal:- 1811, £925,000; 1835, £2,977,000; 1869, £10,228,000; 1891, £14,886,000; and in 1902 the profits had increased to no less than £16,800,000. All that profit goes into the Treasury of the country. In the Tobacco Trade Review for lst January, 1903, I find a report from the United States Consul on the tobacco monopoly in Austria. He says -
This is a Government monopoly, and all cigars and tobacco are either made in Government factories or imported by the Government. The sale is conducted by licensed agents. The tobacco must be sold at prices fixed by law, which yield to the seller about 10 per cent. profit on cheap cigars, and 5 per cent on the dearest cigars. The cheapest cigars cost 6 cents, and the dearest 3 dols. 6 cents. Each of the different kinds has a distinctive name, and as it never varies in flavour and quality, customers always know what they are purchasing, and what value they are getting for their money. Most of the tobacco is grown in AustriaHungary, but some is imported. From Government statistics for 1901 the gross value of tobacco sold was £9,000,000.
– What was the profit on that.
– The profit is. not stated.
– I mentioned the profit in my speech.
– So that it will be seen that these two countries make something substantial out of the tobacco industry. The report submitted by the Select Committee appointed by the Victorian Parliament to consider this subject, set out the profits derived by various Governments in Europe in connexion with this trade ; and the figures given were such as to warrant us expecting the figures which have been disclosed as the result of the operations of later years. These later figures show what may be called the natural increase of the trade from year to year. If we consider the position in countries in which the trade is a private monopoly, we can understand the difference between a Government and a private monopoly. In the United States ‘ of America, the land of trusts, as well as in the United Kingdom, we find that the tobacco companies have coalesced and formed great trusts. Their profits are not made public, but it is easy to believe that they must be very great, when one considers the extent of their trade and their market. When Prance and Austria can draw such profits from the industry as those to which I have referred, it is only natural to suppose that the Americans can do at least as well. The two big trusts, after fighting each other, have combined. I find, from an article in the Tobacco Trade Review, that a combine of thirteen companies with a capital of £15,000,000 has been effected to” exploit the market and to secure a bigger profit than those companies have hitherto been getting. The Tobacco Trade Review says -
The expected has happened sooner than was expected. The two trusts, British and American, have coalesced to form one great Blend. What the results will be oan hardly be foreseen except in shadowy outline. The Imperial Company have a great opportunity, and much as to the future of the trade depends on how they decide to handle the situation. It is hoped that ‘ live and lot live “ will be their motto.
I find that the retailer in the trade has come to quite a different conclusion upon the ‘’ live and let live “ policy. Mr. Henry Ramill, honorary secretary to the North London Tobacconists Association, has said -
The situation from the retailers’ point of view is not so much worse now than it was before the latest amalgamation, because we. have now done with the “ patriotic flag” business. Now it will be a question pure ana simple of “ trust or no trust.” If the Imperial combines are reasonable, matters will go on well ; if tyrannical action is taken it will have to be opposed by the retailers, and probably they will seek the help of the trade’ unions and other commercial classes in the country who do not regard with a favorable eye trusts, whether British or American. The present position must show the retailers the necessity for maintaining and increasing their organizations.
I find that the Trade Unions Congress held in London viewed the matter in this light -
At the Trade Unions Congress held in London during the first week in September, Mr. B. Cooper (Cigarmakers’ Union, London) moved that the growth of gigantic capitalistic trusts was injurious to the advancement of the working classes. An amendment presented by the Gasworkers and General Labourers’ Union, that the. only permanent solution of the trust difficulty lay in the national ownership and control of these monopolies, was accepted tj’ Mr. Cooper, who told the Congress that the result of the tobacco, combine had been lower wages and less favorable conditions to the workmen of the Imperial Tobacco Company Limited. The resolution wasunanimously carried.
Honorable senators will see from these quotations how these trusts are viewed in the old country. I find in The Tobacco Trade Review a number of newspaper comments upon the great combination. Amongstthem there is this comment by the’ Chronicle -
The opposing trusts have concluded an alliancewhich lays the smoking world at their feet - the smoking world at all events of Great Britain and the United States. What is more, they have inserted a clause in their treaty pledgingthemselves to work hand in hand for the c inquest, of the whole earth.
There is also this comment, quoted from theLiverpool Daily Post -
The tobacco war has ended in an unequivocal victory for the British company, and in this caseat least the American invasion of England has been repelled . . . the British manufacturers from the first never doubted of their ultimatevictory. The struggle might have been prolonged and costly, and a continuation of thestruggle would have been ruinous. Wc hope that the general welfare will not suffer from this combine, but we have our doubts.
Honorable senators will see that throughout society in the old country there is a fearthat these trusts will work against the public welfare. It is only reasonable that there should be such a fear, because theformation of trusts has so far had but the effect of increasing the profits of those who have combined, while those whoare outside the combination have suffered in proportion to the increase of theprofits made by the trusts. According to Coghlan, the tobacco trade in Australia isfar from being on a satisfactory basis. Thecal tiivation of the leaf is certainly in a deplorable condition, and very few workersin the Commonwealth are so poorly paid as. the operatives in the tobacco factories. Coghlan says -
The soil and climate of Australia appear to besuitable for the growth of the plants, but sufficientcare and skill have not been expended on the preparation of the leaf . The. quantity of 70,251 cwt. of leaf produced in 1888 was so greatly in excessof local requirements that only low prices could be obtained.
The price obtained at that time was something like 2d. per pound for the leaf, Coghlan goes on to say -
The Agricultural Department of Queensland is -endeavouring to assist the tobacco-growers by the importation of American seed of first quality, suited to the Queensland climate, and, following the example set by Victoria and New South Wales, the services of an American expert have been secured. New Zealand also has commenced the cultivation of tobacco.
I find he says also -
In Western Australia preparations are being made for cultivating tobacco on a large scale, and a company has been formed which proposes to acquire suitable land for raising the crop.
Then the following very significant words are made use of in reference to Western Australia : -
Samples of the product grown in the State have been submitted to experts and pronounced equal to the finest Havana, and a large firm in England has undertaken to purchase any similar quantity of leaf at from1s. 9d. to 3s. a lb.
It will be seen from these quotations that the soil and climate in Australia are favorable to the production of the tobacco leaf, but under the regime of private enterprise up to the present its cultivation has not produced the results which we might naturally expect.
– Is it thought that the Government will pay more than the private employer for the tobacco leaf ?
– I do not suppose that any such thing would be expected. I believe that a fair price would be paid for the leaf.
Sentor Millen. - Irrespective of quality ?
– Not at all.I expect that the officials of the Commonwealth Government, in conducting a trade of this kind, would exercise common sense just as we expect them to exercise common sense in the conduct of Government Departments at the present time. Senator Drake, when the matter was previously being discussed, asked how the price of tobacco was to be fixed ; but there need be no difficulty whatever in fixing the price. Each brand of tobacco will be stamped, and its quality and value will be well known.
– Who fixes the price ?
– Who fixes the price of rail way tickets?
– Who fixes the price of postage stamps ? It should be quite as difficult to fix the price of a postage stamp as the price of tobacco of a certain quality.
– I ask only who is to fix it?
– I understand the honorable and learned senator to suggest that it would be a matter of great difficulty. The Railway Commissioner at the present time fixes the price of railway tickets, and if we had a Commissioner in charge of this trade he could just as easily fix the prices of cigars and tobacco. I am sorry that Senator Clemons is not present, because I feel sure that if he were the arguments I advance would secure his vote for this motion. When the rate of excise on tobacco was being fixed during the discussion of the Tariff the honorable and learned senator said -
I am going to prove that these tobacco manufacturers make immense profits. I say again that the tobacco companies in Australia are making enormous profits. If we had not so great a margin between the excise and customs duties those profits would be mode, and a large amount of the money would go to the revenues of the different States.
– Did the honorable senator subscribe to that doctrine then ?
– Certainly.
– Did the honorable senator vote in the way indicated by the argument?
– I voted for what I thought was fair, and under similar circumstances I would vote in the same way to-morrow. If this is not taken advantage of, the fault will lie with those who continue to allow enormous profits to be made in the tobacco trade by private companies. Senator Clemons proceeded to say -
It is not right that so much revenue should be diverted from the States for a reason that cannot be considered very satisfactory even by protectionists. It is not satisfactory to me in any circumstances, I frankly admit, but even protectionists recognise that this is an industry which does not employ labour satisfactorily; and having some regard for revenue, as Senator Playford has, I wonder how, with all his protectionist views, the honorable senator can support so great a margin between these duties.
This, however, is the most significant part of the honorable and learned senator’s speech -
I can give figures and names in support of my statement that enormous profits are being made in this industry. I say that the firm of Cameron Brothers, with a capital of £50,000, lost year made £50,000 profit. I say that they paid in dividends 20 per cent. , and carried to the reserve fund the other 80 per cent. of the profit. I say further that the accumulated profits of that company made from the tobacco industry amount to £100,000 to date.
This throws some light upon the enormous profits which are made by these companies. When a private company, with a capital of £50,000, can make £50,000 profit in one year, we need not have any doubt as to what may be done if the Government secures this monopoly, because a private company is necessarily under greater expense than the Government would be, possessing a monopoly. The private company to- which Senator Clemons referred, had to contend with competition, because, at that time there was no combine such as exists in the Commonwealth at the present time. We know that a combine in the tobacco trade exists here at present, because it is recorded in the press, and we know that it has been followed by the closing up of four factories since the year 1901. Two factories that were employing nearly 100 hands had been closed by the Trust. We know that the companies are getting their tobacco made in other places. Cameron Brothers have sent some of their work to Adelaide, where there is no Wages Board in existence, and where they can get cheap girl labour to do what was previously done in Melbourne by men. Dixon & Company are doing the same thing in connexion with their Sydney factory. Only a few weeks ago they sent two women to Sydney to teach other women there the work of rolling the outside leaf upon cigars, work which had previously been done by men.
– Does the honorable senator object to women securing work 1
– I do not object to women getting work if they receive the same wages as men for the same kind of work. I think I have shown that the Australian factories have now settled down to a method of business which must bring about the results which have followed the tobacco combines in the United States and in the United Kingdom. The trade in those countries has become a monopoly, and the retailers aro crying out about the harsh conditions imposed upon them by these great combinations. We shall have the same state of affairs in Australia before long, as it is only natural to expect the same results to follow the creation of trusts here. In Melbourne, where the conditions are as good as those which prevail anywhere else, only one out of the 700 hands employed in the tobacco industry paid income tax last year. The maximum rate of wages of the great majority of the workers is about £2 per week, and. when we consider the miserable price given for the leaf, and all the other circumstances, wecan readily see that the Commonwealth hasnothing to lose by the change proposed. If the Government take the business in hand, I am satisfied that, with our climate and. soil, we can have a great trade in tobacco, resulting in a larger revenue wherewith tocarry out the provision of the Constitution relating to the Federal capital, the construction of the transcontinental railway, and. other public works to which I have already referred. - The money for these works must, come from somewhere, and both partiesin the Commonwealth Parliament haveset their faces against direct taxation. The only means of raising the money is. that suggested by the motion ; and development cannot stand still, no matter whatKyabram reformers may say. “None of us. wish to go to the money market and borrow,, as in the past. We desire to pay our way as we go along, and that could be done by undertaking the profitable and remunerative business of the manufacture and sale of tobacco, and also other businesses which can be indicated. The Government would betaking a wise step in supporting this motion, which, if it be carried, I hope will take practical shape before long, to the benefit of the whole of the taxpayers.
Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).I, and I am sure, other honorable senators have listened with a considerable amount of interest to the information placed before us by .Senator De Largie ; but I admit that I am not altogether convinced by the arguments which the honorable senator has sought tofound upon it. So far as I have been able tofollow the honorable senator, his principal argument is that, with a monopoly of the manufacture of tobacco and kindred industries, the Commonwealth will be enabled to greatly increase the revenue. We all desireto see the State in a position of easy affluence, but the figures of the honorable senator do not appear to indicate that thereis any excess of income under a tobacco monopoly over that received under theCustoms and Excise Tariffs as adopted in Australia. The honorable senator should have shown that France is making greater profit by the monopoly than we are by means, of the Tariff.
– What about the consumption?
– We have to deal with the matter as it stands. Taking the figures quoted by Senator De Largie, I find that the return to the Government of France from the tobacco monopoly, is somewhere about 7s. per head of the population.
– I think it is 10s. per bead.
– The honorable senator gave the revenue at £13,500,000.
– The revenue was £16,800,000 last year.
– I am taking the figure as £13,500,000, which the honorable senator repeated several times.
– But Senator Millen takes the latest population.
– The population of France is stationary. These figures have been worked out by me in the Chamber, and time has altogether prevented my going fully into the matter ; but, on the figures quoted, I find that the return to the French Government is about 7s. per head. It is difficult to obtain the Commonwealth Customs revenue on tobacco alone, the latter always being placed under the head of “ narcotics “ ; but I assume that the amount of revenue received from other lines included in this heading is not very great. I have taken the full amount as disclosed by the Estimates for 1903-4, and I find that in Australia the Government receive in Customs and Excise on narcotics something like 7s. 7d. per head. If the figures I have taken as to France seem somewhat unfair to the advocates of this motion, honorable senators may easily see that there is a margin which would justify the statement that we are making, by means of the Tariff, without any trouble other than that involved in its collection, as much clear and net revenue as France is receiving from her monopoly.
– But the honorable senator is not allowing for the difference between the price of tobacco here and the price in France.
– That is quite immaterial ; I am dealing entirely with the question as to by what means the Government may obtain the largest revenue. If I were to build up a Customs Tariff ix> suit my case, I could cite countries where the duty on tobacco is much higher than it is here, and in that way could show how the Commonwealth Government might make, not 7s. 7d., but 10s. or 15s. per head, through Customs and Excise on tobacco: It has not been made clear that we can hope to obtain a larger revenue from the manufacture and sale of tobacco than we can by means of the Customs ; at any rate the figures do not disclose such a probability. But there is another important fact to consider. Are we likely, under the Government control of the tobacco industry, to have more economical management than has been disclosed in State enterprizes in other directions ? I stand appalled at the idea of asking the State to undertake such a large business as that involved in the tobacco monopoly. In New South Wales, the Government attempted certain enterprizes, and we recently had an inquiry into the working and management of the Fitzroy dock, with results that are simply ghastly. There has been political interference, and incompetent men have been paid high rates of wages. Men who have been dismissed as unfitted for the work have been reinstated time after time, in spite of the protests of the officer in charge, simply because they were able to get a letter from a member of Parliament to the Minister for Public Works ; and protests from the officer have on one or two occasions brought him into collision with the Minister. When I know those facts, I ask by what process of magic can we hope to exempt the Government control of the tobacco industry from such influences ?
– -No Parliament or Government was ever like that of New South Wales.
– That is quite possible, but the honorable senator must understand that we cannot have a Federal Parliament without the representation of that State.
– We can look after the representatives of that State.
– If the honorable senator wishes me to say so, I have no greater confidence in the representatives of South Australia than in those of my own State - probably a little less in some of the former. Senator De Largie spoke very strongly against borrowing by the Commonwealth. I should like to ask him, however, where he proposes to obtain the money to start the tobacco industry ? It is quite evident that we cannot obtain it by means of direct taxation, and it is equally evident that the Customs revenue to-day does not leave a surplus large enough to start an enterprise of such magnitude. These are practical questions which we ought to face before we give- a vote on the motion before us. There is only one means of getting the money, and that is by borrowing. Senator De Largie, like myself, is opposed to borrowing wherever it ‘can be avoided. I was rather surprised to hear Senator De Largie affirm that such enormous profits are being made in this industry while he, at the same time, declared that the workers are amongst the most poorly paid people of the community. I ask honorable senators to throw their minds back to the statements made when we were discussing the Tariff. Did Senator De Largie then subscribe to the idea that the profits in the tobacco trade were so large that we could afford to reduce the measure of protection, which was proposed 1 If I remember right, the statement was made time after time by those who supported the protectionist doctrine, that the profits in this industry were so small that if we reduced the protective duty, or raised the excise, . the industry would cease to exist.
– Is that why all the New South “Wales representatives deserted the free-trade party on the tobacco duties ?
– I do not know that that was the reason. I am now dealing with a curious fact, and I remember a particular incident. I then’ accepted the same view as that now accepted by Senator De Largie, namely, that there was no great necessity for the margin between the excise and the protective duty - -that the profits, so far as we know, are handsome. But Senator De Largie did not then subscribe to that view ; he was amongst those who argued that we ought to leave the measure of protection proposed because the industry could not carry on with less. Now we find that, after all, there is this very handsome margin, and that we were far too liberal when dealing with the Tariff.
– The trust in England is just as successful in making great profits as is the trust in the United States.
– I am not speaking of the trust, but of the profits of individual manufacturers.
– If free-trade is the cure, it ought to be the cure in England.
– It is curious that Senator De Largie admits that, following on the Tariff, a tobacco trust has sprung intoexistence in Australia, with the result that certain factories have been closed. I have suggested one practical difficulty in the way of a State monopoly in this industry; and now let me suggest another. Senator De Largie has referred to the condition of the producers of the leaf, and that condition, I admit, is not an enviable one. But how is Senator De Largie going to find a remedy by merely bringing the State into the market as the only buyer 1 The trouble is with the growers themselves ; if they will not grow a product which the people will consume, there is only one way to help them, and that is the way suggested by the honorable senator, namely, that the State should step in and buy that which nobody else wants. But that would hardly be a profitable undertaking. The mere fact that the State is. prepared to buy an article is likely toremove one of the chief inducements to the production of a better commodity. If the proposed State monopoly were in full operation, what would happen in regard to the buying of the leaf? A number of honorable senators, when Senator De Largie was speaking, interjected that the State buyer would fix the price. I should rather pity a State buyer who was called on to fix the price of tobacco in various places.
– Why ? It would be his business, just as it is the business of a wool buyer or tea buyer to fix the prices ofthose commodities.
– The buyer of wool does not fix the price, because there are dozens of other buyers.
– A wool buyer fixes the price he is prepared to give.
– But there are dozensof other wool buyers, whereas with a State monopoly of tobacco every other buyer would be shut out. The State, under such circumstances, says to the grower - “ You must accept my price or none at all.”
– Who fixes the price of Newcastle coal for the railways ?
– The same conditionsoperate there as operate in regard to wool. The coal is offered at a certain price, which is regulated to some extent by the prices, prevailing outside.
– Leaf not bought by the> Government could be exported.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that leaf, such as we have here to-day, should be exported if it cannot be consumed in the country ?
– It can be exported if the Government do not like to take it.
– I ask what a grower is to do if he does not like to take the price offered by the Government buyer 1
– Send the tobacco out of the country, as he does now.
– But that would not pay. I am in accord with Senator De Largie as to the efforts which the States Governments might fairly make to show growers what to do in order to produce a better article. It is lamentable that in a country such as this, where, so far as we know, there are many opportunities for growing a much better article, all the efforts to produce tobacco have resulted in something which nobody cares to smoke. The States Governments might do very useful service in making practical efforts to instruct people how to improve the tobacco leaf.
– They have done so for the last five years in Victoria.
– I am not quite certain, though I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to say, that Victoria is the ideal State in which to try the experiment of tobacco-growing. I, myself, would prefer one of the northern States.
– Queensland or Wes tern Australia.
– The States Governments, or even the Commonwealth Government, might do something to induce the production of a superior article, but neither ought to be the sole buyer and fix the price which the grower may take or refuse. Then there is another point of view. Supposing that the Commonwealth Government, having a monopoly, gives, as it generally does, something more than the market value of the commodity. That seems to be the danger to which the Government buyer would be subject. I can imagine a Government buyer, seeing the quality of the leaf to-day, fixing the market price at 2d. or 2^-d. per lb. If that were so, I venture to say that there would be a howl of indignation throughout the Commonwealth, at any rate from the circles associated with the Trades Hall, at the buyer, whose situation would not be worth twenty-four hours’ purchase. Pressure would be brought to bear upon him to get a price somewhat higher than the fair market value. I do not believe there is a man with sufficient strength to resist the pressure which would be brought to bear.
– Why should the Trades Hall interfere 1
– I am speaking of the circles immediately associated with the Trades Hall, and of those who claim to be labour representatives. Judging from their invariable attitude when producers receive small prices, or workers receive low wages, they would insist on something more being given. I am not finding fault with that, but when we are dealing with a commodity, sold by one man to the Government and by the Government to others, if we pay the producer a higher price than the market value, we must necessarily, in order to secure a profit to the State, charge the consumer a higher price than otherwise. And in proportion as that is done - the State standing between the consumer and the producer - we take from one man something which ought not to be taken from him, in order to give another something which that other ought not to receive. Honorable senators may picture an ideal state of affairs in which there is a buyer so qualified by training and of such strength of character and mind, that he can determine to a fraction the value of a given parcel of tobacco so as to hold the balance fairly between the Government and the vendor. If ‘we had a man of that kind there might be something in the arguments which have been used, but experience in Government operations has shown the hopelessness of expecting anything of the sort. This discussion of course opens up the whole question of Government enterprise as opposed to private enterprise. I think that Government action for the present might very reasonably be limited to such enterprises as are natural monopolies, or to such enterprises as railways, which can be provided by the Government for the people better than they can be provided by individuals. It has not been made clear that the tobacco industry comes under either of those heads. The manufacture of tobacco is no more a natural monopoly than the manufacture of any other article.
