View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
14 April 1904

2^nd Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT
QUESTION
- BLIND SEA-PASSENGERS
QUESTION
- CAPTAIN P. N. BUCKLEY
QUESTION
- MAILS FOR NEW ZEALAND
QUESTION
- DESIGN FOR POSTAGE STAMPS
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL ACT
QUESTION
- OLD-AGE PENSIONS
PRINTING OF PAPERS
PAPER
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
PARADE STATES
RENT FOR COMMONWEALTH PREMISES
QUESTION
- STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
FRAUDULENT MARKS ON MERCHANDISE BILL
QUESTION
- GRANT OF SUPPLY
QUESTION
- FEDERAL IRON WORKS
NAVIGATION BILL
PRIVATE BUSINESS
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

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

page 939

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Will the Government consider the advisability, for the purpose of the proper administration of the Immigration Restriction Act, of -

Fixing one port in each State as the only port at which Asiatics may apply for permission to land?

Appointing an officer or officers in each State specially charged with the administration of the said Act?

Senator PLAYFORD:

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

This would require an alteration of the law ifit were to be made general.
This question, and indeed the general system of dealing with Asiatics, has been under consideration for some little time. Probably in this relation the practice will be amended in some particulars at an early date.

page 939

QUESTION

BLIND SEA-PASSENGERS

Senator PEARCE:

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice -

Is he aware that local steam ship companies trading round the coast of Australia refuse to carry as passengers persons afflicted with blindness unless a monetary guarantee is provided by such persons?
Is this not in direct contradiction of the pro vision in the Constitution that within two years of the imposition of uniform Customs duties trade and intercourse between the States shall be free?
Will the Government inquire into the matter with a view to preventing this practice?

Senator DRAKE:
Attorney-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

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

I am not aware.
This is a question of law.
I will ask the Minister for Trade and Customs to inquire.

page 939

QUESTION

CAPTAIN P. N. BUCKLEY

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice-

Is the Minister aware of a proposal to ap point a Captain P. N. Buckley to the position of Inspector of Works in the Australian Military Forces’?
Is the Minister satisfied that no injustice is being done to those already in the Service, especially those in the Corps of Australian Engineers ?
Is the officeofsuch a nature that no officer already in the Forces can be. found to fill it?
Has any attempt been made to fill the position from within the Service by giving officers already in the. Service an opportunity of proving their fitness for the position?
Is it true that the regulations recently approved, have been specially worded so as to permit the engagement of the gentleman in question?
Will the appointment, if made, deprive any officers already in the Service of their seniority?
Is this the beginning of a system to fill all the chief positions in our military forces by Imperial officers?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

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

Yes, to be Inspector of Works, Engineers,

Victoria.

Yes.
The General Officer Commanding states “ Yes.”
The General Officer Commanding reports that there is no officer at present in the Military Forces of the Commonwealth who possesses the requisite technical and scientific knowledge.
No ; it is not true.
No.
Certainly not.

page 940

QUESTION

MAILS FOR NEW ZEALAND

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is the Honorable the Postmaster-General aware that the mail (or Mew Zealand, leaving Hobart on Saturday, 9th inst., at noon, was closed at Launceston on Thursday, 7th inst., at 7 p.m. ?
Why was it that such mail was made up at Launceston forty-one hours before the departure of the mail steamer from Hobart?
Is it to be inferred from this instance that for the future mails for New Zealand must be closed at Launceston before the’ day prior to the day of the departure of the mail steamer?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

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

The Postmaster-General is not aware that the mail for New Zealand, leaving Hobart on Saturday, 9th inst., at noon, was closed at Launceston on Thursday, 7th inst., at 7 p.m. 2 and 3. Inquiry is being made, and replies will be furnished in due course.

page 940

QUESTION

DESIGN FOR POSTAGE STAMPS

Senator KEATING:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

When does the Honorable the PostmasterGeneral intend to adopt a uniform design for postage stamps to replace the present State issues ?
Will he before so doing call for competitive designs?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The- answers to the honorable senator’s questions are .as fol-low : -

No determination has yet been arrived at on this subject.
Before any definite action is taken he will consider the advisability of inviting competitive designs.

page 940

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

If it is the intention of Ministers to introduce a Bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act by compelling each elector, unless reasonable excuse be shown, to exercise at every election his right to vote, arid also to remedy and supply such defects and omissions as the practical working of such Act has proved to exist therein?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows ; -

It is proposed to introduce an amendment’ to the’ Electoral Act. But the details of the measure have not yet been settled.

page 940

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

What action has been taken to give effect to the resolution of the Senate, unanimously adopted, on the and September, -.1903, on the motion of Senator Neild, viz; : - “ 1. That, in the opinion of this Senate, it is desirable that a system of old-age pensions be established by and ^throughout the Common’ wealth.