– Railways are not a natural monopoly.
– But railways come under my second heading. With a sparselypopulated community, and with the State the landlord, at any rate in many of the States, it becomes necessary for the Government to take risks which private individuals would scarcely care to incur.’
– The honorable senator would let the State take all the unprofitable enterprises ?
– That is not so ; the tramways in New ‘South “Wales are most profitable.
– And-there is a howl if the tramways do not pay.
– That is true. Railways are a good instance of what may happen under- State monopoly. There is political pressure brought to bear in favour of the construction of non-paying lines, and Victoria is a shocking example in this respect. The lines having been provided deputations from the districts affected ask for further reductions of rates, and say plainly that unless those reductions are granted the districts will be wiped out of existence.
– According to the honorable senator, if an enterprise is payable it should not be undertaken by the State.
– I have offered no such contention. What I say is that when the State is the landlord and has a direct interest in the development of the land, and a larger revenue is obtained from lands which are opened up, the State is justified much more than a private individual would be, in anticipating events, and bearing an immediate loss in order to gain a future benefit.
– Or it might be a permanent loss.
– That is so. A private individual who constructed railways would certainly expect much greater profits than the State is content with. A private individual would not be prepared to look for indirect advantage as part of the return for his expenditure. I am by no means prepared to ally myself with those who say that the State should not undertake any industrial enterprises. All I wish to say at the present time is that action by the State in commercial matters is very largely on its trial. So far I must admit that it is not working out in New South Wales with entire satisfaction. As I believe that the State can do very much indeed to assist the community in its industrial life, I hope that some means will be devised by which, the way will be opened to the State to do many things which it cannot now do free from political influence. So far I have seen nothing to give me the assurance that State enterprise can be absolutely divorced from this pernicious political influence, and. unless it can be, the less it does the better. If, on the other hand, some means were devised by which State enterprise could be carried on with ordinary commercial precautions, and on ordinary commercial lines,. I should be justified in giving a vote for such a motion, but at the present time my inclination is to sit still and await results. So far the results have, in my opinion,, been disappointing. If, by degrees, some other system be evolved which will be free from the evils and drawbacks which have been associated, so far, with State enterprises, I shall be only tooglad to vote for the State taking in hand many things which at the presenttime are conducted by private enterprise,, and to the enrichment of private individuals.
– I propose to say only a few words, and chiefly in reply to Senator Millen, because nearly all the available statistics and; information on this subject have already been submitted. The honorable senatorhas made a great point about the consumption. He has worked out a little sum which shows that, while the profit obtained in France represents 7s. per head of the population, the Customs revenue in Australia from tobacco and narcotics, including opium and other things, represents 7s. 7d.. per head of the population.
– I explained that I included all narcotics.
– Yes, because the honorable senator .could not separate thefigures. The consumption per head is only 29 ozs. in France, while in Australia it is 41 ozs., or nearly double. In these clr:cumstances it is. clear that the Commonwealth, if it is getting only 7s. 7d. per head,, is merely receiving one-half of what it would collect if it adopted the same policy as France. I do not base any argument on that point. I do not think that we can deduce the profits which can be made in one country from the profits which are made in another, because there are all sorts of circumstances to be .taken into account which a speaker is apt to overlook. Of course that statement applies equally to-
Senator Millen’s calculations and to mine; if anything, the advantage is in favour of mine.
– I only advanced mine to show that Senator De Largie’s were not conclusive.
– Quite so. It is impossible to draw a correct conclusion from any figures of that kind. But the fact remains that, after paying the duty on the leaf, the manufacturers here are making very large profits indeed. Senator De Largie has instanced the case of a company which is making a profit of 100 per cent, per binnum on the employment of its capital. That is a profit which I think might very well go to the Commonwealth. The proposal to establish a tobacco monopoly is in no sense revolutionary. This form of raising revenue is largely availed of in most conservative countries in Europe. Although we could not, for example, have a more conservative country than Austria, still we find a tobacco monopoly in full swing there. I should have liked to quote France, but it can hardly be called a conservative country. No honorable senator can deny that, if the public were informed that a tobacco monopoly were for sale in the Commonwealth, a number of splendid offers would be made immediately to purchase those rights. If the Government, in their wisdom, chose to give me n tobacco monopoly, I could take it to London and realize a princely fortune by selling it. Let us deal with the question from the business point of view. There is no doubt that the State might reap the benefit which the private individual would reap in similar circumstances. I certainly see every reason why the motion should meet with ray support in the interests of the Commonwealth.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - My reply will be brief, because I am very pleased that we shall have an opportunity to take a vote, and, I believe, to affirm the desirability of establishing a monopoly in tobacco. I shall not deal with the remarks of- Senator Drake, because it seems to me that he did not criticise nor, indeed, investigate the figures which I submitted. He in no way attempted to shatter the premises which I set up, but contented himself with throwing doubts on the proposal. He reminded me of an old Scotch lady, who, when she first saw a locomotive, said - “It will nae go,” and who, when it began to go, said - “ It will nae stop.” Senator Drake said that a tobacco monopoly would never go, for certain reasons, and then he said that even if it would, for certain reasons, it would stop. I was not edified very much by Senator Millen’s criticism, for the reason that he did not go far enough into the question. He took certain figures, which on their face seemed to prove certain conclusions, but had -he inquired a little further he would have found that they upset the base of his whole argument. For instance, he pointed out that France received a certain revenue, and he was very careful to choose a lower figure than that which Senator De Largie quoted. The latter said that in 1891 there was a clear net revenue of £13,000,000 from the monopoly, but he went on to point out that in 1901 it had increased to £16,000,000.
– I did not choose the figures. When I heard Senator De Largie say that the net revenue amounted to £13,500,000, I left the Chamber to find out the population of France, and therefore I did not hear the other figures which he mentioned.
– Unwittingly the honorable senator divided the net profit for 1891 by the population for 1901. The population has been stationary, but the revenue from the tobacco monopoly has not been stationary. In 1901 the 38,000,000 people in France derived from this source a revenue of £16,000,000, which is nearer 10s. per head than 7s. Then the honorable senator wished the Senate to believe, as Senator Playford appeared to do by an interjection, that Great Britain from her Customs duties received almost as much revenue as does France from her tobacco monopoly. That is not so. With a population of 41,454,724 Great Britain received in 1901 from the duties on tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, and snuffs £10,500,000, which is considerably less than France received from her tobacco monopoly. Senator Millen’s comparison between the French revenue and the Australian revenue is upset by the simple fact th’at while in France the selling price of tobacco’ is 3s. 9d. per lb., in Australia it averages 6s. per lb. If the French Government thought fit to charge 6s. a lb., that is two-thirds more than they do, that country would receive a revenue of £25,000,000, as against £16,000,000.
Had the honorable senator proceeded a little further with his investigation be would have discovered an awkward state of affairs which he would not have been able to explain away. As regards the question of fixing the price, Senator Drake raised this bogy, which I was surprised to find taken up by so astute a man as Senator Millen - that the State could not fix the price. How ridiculous it is to raise that bogy when the State fixes the price of railway tickets.
– I did not say that the State could not fix the price. I asked who was going to do it. Surely my honorable friends could give me an answer to the question.
– The honorable and learned senator seemed to think that when we said that the State could fix the price we were stating an impossible proposition.
– Not at all.
– Apparently the honorable and learned senator could not conceive of the State doing any such thing successfully.
– Somebody has to fix the price. I wished to know if the honorable senator proposed that it should be fixed by the Parliament, or the Executive Government, or a Commissioner. That is what he cannot answer.
– We replied that the price would be fixed by the Parliament or the Government in the ordinary way in which such things are done.
– That is to say that the honorable senator does not know by whom.
– Railway freights are fixed, not by Act of Parliament, but by a Commissioner or Railway Manager, in virtue of the power given in an Act.
– The answer to my question is that the honorable senator cannot tell me. He does not know.
– We told the honorable and learned senator that it could be fixed in the same way as railway rates are fixed. Senator Millen suggested that all sorts of politicalcorruption would enter into the fixing of the price of tobacco leaf.
– No, political interference.
– The honorable senator hinted at the possibility of the Trades Hall interfering because the price of tobacco leaf had been fixed too low. It seems to me that he has been reading Melbourne
Punch, because when it has no argument to use and wishes to attack a member of the Parliament, it draws a picture of a bogy man and labels it “the Trades Hall.” When the honorable senator said that the Trades Hall would interfere, he seemed to think that he had said the last word on the subject.
– There is no bogy in New South Wales anyhow.
– Probably what the honorable senator had in his mind was a practice which prevailed in New South Wales of certain members interfering in order to lower the rents of pastoral properties, and to give the lessees more time in which to meet their obligations. Now let us see what the tobacco-growers think of this proposal, as expressed at a meeting held at Wangaratta, in the King River district of Victoria, which is admitted to be one of the best tobacco-growing districts in Australia, and corresponding almost exactly with the best tobacco-growing districts in the United States. Speaking to the subject of my proposal -
Mr. Andrew Byrne, of Moyhu, who presided, said growers of tobacco leaf were convinced that there existed at present a monopoly of tobacco manufactured by private firms in the cities of the Commonwealth, and the result was that growers could not get prices which would enable them to continue the industry. With the present customs and excise duties there was an immense balance between what was paid to the producer and the selling price, and this went into the pockets of the monopolists.
The growers who are the backbone of the Conservative party in Australia, not the Trades Hall at all, state that they are hindered in their production of tobacco by the existence of a tobacco ring. But ultimately, after discussion, the meeting decided to sacrifice principle to expediency, I am sorry to say. While they agreed that a monopoly existed, and that it should be acquired by the Commonwealth, they were prepared to sacrifice their principles for the sake of getting more protection through the Customs-house. Of course, it is prompted by the old fiscal superstition, which still lingers in this State. The following resolution was carried at the meeting : -
That in view of the present tobaccomanufacturing monopoly in Australia, and the low prices offered for locally-grown leaf, this meeting is of opinion that a bonus on exported leaf, with or without the advantage of the preferential duties proposed by Mr. Chamberlain, should be granted, on the ground that it would give an immediate stimulus to production of local leaf, and would be of more practical value to the grower than any other proposal.
It is only fair to quote another resolution which was carried -
That whilst in favour of Government monopoly, as opposed to private monopoly, this meeting considers the time inopportune, and the circumstances unfavorable, for any further action on the subject of proposed Government monopoly of tobacco manufacture.
Senator Millen said that experience in Australia had shown that State enterprise was not so good as private enterprise ; that it could not make or conduct business operations as profitably as private firms and companies did.
– “What I said was that State enterprises were never allowed to run free from political influence.
– I am prepared to show that, even with the political influence thrown in, State railways pay better than private railways, and are run more in the interests of the people. The honorable senator’s proposition seemed to be that, if there were an undertaking which it was absolutely necessary to carry out, we should first ascertain whether it would pay : that if it would pay we should say, “ This is a proper outlet for private enterprise,” but that if it would not pay we should say, “The State must step in and construct the work.”
– My honorable friend is a very amusing caricaturist.
– The honorable senator would be one of the first to mount a public platform, and point to the failure of State socialism, because the schemes which he and others had induced the State to take up did not pay. When we submit a proposal which we can clearly prove will pay, he is not willing that it should be undertaken by the State, I am going to quote some figures to show that the railways of New South Wales as a whole pay better than the railways of those countries in which private enterprise holds sway. According to Coghlan, in 1899 the net revenue earnings were .23-5 pence in the United Kingdom, 26 pence in the United States, and 28 ‘ST pence in New South Wales. In New South Wales it was 28-S7d. That is to say, that in New South Wales the net earnings per mile were greater than in the United Kingdom or in the United States, notwithstanding the fact that the railways of New South Wales are run through a sparsely-populated country, and over vastdistances, in order to reach customers, whilst the railways of the United Kingdom, and in many cases the railways of theUnited States, run through a thickly populated and a busy industrial country. Wehave to face the fact that whether the tobacco industry is naturally one which becomes a monopoly or not, all over theworld it is becoming a monopoly, and it is a monopoly to-day in Australia. On the word of the tobacco-growers, who bitterly realize it, and on the word of the retailers’ of tobacco, who also bitterly realize it, we have proof that they are suffering from the tobacco monopoly at ‘ present existing in Australia, which is on the one hand enhancing the price to the consumer, and on the other preventing the growth of” the tobacco leaf in Australia. This is so, because the local manufacturer will not buy the local leaf except at a price which isruinous to the grower. This is only the experience of other countries. I find in a journal called Tobacco, for 1st December, 1902, a report of a meeting held in London for the purpose of combining the retailers in the tobacco trade. This is one of the objects for which it was sought to combine them -
To protect the members from any tyrannical action of combines or trusts.
The journal goes on to show that the combination was being formed because of the presence of trusts or combines in the tobacco industry in England. Then under the headings, “ American Cigar Dealers and the Trusts,” “ Determined Opposition,” this journal says -
A large and enthusiastic meeting of retail cigar merchants and dealers was held in Bohemian Hall, New york, on 24th October, at which the American Tobacco Co. and the United CigarStores Co. and their methods were vigorously denounced.
The meeting proceeded to formulate a plan of campaign in order to neutralize the effect of the tobacco combine in America. I donot propose to take up any further time in dealing with this motion, nor do I propose to repeat the figures I quoted when introducing the motion, which show that we would receive a larger sum of money by the establishment of this monopoly than we now receive from Customs and Excise combined. I have asked honorable senators to analyze the figures, and in order that they may besatisfied that those given as to the cost of manufacturing tobacco are accurate, I may say that I referred them to the manager of one of the leading tobacco firms in Melbourne, and he has assured me that the figures I have given as to the cost of manufacturing tobacco and cigars are rather over-estimated than under-estimated, and that in each case the amount of profit would be greater than I have assumed. In conclusion I would ask the Senate to pass the motion in the interests of the tobacco growers of Australia, and in the interests of the revenues of the States of the Commonwealth. We are dealing here with a trade which has become a monopoly, which will remain a monopoly, and which had therefore be better retained in the handsof the State. I remind honorable senators, as I did in introducing the motion, that revenue is an imperative necessity for the development of Australia. We need it to open up the interior of this country; and if by making this trade a State monopoly we can succeed in putting the industry of tobacco growing upon its feet in Australia, we shall be doing good for the country. I therefore ask the Senate to pass the motion standing in my name.
Question put. The Senate divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 13
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 4195
Royal Assent reported.
page 4195
The PRESIDENT reported the receipt of a message from the House of Representatives, requesting the concurrence of the Senate in certain amendments recommended by His Excellency the Governor-General in this Bill.
page 4195
In Committee (Consideration resumed from 24th July, vide page 2589) :
Where an officer is necessarily required to attend on a Sunday for the whole day the permanent head or chief officer may authorize the grant of a day’s pay, or if employed for less than a day a sum proportionate to the time so employed. No allowance shall be paid for Sunday duty where an officer is in residence, and where his attendance is intermittent and for brief periods…….
– I move -
That, after the word “ of,” line 4, the word “ a “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ two.”
The object of the amendment is to provide payment at the rate of double time for all Sunday work. It is a common custom in private business to pay something more for Sunday work than for work performed on other days of the week. In some cases the rate is time and a-half, and in other cases it is double time. In Great Britain I believe the post-office officials are paid double time for Sunday work. I do not see any valid reason why we should not follow that example. Each of us desires a day’s rest in the week, and Sunday is the day of rest common to almost every citizen in the country. When a man or a woman is called upon to work upon that day I think that he or she should receive something more than the ordinary rate of payment. We should do everything we possibly can to discourage working on Sundays, and I propose one way of bringing about that very desirable result.
– The best way is to give no pay for work on Sunday ; if double payment is given the employes will desire to work on that day.
– I am thankful to the honorable senator for the interjection. He has been in charge of various Departments on different occasions, and he ought to know something about the subject.
– I never worked a man on Sunday in any of the Departments of South Australia to my knowledge.
– One of the reasons given for refusing extra payment for overtime and Sunday work is that if extra payment is given the employes will be anxious to work overtime during the week, and also to work on Sundays. That is very good f rom the employes’ point of view, but have we not men in charge of the various Departments whose business it is to prevent that sort of thing 1 If a private firm pays time and a half, or double time, for overtime or Sunday work the instructions issued to the foremen are that all overtime and Sunday work is to be avoided. Why should we not follow that example in our public institutions? There appears to be something absolutely rotten in some of our public institutions, and for this state of affairs I do not blame the men so much as I blame those who are placed in charge of them. Why should they not make some attempt to carry on these Departments on ordinary business lines, instead of allowing them to drift until they get into bad repute with the people, and we have honorable senators telling us how impossible it is for the State to do anything ? It is not the principle of State control that is at fault, but evidently the application of it, and the fact that we cannot get proper men to carry out the principle. If we desire a man to work between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. we should pay him something extra. Night work is never so agreeable as day work, and every honorable senator will agree that it is not the pleasantest tiling in the world to be working six or seven hours at a stretch with an electric light at a few feet from one’s eyes, passing letters through one’s hands at the rate of one hundred a minute, and making as nearly sure as it is possible for a man to do that each will be sent to its proper destination. It must be admitted that that involves a continuous strain upon the mind. The operations of the Post and Telegraph Department are not so automatic as some honorable senators seem to imagine. The great difficulty with which we have to contend not only in this Senate, but in every Legislative Assembly, is that most of the men who sit in these Assemblies have no practical acquaintance with our industrial life. What do legal members of the Senate know about such matters ? I am contending that work at night is much more exhausting than work during the day, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on the subject.
– The proposal of Senator Stewart is that double rates “should be paid for all Sunday work, and I understand that the honorable senator thinks that a policy of drift has led to ordinary rates being paid. But the policy of the Public Service Commissioner has been adopted after full consideration of the whole matter. The Commissioner has taken into account thecircumstances which existed in the States previously, and has done what he thinks isbest for the whole service; and the conclusion come to is that it is much better that only ordinary rates should be paid for Sundaywork, which it is desired shall be reduced’ to a minimum. The experience in Victoria isthat, so far from there being any lack of volunteers for Sunday work, there are many who prefer to be engaged at the office on that day because the work is not then sohard as on the ordinary days of the week.. The principle that has been adopted is thatinstead of paying overtime the employes are allowed time off. The Public Service Department endeavour as far as possible togive effect to a resolution passed by the House of Representatives some time ago that no post-office employe shall be worked for more ‘than six days a week ; and if aman does work on Sunday he is allowed corresponding time off. A proposal of the kind before us, in addition to increasing expense, must have the bad effect of encouraging a larger amount of Sunday work than there is at the present time.
– That ought not to be the effect.
– There is another evil in giving double pay for Sunday work. In the case of all such allowances there is atendency after a time for officers to look upon them as part of their salaries, and they naturally do not like to be moved from positions where they have been accustomed to be paid time and a half for a portion of their work. The scheme adopted by the Public Service Commissioner is the one most likely to keep down Sunday work ; and then there is the question of the cost. Senator Stewart proposes that time off in lieu of overtime shall be abolished, and that payment shall be made at the rate of time and a half, with double pay for Sunday work ; and the Commissioner has made a. calculation which shows that to carry out these proposals would mean an expenditure of £20,000- per annum.
-Col. Gould. - How much has the minimum wage added to the expenditure ?
– The minimum wage has added about £45,000 to the expenditure in the Post and Telegraph Department, and perhaps £50,000 or £60,000 throughout the Commonwealth Public Service ; but that is not the matter with which we are dealing. Double pay for Sunday work might be a pecuniary benefit to some of the officers, but it is a bad practice, which will cause more Sunday work.
– Will it 1
– There will be a strong tendency in that direction. Sunday work at present is carried on for the benefit of the public. The telephones, for instance, are kept in operation all that day and the public wish the rates to be cut as low as possible. Why should the Department give double pay to a number of officers who willingly undertake Sunday work because of its easy nature 1 Of course, every man and woman in the service likes to earn as much as possible, and, no doubt, would be willing to’ take double pay ; but the Public Service Commissioner informs me that the employes are satisfied, and that there is no general demand for a change in the present arrangements.
– It would appear from the remarks of the Minister for Defence that the men, and not the officers, control the Department. The Minister told us that men will be anxious to work on Sunda)’ if double pay be given ; but what has their anxiety to do with the merits of the case 1 Do the heads of Departments cause men to work on Sunday if such work is not wanted ? It is an extraordinary argument, which, however, I have heard used in the State Parliament of Victoria at different times. In the Victorian Parliament I have also heard it said that if double pay were given Sunday work would be altogether stopped. As a matter of fact, in all contracts under the Victorian Government there is a provision for overtime to be paid at time and a quarter, or time and a half, and if my memory serves me aright, for double pay for Sunday work.
– But the circumstances are very different, there being regular Sunday work in the Post and Telegraph Department.
– 1 cannot understand how the employes can have any influence in regard to the quantity of Sunday work. The officers in charge would probably endeavour 9 h to keep down expenses by having as little Sunday work as possible, and in my opinion, a man who is called upon to work on Sunday is entitled to extra pay. Ordinary day men* are paid overtime for night work, and I know as a contractor that double time is. usually given for Sunday work.
– If I could be sure that the effect of SenatorStewart’s amendment would be to diminish work in the public service on Sundays I. should give it my hearty support.