That the Government of the Commonwealth be requested to enter into negotiations with the Governments of the States constituting the Commonwealth with a view .to giving effect to the foregoing proposal.”

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The following is the answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

The Treasurer; in his Memorandum to the Treasurers of the States, at the Conference held in January last, called their attention to’ the fact that the transfer, by arrangement, of the payment of old-age pensions from the States to the Commonwealth would soon become a practical and pressing question (page 127). *

The Governor-General’s Speech at the opening of the present Session stated that - - “4. The readjustment of Federal and State finances ‘contemplated in such an arrangement will, it is hoped, present tin opportunity for the adoption of an uniform system of old-age pensions throughout the Commonwealth.”

It is hoped that the adjourned Conference, to meet at the close of this month, will mark a further step towards the attainment of this end.

page 940

– But we do not get the Gasette.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The regulations are in type, and all that it is necessary to do is to strike off a few extra copies for the use of honorable senators. I think that in future, sir, you can take it upon yourself to order that copies of any regulations laid on the table by Ministers, which are invariably .in print, should be circulated.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

PARADE STATES

Motion (by Senator Lt.-Col. Neild) agreed to -

That there be laid upon the table of the Senate copies of the parade states of the following reviews of the New South Wales Military Forces of the Commonwealth, viz. : -

Royal Review, 28th May, 1901

Coronation Review, 9th August, T902.

Japanese Squadron Review, 6th June, 1903.

King’s Birthday Review, 9th November, 1903.

page 942

RENT FOR COMMONWEALTH PREMISES

Motion (by Senator Keating) agreed to-

That there be laid upon the table of the Senate a return showing in detail the several amounts annually payable by the Commonwealth Government (as t:new expenditure”) by way of rent in respect of premises occupied by the various Departments of the Commonwealth Government in aid about Melbourne.

page 942

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Senator PLAYFORD:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · Protectionist

– I move -

That Senator Best be appointed a member of the Standing Orders Committee.

If honorable senators look at the Standing Orders they will see that it is provided that the Chairman of Committees shall be one of the members of the Standing Orders Committee. Senator Higgs has been elected Chairman of Committees, and we require to appoint another member of the Standing Orders Committee. It is for that reason that I propose the election of Senator Best.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 942

FRAUDULENT MARKS ON MERCHANDISE BILL

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for anAct relating to fraudulent marks on merchandise.

Bill presented, and read a first time

page 942

QUESTION

GRANT OF SUPPLY

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That an Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, praying His Excellency that, on all occasions when opening, or proroguing Parliament, due recognition shall, be made of the constitutional fact that the providing of revenue and the grant of supply is the joint act of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and not of the House of Representatives alone.

In submitting this motion, I desire to say that as the Senate now consists to some considerable extent of those who were not ‘ members of it in the last session of Parliament, I think it proper that in. as brief a form as. possible I should recount the proceedings that have led to my taking this action, in order that the matter may be- placed upon our records. I ask honorable senators who were members of the Senate in the last Parliament to recollect that on the 13th June, 1901 the Senate received from the House of Representatives the first Bill sent to this Chamber from the co-ordinate branch of the Legislature. It was a Bill professing to grant the sum of ^491,882 to His Majesty. The preamble of that Bill read as follows: -

Most Gracious Sovereign, - We, your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of

Representatives, in Parliament assembled, towards making good the supply which we have cheerfully granted to your Majesty in this session of Parliament, have resolved to grant to your Majesty the sum hereinafter mentioned. Therefore, be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows.

That was the first Bill that was ever dealt with by the Commonwealth Parliament; and I beg to remind honorable senators that, after it was read a first time, exception was taken to it on account of its preamble, and for- other reasons. The second reading was postponed until the next day. When the Senate met on the following day - that is, on the 14th June - I gave notice of motion as follows : -

That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to request the amendment of the preamble by the omission of all the words except the following : “ Be it enacted by the King’s Mo3t Excellent Majesty, and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows.”