– That is the object.
– At the same time, we are confronted with a difficulty which even Senator Stewart must recognise. The Minister for Defence just now instanced the telephone employes, and it is obvious, that the public are greatly convenienced by their employment on Sundays. I do not think that Senator Stewart would wish to abolish the use of the telephone on that date.
– No ; but I want those who work to be paid.
– We are confronted with a class of work which is absolutelynecessary, and the Minister informs us that the employes make no particular complaint, and do not - ask for double wages. Thereare certain conditions under which a public; servant may be compelled to work on Sundays, as well as for the full week ; and if we could separate such cases from those of the telephone operators, I should be able tosupport a proposal to give double pay in the former circumstances. There are officers in many of the branches of the public services who can practically compel an employe to* work on Sundays, and in cases where the work is compulsory and exceptional them ought to be double pay.
– There ought to be * limit, seeing that some officials receive £2,000 per annum.
– I am not concerned with such officials, but simply dealing with the rank and file of the service.
– Nearly all the Sunday work is regular work.
– I imagine, with- - out knowing the fact, that the men employed always on Sundays are allowed some day off during the week.
– They work _ only six days a week.
– And one of those days is accidentally Sunday. I believe that
Senator Stewart is contemplating the case of a man who works six days a week, and is induced, or practically compelled to work overtime on Sundays. In such instances, I should unhesitatingly give double pay, and if Senator Stewart will frame his motion to meet those cases, I should give him my vote. I cannot, however, give my support to a proposal to give double pay to telephone operators who only work six days a week, though one of those days is accidentally Sunday. I have considerable sympathy with the motion. I feel it right that whenever an officer is in a position to compel men to work on Sundays in addition to the week’s work, there ought to be double pay given. But there are so many exceptions that I see the danger of passing a comprehensive motion which would give some employes more than they want, and practically more than they deserve.
– I do not see how honorable senators can reiterate the statement that the employes are finding no fault with Sunday work. At meetings of their own organizations, resolutions have been passed condemning Sunday work, and claiming that it should be adequately paid for.
– Are those the telephone operators ?
– Surely telephone operators are just as much entitled as any other class to extra pay for working on Sundays.
– I am afraid that every one would want to be a telephone operator.
– But matters can be regulated otherwise. No unreasonable demands are put forward by the public servants in a collective sense at their conferences, however ridiculous some of the requests of individual workers may be. As to the cost of paying this overtime, I would remind honorable senators that, in the division just taken, they threw away at least £1,000,000 of revenue which might have been obtained, though nowthey are advocating a cheese-paring policy at the expense of men who have to work on Sundays. So far as my vote goes, I shall insist on these men being paid extra for Sunday work. I know what it is to work on Sunday, and when I was obliged to do so, I was perhaps the dullest dog in the community. No one is anxious to work on Sundays after he has done a good week’s work, but if there is any trickery attempted, the heads of Departments must see that it is not successful. Where there is work which must be done on Sundays, the men employed ought to be given extra pay.
– After the explanation given by the Minister for Defence as to how the work is regulated, Senator De Largie must see that his position is rather a mistaken one. Senator De Largie contends that if men are compelled to work all the week and also on Sundays, they ought to have extra consideration ; but I understand from the Minister that no man is called on to work more than six days a week.
– That is the principle.
– It is not the fact.
– It is very nearly the fact.
– I understand that if a man works on Sunday he is allowed a day off during the week. It may be on a Monday, a Tuesday, or a Wednesday, as the case may be. If a man works seven days a week, he may reasonably expect to get some extra remuneration. But so long as he is only working six days a week, I do not think he is entitled to extra remuneration for the Sunday work. Telephones have to be available on every day of the week. It is not possible to make the users of telephones on Sunday pay extra for them. There is a fixed amount to be paid whether the telephones are used little or much. The work on Sundays is not so heavy as the work on ordinary days, when everybody is using the instruments.
– The work is very light on Sundays.
-Col. GOULD.- It is not so much a question of whether the men are agitating for this extra consideration, as of whether they are being fairly and honestly paid for the work they do. When the Public Service Bill was before Parliament we provided for a minimum wage. The Minister for Defence said that that would mean an expenditure of £40,000 or £50,000 extra in one Department. Honorable senators must realize the importance of that increase. I am not arguing that those who receive the lower salaries are not entitled to every consideration. But that consideration has been given to them, and we ought to pause before entailing an additional expenditure of from £15,000 to £20,000 per annum. If these people were not being treated fairly and justly they would have a strong case, but so far as I can judge they have been treated very considerately. Complaints have been made from time to time that the Government has been extravagant. We should as far as possible get rid of any idea of that kind: I do not subscribe to the opinion that there has been extravagance. I believe that the Government and Parliament are taking good care to keep down the expenditure as far as possible. We are not unduly spending money now. But I hope that we shall give no justification for the complaint that we deal with questions of this kind without considering the interests of the taxpayers. It would be very much better to accept the advice of the Public Service Commissioner with regard to the question under discussion. He has had a very wide experience, and is also a very fair, just, and straightforward man to deal with in regard to any matter which he takes in hand. I hope honorable senators will allow the regulation to stand as it is, and let it have a fail’ trial. We are doing a fair thing by the public servants, and that is all that we can be expected to do.
– The Minister of Defence might very well have carried out a promise which he made some time ago, when we were dealing with the Public Service Regulations. On the 24th July I moved a resolution which I will quote. It was as follows : -
That for time worked as overtime by the public servants, whether in the professional, clerical, or general division, the rates of pay for such overtime should be uniform as between the various divisions, and that the Senate desire that the regulations regarding overtime should be amended to provide accordingly j also to provide that ordinary overtime snail be paid at the rate of time and a half, and all Sunday work double time ; and that no overtime be paid to any officer receiving £400 per annum or more.
After debate on that motion, Senator Drake said -
I say now, without asking any honorable senator to go through the form of asking for the information, that if progress be reported, I will consult with my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, and endeavour to get from the Public Service Commissioner a full statement with regard to overtime and Sunday work, and also as to the . other question of lunch time. We have come to a decision with regard to lunch time, and I will ask the Commissioner to give us a report upon that subject also. We shall then be in a position to come to a fair decision, having the views of the Commissioner before us. 9 ii 2
– Where has there been a breach of promise ?
– The honorable and learned senator has not given us that report.
– I have it here.
– Then I am glad that I have dragged it out.
– I have been quoting from it. Senator Pearce cannot have listened.
– I understood that the Commissioner made some remarks in “a general way, but I never understood that Senator Drake was quoting from a report by him. We are entitled to know what the report says, as it is vital to this subject.
Senator STEWART (Queensland).With the leave of the Committee, I beg to withdraw my amendment, with the view of moving another one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment (by Senator Stewart) proposed -
That after the word “ officer,” line 1, the following words be inserted “having already, worked six days during the week in addition thereto.”
– This regulation provides for the control of Sunday work, in those cases .where it is necessary in the interests of the public that some work shall be done on Sundays. The principle we have adopted follows out a resolution passed in the House of Representatives, to the effect that where any officer works on Sunday he shall get time off, and that if he works all day on Sunday he shall get a day off during the week. This regulation is necessary to provide for the payment of Sunday work at ordinary rates. Senator Stewart wants to’ do something else - to provide for double pay under other circumstances. The most desirable principle to .adopt is that which has been adopted - that the officer should work six days a week.
– There is no provision in this regulation for time off.
– This is* the principle . on which we are working throughout the Departments. An officer does not work seven days a week. I know, that the House of Representatives is not the whole Parliament, but we have adopted the principle laid down in a resolution passed by that House. I will quote for the benefit of Senator
Styles what the Public Service Commissioner says - ‘
It is not possible to state definitely what Additional cost will be involved in these extra payments. It is governed wholly by the exigencies of the service ; but it may be safety assumed :that if time off in lieu of overtime is to be -abolished, and the employes are paid time and a half for overtime, and double pay for Sunday, that the additional cost to the Commonwealth will not be less than £20,000 per annum.
– Does the Department charge extra to the public for telegrams delivered on Sundays 1
– The public are not charged extra for work done on Sundays in connexion with the telephones, but they may be charged extra for Sunday telegrams.
– The officers do not get extra pay, but the Department charges the public extra money for Sunday work. .
– The public is not nearly paying for the services of the officers who have to be kept at work on Sundays. lt is not heavy work ; indeed it is far lighter than the work done on ordinary days. As the Commissioner says, the officers are actually scrambling to get this work to do. For the benefit of Senator Pearce and the Senate generally, I will quote from the Commissioner’s report at length. He says -
On the subject of payment of double rates for Sunday service, there are some phases of the question which do not appear to have been known to the Senate. There are large classes of officers, such as telephone attendants, telephone operators, and others, who are connected with branches involving continuous Sunday service for the benefit of the public ; and in such cases, arrangements are, as a rule, made for’ the officer to work only six days weekly, whether Sunday does or does not enter into his working time.
– That is only as a rule.
– It is impossible to have a cast-iron rule for every possible contingency in a great public service.
It would be obviously improper in such cases to grant to the man who works on Sunday a double payment in either time or money. The Sunday duty, is, as a rule, much easier to perform, and. often consists simply of waiting for infrequent # business. There is also rarely, if ever, any difficulty in securing voluntary service at ordinary daily rates, when Sunday overtime is made necessary in cases where officers work throughout the week. The argument, based upon the present demand for economy in administration, has also force in connexion with this subject. The question of overtime and its payment may fairly be considered in connexion with the extensive leave and other privileges accorded to officers. They are liberally treated in the matter of annual recreation leave - when they are sick they receive pay- and there are occasional holidays and halfholidays granted in connexion with public ceremonies, &e. The scale of remuneration throughout the Commonwealth service will compare favourably with that granted throughout the States ; and it is considered to be fair and reasonable that officers should not grudge an occasional extra service in tho way of overtime without seeking to be paid more highly for it than ordinary service. One of the chief complaints that has always been urged in Parliament is that it is difficult to ascertain what the emoluments of any particular public servant are, owing to the different kinds of allowances and extra payments which are made to him, and to pay this overtime will be to accentuate the evil of paying public officers largely in excess of the salaries voted to them by Parliament. Payment for overtime is to be deprecated in every way, as its effect is prejudicial to the service. To offer the inducement of greater payment for it will have but one result, and that is to tend to make officers scheme to make it. No good officer should object to give a reasonable amount of his services to the Government when the exigencies of the service require it. When, however, the overtime is continuous and often-occurring, then a fair payment should be made ; and it is contended that if the rates provided in the Regulations are granted, no officer should have any reasonable ground for complaint. If double pay be made, it will encourage Sunday work, and it has always been the object of the Departments and of the Government to keep Sunday work down as much as possible ; the most rational way of reducing it is by not paying more for it than for ordinary’ work. This, too, might well be logically done, for, as a matter of fact, Sunday work is not nearly so harassing or exacting as ordinary work. As a rule it is of the easiest character, and often means only “standing by.”
The experience of the Departments is that where overtime payment is a regular thing, it becomes looked upon as a regular portion of an officer’s salary, and this has had a very bad effect upon the efficiency of the service, as instances have frequently occurred of officers refusing promotion to higher positions, because, with overtime, their remuneration was greater in the easier and inferior position. . . .
It was mentioned that in some cases telegraph operators were employed for twelve hours on a unday, and were only granted the regulation pay ; but there seems to be some mistake in this, as it is not intended that any operator should work such long hours, notwithstanding that the work on a Sunday may be easy and intermittent. The regulations were designed, expressly to prevent such an occurrence. For example, for the purposes of Sunday pay, the ordinary working hours of an operator have been accepted as six, and it is intended that when he has worked six hours he shall be entitled to a full day’s pay, but shall not be allowed to work more than six hours to earn more money. It is . considered better to bring on a fresh operator rather than to allow another to work more than seven days in one week, which he would be doing if he were erupted for twelve hours or more on a Sunday.
– The memorandum of the Commissioner reads very nicely, and on its surface appears to be very fair. But my experience of the Post and Telegraph Department does not square with his clear statements. Some remarks have been made about the Commonwealth adopting a spendthrift policy. It has been said that the proposal of Senator Stewart, if carried, will cost about £20,000. The question is not what sum it will cost, but whether it is fair to do what he desires. It must be remembered by honorable senators that, notwithstanding the Commissioner, the men object to be called upon to perform this work. I do not know that it is correct for him to say that they tumble over one another in order to obtain Sunday work. If they did not take that course there would be black marks in the Department. Suppose that a man tells his superior officer that he does not care to work on Sunday, what is done in a short time?In nine cases out of ten the man is transferred to some country office as sort of punishment.
– I do not think they do that.
– I know that it has been done. Not very long ago, for instance, a letter-sorter refused Sunday work on conscientious grounds, and a good deal of trouble was experienced in the Department when a protest was made. I cannot understand how it is that any objection is taken to this proposal, because the universal rule with private employers is to pay time and a half for ordinary overtime and always double time for Sunday work. Even the Factories laws of this State impose the same conditions. I cannot understand how it is that any other rule should prevail in the public service. It is incredible to believe, as the Commissioner suggests, that the payment of double time would encourage Sunday labour. From my experience of the Department I feel sure that men do not wish to work on Sunday unless it is demanded by the exigencies of the service. I am not at all satisfied that it would cost £20,000, as the Commissioner estimates, to do a bare act of justice. The same old argument was trotted out when we were considering the minimum wage on the Public Service Bill. It is now trotted out by the Commissioner in an exaggerated form in order to scare honorable senators from voting in favour of this motion.
I am satisfied that it is just to take this departure. I maintain that time off on a week day is not an equivalent return for the time worked on a Sunday. Because it is likely that this proposal may result in stopping a good deal of unnecessary Sunday labour it shall have my support.
– I support the amendment of Senator Stewart because my experience as a worker has been that the higher the rate for Sunday labour or for overtime of any kind the less overtime has been worked. That is really what has happened in connexion with every trades union that I know anything of. As a general rule the workers have no desire to work overtime, especially on a Sunday. I believe that if time and a half had to be paid for overtime and double time for Sunday work, or an allowance to that extent had to be made, a great deal less overtime would be worked in the public service. It is a reflection on the heads of the Departments for the Commissioner to state in a memorandum that public officers would be eager to shirk their ordinary work . for the purpose of being employed on Sundays at double time, or of doing overtime at time and a half.It is theduty of the heads of the Departments to see that the officers perform their work. Senator Drake ought to know that in the public service, especially in Victoria, there has been such a reign of terror that officers serving the State or the Commonwealth are afraid to do a single thing lest they might be deprived of their franchise, or some other privilege.
– Nonsense !
– The honorable and learned senator knows that it has been done. The result of this terrorism is that public officers are eager to show their willingness to do almost anything. Knowing that a feeling of that kind prevails, is it fair to take advantage of public officers, and to get them to do work at ordinary rates? Why should an Act of Parliament which requires the heads of the Departments to observe certain conditions, be used as an argument that the men should not be fairly treated with respect to overtime or Sunday labour 1 Why should it be mentioned to the Senate by the Commissioner or any one else that the Parliament deliberately provided in an Act that public officers were to receive a minimum wage and to have certain privileges with respect to overtime ?
– The memorandum says that they are liberally paid ; but I do not think it says anything about the minimum wage.
– It says that the public officers are very fairly treated by the payment of the minimum wage and the grant of periodical holidays. It is true that the men are fairly well paid, but that is by the will of the Parliament, not by the will of the Commissioner. Why should that fact be used by the Commissioner or any one else as an argument that the men should not be treated fairly in other directions? Why should we be told that because the men are provided by the Parliament with occasional half-holidays they ought to work this overtime? Why should we be told that the work on a Sunday or at other times is of an intermittent character? What the officers complain of is not the work, but the absence from their homes and the neglect of private engagements. Does Senator Drake imagine that a1 public officer has no other interest in the world but to labour for the Commonwealth ? Has he not duties and obligations as a citizen to perform ? Why should the decision of the Parliament, as embodied in an Act, be made an excuse for treating public officers unfairly in any direction ? It is for the purpose of doing away, as far as possible, with overtime that trades unions and associations of workers in every part of. the world advocate the payment of high rates. It is their belief that if a high rate were charged superior officers would do all in their power to obviate the necessity for working overtime. No doubt there are a few parsimonious persons in the public service who are prepared to disregard Sundays or any other day so long as they can make a few coppers ; but we are not to be guided by a consideration for their wishes. When ‘public officers are associated together as a body, they all declare that they do not desire to work this overtime, and ask that the rate should be fixed so high that it would pre-, vent the necessity for overtime being worked. That statement has been made publicly, and conveyed to members of Parliament. I hope that neither the Commissioner nor other public servant will quote to the Parliament any conditions which it has. imposed for the purpose of influencing honorable senators in the direction of doing an injustice to public servants. I hope the amendment will be carried.
– I am astonished at Senator McGregor blaming the Commissioner. When that officer was asked to make a report to the Senate, surely he had- a perfect right to quote the absolute facts of the case, to point out that the men, whose cause is being pleaded here, are receiving good pay, and’ have certain privileges.
– He had no right to tell us what we knew already.
– The Commissioner was asked to make a report on this subject, and naturally he had to state the facts of the case, and to give the reasonswhy, in the circumstances, he could not re* commend a departure from the regulations. Surely we should not try to squelch him by saying that he has committed an act of impertinence because he has chosen to say what is absolutely true ? He has only stated the facts, as he had a perfect right to do.
– We knew those facts already. *
– -Honorable senators occasionally require to have their memories refreshed. The Commissioner wasasked for a report upon this special question of overtime, and he commences his reportin this way -
The question of overtime and its payment may fairly be considered in connexion with the extension of leave and other privileges granted to the officers.
Is there anything wrong about that ?
– Wc granted them those privileges ourselves.
– Possibly, but we may need to be reminded of it. The Commissioner _ desires to state the factsof the case fairly. He shows usthe position occupied by those officers, the privileges and payments accorded to them, and he points out that in the given circumstances he does not think they are justly entitled to any more consideration than the regulations he has framed provide for. He goes on to say -
They are liberally treated in the matter of annual recreation leave.
Did we provide for that 1
– Yes ; it is provided for in the Public Service Act.
– I had forgotten that we had provided for it.
– Then it is the honorable senator’s memory that requires refreshing.
– Then the Commissioner refers to sick leave and sick pay, and to the fact that there are occasional holidays and half-holidays granted in connexion with public ceremonies. He further says -
The scale of remuneration throughout the Commonwealth service will compare favorably with that granted throughout the States, and it is considered to be fair and reasonable that officers should not grudge occasional extra service in the way of overtime without seeking to be paid more highly for it than for ordinary service.
So he goes on to report upon the motion moved by Senator Pearce. He is asked for -a, report, and be states the facts of the case as supplying reasons why he thinks no alteration should be made in the regulations he has framed. It appears to me that he has given very fair reasons. So far as it can possibly be arranged, any civil servant who has had to work on Sunday receives a day off during the week ; that is to say, he has to work only six days a week. That appears to me to be very fair. It is absolutely impossible in the working of the Post and Telegraph Department to entirely avoid Sunday work, and in these circumstances I consider the regulation a fair one. The Commissioner points out in his report that instead of there being the slightest difficulty in getting public servants to take this extra work upon themselves, “ they tumble over each other,” as it has been put, though not by the Commissioner
– I put it in that way.
– I thought so. “ They tumble over each other “ to secure this benefit and privilege. Why in these circumstances should we throw away another £20,000 upon the Post and Telegraph Department 1 Last year it will be remembered that we burnt the candle at both ends. We commenced by decreasing the rates for telegrams, and by that means cut off a considerable amount of revenue. Then we increased the salaries paid to a large number of officers, and thus increased the expenditure upon the Department to the extent of over £40,000. When we look at the State of South Australia we And the position is this : In 1891 the State Treasurer of South Australia received £57,000 over and above working expenses and interest in connexion with the construction of telegraph lines and post-offices throughout the State, and that money was paid into the public coffers. Last year, to a very large extent, though not altogether in consequence of what we have done, because possibly the Pacific Cable accounts for a loss of some £12,000, the State Treasurer received no more than £6,000. Is not that a great loss to the State ?
– Yes; but the honorable senator is not putting it fairly, because ‘ as a result of the minimum wage provision the loss was not more than £4,000, if it was so much.
– I give the loss at over £40,000, on the authority of those who know.
– I am speaking of the South Australian portion of it.
– I do not know what the South Australian portion of it amounted to, as I have not analyzed the figures to that extent. I am, however, stating facts, when I say that we have dacreased our revenue from the Post and Telegraph Department by decreasing the cost of telegrams and by increasing the working expenses in raising the wages of a number of the employes. Those are two principal factors accounting for the loss, but I admit that there are other factors.
– The honorable senator has tried to make it appear that South Australia is losing over £40,000 in this Department in consequence of the payment of the minimum wage.
– I have done nothing of the sort.- I have said that there are three or four factors contributing to the loss ; first of all, the reduction in the telegraphic rates ; secondly, the minimum wage provision ; and thirdly, the Pacific Cable. And then there may be other reasons for the loss which I know nothing of at the present moment. If this regulation is amended, as -is now proposed, the result will be a further loss of £20,000 in this Department, and the South Australian proportion will mean the addition of another £1,000 or £2,000 to the loss which that State has already sustained- It has not been shown that the officers in the Department consider that they have any grievance, or are being hardly dealt with by this regulation. I have heard of no agitation on the part of members of the civil service for any alteration of the regulations. This matter is simply brought forward as a little. kite-flying by some honorable senator, and apparently without any backing from the persons most concerned. 1’ intend to support the Government.
– I take advantage of the present discussion to bring under notice a matter which I thought had been satisfactorily dealt with some time ago. I am aware that the Postal Department is no longer iri the charge of my honorable and learned friend, Senator Drake, who has been translated to a higher sphere of duty, but as he ‘ was in charge of the Department when I first moved in the matter, I am sure that, as the representative of the Government present, he will look into the difficulty to which I desire to direct attention. Some time ago, by a series of questions and a good deal of representation, I assisted in securing payment, for overtime in connexion with the English mails, to officers in the service in Sydney. At least I thought so. I had the Minister’s assurance that those people would bo paid, and I believed they had been, but I now find that some officers have been refused payment whilst others have been paid for like work. I am not blaming the Minister, who, I believe, knows nothing about the matter, because I understand the complaint has not reached the head office in Melbourne. Some seventy clerks, sorters, and letter-carriers have performed over-time work in connexion with the English mails in the Sydney office ever since the first of the year, and they have received no consideration for this extra work, while others have been paid. I take advantage of the present occasion to bring the. matter under , Ministerial cognizance, rather than resort to submitting a number of questions, as I” should otherwise have to do. As for the attack which seems to have been made on the Public Service Commissioner, I have known that gentleman for over thirty years, and I am satisfied that he is an official who will err on the side of generosity rather than of harsh treatment. That is a highly desirable trait of character in an officer in his position, because it is important that a great deal of mercy should be tempered with justice in the handling of the many men and women coming under his official ken. I do, however, desire to utter my word of protest against the idea that the giving of holidays is a proper compensation for the extra service demanded in many divisions of the Public Service. In private employ the offer of a holiday, not for occasional but for frequent extra work would not be received with any degree of satisfaction, and I do not think such a system should be applied to public employ. To use the well-worn phrase, “ The labourer is worthy of his hire,” and if he is entitled to be paid cash for his services on six days, of the week, and he is asked to work on a seventh day he should be paid cash for that. The offer of a holiday may only mean money out of Iris pocket, which he can ill afford. I do not deprecate holiday-making, but a man with a large family, and receiving small pay, is not in a position to derive much advantage from holidays promiscuously offered him. I know of cases occurring in the State from which I come, where holidays forced upon men for overtime work have been rather to their detriment than to their advantage. When they cannot enjoy a holiday without taking their families with them, and they often cannot afford to do that, they would very much sooner have cash for overtime work. Those honorable senators who speak in favour of what may almost be called compulsory holidays would scarcely feel so much enthusiasm in applying the system to themselves as they evidently feel in proposing to apply it to others.
Senator STEWART (Queensland). - When Senator Playford was speaking he made the statement that I was merely flying a kite of my own - that there was no discontent in the service, and that this was merely a “ try on “ so far as I am personally concerned. I am sorry the honorable senator is not in his place, because I wish to tell him and other honorable senators that I am bringing these matters forward at the request of the letter-sorters of the four States of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. In all these States there is considerable dissatisfaction in connexion with these regulations, and more especially in connexion with Sunday work and overtime. I wish to say at once that the post-office employes do not want to -work overtime. We have the statement of the Commissioner, who has evidently been inspired by the heads of the Department with the idea, that the men literally rush for any overtime that is to be worked. That may be possible, because, as has been pointed out, there is a sort of reign of terror in the Department, and if men are asked to work overtime they naturally do not desire to get themselves into disfavour by objecting. The men have told me that they arc anxious to avoid overtime, and that is one reason why they wishdouble payment for this extra work to be made. I have also been informed that a great deal of the overtime worked is unnecessary, and can be avoided.
– Who said that?
– I have been so informed by men who know something about the matter. My information is that more overtime is worked, owing to only ordinary rates of pay being allowed, and that if extra money were paid the overtime would be much reduced. I am also informed that there is a great deal of difficulty in connexion with the time-off arrangements. The time off is only allowed at the convenience of the Department, and there is very often much difficulty in getting it, and, if it is not allowed, there is trouble in regard to the pay. If a man makes any fuss he gets into the bad books of the heads of the Department ; and my own impression is that the arrangement ought to be entirely abolished. The Commissioner has given a number of reasons why in his opinion the present regulation should stand. He has pointed to the relatively high salaries received by a number of the officers, to the holidays and sick leave they get, and to certain other privileges. I admit that the men get all these privileges ; but not one of the reasons given why, if overtime is worked, it should not be paid for is valid.
– What is overtime t
– Any time worked over a certain number of hours per week or per day.
– That is what we want to discourage.
– The opinion of the conference of sorters of the four States I have mentioned, which was recently held in Mel bourne, is that the week of day work should consist of forty-four hours, eight hours on five days of the week, and four hours on the Saturday, and that these hours should be worked between 6 o’clock in the morning and 6 at night. The conference contended that the week of night work should consist of thirty-six hours, or an average of six hours per night, and should be paid for at time and a half. I have already pointed out that night work is much more trying than day work, and that the men are called upon to perform it at varying hours during the night and early morning. Many of the men live in the suburbs, and have to walk into the city at those early hours, though some of them come in by the last trains and trams, and sleep in the office until they are called upon. ‘ The men do not object to the work, but contend that the hours at night ought to be shorter and more highly paid for. Then we have to consider the unhealthiness of men working with electric lights burning within a foot of their faces, and I could easily see the effect of these conditions on the men by whom I was interviewed.
– I understand that the honorable senators does not object to the men working longer than forty-four hours if they are given extra pay.
– My object in proposing payment for overtime and Sunday work is to stop such work as much as possible. _ The present tendency is to work overtime when it -is really not necessary, and I urge that my last amendment ought to remove the objections of the Minister, seeing that it merely provides that where a man has worked six days, and, in addition, is called on to work on Sundays, he shall be paid double time for the latter day.
– We do not want the regulation to be restricted, but to apply to all.
– The only difference is that where a man works six days a week, one of which days is Sunday, he shall continue to be paid the ordinary day’s wage for the latter day, but if he works Sunday in addition to six week days, he shall then receive double pay.
– Another man ought to be employed on the Sunday; it is unfair to allow one man to earn eight days’ wages.
– I should much prefer to see another man employed, because, personally, I do not want any overtime worked. When there is extra work extra hands should be . employed ; but apparently it is -not convenient for the Postal authorities to take that step. That being so, the heads of the Department very often are compelled to call on men to work overtime. I think the Minister might very well agree to my amendment.
– Impossible.
– Why is it impossible? If a man works six days a week, and, in addition, has to work on Sundays, is it not fair that he should be given double pay, in the same way as private employes are almost always paid ? Surely the Commonwealth is not going to be less fair and generous than private employers? I am sure that Senator Downer would not ask any of his employes to work on Sundays for the same pay as on week days.
SenatorO’KEEFE (Tasmania). - I have no kind of quarrel with the Commissioner for having sent in this memorandum, seeing that he was asked for his opinion, and that probably his first idea is that economy must be studied. But the proposal as it now stands might very well meet with the approval of the Minister for Defence. We can quite understand that single men, who are more given to recreation, might prefer to work on Sundays, and in return have a day off during the week; but the great majority of the married members of the service, no doubt, prefer to have their rest on the latter day. I think we might very well accept Senator Stewart’s proposal to pay double time in the case of a man who has worked all the week, and is called on duty on the Sunday. I do not believe that the proposal, if carried, will have the effect of increasing the cost of the Department. I am anxious to hear the Minister explain how the cost is likely to be increased in view of the probability that the heads of the Department will see that Sunday work is kept to the irreducible minimum.
– Does the honorable senator not think that that is so at present ?
SenatorO’KEEFE. - I do not think so.
– Does the honorable senator think that the work is done on Sunday for the fun of the thing ?
– S - Senator Downer may remember that one of the chief arguments advanced by the Minister for Defence was that if double rates of pay were given for Sunday work there would be a rush of officers anxious to undertake such work. I think that Senator Stewart has dispelled a great deal of that argument; and if we adopt the proposal as it now stands that only those compelled to work on Sunday after having worked six days in the week shall be paid double rates, it will tend in the direction of doing away withSunday work, which is Senator Stewart’s real object and the wish of the majority of the Committee.
– It appears from what I can gather from the debate that this is practically a Sabbatarian movement. In order to prevent an infringement of the Sabbath the Government is asked to pay to its employes twice as much for Sunday work as it has to pay for work on ordinary days. In other words, by way of a penalty upon the Government for their misdoings, in case they insist on Sunday work, they are to pay twice as much for it. It is to be observed that every one knows perfectly well when he accepts work in the public service the conditions under which he accepts it. If he accepts employment in the Post-office, he knows perfectly well that some Sunday work may be required of him.
– D - Does the honorable and learned senator believe in men doing seven days’ work a week?
– Not at all. I have no patience with keeping officers at their work at hours when they should not be there, simply to suit the taste of a particular Minister: Public servants ought to have recognised hours of labour the same as other people. But when men enter the public service they know the hours they will have to work. They know that certain work has to be done at certain times in order to suit the public convenience. Notwithstanding those conditions, we know that any vacancies in the public service can be filled to overflowing dozens of times over. We are well aware that Post-office employes must work on Sundays. It is inevitable. If this is a Sabbatarian question, let honorable senators move to shut up the Post-offices altogether on Sundays. If the principle is that men should get certain time off, let them get it. But the advocates of the motion now before the Senate seem to me to put the argument both ways. Their Sabbatarian principle always has another side to it. They say - “ If these men have to infringe the Sabbath, let them’ be paid twice over.” Their Sabbatarian principle is strong, but it only requires a double douche of pay to satisfy them. Surely the matter need not be discussed at much greater length.
– With regard to the question of overtime in Sydney, though I cannot recollect the terms of the promise made, instructions were given that overtime should be paid up to the 30th June. It was paid to all the officers, with the exception of a few who were not entitled to it under the State regulations. But their case is now under the consideration of the Public Service Commissioner. It has not been overlooked. With regard to the present discussion, Senator Stewart is asking for something which the Public Service Commissioner tells us would involve an additional paymentof £20,000 perannum. That is to say, he asks for the abolition of time off in lieu of the payment of overtime at the rate of time and a half during week days, and double payon Sundays. He adheres to the principle that the men should be paid as for forty-eight hours per week, but he does not object to their working beyond that time, provided they are paid at overtime rates. The principle adopted in the service is that it is not desirable that officers should work more than forty-four hours per week, and that if there is other work to be done, it should be given to other officers. If an officer is required to work on Sunday the principle is that he should get a day off during the week, so that he will only work six days a week. That is in accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House of Representatives on the 7th June, 1901. That resolution which was moved by Mr. Mauger, the member for Melbourne Ports, is as follows : -
That in the opinion of this House it is the duty of the Government to make provision in all its contracts for the payment of a minimum rate of wage, and for the fixing of a maximum number of hours of labour.
That resolution was passed with a modification. Since then, it has been the guiding principle in the Departments that overtime is not to be paid, but that if a man is called upon to work over forty-four hours he should receive compensation by having time off.
– If the provision were carried out the double-time provision wouldnot comei nto operation at all.
– The objection which I have to Senator Stewart’s proposal is that it applies to all officers who are called upon to work on Sundays. He desires to give it a restrictive application ; but we want the principle to apply generally. I can now give a little information which was not in my possession when I spoke previously. We were told that in England double rates are paid for Sunday work. I have had great difficulty in obtaining this information, but it shows that it is not the practice to pay double rates for Sunday work in the old country. The information is from the report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which sat in 1897.
– It is the practice in Scotland. I do not know about England.
– The honorable senator is entirely wrong with regard to Scotland. The question asked by the Select Committee of the House of Commons was this -
How many hours constitute a full day’s or week’s duty for each of the classes of officers indicated in question 1 ? If there is a fixed period, and this period is exceeded, do the employes receive payment for the extra attendance 1 If so, at what rate is the payment mode ? Is all work on Sundays specially paid for ?
The answer as to work on Sundays is as follows : -
The working day is eight hours ; in the case of A, B, and C, overtime beyond that period is paid for at a rate and a quarter. Sunday work is paid for as ordinary overtime, except in London, where, in certain cases, double pay is given. For night work, seven hours count as equal to eight of day work.
The clauses referred to as A, B, and C are as follow : -
In France Sunday work is never paid for.
In Germany attendance is required on Sunday as on week days, but officers are allowed one whole day or two half days off in every three Sundays. In Austria there is no separate payment for Sunday service. In Belgium there is no payment for extra service ; no service is usually required on Sundays, but if employed on this day there is no extra payment. In Italy Sunday service is obligatory, and is not paid for specially. In Switzerland Sunday work is not specially paid for, the work of an absent official being performed by his colleagues or an extra officer supplied at the cost of the Administration. On the telegraph side there is no payment for extra duty. In Holland neither special nor Sunday service is paidfor exceptionally, but the time of attendance is limited as much as possible.
– Has the honorable and learned senator got the same information in regard to the United States?
– No. The question is whether our policy of limiting overtime as much as possible, and in a case where Sunday work is absolutely necessary of giving time off during the week, can be improved upon. After very careful consideration I think it is not wise to alter that policy.
Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 15
NOES: 10
Majority … … 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Stewart) proposed -
That after the word “ of,” line 4, the word “ a “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “two.”
Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). -I really fail to understand the remarks of Senator Drake, in which he dealt with the amendment which has been carried. I have been at pains to ascertain exactly what we have done. We have been assured that what it means is that every civil servant who, having worked for six days during a week, is also compelled to work on Sunday, should receive double pay for that day. I am very glad, therefore, that I voted for it, and I shall not regret my vote.
Question - That the word “ a “ proposed to be omitted stand part of the regulation - resolved in the negative.
Amendment (by Senator Stewart) agreed to-
That after the word “of,” line 4, the words “ one and a half “ be inserted.
Increments may, subject to regulations, be granted to such officers or classes of officers in the General Division within the several grades as are determined by the Commissioner.
The granting of an increment under this regulation shall be discretionary, and conditional on the good conduct, diligence, and efficiency of the officer concerned, and on the value of the work justifying the increase of -salary, regarding which a report must be furnished to the Commissioner by the Permanent Head of the Department.
– (Queensland). -I move -
That the following words be added - “such report to be open to the inspection of the officer concerned.”
It is extremely desirable that every officer should know whether a report adverse to him has been made by his superior officer, so as to give him an opportunity of defending himself if he should consider that he has been unfairly treated.
– I am delighted to find that Senator Stewart proposes to apply to the public service a most equitable rule which is to be found in the King’s Regulations for the Army - that no officer shall be made the subject of an adverse report without its being communicated to him. I may explain that whenever an officer has to make a report adverse to an officer under his command, it is imperative that he should either read the complaint to the person accused, or, if that course is not convenient, supply him with a written copy of the complaint and notify his own superior officer that it has been done. I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the amendment.
– The probable result of this alteration would be that the permanent head would not make a report to the Commissioner, but would simply oppose an increase without giving any grounds for his opposition. I do not see why the permanent head should not be placed in such relationship to the Commissioner that he might make a confidential report to him. Surely the permanent head should be allowed to give his reason for not recommending an officer for an increase. What will happen is that if a man is not entitled to an increment on the grounds stated, and the permanent head makes* a report to the Commissioner, the officer will do as many do now - he will trot up to the
Commissioner and will demand to see the report. Having got it he will himself make it public, and nine people out of ten will agree with the report whilst the officer will be acting only to his own detriment.
– Let him.
– I do not know that we should let him.
– It is only putting a, torpedo in the backstairs passage.
– Every man who doesnot get an increment will be suspected of having had an adverse report made against him by the permanent head. People will say “ How is it you did not get your increment 1” “ On what ground did the permanent head report against you.” He must then get the report and make it public, or remain under the stigma of having something against his character. I think the permanent head should be allowed to make a confidential report to the Commissioner . on these matters. I hope that in the interests of the men, Senator Stewart will reconsider his amendment.
Senator STEWART (Queensland).- The Minister for Defence has expressed a wish that I should withdraw the amendment, but I remind honorable senators that these secret reports are a source of very great discontent in the Public Service. When a man finds that he does not secure his promotion, or his increase, and. that some one below him on the list is promoted over his head he has a right to know the reason. While I hold that merit should be considered before seniority, I am yet of the opinion that where promotion is not given according to seniority some reason should be given why an officer is passed over. If this provision is added to the regulation it would bring about a better feeling in the Public Service. Why should the permanent head be afraid, to make public a report about any of his subordinates? Why should there be any difficulty with regard to the subordinates themselves 1 We desire to have an efficient Public Service, and we do not desire that there should be any backstairs influence inside or outside the service. While we have very largely succeeded in driving political influence altogether outside the service, there are other influences at .work inside, and we want to scotch them. I have been supplied with a number of instances, which I would not detail to the Senate unless it were absolutely necessary, but it has been made perfectly clear to me that promotions have been made because of influences entirely apart from the service. I think that every officer is entitled to know what his record is. If an adverse report is made on his work, why should he not be informed of it ?
– It is only British fair play.
– As my honorable friend says, it is only British fair play, and if this rule applies in the Imperial Army, surely it is not too much to ask that it should apply to our Public Service? The work of schoolmasters, for instance, is reported upon by school inspectors. Copies of the inspectors’ reports are furnished to the schoolmasters, and they know exactly how the inspectors think they are getting on. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. Each branch of a Department is, I believe, in charge of a particular chief officer, and promotion is supposed to flow from the Commissioner on the report of the permanent head. But the permanent head gets his report from the chief of each particular Department. It can be easily seen that if the chief of a particular Department takes a down upon a man he can obstruct his promotion. It is, therefore, extremely desirable that every officer should have an opportunity of stating his own case if a report has been made that he is incompetent, has been guilty of neglect, or is otherwise unworthy of promotion.
Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 12
NOES: 12
AYES
NOES
The following shall be the scale of travelling allowances : - . . . Officers of the administrative division . . . daily allowance, 17s. 6d. ; daily allowance after one week’s residence in same place, 15s . . .
Amendment (by Senator Stewart) proposed -
That the figures “ 17s.” 6d” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “ 12s. 6d.”
– I do not know why Senator Stewart proposes to reduce this allowance.
– It is too much.
– Does Senator Stewart contend that 17s. 6d. is too much for an officer of the administrative division when travelling, say in Northern Queensland. I have travelled there myself, and I know how heavy the expenses are ; and in my opinion the scale set forth is very low. I do not think that Senator Stewart himself could travel in that part of the Commonwealth on an allowance of 12s. 6d. per day.
– I could travel on much less.
– I know that many of the officers of the Department cannot keep their expenses within the scale.
– They are too extravagant.
– The scale might prove sufficient in thickly populated centres, and in places with railway communication, but it is certainly not more than enough when travelling in the northern parts of Queensland, or, I suppose, in Western Australia. Senator Stewart has endeavoured to obtain extra pay for officers of the general division, but now, when we are dealing with the administrative and clerical divisions, he wants to make reductions. Is the amendment following out the idea that one man is as good as another, and that every one ought to live according to exactly the same scale of expenditure?
– I think that 12s. 6d. a day is a sufficient allowance.
– The amendment of Senator Stewart is eminently reasonable. Senator Drake has instanced Northern Queensland, which is, I suppose, the most expensive portion of the eastern States in which to travel. It should be observed, however, that in the general division the allowance is as low as 6s. per day, although the men in that division consume the same kind of meals and incur the same expenditure as men of the administrative division, to whom it is proposed to give 17s. 6d. per day. There is no classification of hotels or restaurants in Northern Queensland or similar places, and the difference between the allowances is glaringly unfair. There is no doubt room for reduction in the allowances of the more highly paid officials.
– On the contrary, I know that there are different rates of charges in the hotels in Queensland, and I suppose it is the same in other States.
– In the out-back parts ?
– I do not know about Western Australia, but I know that in Northern Queensland there are distinct rates in hotels.
– And none of the rates are very low.
– They are generally very high. The expenses of the officers in the clerical division are usually greater than those of the officers in the general division. Officers in the clerical division do not usually travel for more than a day or two at a time, whereas the officers of the general division stay for longer periods in one place, and their expenses are thereby reduced. An officer going only one trip can hardly do with a smaller allowance than is provided for in the regulation.
Progress reported.
page 4211
In Committee (Consideration resumed from 25th August, vide page 4125) :
Clause 2 -
The agreement set out in the schedule is hereby ratified and approved.
– I move -
That, before the word “ agreement,” the words “ articles of the” be inserted.
This amendment will have the effect of cutting out the preamble at the commencement of the schedule. I object to the fact that the schedule contains a statement or assumption, to wit, that we recognise -
The importance of sea power in the control which it gives oversea communications, the necessity of a single navy under one authority by which alone concerted action can be assured, and the advantages which will be derived from developing the sea power of Australia and New Zealand.
There is a great deal in the preamble which is absolutely unnecessary to the agreement. It forms no part of the agreement whatever. That is to say, it forms no part of the articles of the agreement, but in effect it pledges us to an expression of opinion upon a point about which we are not at all united. No doubt it will be urged that we have recognised the principle of the agreement by assenting to the second reading of the Bill. But the point is that the agreement itself has nothing whatever to do with the preamble. The principles of the agreement are contained ‘ in articles 1 to 12, and are perfectly independent of the preamble. I understand that it is contended that the words “ Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and of New Zealand “ govern the preamble, and therefore that the Commonwealth Parliament does not bind itself to any expression of opinion on the subject. But I can hardly adopt that view, because the agreement is one between His Majesty’s Government, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the colony of New Zealand, and we are now proposing to adopt this expression of opinion on the part of the Governments as an expression of the opinion of this Parliament. If we adopt the preamble as it stands, we make it an expression of our opinion.
– That is, we adopt the principle embodied in it.
– I do not think we have adopted the principle of the preamble. We have not, for instance, maintained that it is an absolute necessity that there should be one fleet under one control. I do not think that even Senator Dobson advocated that as a principle.
– I certainly did.
– I thought that nearly every honorable senator who spoke admitted that the principle of having an Australian Navy was a good one, as soon as we were in a position to carry it out.
– But for the time being we have affirmed the principle of one navy under one control.
– We have not affirmed that. We have merely agreed tothe principle of voting a subsidy for ten years as a stop-gap. Nearly every honorable senator who spoke on the national. aspect of the question referred to the desirability of encouraging the naval feeling in Australia, but said that we could not afford to establish a navy at the present moment. But here it is distinctly laid down for all time that there shall be only one navy under one authority. If we adopt my amendment at this stage, we shall later on be in a position to deal with the schedule. When this matter was dealt with’ in another place, steps were not taken at the right stage to amend clause 2, and, therefore, when it was sought to make an amendment in another part of the Bill it was pointed out that, as clause 2 had been passed, the principle of the preamble had been adopted. This is the time to take steps to amend the schedule.
honorable senator has moved this amendment with a very grave face, and in a very deliberate tone, but I am quite certain that he must realize that it is proposed merely for the purpose of carrying out indirectly the object which was defeated by a very large majority when the second reading of the Bill was agreed to. The second reading affirmed the principle, which is the only principle in the Bill, -that -
The agreement set out in the schedule is hereby ratified and approved.
The Senate emphatically pronounced in favour of that principle.
– We did not pronounce anything of the kind.
– I - I am appealing to the reason of honorable senators when I say that the second reading affirmed the principle of the Bill. . There is only one principle in it, and that is the approval and ratification of the agreement contained in the schedule. The preamble provides -
Whereas, the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom and the Governments of the Commonwealth and of New Zealand have entered into the agreement set out in the schedule of this Act, subject as far as it affects the Commonwealth to the approval of the Parliament.
The only other part of the Bill which is of importance is that appropriating money for the purpose of carrying out the principle. But what does Senator Matheson propose to do 1 He proposes that there shall be left out of the ratification a portion of the agreement. It is that portion which first of all states the purpose of the agreement. It is as follows : -
The Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, &c, and the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and of New Zealand, having recognised the importance of sea power- in the control which it gives oversea communications, the necessity of a single navy under one authority by which alone concerted action can be assured, and the advantages which will be derived from developing the sea power of Australia and New Zealand, have resolved to conclude for this purpose an agreement, as follows : -
So that the operative words of the agreement are in what the honorable senator calls the preamble. .
– There could be no agreement without it.
– I - If honorable senators look at the rest of the articles, they will have no doubt as to what the object of the agreement is. But it is in the first portion of it - which the honorable senator calls the preamble - that the actual purpose is stated. Having affirmed the principle of the Bill, what right have we in Committee to leave out this portion of the agreement ? I am not dealing with the question as a matter of order, but on its merits. To carry this amendment would be to do something in direct contradiction of the motion for the second reading of the Bill. What does the honorable senator suppose that he will gain by leaving out the preamble?Apparently his object is that there shall not be this statement of principle underlying the agreement -
The necessity of a single navy under one authority by which alone concerted action can be assured, and the advantages which will be derived from developing the sea power of Australia.
The honorable senator does not agree with that statement, but if he carries his amendment, which will have the effect of striking out that portion, what will it do ? It will either make the agreement of no effect or the approval of it of no effect, which is his object.
– No.
– I - If it has not that effect of what use is it ? We should not be bound in any other Parliament after the agreement had expired by any statement which occurred in its preamble. We should be free to take any action which might be thought desirable. Whenever the agreement comes to an end, the preamble, whatever it may be worth or whatever the reason for it may have been, will come to an end also.
– But during the interval it will tie our hands.
– How How ?
– Because it affirms the principle that the navy shall be under one control.
– I - In what way could it tie our hands ? There is only one way in which the honorable senator could suggest that it could possibly operate, and that is in the direction of our creating a fleet for the purpose of harbor defence.
– Yes, it would stop that.
– How How could it possibly affect that 1 Does the honorable senator seriously argue that the power of this Parliament under the Constitution to provide for and control the Naval Defence of the Commonwealth would be taken away by the preamble to this agreement ? . The suggestion that it would be taken away is perfectly absurd.
– What is the object of it otherwise1?
– Tha That is exactly the question which I asked. The object of the amendment is to defeat the Bill - to strike out the agreement.
– I ask what is the object of the clause if it is not to prevent us from doing that ]
– T - The clause is a statement of the principles underlying the agreement.
– And an affirmation that the agreement has been arrived at ?
– Yes Yes. It cannot affect in any way the power of the Parliament to legislate, the power of the Executive Government to act in any way when it becomes necessary to take steps, for the Naval Defence of the Commonwealth. It can serve no purpose except to destroy the approval of the agreement, if we say that we approve of something which is a part of the agreement, but which is not the agreement itself. Let us look at the matter from the stand-point from which we would regard a similar transaction in ordinary affairs. The Prime Minister has made this agreement on behalf of the Commonwealth, subject to the approval of the Parliament, and its approval is now asked. I submit that it can’ either approve of the agreement or disapprove of it, but that under the terms of the Bill it cannot say that it approves of all of the agreement except the preamble.
– Why should not the Parliament say that ?
– In In the first place it has already said that it approves of the principle of the Bill, which is the approval of the agreement, and in the second place it would be idle to put the Parliament in the position of not approving or disapproving of the agreement, but of suggesting a proposal which might, or ought to be, the foundation of another agreement. The honorable senator seems to forget that there are three parties to the agreement - the British Government, the Government of New Zealand, and the Government of the Commonwealth. We could not make an agreement by approving of a portion of it only. The whole matter would be at large again, and we should have to make a new agreement. Apart altogether from these considerations, which, it appears . to me, should induce honorable senators not to entertain the amendment for a moment, there is another consideration, sir, which I submit as a question of order. I contend that it is contrary t’o the principles which regulate our dealing with a Bill in Committee that you should receive or accept any amendment which contradicts the principle affirmed by the Senate when it passed the second reading - that the agreement, as set out in the schedule, is ratified and approved.
– The principle was that the Bill be now read a second time.
– T - The honorable senator cannot leave out of that formula the Bill itself. What Bill did the Senate decide should be now read a second time 1 It is the Bill which approves of the agreement set out in the schedule.
– We cannot ascertain what the Senate has approved of until the Committee has dealt with the Bill.
– T - That is begging the question. The Bill which the Senate read a second time is a Bill which approves of the agreement set out in the schedule. I submit to you, sir, that the Senate having agreed to the principle - that the agreement set out in the schedule be approved - an amendment which seeks to alter the agreement is in contradiction of that principle. To strike out a portion of the agreement, and to apply the approval to a portion of the agreement only, is tantamount to disapproving of it, because it disapproves of a portion, and therefore disapproves of all of it. It is almost a contradiction in terms of the principle affirmed in the second reading. I assume, from some interjections which Senator Matheson has made, that he may argue that the preamble is not a part of the agreement. That cannot be contended for one moment, lt is the portion which contains the names of the parties and sets out the purpose of the agreement, the portion which is necessary in order to the proper understanding of every one of the articles that follow. The honorable senator cannot escape f tom the consequences of the position I am putting by taking out the first portion of the agreement, and making the approval of the Senate apply to only the articles. In other words, the portion which he is dealing with now is just as much a portion of the agreement as any one of the articles, and to leave it out, would be to remove words that form an important part of the agreement.
– The part which ties our hands.
– D - Does not the whole agreement tie Our hands in this respect, that we are bound to follow its provisions, just as it ties the hands of Great Britain, but to no other extent 1 It does nol take away a single shred of power from us. It does not take away or abate, in the least degree, our constitutional powers. It does tie our hands to this extent, that we are bound to provide this subsidy. It ties the hands of Great Britain to the extent that it is bound to supply the ships in accordance with the articles. But to what other extent does it tie our hands t Surely if we approve of the agreement we are willing that our hands shall be tied. That is the meaning of our approval. I submit, sir, that the amendment is in direct contradiction of the general principles of the Bill as approved by the Senate on its second reading.
– The amendment proposed has several aspects. I would ask Senator Matheson whether it is at all necessary that he should have moved the amendment in the place and under the circumstances which he has indicated ? It is just as well, perhaps, that the broader question, which in explaining his amendment he dwelt upon, should be discussed now as at a later stage. The insertion of the words “ articles of the “ after theword “ the “ would not enable my honorable friend any the more effectually, supposing that the Committee has the powerto do it, to make the suggested amendmentin not what is called the preamble but thedescriptive part of the agreement. It would not put him in a better position to do that, than he would be in when we came to deal with the schedule. Therefore it would be unnecessary, except that it is convenient toraise the question now, to have that particular amendment dealt with. I think that Senator O’Connor will agree with me that it would be a mere quibble to say, when we came to. the agreement, not having inserted the words “ the articles of “ in this clause, that we were not in a position to deal with the initial paragraph, as well as with what are strictly and technically the articles ofthe agreement.
– That was the contention raised in another place.
– That is a very small matter. The really important question which has been dealt with first on its merits, and secondly as a point of order, is what is the effect of the second reading of a Bill 1 What are our powers in Committee in dealing with a Bill of this character, and whether any amendments are possible which affect the agreement intended to be approved by the Bill, and change it in any particular? I approach , the matter from’ this stand-point that, having assented to the principle of the Bill,. I am not prepared to support any amendment in the terms of the agreement. Honorable senators know that rightly or wrongly I have expressed myself strongly on the principle, that we should not have a bargain of this description with the mother country, but as that principle has been assented to, I am unable to say more than I said at the second-reading stage. If there is to be a bargain at all, this is a most excellent bargain for Australia. Therefore, as regards the details, I am unable tosupport any amendment. I make that statement in order that it may beclear that I am approaching the matter from, in one sense, a perfectly indifferent point of view, because, whether there was a ruling which excluded this amendment or a similar one, or whether amendments were put to the vote and negatived, the result, so far as I am concerned, would be the same. T think it is- rather important that the two points of view should be fully considered. In the first place I agree, that, in assenting to the principle of this Bill, the Senate, by a majority, has declared that it approves of this instrument. The position seems to me to be really that the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, as I say, rightly or wrongly, subject to the approval of Parliament, has put his hand to the instrument or agreement which is embodied in the schedule to this Bill. The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth considered it his duty, in accordance with the obligations to Parliament into which he had entered, to ask Parliament to declare that his signature to that instrument is the signature of the Commonwealth. The second reading of the Bill by the Senate is a declaration that, in the opinion Of the Senate, the signature to the agreement is the signature of the Commonwealth. If that be so, to use a legal expression, we cannot approbate and reprobate. We may disagree with it as much as we like, but, the Prime Minister, having put his hand to the agreement, believing that he would secure the pledge of the Commonwealth through its Parliament, we having read a second time a Bill which says in one line that “ the agreement set out in the schedule is hereby ratified and approved,” have declared that that signature was in reality our signature to the instrument. The instrument consists not merely of the particular articles, but necessarily, also, of the earlier portion to which reference has been made. It consists of the paragraph which -describes the high contracting parties. We could not have an instrument at all without those words. There is Jio particular virtue or mystery about an agreement between high contracting parties, whether representing the mother country, Australia and other nations, or other nations and the mother country, or representing individuals. Every instrument contains this description of parties, and the description therefore in this instance must remain untouched. Then therefollow some other expressions which one may call the motive of the agreement. I may not like it, but it seems to me that in declaring that we approve of this Bill, which sanctions the agreement in a particular way, and that we accept the signature of the Prime Minister to the agreement as the signature of the Commonwealth, we are assenting to every part of the agreement into which he entered. I have said that I would father not have this bargain at all, but I am not prepared to stultify myself and say - the instrument having been signed and completed in this way - that, although we have sanctioned the signature, we may introduce some new conditions or strike out some of its terms, for that would be the effect of the amendment. That is how it strikes me, and much as I fear - and I have given expression to my fears - what may arise in regard to the best interests of Australia through her seeming to depend upon resources other than her own for her defence, still the Senate, .by a majority, having assented in that form to this particular instrument it seems to me impossible that we can strike out now on the merits - I am not speaking about the ruling which has been asked for - any portion of it, because to again use the legal phrase, that would be approbating and reprobating.
– Then the Bill should be passed as a f formal matter in Committee.
– I should like to point out, and I do so with the fullest sympathy with my honorable friend, Senator Matheson, and no one has expressed sympathy with the honorable senator more strongly, that the portion of the agreement to which the honorable senator refers to illustrate his point, does not tie the hands of Australia in any way whatsoever. I think it right to say that, because I should be very sorry if forms prevented any of us, whether supporting the Bill or not, from seeking, so far as possible, to keep a free hand, as I am sure the Government of the Commonwealth and all of us wish to do, to promote our own naval defence in every particular that is not covered by the terms of the agreement. Perhaps Senator Matheson may agree with me particularly as I am in sympathy with the views he has expressed. The preliminary portion of the agreement contains the words -
Having recognised the importance of sea-power in the control which it gives over sea communication -
None can doubt that - the necessity of a single navy under one authority -
None can doubt that, so long as it is in addition and not substitutionary - by which alone concerted action can be assured.
Undoubtedly every one would assent to that. The remaining words show, it seems to me, a reservation which I think is unnecessary. I think it could never be contended for a moment that the hands of Australia were tied in any way whatever, but these words make it clear - and the advantages which will be derived from developing the sea power of Australia.
Of course one does not criticise an agreement of this kind, which is like a treaty with the mind of an attorney dealing with a small instrument. Probably Senator Matheson will agree with me that these expressions are large enough to cover that position. Therefore, on the merits, I think my honorable friend will probably hesitate to propose that these words should be struck out.
– The Prime Minister introduced a special clause in another place to counteract its force, but he afterwards withdrew it.
– I suppose the right honorable gentleman withdrew it because he thought it unnecessary. I think it unnecessary, but I was not aware of the fact stated, and I am obliged to the honorable senator for informing me of it. He has made himself a master of the subject.
– The Prime Minister thought it necsssary for the time being.
– And evidently on second thoughts the right honorable gentleman considered it was not necessary. I am sure my honorable friend would not rest his desire for an amendment upon that, which is a matter upon which any one’s mind might change. I do not put my opinion for a moment against that of the Prime Minister, but I ask Senator Matheson to consider the view I have ventured to suggest to him, as I put it, from a perfectly sympathetic stand-point, and to say whether he really thinks it necessary that his amendment should be pressed, even from the point of view of the merits of the case, and, as he put it, because of the possibility of tying the hands of Australia in establishing its own naval defence, if it felt financially and otherwise able to do so. One word on the point of order as to whether this or similar amendments may be accepted on that ground. As to that, my honorable friend, Senator Charleston, interjected just now a very pertinent question - whether we go into Committee upon a Bill of this nature merely as a matter of form, and without that power which we assume to .be inherent in Committee of the Whole to make amendments in any Bills which may be introduced. It does strike one at first sight that that is an anomaly, and that it seems to be a restriction on the powers of the Committee. But when we come to examine it, it really is not, because it is the Senate that deals with the principle of the Bill, and the Committee of the Whole is really a subordinate body. Ear instance, in many instances a Committee of the Whole, although consisting of the same personnel as the Senate, has no power to deal with particular classes of amendments, unless an instruction to the Committee to do so is moved in and carried by the Senate. That in such cases, is the authority for the action of the Committee, and that shows that it is a subordinate body. If a Bill is of such a character that the carrying of the second reading is an affirmation of the principle, and the Bill contains only one clause which re-affirms that principle in detail, it will be seen that a Committee of the Whole would do violence to the wish of the Senate if it interfered with that clause. That seems to me to be the position here. If the Senate has said “We affirm this particular agreement ; we declare that the signature to it is not the mere personal signature of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, but is the signature of the Commonwealth,” “of the Government of the Commonwealth,” to use the phrase used in the preamble ; and we in Committee of the Whole should alter that, or nullify it we should, to that extent,.be neutralizing the decision of the Senate. I have not sufficiently investigated the subject, but it may be that there are ways of escape from that position. I have stated how it strikes me. Speaking from memory, I believe that certain Bills dealing with one subject and consisting of one clause embodying the principle which the second reading of the measure has affirmed are, in the House of Lords for that reason, never taken into Committee at all. I speak from recollection, but I believe that such Bills are passed directly across the Committee stage, so to speak, to the third reading. The matter might be one which the Standing Orders Committee could conveniently consider. It might be thought advisable in order that the Committee might have the most complete freedom, that there should be some way of escape from that situation, but it is more consonant with parliamentary procedure that the Senate should dominate and not the Committee. Whatever the view is, and whether there is a rule on the subject or not, it does seem to me that it would be an anomaly if an alteration were made which would practically cut down or reverse the principle of a Bill affirmed on the second reading. I do not know that any other view occurs to rae, so far as regards the point of order, but the apparent restriction on the part of the Committee is a very serious one. I say the “apparent restriction,” because I do not wish to commit myself to the point one way or the other. Looking at this as a matter of common sense, one would say that the Committee, especially without an instruction which has not yet been moved, could scarcely pass an amendment which conflicted with, cut down, or reversed the decision of the Senate, as given on the second reading.. The preamble of the Bill is of course a different matter, which does not now arise. But in substance the question is this : Have we by the second reading affirmed the principle ? Has the Senate given its approval to the signature to this particular instrument? If the principle has been approved by a majority, it is difficult to see, as a matter of order, under what form a conflicting amendment’ can be admitted.
– I see no difficulty in the point at issue. The object of the Bill is to approve of the agreement, and the second reading has been carried by the Senate. The Bill goes into Committee because the standing orders require that every Bill shall go into Committee, but, as Senator Symon has pointed out, the Committee is subordinate to the Senate, and can only deal with such parts of a measure as have not been dealt with by the Senate, and never in such a way as to be inconsistent with a decision already arrived at. The standing orders say that a Bill shall, after it has been read a second time, go into Committee, but underlying all these rules on the point there is the fact that the Committee is inferior to the Senate, and can never consider or deal with that which has already been considered and dealt with by the Senate. I look on that view as the clearest possible syllogism. The Senate sends to the Committee details which it has not considered, but when the Senate has approved of an agreement, which is a comprehensive and “ complete thing, it has dealt with the whole of it, and going into Committee is a pure formality which can have no possible effect. As set out, the Bill is a Bill to approve of an agreement, and the Senate, having approved of that agreement, cannot send it on to the Committee in order to find out whether or not it is a good agreement. To do so would be to give the Committee the power of saying that it did not approve of the agreement, but disapproved of the action of the Senate. The Bill is to do one thing, and one thing only, and we have to either carry the Bill or reject it. As I say, going into Committee is the purest matter of form.
– A make-believe.
– As the honorable senator pleases. We are the same members, whether we be in the Senate or in Committee, and we are governed by standing orders in order to prevent undue discussion. The standing orders which control us, whether we be in Senate or Committee, are the result of careful thought over many years, directed to finding out the best way of arriving at wellconsidered decisions without offering too many opportunities for preventing a final settlement. Of course, we can suspend the standing orders if ever special circumstances require it. We have decided by a very substantial majority that this agreement be approved of, and if, on going into Committee, the whole question is re-opened, the Senate will have to accede to the proposition that the Committee have a power to disapprove of its action. That, I venture to say, would be unconstitutional and improper, and would place the Committee in conflict with the Senate - a position which could not be endured.
– - I do not appreciate the spirit which has prompted the point of order. Senator O’Connor, when asked a. question some time ago by Senator Stewart, in reference to the action of the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference, said that the Prime Minister had undertaken not to in any way bind Parliament, or, in other words, had undertaken not to deprive Parliament of its perfect freedom of action.
– P - Parliament had perfect freedom to throw the Bill out,, if it thought fit.
– Certainly, Parliament had the freedom, but Senator O’Connor knows that very frequently Legislatures affirm the second reading of a Bill in order that its provisions may be considered in Committee.
– But Parliament makes a Bill, and does not make this agreement.
– Let me draw the attention of honorable senators to the fact that the standing orders provide that when a Bill is brought up for second reading, and the motion “That the Bill be now read a second time” is carried, the measure is taken into Committee. Standing. Order 291 is as follows : -
Any amendment may be made to a clause provided the same be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill, or pursuant to any instruction, and be otherwise in conformity with the rales and orders of the House ; but if any amendment shall not be within the title of a Bill, the Committee shall extend the title accordingly, and report the same specially to the House.
Honorable senators will see that we may move an amendment to a clause providing the amendment be relevant to the clause and otherwise in order. If honorable senators take up the general position that we cannot amend the provisions of the Bill they are absolutely out of court in regard to the particular amendment of Senator Matheson, who simply proposes to insert the words “articles of the.” Does that amendment in any way conflict with the provisions of the Bill, the principles of the agreement, with the power of the Imperial authorities to take the Australian Squadron out of Australian waters, or with the proposal that we shall pay £200,000 per annum ?
– No ; but Senator Matheson explained that the amendment is prefatory to something else.
– That point need not enter into our consideration here. The amendment on which the Chairman is asked to give a ruling is the insertion of three simple words, which, no matter what Senator Matheson’s preface may be, do not interfere in any way with the provisions of the measure.
– Except that the carrying of the amendment would be equal to affirming half and rejecting half of the schedule.
– Senator Symon seemed to be of opinion that, once we had agreed to the second reading of a Bill, we adopted its provisions.
– No, no.
– Senator Symon expressed the opinion with regard to this Bill that we cannot amend the schedule, because the schedule is the Bill.
– Yes - that the schedule is the very thing of which we have approved.
– “Will Senator Symon cast his mind back to the discussion on the Customs Tariff Bill, which was assented to as an Act on the 16th September, 1902? The Customs Tariff Bill consisted of about half a dozen prefatory clauses and the schedule. Will the honorable and learned senator contend for a moment that because the schedule to the Customs Tariff Bill contained the main principle of that Bill, we agreed to the schedule when we passed the second reading ? I imagine what the honorable and learned senator would have said if Senator O’Connor had taken a similar view of the schedule to the Customs Tariff that he takes of the schedule to this Bill.
– I - I would not take such an objection in the case of the Customs Tariff Bill, because it would not be applicable.
– The Customs Tariff Bill was read a second time, and when it was taken into Committee honorable senators proceeded to make something like 100 amendments in the schedule. The very fact that the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives moved an amendment - though it is true he afterwards withdrew it - shows that the opinion of the Government then was that this Bill could be amended.
– T - That amendment did not touch the agreement at all.
– Nor does the amendment of Senator Matheson.
– On what clause was the amendment moved in the other House ?
– On the preamble.
– I do not remember, but it was to the effect that nothing contained in the agreement should prevent the Commonwealth from establishing its own navy.
– That amendment was to add words to the preamble.
– That amendment was moved in the House of Representatives, and the Government evidently thought then that the House had a perfect right to make such an amendment, although it conflicted in a remarkable manner with the provisions of the measure. That point, however, is not before the Senate. Whatever ruling the Chairman might give regarding an amendment which vitally amended the principles or provisions of a Bill, he cannot in regard to this particular amendment rule otherwise than that it is in order. I do not know what has led Senator O’Connor to think that we cannot move an amendment in this Bill. We have no standing orders of our own dealing with the matter other than the standing order I have quoted, to the effect that we may move an amendment to any clause. We have never before had a Bill of this character before us, but Senator O’Connor knows very well that according to May, an amendment may be moved to a clause which will nullify the provisions of a Bill, but that a new clause, which would have that effect, cannot be inserted. May goes on to say that if a Bill is amended in the latter direction, the Government have no other course open to them but to withdraw the Bill. That may be the object of honorable senators who wish to move amendments, but even if it be so, they have a perfect right to move amendments under the standing orders. Senator Downer said that the object of the standing orders is to prevent too much discussion’; but in that the honorable and learned senator is wrong. The standing orders are intended to protect the rights of the minority. There are standing orders to enable us to stop discussion at a certain stage, when the House may think it has heard enough from various speakers ; but let the objections to the amendment be taken in a manly way, without a proposal to apply the gag so that the public may not understand the position.
– S - Surely the honorable senator does not call the standing orders a gag? The honorable senator has just said that the standing orders are for the protection of the minority.
– There is a standing order providing that when the Senate or Committee think there has been sufficient discussion, or at any time, a member may move that the question be now put. To stifle discussion is evidently the object of the Government. The agreement itself was arranged in a Star Chamber fashion. The speeches of the Colonial Premiers have not been published. The Premiers arranged amongst themselves that they should be kept secret. The Government know that this Bill is unacceptable to the public. If not why do they attempt to stifle debate %
– As the honorable senator took up nearly a whole day in discussing the Bill he cannot complain.
– These interjections, remind me of the plaintive chirp of a wet chicken on a damp night. What reason is there why amendments should not be moved in Committee 1 It is quite possible that the minds of some honorable senators are not so closed to argument that they may not agree to some of the amendments which are proposed. My own opinion is that if the Bill is to pass at all, certain conditions should be stipulated. Will it be contended that if New Zealand or Australia modified any of the terms of the agreement it would cease to have force and effect 1 I appeal to honorable senators not to commit a great wrong in their anxiety to rush the measure through. They will be committing a wrong if they determine that the Committee is not at liberty to propose amendments.
– An extraordinary doctrine has been laid down by the VicePresident of the Executive Council ; one that is altogether subversive of any ideas that I have entertained concerning parliamentary government. We know the history of this agreement. . Sir Edmund Barton went to Great Britain, and made an arrangement with Mr. Chamberlain that an agreement which had been prepared must be ratified by the Commonwealth Parliament before it became effective. This Bill proposes to ratify that agreement. The Vice-President of the Executive Council says that only two courses are open to us - to say either “yes” or “no.” That is a most extraordinary proposition. Are we not the representatives of the Commonwealth 1 Can we not say whether we agree to the whole of the provisions of the agreement, or to one article or to a dozen of them 1 Can we not reject particular articles ? Can we not alter the agreement in certain particulars ? The Vice-President of the Executive Council contends that we cannot alter a single word of it. If he is able to carry out that view, it appears to me that we are making a fresh departure. The ordinary course of a Bill is that it is brought in and read a second time. That affirms a particuar principle. The principle of this Bill is that we enter into an agreement with Great Britain.
– No, the principle is that we consent to the whole agreement.
– The principle is that we enter into an agreement, not necessarily this one. Of what earthly use is it to ask us to subscribe to an agreement with Great Britain unless we have the power to make an alteration in that agreement. The title of the Bill is-
A Bill for an Act to approve of an agreement.
When we passed the motion for the second reading we approved of an agreement being made. We now have to take the Bill clause by clause. We do not approve of the agreement contained in the Bill until we pass clause 2, which says that -
The agreement set out in the schedule is here by ratified and approved.
We have known many instances where members of Parliament have voted for the second reading of a Bill, and have plainly stated that they intended to amend the measure in Committee. Senator Symon, though opposed to the agreement, considers that by passing the second reading of the Bill we virtually accepted the agreement. I do not know where there is any principle of law in that contention ; but it appears to me that it is an outrage on parliamentary procedure. If the Vice-President of the Executive Council feels sure that he has a majority behind him, and I believe that he has, he ought to be content to defeat amendments when they are put in proper order. That is the constitutional course. But it is the height of folly to bring down a Bill, pass the second reading, take it into Committee, and then tell us that we cannot move amendments. What is the purpose of taking a Bill into Committee except to consider it clause by clause, and give an opportunity for amendments to be moved? I shall -be very much disappointed if we are not permitted to move amendments.
– I think that both Senators Stewart and Higgs have fallen into the error of confusing this Bill with an ordinary Bill. The object of this Bill, put shortly, is to give parliamentary sanction to the signature of the Prime Minister, and nothing else.
– Although the Bill is before the Committee.
– Yes, although in my opinion the Chairman would be right in accepting an amendment to the preamble to the Bill, not the so-called preamble to the agreement. Senators Charleston and Stewart have asked why we are in Committee. My answer is that we are in Committee because we still have the power, although the Bill is of a very peculiar nature, to make an amendment in its preamble. But I submit that as regards the operative words of the Bill and the schedule, it is not competent for the Chairman to accept any amendment which would violate the principle which was agreed toby the Senate at the second - reading stage.
– -That includes the preamble.
– The preamble to the Bill has nothing to do with the ratification of the signature of the Prime Minister. The principle of the Bill is to give parliamentary sanction to that signature, and inasmuch as that principle has been affirmed by the Senate, it cannot be reversed by the Committee. The amendment before the Committee is to insert the words “ articles of the.” I find myself unable to say that if Senator Matheson intended to stop there the amendment could not be accepted by the Chairman. We have been led by Senator Matheson to understand that the insertion of the words is proposed for a specific purpose ; and, inasmuch as the words would not be inserted unless that specific purpose were intended to be accomplished, it would be idle and futile for us to accept them.
– A - Assuming the words to be accepted that cuts down the approval of the Bill, as affirmed on the second reading.
– I feel inclined to go quite as far as Senator O’Connor asks me to go; but seeing that we all agree that we can insert no amendment which would do violence to the principle of the Bill as affirmed on its second reading, I think we should not be too ready to say that the correction of a grammatical error in its operative parts could not be made by the Committee. I intend to oppose the amendment, but I hope that it will be ruled out of order. I dislike the idea of the power of the Committee being taken away, but the position is brought about by the extraordinary fact that the Government did not take full Ministerial responsibility for the agreement. I have searched and searched fruitlessly for a precedent in any House of Parliament. I cannot find that such means as we have seen adopted to secure the ratification of this agreement have been adopted elsewhere. Suppose that a treaty has to be signed in Great Britain, the House of Commons does not deal with the treaty, but the Minister accepts full responsibility for his action. Or suppose that the Postmaster-General of Great Britain is entering into an agreement to give a subsidy, he takes full Ministerial responsibility for his action.
– B - But there must be an appropriation which binds Parliament to pay the money.
– Yes ; but~ the appropriation ought to be asked for in a separate Bill. I hope that this position will not recur. My view is that the Prime Minister should have accepted full Ministerial responsibility for making the agreement, and that if ‘ the Parliament had disagreed with his action as regards either principle or detail he should have faced the situation. I believe in every sentence of this Bill, but I do give some credit to those who- disagree with my view. I recognise that they have been placed in a position of extreme difficulty by the procedure which has been adopted. Although they may agree with everything in the Bill excepting perhaps a detail affecting one ship, they are unable to suggest a modification of the agreement. If the other procedure had been followed, and the action of the Prime Minister had been taken exception to, a motion of censure could have been proposed.
-Col. Neild. - I understand that the amendment is admittedly moved for the purpose of destroying the Bill. No Committee has power to destroy a Bill. That power rests with the Senate alone, and on that ground I submit that the amendment is out of order. The amendment is also outside the title of the Bill, which is set out to be a Bill approving of an agreement. The amendment does not seek to approve of the agreement but to alter it. I submit that although in ordinary circumstances it would be possible to amend the preamble to a Bill in order to make it suit any amendments which had been made, the preamble to this Bill could not be altered to meet the condition of the proposed amendment without nullifying it ; because it would have to be altered to the extent of setting out that it was not a Bill to approve of an agreement, but a Bill to do something else. I submit- that on these grounds the amendment is out of order.
– The point of order which Senator O’Connor has raised is that the principle of the Bill has been affirmed by the Senate, and that any amendment would be out of order which would have the effect of nullifying the agreement. I hardly see that my amendment comes under the definition which he has laid down. If it were made, the clause would then read -
The articles of the agreement set out in the schedule are hereby ratified and approved. “ The articles “ are those portions which contain the principle of the agreement ; and I absolutely fail to see how any one can contend that the insertion by the Committee of a distinct approval of the articles of the agreement could be held to destroy the principle which had been affirmed by the second reading of the Bill. I cannot follow the legal mind into the intricacies of the argument which Senator O’Connor apparently seems to find perfectly simple, but to the ordinary lay mind there is nothing incongruous or destructive in the amendment which I suggest. The honorable and learned senator, to make his case good, endeavoured to induce the Committee to believe that the descriptive part of the agreement, which it is admitted is what I take exception to, is an essentia] part of the schedule. He was obliged to do that because otherwise his contention that my amendment was destructive would have fallen to the ground. I call your attention, sir, to the exact wording of the lines, at the beginning of the schedule in which the principals to the agreement are stated. Senator O’Connor led us to believe that the principals to the agreement were mentioned in the descriptive part, but they are not. They are only stated in the heading to that part as follows : -
Agreement between His Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Colony of New Zealand.
I submit that if the descriptive part were omitted, and the first article were placed under that heading, the agreement would not be damaged or damnified.
– I - Is it not a portion of what the parties agreed to ]
– No. It is absolutely unnecessary for the purposes of the agreement. It merely recites that the
Commissioners for executing the office of the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom and the Governments - that is to say, the representatives of the Governments - of the Commonwealth of Australia and of New Zealand met in London. Then they proceeded to recognise principles, and we are told here what they did. This is a sort of diary or history of what happened at their meetings. They talked, and they recognised the importance of the naval power under a single authority, which they state on their ipse dixit produces a certain result, and they refer to the advantages which they fondly hoped Australia would derive from this agreement. That is all that is contained in the descriptive part which can in no sense be called a part of the agreement. The essential parts of the agreement are contained in the articles. I am but a layman, yet it seems to me that Senator O’Connor was imposing upon our intelligence when he told us that this descriptive part simply follows the lines laid down in an ordinary agreement. In these days we never dream of going into all these’ finer details in an ordinary agreement, though in past days it was the custom to rehearse all these matters. I understand that the system of drafting agreements has entirely altered since those days, and reference to those matters is now almost always omitted. I desire to keep strictly to the point of order, and I hope that, before giving his ruling, the Chairman will pay some attention to the points I raise - first of all, that my amendment does not affect the principle of the Bill ; and, secondly, that this descriptive matter is entirely outside any portion of the agreement, and is merely a rehearsal.
– In the ruling I am about to give, I shall confine myself strictly to the amendment before the Chair. In my opinion, the agreement contained in the schedule cannot be altered. I do not say the same concerning the covering portion of that agreement.
– Which is that?
– That is the form of the Bill itself. I do not think the agreement can be divided. It is obvious that the amendment must have the effect of eliminating a vital portion of it. It seems to me that it would eliminate the very parties to the agreement, and certainly the important part is that which says that the parties have agreed amongst themselves upon certain terms and upon a certain agreement. As in my judgment it must have the effect of reversing a principle, which I will not fully state now, carried on the second reading of the Bill, I rule that the amendment is out of order.
– I move -
That the following words be added : - “Provided that officers and men employed in the Naval Force on the Australian Station are hereby prohibited from using against any enemy bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as jacketed bullets, of which the jacket does not entirely cover the core, or has incisions in it.”
I am prompted to move this amendment by something which has occurred quite recently. I am satisfied that a majority of the public of the Commonwealth are not in favour of the use of bullets which will wound an enemy in a terrible manner, and possibly place that enemy beyond any chance of recovery.
– I raise a point of order with regard to this amendment. I ask whether it is not a distinct contradiction of the ruling the Chairman has just given. So far as I have been able to understand it, the amendment is one which is intended practically to make a certain condition a part of the agreement, and the Chairman has decided that the agreement cannot be altered. I. should like to point out that the three originial copies of the agreement are existent somewhere else, and are not here at all. There is a copy of the agreement attached to this Bill as a schedule, for the purposes of identification and information. This Bill would be quite as effective, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, if instead of having a schedule attached in which the terms of the agreement are set forth, it proposed merely to affirm an agreement entered into in London between certain parties who signed it. The schedule attached to this Bill is merely for the purpose of identification and information, and that being so, though we might alter every line of the schedule, we could not alter the agreement which is in the possession of other people, and is not before us at all. The object of the amendment is distinctly to add something to the schedule, although the addition is proposed in a clause of the Bill, the intention is to make an additional provision in the agreement.
– To make the acceptance of the agreement contingent upon a condition.
– The honorable and learned senator * has raised an important point. The intention is to make the acceptance of the agreement which the Senate has decided to accept as it stands, contingent and conditional upon something else.
– Before the Chairman decides the point of order, I should like to draw attention -to the fact that we are asked to approve and ratify a certain agreement, and we can surely say upon what conditions we are prepared to do so. Some honorable senators may think that to carry the amendment would be tantamount to nullifying the agreement because the other parties to it may not fall in with our views j but I think we are still quite entitled to sa3’ that we approve of the agreement provided that the forces engaged are not permitted the use of a certain class of weapon, a weapon which is not used by any civilized nation, or rather which should not have been used by any civilized nation.
– Then why insult our nation by thinking that it is not civilized ?
– Senator Dobson has overlooked the fact that I corrected myself. I say a weapon which should not be used by any civilized nation.
– Then it will not be used, except in very desperate circumstances t
– That is just what I desire to see our forces guarded against.
– If Australians were being shot at by other people with these objectionable bullets would the honorable senator still desire his limitation to apply ?
-Col. Gould. - The limitation applied in South Africa when- the Boers used these bullets.
– If Senator Gould chooses to bring up that point, I should like to remind him that certain boxes of cartridges, containing these dum-dum bullets, were found when the English were defeated at a certain place.
– We are not discussing the merits of the amendment at the present time, but whether it is in order.
– Senator Gould interjected.
-The interjections were disorderly.
– I withdraw them.
– As the honorable and learned senator withdraws them, I may proceed. There is no possible ground for Senator Millen’s point of order. I do not propose to interfere with this agreement in any way. If my amendment be carried the £200,000 may still be paid, and the Imperial authorities may still retain control of the squadron. But of course there will be a certain proviso containing the condition upon which the Senate will ratify the agreement. The Bill cannot be ratified by the Senate except in a certain way. The standing orders provide that the Bill must be read a first and second time. It would not have been possible for me had I wished to do so to move my amendment on the second reading stage. Under the standing orders, we can deal with a Bill on the second reading only in a certain way, on a motion “ that the Bill be read a second time,” or “ that the Bill be read this day six months.” The standing orders give these as the questions which may be submitted to the Senate, and that is the procedure which must be followed. I could not have moved that the second reading should be agreed to, provided that the sailors were not allowed to use expanding bullets.
– The honorable member could have moved it as an instruction to the Committee.
– I could not have moved it as an instruction to the Committee, on the motion “That the Bill be now read a second time,” though such a motion could have been made- immediately after that motion had been . carried. There are only the two ways to which I have referred, in which the second reading of a measure is submitted to the Senate. The standing orders governing the matter were agreed upon, in order to provide some business-like method of procedure.
– The whole trouble is that this is an extraordinary Bill.
– It is a very extraordinary Bill, very extraordinary people propose it for our acceptance, and a very extraordinary method is being adopted to pass it into law. I remind honorable senators that I could not have moved this proviso until the Bill got into Committee. The standing orders provide that in Committee we may move any amendment to any clause providing the amendment is relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. I contend that the amendment I have proposed is relevant to the subject-matter of this Bill. ‘
– One may add to what has been said that if for the sake of argument, the Committee determined to accept the proviso suggested by Senator Higgs, it would thereupon necessitate a second agreement being arrived at with the Imperial authorities and the New Zealand Government. The sole matter which we have to consider is whether we shall accept this agreement or not, and the Senate has decided to accept it. Any amendment which will have the effect of requiring a further agreement must therefore be out of order. And, further, according to the ruling of the Chairman on the last point of order raised, and I regard it as a very proper ruling, we cannot take anything away from this schedule ; and we therefore cannot add anything to it. as that would be quite as objectionable, from the point of view of order, as to take anything from it. The fact that this amendment must have the effect of adding something which is not at present contemplated, to the agreement, and must thereby necessitate the acceptance virtually of two agreements instead of one, shows that this amendment is out of order.
– T - The honorable senator who proposes the amendment is in the difficulty that if it is relevant it can be relevant only by being made a condition of the agreement, and, according to the ruling already given by you, sir, that cannot be done, because that would be to add to the terms’ of the agreement. If it is not part of the agreement but a condition imposed or an instruction given by the Committee in approving of the agreement it is quite irrelevant to the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to approve of this particular agreement. In whatever way we look at the matter it appears to me that the mover of the amendment is in the difficulty that the amendment is out of order as being irrelevant, or, if it is not irrelevant, that it is out of orderas being an alteration of the agreement by way of addition.
– The view I take of the amendment immediately before the Chair is this : Here is a Bill purporting to ask the approval of Parliament to a certain agreement, which, when we refer to the schedule, we see is an agreement made by three Governments subject ‘ to the ratification of Parliament. We are now engaged in the process of giving our approval to, or of otherwise dealing with the agreement. It is true that we have passed the second reading of the Bill, and affirmed that it is desirable to approve of the agreement. As I say, we are now ‘ engaged iti the process of giving approval, and it is competent, of course, for the Committee either to give its approval direct, or to disapprove, or, in my opinion, to attach a condition to its approval. In other words, it is competent for the Committee to say that they are prepared to approve of the agreement mentioned in the schedule, subject to a certain condition - that is, to give a conditional approval. Of course I may be wrong, but I am expressing the view I take. I cannot think that the Committee is so tied up as to be incapable of making a recommendation to the Senate that it is desirable certain conditions should be attached to our approval. I feel it to be my duty to dissent to any proposition of that kind. It is for the Senate, when the recommendations go before it, to either adopt or reject them ; and therefore, we are not obliged to say “yea” or “nay.” I think we can, if we so determine, attach a condition, as I have said, to the approval which we are asked to give, and which we are now engaged in the process of determining upon. The next point I have to consider is whether the amendment ‘is relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. According to Standing Order 291 -
Any amendment may be made to a clause, provided the same be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, or pursuant to any instruction. . . .
In my opinion, the amendment is relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. Of course the effect of adding a condition to the agreement will be necessarily, to compel further negotiation. I would also say that I am precluded from referring tocertain authorities in connexion with this matter, but honorable senators will find some instructive reading on the subject in Hansard, pages 2442-3-4. I cannot go into any details of the kind-. In my opinion, therefore, the amendment before the Chair is relevant.
– Senator O’Connor does not challenge that ruling 1
– I - It is a question of time, and it is an easier way to allow the discussion on the amendment to, proceed.
– I agree with Senator O’Connor that the easier way is to go on with the discussion, and I am glad the honorable and learned gentleman has returned to a proper frame of mind. I was speaking, when interrupted by the point of order, of something which occurred quite recently, and which has prompted me to take my present course. War is disastrous and awful enough with the bullets of’ the Lee-Metford and Mauser rifles, without adopting special kinds of bullets with the object of inflicting greater destruction. Quite recently, I saw from the newspapers that, because the Somalis could not be stopped by the Lee-Metford bullet, it had been decided to adopt a special kind of gun and bullet with greater stopping power. Is that quite right 1
– The object is to kill the enemy.
– The honorable senator knows that the nations of the earth have been endeavouring to, as far as possible, humanize war. If the object is to kill the enemy, why not poison wells and rivers 1 That is not done, because it is not humane to take such steps. I admit that the task of humanizing war is great and difficult, but it is simply devilish to adopt a bullet which will inflict great gaping wounds, and make it impossible for the victim to recover. What was our pride in the case of the South African war ?
– It was the most humane war that ever was waged. The honorable senator ought not to insult the Empire.
– -The honorable and learned senator has got the Empire on the brain ; and I cannot help thinking that he has hopes of a title or something of the kind. Our pride in the South African war was that we adopted a bullet which, while stopping the enemy, gave him a chance of recovery. The Lee-Metford bullet, bad as it is, gives that chance, but I shall show, later on, that it is as cruel a bullet as could be used. In the Melbourne Herald of 30th July this year there appeared the following : -
Additional particulars have been published of the despatches received from Brigadier-General Manning in reference to the disaster in Somaliland, on the 17th April, to Lieutenant-Colonel Plunkett’s detachment, when the LieutenantColonel and niue other British officers and a number of native troops were killed. As already announced Brigadier-General Manning reported that the primary cause of the disaster was the eagerness of Lieutenant-Colonel Plunkett in pushing forward, contrary to orders, to get in early touch with the Mad Mullah’s forces. The latest announcement is that the Brigadier-General adds in his despatch that the immediate cause of the defeat and almost annihilation of the detachment was the inefficient “ stopping-power “ of the LeeMetford bullet.
What does the Imperial War Office expect ? About thirty British officers and men were sent out to Somaliland to act with native troops, numbering 1000, against the Mullah. I know that the opinion of British officers is that one Englishman is equal to three or four other Europeans, and equal to a whole regiment of back Africans. It is not reasonable to expect such a small force as I have mentioned to overcome vast hordes of Africans. Honorable senators who have read anything about the fights of the Boers with Zulus and other African races know that the latter are very powerful people ; and the only way to cope with them is to send out a sufficient force in time of war. But, because the small force sent out has proved unequal to cope with the bravery of the Somalis, the War Office has decided to adopt a special gun and bullet with what they describe as greater “ stopping power.” The Lee-Metford bullet, which is the regulation bullet in the British Army, .is disastrous enough; but before drawing attention to its destructive powers I wish to read the following extract from the Argus of 10th of August this year : -
A cable message published in the Argus last week conveyed the intelligence that the Imperial War Office had decided on sending ammunition of more effective “stopping power” than the -303 nickel bullet to Somaliland. The reason of this will be fully understood by those acquainted with the pertinacity of the fanatic followers of the Mullah. Though answering the purpose in civilized warfare, it is generally recognised that the -303 bullet as issued is not possessed of effective stopping qualities. It may penetrate a man or animal from side to side, but if it does not touch a vital part, will do little damage. A savage requires to be stopped on the instant. It is of no avail to penetrate him with a wound that produces no immediate effect, even though it may prove fatal hours afterwards. The bullet must produce instantaneous damage. .South Africa afforded endless examples of wonderful recoveries from wounds which, if inflicted with the old leaden bullet, must have proved fatal. The penetration of the abdomen, thorax, and even the brain, has in some cases caused nothing beyond a little temporary inconvenience. Yet, take the same nickel bullet and weaken the hard metal thimble of it near the nose, either by filing away the point, so as to expose the lead, or splitting it at the side, and .i remarkable change will be effected. A man or beast struck by such a bullet seems paralyzed as the bullets of older rifles could not paralyze him. No matter where struck, he seems incapable of further exertion. The cause of this is that, on hitting a substance, the bullet “mushrooms,” and breaks up, completely shattering the surrounding tissues. Such a bullet is, however, disallowed in civilized warfare, as a result of the Hague International Conference, but is not prohibited in fighting savages.
There is a cold-blooded description of. this bullet which it is proposed to use in Somaliland, and the use of which is approved of by the War-office of a Christian land. Are we not aware that during the South African war men were sometimes wounded as many as half-a-dozen times by Mauser bullets ? Sir A. Conan Doyle, in his book upon the war, speaks of a man named De Montmorency who exercised rather a remarkable influence over his followers : -
He had formed a corps of scouts, consisting originally of four men, but soon expanding to seventy or eighty. At the head of these men he confirmed the reputation for desperate valour which he had won in the Soudan, and added to it proofs of that enterprise and judgment which go to make a leader of light cavalry. In the course of the reconnaissance he ascended a small kopje, accompanied by three companions - Colonel Hoskier (a London volunteer soldier), Vice (a civilian), and Sergeant Howe. “ They are right on top of us,” he cried to his comrades as he reached the summit, and dropped next instant with a bullet through his heart. Hoskier was shot in five places, and Vice was mortally wounded, only Howe escaping. The rest of the scouts being farther back, were able to get over and to keep up a fight until they were extricated by the remainder of the force. Altogether our loss was formidable rather in quality than in quantity, for not more than a dozen were hit, while the Boers suffered considerably from the fire of our guns.
We decorate the breasts of our gallant soldiers with the Victoria Cross, but when it .comes to dealing with savages, who may merely be armed with spears and shields, we are not satisfied with the Lee-Metford bullet, but want to provide a bullet with what is called greater stopping power, and which will place those whom it hits beyond the reach of recovery. Let us see what the Lee-Metford does, and ask whether it is. necessary for a civilised people to adopt any other kind of bullet. At page 965 of the Parliamentary Papers of the House of Commons, volume 65, for the year 1889, honorable senators will find a report from Surgeon-Lieut. David W. Sutherland, I.M.S., staff and civil surgeon of the Chitral relief force, to the principal medical officer of the force, dated 25th August, 1S95. He deals with some sixteen cases of men who were injured with the LeeMetford bullet, -303. The first case which
I will quote is numbered four in his report. It is the case of a wound in the shoulder -
Sirgun, aged forty-eight, resident at Batkhela Ranizai. He was in a sangar on the Malaka and pass on the Srd April, until the cry went up that the guides had gained the ridge above his right. On hearing the cry he turned towards the ridgeto fire, and straightway received a Lee-Metford bullet through his left shoulder, at what he thinks would be 100 or ISO yards range. Hecame to me in August to show the injury, and then had a scar of entrance behind the left shoulder, over the hinder border of the deltoid, about one inch below the spine of the scapula. This scar was small, slightly longer than the diameter of the bullet and irregular . . . The scar of entrance was small and puckered, and the fibresof the deltoid in the immediate neighbourhood were wasted and atrophied, probably from a division of some of the circumflex branches of supply. He gave the history that the bulletstruck with some amount of force, but did not cause much pain. His gun was in his right hand at the time, and he did not stop to drop it, nor did he fall himself. There was great bleeding at the time, and it lasted for some nine hours afterwards. He stayed upon the hills that day, and went home at night. . . In fifteen daysthe entrance wound healed.
Is it not enough for the British War Office that a bullet shall put a man hors de combat ? The next case which I will cite isthat of a man aged 45 who was a resident of the same place. He was shot in theright thigh by a bullet from either the Bedfords or the Sixtieth Rifles.
He came to me early in August so that notesmight be made upon his injury, and had then a scar on the outer side of his right thigh, justabout the junction of its upper and middle thirds, where the bullet had entered. . . . He tell& me that he was some thousand or more yards distant when struck, and that he immediately fell to the ground, not so much from the severity of the injury, but from his being what hecalled a . 1-i…. dil” (feeble-hearted) man. . The bullet, he said, struck him with force, and the wound caused him much pain. The hemorrhage from the wound at the timewas very great. He was lifted by four of his. friends and carried home, and both the wounds, of entrance and exit were healed completely five days afterwards.
– Was he wounded by a Mauser bullet ?
– No ; by a Lee-Metford bullet. The Mauser bullet is even a. more humane bullet than the Lee-Metford. It will drill holes through a man’s bones, but the wound heals very rapidly. Another case is that of a man who was wounded with a Lee-Metford bullet, which caused him a little inconvenience, and he continued, to fight for three quarters of an hour longer,. when he got a bullet through the jaw which struck him beneath the chin.
The bullet then passed upwards and to the . right, Crossing the middle line of the neck, and just opening into the floor of the mouth, after which it perforated the lower Jaw just outside the cunine fossa, and in its emergence detached a portion of the outer plate of the jaw, which was afterwards cast out as a sequestrum. The jaw itself was not fractured. From this wound there was great pain and much bleeding, and upon receipt of it he discontinued the fight and went home.
– The honorable senator is proving that the Lee-Metford has no stopping power.
– But does not the honorable and learned senator realize that we ought to be satisfied to fight savage nations with a bullet of this description ? We must give them credit for being brave and courageous men. I will not quote any more of these cases ; they are too gruesome. At the Peace Conference, which was held at the Hague in 1899, all the powers, with the exception of two, agreed to a resolution. Captain Crosier, who represented the United States, supported it strongly. Sir J ohn Ardagh represented Great Britain, and on behalf of the British Government he read the following declaration to the Conference : -
I ask permission to offer to the High Assembly some observations and explanations on the subject which has already been voted upon - the -question of bullets. In the session of 31st May an article was accepted by a large majority against the use of bullets with a hard jacket, of which the jacket does not cover the entire core, but has incisions in it. It seems to me that the use of words describing technical details of construction will have the effect of rendering the prohibition somewhat too general and result in its being disregarded, and that it will not seem to admit an exception for which I wish to provide, namely, the construction in the present or in the future of a projectile with a sufficient force to stop an individual who has been hit, and to put him out of the struggle immediately, and which thus fulfils the indispensable requirements of war without at all occasioning useless suffering. The completely jacketed bullet of our Lee-Metford rifle is deficient in this regard. It has been proven that in one of our small wars in India a man perforated five times by these bullets was still capable of walking to the English hospital at a considerable distance for the purpose of having his wounds dressed. After the battle of Omdurman, quite recently, it was shown that the greater number of the dervishes who were wounded , but who had still saved themselves by flight, had been hit by small English bullets, at the same time when the Remington and Martini bullets of the Egyptian army were sufficient to put the soldiers hors de combat. It was necessary to find a more efficacious means of warfare, and, with this object in view, the projectile known under the name of the dum dum bullet was manufactured in India at the arsenal of that name near Calcutta. In the dum-dum bullet the jacket ends by leaving a small piece of the core uncovered. The effect of this modification is to produce a certain extension or convexity of the point, and to give a force more pronounced than that of a bullet which is completely jacketed, at the same time, however, less effective than that of the Enfield, Snider, or Martini bullets, all of which have greater calibre. The wounds made by this dum-dum bullet suffice, ordinarily, to give a stopping shock, and to place a soldier hors de combat ; but their effect is by no means calculated to cause useless suffering.
He continued to speak in the same strain, and then one of the representatives of the United States supported his position -
Captain Crozier supported the position of Sir John Ardagh, and deprecated the attempt to cover the principle of prohibition of bullets producing unnecessarily cruel woundsby specification of details of construction of the bullets, and he proposed the following formula as an amendment : - “ The use of bullets inflicting wounds of useless cruelty, such as explosive bullets, and in general every kind of bullets which exceeds the limit necessary for placing a man hors de combat, should be forbidden.”
There were only two nations represented at that world-renowned Conference,, who declined to sign an agreement not to use those bullets which cause useless suffering. The reason given by the representative of Great Britain that a man was actually able to walk to the hospital after having been wounded five times was a flimsy argument to use in support of the adoption of an expanding bullet. The Lee-Metford bullet drills a hole through a man, and gives him a chance of recovering, but the bullet which it is proposed to use in the Somaliland campaign, will, when it strikes the human body, turn off and flatten, inflicting a gaping wound, and giving the victim no possible chance of recovery. If we are what we pretend to be - the representatives of a civilized Christian people - we shall not object to this amendment. We have a right to do as the majority of the civilized nations are trying to do - to humanize war as much as possible. If we are to have war, let us be satisfied with drilling a hole - not a tunnel - through a man. The amendment, if carried, will bring this subject prominently before the War Office, and no doubt the British Government, who have had sufficient intelligence to recognise the advantage of
Australia as a base for supplies of coal and so forth, will have sufficient brains to understand what is meant. In article 4 of the agreement, in which they announce that they see the advantage of Australia as a base, they testify to their opinion of Australians, and no doubt they will accept our views as embodied in this amendment. I hope to get some support from Senator Walker. I do not see the honorable senator in the Chamber, but I know that the light of Christianity illuminates his countenance. Surely he cannot refuse to support an amendment which is intended to prevent any of our soldiers from absolutely shattering an enemy ? If he is as anxious as he says he is to serve the interests of what he describes as his “coloured brother,” he will support the amendment. I hope that honorable senators will not be found ranging themselves against this civilized proposal, or taking the view that we wish to place ourselves behind the educated nations of Europe. We are always claiming that our country is the home of liberty, that it is an asylum for every political exile. To maintain that claim we ought to adopt the most civilized method of warfare that suggests itself to us. The’ Lee-Metford and Mauser appeal to” the majority of nations as the most humane bullets to be found. We have no right to file away those bullets so that they shall inflict greater injury on the enemy - we ought to be satisfied with placing him in such a position that he cannot carry on the fight. Honorable senators should not be led away by the accounts of the charges which were made by what are described as the fanatical followers of the Mad Mullah. They ought not to be led away by the fact that those nien charged bravely and in large numbers into thinking .that the bullets of the Lee-Motford rifle are inefficient, and that something more deadly and disastrous is required. I wish to know whether the Minister for Defence is in favour of adopting the expanding bullet, and whether his colleague intends to support my proposition.
Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put. The Committee divided.
5 19
14
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
Majority
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived.
Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I move -
That the following words be added : - “Provided that the Naval Force on the Australian Station shall not take part in any war between the United Kingdom and any other country until the United Kingdom shall have offered to submit the question and questions in dispute to the Hague International Arbitration Tribunal, as established at the Peace Conference at the Hague in the year 1S99.”
The base of this force shall be the ports of Australia and New Zealand, and their sphere of operations shall be the waters of the Australia, China, and East Indies Stations, as defined in the attached schedule, where the Admiralty believe they Can most effectively act against hostile vessels which threaten the trade or interests of Australia and New Zealand. No change in this arrangement shall be made without the consent of the Governments of the Commonwealth and New Zealand; and nothing in the agreement shall be taken to mean that the naval force herein named shall be the only force used in Australasian waters should the necessity arise for a larger force.
In article 3 it is provided -
This force shall be under the control and orders of the Naval Commander-in-Chief for the time being appointed to command Hia Majesty’s ships and vessels on the Australian Station.
It is quite clear from these articles, and from the whole scope of the agreement, that it is intended that in case of war every method shall be adopted which appears to be necessary for the protection of the trade or interests of Australia and New Zealand against hostile vessels. How can that be said if we attach a condition to our approva of the agreement - I do not care whether in form it is inserted in the agreement itself or not - that this force which is to be used for the purposes I have indicated, is not to be put into operation at all, and is not to take part in any war “ until the United Kingdom shall have offered to submit the question, and questions in dispute to the Hague International Tribunal as established at the Peace Conference at the Hague in the year 1899.” I say that this is really altering the agreement. We have already decided on the second reading of the Bill that the agreement, as set out in the schedule, “ is hereby ratified and approved.” I shall not deal with the matter now, but the Chairman has already ruled that a condition may be imported into the Bill. The amendment, which was ruled in order, dealt with the method of fighting, but Senator Higgs now goes quite beyond that and proposes to provide that this force shall not be used at all in the defence of Australasian interests unless in the case of a war which has been engaged in by the United Kingdom after it has submitted the question and questions in dispute to the Hague International Tribunal. I find it difficult to argue a question of this kind seriously and with decorum. The object of the amendment is clearly not that it shall be made a part of the agreement, but that some discredit shall be brought upon it, and that it shall be put into such a form that the Bill will have to be abandoned. As a question of order, I think it is quite clear that if an amendment of this kind can be . accepted, no matter in what part of the Bill it is moved, it is possible to accept an amendment which will altogether reverse the principle affirmed on the second reading, and which will be in contravention of the ruling already given by the Chairman. The fact that the amendment is put in the form of a condition makes no difference if in itself it alters or contradicts the terms of the agreement.
The maintenance of general peace and, a possible reduction of the excessive armaments which weigh upon all nations, present themselves in the existing condition of the whole world as the ideal towards which the endeavours of all Governments should be directed.
The humanitarian and magnanimous ideas of His Majesty the Emperor, my August Master, have been won over to this view. (
I may say that this circular was presented on behalf of the Czar of Russia by Count Mouravieff, the Russian Foreign Minister - la the conviction that this loft)’ aim is in conformity with the most essential interests and the legitimate views of all powers, the Imperial Government thinks that the present moment would be very favorable for getting, by means of international discussion, the most effectual means of insuring to all peoples “the benefits of a real and durable peace, and above all of putting an end to the progressive development of the present armaments.
Iu the course of the last twenty years the longings for a general appeasement have become especially pronounced in the consciousness of civilized nations. The preservation of peace has been put forward as the object of the international policy ; in its name great States have concluded between themselves powerful alliances ; it is the better to guarantee peace that they have developed in proportions hitherto unprecedented their military forces, and still continue to increase them without shrinking from any sacrifice.
All these efforts, nevertheless, have not yet been able to bring about the beneficent results of the desired pacification. The financial charges, following an upward march, strike at the public prosperity at its very source.
The intellectual and physical strength of the nations, labour and capital, are for the major part diverted from their natural application and unproductively consumed. Hundreds of millions are devoted to acquiring terrible engines of destruction, which, though to-day, are regarded as the last work of science, are destined to-morrow to lose all value in consequence of some fresh discover)’ in the same field. ( National culture, economic progress, and the production of wealth are either paralysed or checked in their development. Moreover, in proportion as the armaments of each power increase, so do they less and less fulfil the objects which the Governments have set before themselves.
The economic crisis, due in great part to the system of armaments a l’outrance, and the continual danger which lies in this massing of war material, are transforming the armed peace of our days into a crushing burden: which the peoples have more and more difficulty in bearing. It appears evident, then, that if this state of things were prolonged, it would inevitably lead to the very cataclysm which it is desired to avert, and the horrors of which every thinking man shudder in advance.
To put an end to these incessant armaments, and to seek the means of warding off the calamities which are threatening the whole world - such is the supreme d uty which is to-day imposed on all States.
Filled with this idea, His Majesty has been pleased to order me to propose to all the Governments whose representatives are accredited to the Imperial Court, the meeting of a conference which would have to occupy itself with this grave problem.
This Conference should be, by the help of God, a happy presage for the century which is about to open . It would converge in one powerful focus the efforts of all States which are sincerely seeking to make the great idea of universal peace triumph over the elements of trouble and discord.
It would, at the same time, confirm their agreement by the solemn establishment of the principles of justice and right, upon which repose the security of States and the welfare of peoples.
Representatives of the nations of the whole civilized world, including even China and Japan, met at that Conference, and a variety of subjects were considered, including explosive bullets, the limitations of armaments, and arbitration ; and it was decided in reference to a majority of these matters to agree to the formation of what is called the Hague International Tribunal for the settlement of international disputes. I will not weary the Committee by reading the list of cases which have been referred to arbitration before that tribunal, but merely mention one or two. The other day there was a statement in the press that Great Britain had decided to refer’ the question of the rights of the property of British residents in Japan to that body ; and then there was the more important instance when Germany made war upon Venezuela, because the people of that country, owing to a revolution at the time, had some little difficulty in paying their German creditors. Germany at first apparently sought the advice and assistance of the Imperial Government of Great Britain; and I use the word “ apparently “ because we do not know what was done. The German Emperor paid a visit to the old country, and it is generally believed that an alliance between the two countries was the outcome, the object being to enforce the claims of both on Venezuela. The United States Government intervened, and owing to the persuasion they exercised, Great Britain and Germany agreed to refer the question to the Hague Tribunal. Great Britain and Germany tried very hard to get President Roosevelt to act as arbitrator, but he wisely declined to take the responsibility, and used his influence to have the question referred to the Hague. I hope that honorable senators will fall in with the views I have expressed. We have a great opportunity . in the Senate of placing on record our belief in a system of arbitration, which, I believe, will ultimately lead to the peace of the world. I shall not read the London letter which appeared in the Argus of this morning, but I ask honorable senators to look it up and observe that 100 frenchmen - who are not peace-at-any-price fanatics, but legislators of all parties, and gentlemen occupying the highest positions - are at present on a visit to England for the purpose of endeavouring to bring about a better feeling between the two countries, with a view to an agreement to refer any questions which may arise to the arbitration of the Hague Tribunal. For example, the question of territorial rights in the New Hebrides, which is exercising the minds of Australians at the present time, might very well be so referred. The London letter expresses the opinion of the writer that there is some want of confidence on the part of Englishmen in the Hague Tribunal. There need not, however, be any such want of confidence because the United States Senate unanimously agreed to adopt the arbitration proposal ; and in any arbitration in which the United Kingdom might be interested, a request could be made for representatives of the United States to form part of the Court. Then Great Britain could very easily request that representatives of Portugal should have a place on the tribunal, seeing, that that country has always been a very great friend of the United Kingdom. I ask the Senate to fall in line with our great companion Legislature in the United States.
Amendment negatived.
Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I move -
That the following words be added: - “Provided that immediately the United Kingdom is threatened with war there shall be despatched to Australia two cruisers of the fastest type with orders to cruise in Australian waters for the protection of the Commonwealth Inter-State seaborne commerce.”
I shall commend this amendment very briefly, because it appears to be hopeless to effect any change in the Bill. I shall simply point out that our Inter-State sea-borne commerce represents some £27,000,000 per annum, or a little more than half of the oversea trade between Australia and the United Kingdom. That Inter-State commerce ought to be protected should the Australian Squadron be removed from Australian waters.
Amendment negatived.
Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I move -
That the following words be added -“ Provided that any member of the Naval Forces of the Commonwealth shall have first claim to employment at his rank in the vessels forming part of the Naval Force on the Australian station. “
I submit this amendment with a view to protect the 1,000 odd men who are now engaged in the naval forces of the Commonwealth, and who, if the agreement be carried out in its entirety, will probably be thrown out of employment. The Government have said that they propose to protect these men as far as possible, but, after what has taken place, I should not trust the Government out of my sight.
Amendment negatived.
Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I move -
That the following wordsbeadded - “Provided that the United Kingdom shall not, without first consulting the Commonwealth Parliament, enter into an alliance with any foreign power for the purpose of doing any act or thing to enforce any claim upon any nation.”
I submit this amendment with a view to prevent alliances being made with foreign powers until we are first consulted. If we are to share in the burdens of Empire, surely we ought to have a voice in the Empire’s policy. Take, for instance, the alliance with Japan - do honorable senators not think that the Australian Commonwealth ought to have been consulted?
Amendment negatived.
Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I move -
That the following words be added - “Provided that the Naval Cadet movement established in Queensland is fostered and encouraged. “
I regret very greatly that I am not receiving greater support in my opposition to this measure, or in my endeavour to lay down certain conditions. I could positively shed tears at seeing this agreement passing through the Senate in this way, I view it as such a disgrace to the Commonwealth.
I must endeavour, as far as possible, to have provisions inserted which will conserve to Australia some of her independence. That movement is best described in Captain Creswell’s own words. The Brisbane Courier of 24th June, 1903, reports the return of that officer to Brisbane after several weeks’ absence in the North. That newspaper prints an interview with him as follows : -
Ifc will be remembered that the Naval Commandant left Brisbane in command of the gunboat Gayundah for the purpose of giving the men attached to the various Naval Brigades in the northern centres a week’s training on board the gunboat. In the course of an interview with a representative of this journal yesterday, Captain Creswell said that the original programme was carried out without variation, although occasionally marred by heavy wet on one or two occasions. These were at the beginning and end of the training cruise. At Maryborough^ men of that port, Bundaberg, and Rockhampton, unable to train at their regular appointed time early in the year, were given their week’s sea training and gunnery afloat from the 4th to the 9th May. The Cairns Corps were taken out on the 16th, and disembarked on 23rd May, the Gayundah cruising to the southwards of that port. We left Cairns on Thursday, 28th, called at Dunk Island and Lucinda Point, and arrived at Townsville on Saturday evening, 30th May. The Townsville Naval Brigade embarked on the 1st June, and were taken for training to the north, in the neighbourhood of Palm Islands, and completed their course on Saturday, 0th June. The Mackay Corps were embarked ou Monday, 8th. Here the trial was made of embarking some of the Cadet Corps. The departure of establishing Naval Cadet Corps is a purely Queensland work. I was at first not in favour of it as having any naval defence value. I am now quite of the other opinion. The Mackay’ Cadets gave promise of turning out really good men for their work. This movement, it’ continued on sound lines, has a great naval defence future before it, and has, I am informed, the very best results on the boys themselves, and I am Constantly informed it is thought highly of in the ports where they are in force - collects the best stamp of boys at a critical time in their lives, 15 to 18 years of age, when most liable to get into mischief, and gives them evenings and half-holiday work, in which they take the keenest interest. Their attendance is proof of this, and the first sample of these lads taken to sea has quite gone beyond in smartness, keenness, and anxiety to do well anything I had ever expected or hoped for. Six or twelve months under a good smart instructor makes different boys of them. The Australian boy afloat after such would, I think, be a revelation to many whose commonest impression is certainly not that of the keen, willing, active spirit they show afloat.
The naval cadet movement has a great future before it ?
Well, hardly ; I think it goes out, disappears, I fear, under the regime forecast, which is unfortunate, as a due appreciation of the worth of these lads would certainly result in the movement being continued. But there is not, I fear, the smallest chance of that.
There is Captain Creswell’s view of what is going to happen if this agreement is not modified. I consider that it is only right and proper to provide that the Queensland cadet corps shall be fostered and encouraged.
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - I should like to say a few words upon this subject, because I am in sympathy with the principle advocated by Senator Higgs, although it seems to me out of place to make an amendment of this sort in the present Bill. I should not like it to be supposed that -if I do not vote for his amendment at this juncture, I am not thoroughly in favour of keeping up the cadet corps at its present strength. I want to make my position clear as far as possible in that connexion.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment (by Senator Higgs) negatived -
That the following words be added: - “Provided that if at any time the terms of the agreement are” broken in any particular by either of the parties, the agreement shall cease to have force and effect.”
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble -
Whereas the Commissioners for executing ‘ the office, of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom and the Governments of the Commonwealth and of New Zealand have entered into the agreement set out in the schedule of this Act, subject so far as it affects the Commonwealth, to the approval of Parliament…..
– I have an amendment to move upon this preamble, which I think demands the serious consideration of “the Committee. I move - ‘
That the following words be added: - “and without prejudice to the right of the Commonwealth to build and maintain other ships of war or to the sole right to the control thereof.” [Committee counted.] I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council whether, in view of the lateness of the hour and the importance of the subject, he will not consent to an adjournment?
– I - I propose to go on until’ we have dealt with this Bill. - Senator PEARCE. - It is not fair. I have not spoken upon the Bill to-day, and it is impossible for this amendment to receive consideration at so late an hour.
– I - I cannot help that.
– I am only asking for fair play, and I shall not ‘abate one word of what I intended to say if I have to remain here all night. I direct attention to the preamble to the schedule, which says -
The Commissioners for executing the office of fjord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, having recognised the importance of sea power in the control which it gives over sea communications, the necessity of a single navy under one authority, by which alone concerted action can be assured, and the advantages which will be derived from developing the sea power of Australia and New Zealand, have resolved to conclude for this purpose an agreement as follows : -
Is it not a reasonable thing to say that if we give our imprimatur to an agreement containing this preamble, we pledge ourselves not to establish any naval force of our own whatever ? It is a perfectly logical thing to say that, having pledged ourselves to adopt this agreement in its entirety, we pledge ourselves to the principle that the whole of our naval force shall be under one control. What is that one control 1 It is the control recognised by this Bil), not the -control of the Commonwealth. We cannot keep up a single ship without doing something which is at variance with the agreement if we indorse it as it stands. I am in good company in moving this amendment. A similar proposal was submitted by the Prime Minister in another place in almost identical terms. I wish it were in order for me to quote what was said there, but I can -at all events quote the terms of the amendment there moved. They were these -
Nothing in this Act or in the said agreement -shall be taken to affect the purely Australian Naval Defence Forces, the ships, and armament maintained in the Commonwealth for harbor and coast defences. Such Australian forces, ships, and armament as may be approved of by Parliament shall be maintained by the Commonwealth, -and be solely under its control.
Here in somewhat different language is an amendment exactly similar to mine, affirming the principle that the Com monwealth shall retain power over its own coastal and harbor defence. I do not propose to limit my amendment in that way. We ought not to limit the powers of the Commonwealth in this direction. In another place an attempt was made to strike out the words of the preface to the agreement, for the purpose of showing that we agreed not to the prefatory paragraph, but to the articles of the agreement itself. By the adoption of such an amendment as this we should not be binding ourselves to the prefatory words, but the agreement itself would be just as valuable for the purposes of the British Navy and of the Commonwealth Government, if the prefatory paragraph were not there. If it is not a limitation of our powers, however, what is the value of it ? Its only meaning is that we, as a Parliament, recognise that the only naval force of the Commonwealth shall be the one under the control of the Imperial Government. There are honorable senators, and also members of another place, who, while prepared to accept the agreement, are not prepared to say that the Commonwealth Government shall not keep up other defence forces. The Government have given o.n undertaking that they will not interfere with such vessels as the Protector, the Gayundah, and the Paluma. But I undertake to say that if the technical meaning of this Bill is regarded, the maintenance of those vessels could be read as a breach of faith with the Imperial authorities, inasmuch as we are undertaking that our naval forces shall be entirely under one control. If they intend to maintain the Protector, the Paluma, and Gayundah there will be a divided control, because it is not proposed in the Bill to place those vessels under the control of the commander of the squadron. That undertaking will be a negation of the principle to which they will have committed themselves in the agreement. What is the history of this proposal in the other House 1 When a certain member expressed a desire to move the omission of certain words in the preamble, the Prime Minister withdrew his amendment, without prejudice, to afford that opportunity. When that honorable member did not propose his amendment, evidently the other House lost sight of the amendment which the Prime Minister had foreshadowed.
– The honorable senator should not refer to that.
– It is only right that the Committee should know that the amendment was considered necessary by the Prime Minister ; that it was not withdrawn because of the opposition it received, but merely to afford a member an opportunity of moving another amendment.
– T - That is not so.
– Probably it was withdrawn because it was found to be mere surplusage.
– I contend that if this agreement is so sacred that it must not be altered to the extent of one word, in the preamble, which is our property, to which the Prime Minister never committed himself, and which will not affect the agreement if it is altered in terms which I trust cannot be called surplusage, we certainly ought to guard very carefully, the power of the Commonweal th to institute a Naval Defence Force. I appeal to the supporters of the Bill, to whom I give every credit for their protestations of belief that the time may come when Australia should have a navy of her own, that, even if there be a suspicion of surplusage in putting in these words, they should be prepared to go to that extent. I cannot approach this question as a lawyer. The majority of the lawyers in the Chamber are supporting the Bill, and, therefore, I expect, will oppose this amendment. To my mind, as a layman, once we commit ourselves, as we. do in the Bill, to the principle of one undivided control of the navy, anything which savours of building up in Australia a navy which will not be under that control will be in direct conflict with this agreement. Since honorable senators say that it will not be in conflict with the agreement, and since the Government say that they are prepared at the time, at any rate, to exercise that power, where is the harm in putting in these words, especially when it will not delay the ratification of the agreement by one hour? I hope that the Committee will agree to insert the words unless very good reasons can be shown to the contrary.
– I should like to say a few words which I think will make Senator Pearce hesitate as to whether or not he should press the amendment. We must all recognise his absolute sincerity in seeking to preserve to Australia the full control of any additional naval force which she may see fit to acquire, and of extending so far as she may choose her coastal defences. On the other hand, I am quite sure he will recognise that, if a doubt does exist, neither the Imperial Government nor the Commonwealth
Government would be parties to any instrument which would practically paralyze the power of Australia to take independent steps in any direction which might seem toher fit, or to any extent which her finances might allow and necessity demand for her own protection. The legal view is that,, when you have to consider whether an agreementcarries out a particular intention or not, or whether it contains restrictions or not, you first of all see whether it is probable that such restrictions’ would have been introduced unnecessarily into an agreement not intended to tie the hands or limit the operations of one of the contracting parties, but rather to extend them. The words of the initial paragraph of the agreement are calculated, unless carefully examined, to produce a little confusion, but if Senator Pearce will look at the words he will see that everything he desires is sufficiently safeguarded. The motives for the agreement are not very elegantly or lucidly expressed, but the governing words are “ having recognised.” The first motive is -
The importance of sea power in the control which it gives over-sea communications.
The second motive is -
The necessity of a single navy under one authority by which alone concerted action can be assured.
The third motive for the agreement - anS there we must read in the words “ having recognised,” because it is not connected in any way with the one navy and concerted action - is
And having recognised the advantages which will be derived from developing the sea power of Australia.
It seems to me that the agreement absolutely recognises in its forefront the general development of the sea power of Australia.. If I entertained any doubt on the subject - first, from the intention of the agreement, and, secondly, from its language, I should support the amendment with a view from abundance of caution toprevent the possibility of doubt. But it seems to me that if we look first at the intention of the agreement, which could not be to paralyze the hand of Australia in this direction, and secondly at the language itself, it is as plain as possible that one of its objects is to give us this defence on the part of a portion of the Imperial Navy stationed in our Waters, and consequently - - one element is by providing for the training of men - to assist in any case in the general development of the naval power of Australia. I feel that there is not the slightest possibility under the agreement of any disability on the part of Australia to do whatever she may please to develop her naval defence in every way in which her resources will warrant.
– Senator Symon has said that the intention of the clause cannot be to paralyze the action of Australia. I am hardly inclined to agree with him in that respect. He must bear in mind that the agreement has arisen out of the very strong pressure which was brought to bear on the British Government by the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee an England, who were represented by Mr. Loring. His distinct object all through has been to prevent Australia from having a navy of her own. When I recollect all that has been written in the daily press on this question, I am not at all sure, in spite of what has been said here, that it is not intended to apply in exactly the way in which Senator Pearce and any other ordinary person would understand. I believe it is distinctly the intention of the Admiralty to discourage in every possible way the creation of a squadron, belonging to and controlled by Australia. I believe that the Admiralty equally desire to discourage our fitting out a single ship. Senator Symon did not show in any sense that the clause is undesirable ; he simply said that it is unnecessary.
– The rule for the preparation of documents is that the fewer words used to express what is necessary the better. Every additional word causes additional difficulty in construction very often.
– The honorable and learned senator may be right in the ordinary sense, but this amendment cannot be read as limiting or reducing in. any sense the power of the Commonwealth. It simply asserts that the Commonwealth possesses and intends to retain certain powers which Senator Symon says are constructively recognised in what has been called the descriptive part of the schedule. I shall support Senator Pearce in his endeavour to get the rights of the Commonwealth put on a basis about which there can be no possible doubt. I may call attention to the origin of the trouble which has arisen in connexion with the Pacific Cable Board and the Eastern Extension Company. The rights of each company were not sufficiently prescribed in the very beginning, and the result is that one company is claiming that the other should not have certain privileges. If we were to fit out any ships and endeavour to control them, it is quite clear that the British Government could, if they thought fit, say that in this schedule we had agreed that the whole navy should be placed under one authority, and that that authority alone would control any ships that we furnished. That is my view. I have put it as briefly as possible, and I shall support the amendment.
– I intend to support the amendment, because I think it will place the matter beyond all dispute. I listened very carefully to Senator Symon’s analysis of the preamble, but I have not been altogether satisfied. We have this distinct statement made here -
Having recognised the importance of sea power in the control which it gives over sea communication, the necessity of a single navy under one authority.
What does that mean? It means that there shall be no other navy in the Australasian waters than the Imperial Navy, and that that navy shall be under the control of the Imperial authorities.
– Suppose that next session Parliament should authorize the purchase of two cruisers, who
I could stop them?
– I do not know that Parliament could be stopped, but where would the single navy under one authority be then ?
– That would remain.
– That would refer merely to the British ships on the Australian station?
– To that portion of the Imperial Navy on the Australian station.
– Admitting that Senator Symon is correct, as he probably is, can any harm be done by the acceptance of Senator Pearce’s amendment, which places the matter entirely beyond a doubt.
– It throws a doubt upon the powers of this Parliament.
– According to Senator Pearce the Prime Minister himself * “ appeared to think that some amendment of this kind was required.
– T - The right honorable gentlemen changed his mind, upon it being represented that it would rather have the effect of throwing a doubt upon the power of the Commonwealth than otherwise.
– All I desire is that it shall be understood that the power of the Commonwealth is not interfered with by this initial paragraph of the agreement.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - I think we may fairly ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council to give us his opinion upon this question. It should not be beneath the honorable and learned senator to do so.
– I - If the honorable senator appeals to me personally, I certainly will do so.
– I do appeal to the honorable and learned senator personally.
– I - I recognise the motive which Senator Pearce has in moving this amendment, and it is perfectly in accordance with the agreement. The reason I oppose it is that, in the first place it is absolutely unnecessary, because the power to create, maintain, and use our own navy is given us by the Constitution, and we do not surrender any qf that power by entering into this arrangement for the special purposes set forth in this agreement. The purport of the agreement is that we shall contribute towards the upkeep of certain vessels which are to be used for the defence of Australia within certain limits under the control of the authorities of the British Navy. But the fact that we enter into that agreement, and use for the purposes of our defence, a portion of the British Navy, does not interfere in any way whatever with our power to deal with the naval defence of Australia, which may be exercised either by way of this agreement, or, in addition to that, by way of harbor defences, a fleet of our own, or in any other way we think necessary. Senator Pearce has referred to the amendment moved by the Prime Minister in another place. That amendment was moved under the impression that it was meaningless and could do no harm ; but it was pointed out to Sir Edmund Barton that so far from its doing no harm the effect of putting a proviso of that kind in the preamble would be really to throw a doubt upon the question whether the power of the Commonwealth, under the Constitution, was not, to a certain extent, affected by this agreement. The right honorable gentleman acceded to that view, and the House of Representatives allowed the amendment to be withdrawn at the request, of the honorable members who suggested it,, and who were opponents of this measure. It was for that reason that it was withdraawn, and it is for that reason I oppose it here, not only because it is meaningless and useless, so far as our general power is concerned, but. because it really may have the effect, if it has any effect at all, of throwing some doubt upon the right of the Commonwealth to exercise the powers given to it by theConstitution for the defence of the Commonwealth.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - In asking leave to withdraw the amendment I wish to say that if ever the question, is raised that we are in any way breaking the terms of the agreement if a proposal is brought forward to establish an Australian Navy, it can clearly be shown that it is. an understanding admitted by both parties* in both Houses of ‘ the Federal Parliament that we have that right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - I move -
That after the word “Parliament,” the following words be inserted : “And whereas it is understood that in Article 5, the ‘ special rates * shall be also equivalent to those in force at present for the Naval Forces under the Commonwealth.”
In the Senate, and also in the House of Representatives, the statement has been made authoritively that the rates of pay to be given to the Australian seamen in the Australian fleet will be the Australian rates of pay. Senator O’Connor was under the impression that this was a clause in the Bill, and when I called his attention to the matter he corrected himself, and said that in the Bill it was certainly not expressed as special rates of pay, but in his ensuing remarks he clearly led us to understand that the special rates should be the Australian rates of pay. I could speak upon this subject at great length, but I do not propose to do so. I desire merely to point out that in my opinion we are entering into this agreement to secure no other benefit whatsoever than the training of Australian seamen, and if the rates of pay offered are not the current
Australian rates of pay, the Admiralty will fail to secure any Australian seamen. This is the very core of this Naval Subsidy Agreement. I desire that there shall be no misunderstanding on the part of anybody, and it is therefore most desirable that the amendment I propose should be accepted. I remind honorable senators that it simply affirms the actual utterances of the Government. If the Government, by opposing this amendment, are going to vote against the affirmation of what they have told us, and the inducements which they have held out to honorable senators to pass this agreement, it will simply mean that they do not believe that its provisions will be carried out in the way they have suggested. If they do believe it, my amendment is entirely harmless. Senator O’Connor must admit that. It is not moved with any intention to affect the terras of the agreement in any way, It merely affirms that we understand that certain conditions are to be carried out.
Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 6
NOES: 13
Majority … … 7
AYES
NOES
Questionso resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - I move -
That after the word “ Parliament “ the following words be inserted : - “ And whereas it is understood that in Article 5 the three vessels therein alluded to arc to be third-class cruisers and the one other vessel a second-class cruiser.”
Article 5 of the agreement sets out that -
The three vessels used as drill ships, and one other vessel, shall be manned by Australians and New Zealanders as far as procurable.
We have been led to vote for the agreement entirely upon the statement which has emanated from the Prime Minister and the Vice-President of the Executive Council, that the three vessels there alluded to are to be third-class cruisers, and the fourth vessel a second-class cruiser. But there is not a word in the agreement which creates a binding obligation to that effect. It will, therefore, be within the power of the British Government to use smaller ships for the purpose.
Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 6
NOES: 13
Majority … … 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.
Senate adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 August 1903, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1903/19030826_senate_1_16/>.