The effect of that motion was to remove all the words which set out that the other Chamber had granted supplies, and that we, the Senate, had nothing to do but concur. I think that, at that time, reference was made by the then Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator O’Connor), to an American story of the “ Colonel and the Coon.” He related how the coon said - “ Don’t shoot, colonel, I’ll come down,” and there was a kind of suggestion that, if I did not shoot, the Government would come down. The Bill disappeared. It not only disappeared from this Chamber, but elsewhere also. A new Bill was brought into another place, and eventually was sent up to the Senate, containing this preamble -

For the purpose of appropriating the grant made by the House of Representatives.

When that Bill reached the Senate, I, on the 19th June, with the support of almost every member of this Chamber - if not with the unanimous support of the Senate - moved at once for an instruction to the Committee that this form of preamble should disappear also. And it did disappear. My motion was carried. The instruction was .given to the Committee; the Committee agreed to request the change; and if the change was not made in exactly the words that this Chamber requested, it was made substantially. On the 21st June the new Bill was sent by the House of Representatives to the Senate, with the preamble and enacting clause altered as follows : -

Be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, for the purpose of appropriating the grant originated by the House of Representatives, as follow*

We felt, I think, satisfied that the obligation of the Constitution had been sufficiently acknowledged in that phraseology, and we did not take the matter any further. I draw the attention of honorable senators to the fact - if it be necessary that I should remind them of it - that, except in regard to the origination of money Bills of a certain class, this Chamber has equal rights of jurisdiction and legislation with another place. It is a mere matter of convenience, that the Constitution provides that money Bills shall originate in another place. But the right of origination does not give any excess of legislative authority to another place over the authority enjoyed by this Chamber ; and when the House of Representatives, having altered its . Bill three times, sent it up again to the Senate in the form which I have described, the then PostmasterGeneral - now the Attorney-General - submitted a motion which was seconded by myself, accepting the third proposition as a “ happy issue out of all our afflictions.” The Bill was passed in that form, and from that day to this every money Bill for granting supplies to the Crown has come to this Chamber in that particular form, recognising the equal rights of this House to join in the grant of supply. It will be remembered that in the closing speech of the first session of the last Parliament, the GovernorGeneral specially thanked the House of Representatives in the following terms for the grant of supply -

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives, - I thank you in the name of His Majesty for the liberal supplies that you have voted.

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives, -

A special indication that the matter about to be alluded to had nothing to do with this Chamber. r3. The revenue derived from Customs and Excise has been equal to anticipations. As the incidence of duties under the Tariff contemplates the substitution of Australian for imported goods, no considerable expansion of such receipts under normal conditions is to be expected.

Evidently it is only to be anticipated under drought conditions.

The Estimates of Expenditure will be framed with economy, having regard to the magnitude and importance of the interests under your control.

Those two paragraphs addressed to the House of Representatives indicated in the plainest manner that English words can that the. grant of supply and the receipt of revenue was the sole business of the other Chamber, with which we the Senate had no part. Yet that address was absolutely delivered .within these walls. My honorable friend the Vice-President of the Executive Council, in one of the many speeches which he delivered on the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply - because I find that the honorable senator made more than one speech - when he had exhausted himself in his main speech he seemed to think df something else, and delivered himself of further opinions on the motion for the adjournment, and on Ministerial explanations. In one of his many death-bed repentance utterances, if I may so describe them, delivered on the 10th March, he quoted a portion of the Vice-Regal Speech. If I may say so without offence, the matter was misrepresented by him, inasmuch as he said that my objection was all based on the use of the word “ your “ to the other Chamber. But that was not the real ground of my objection. . It was not the mere use of the word “ your “ that led me to take action. It was the fact that these references to supply and to revenue were addressed to the House of Representatives only, and not to this branch pf the Legislature also. The honorable senator omitted to mention the fact that every word in the Vice-Regal Speech in which there was a reference to revenue and expenditure, was addressed to the other Chamber alone, and that no part or lot of any reference to the grant of supply or the raising of revenue made the slightest allusion to this Chamber. It is for that reason that I move this motion. The VicePresident of the Executive Council, in his kindly semi-jocular manner, said that he was really very sorry, and that if he had only remembered the matter at the Cabinet meeting what I complained of would not have happened. He said that the matter was overlooked, and so on and so on. But the failure to do something is not always a satisfactory excuse where important issues of this kind are involved. If it were a. mere personal matter between the honorable senator and myself, or affecting any other member of the Senate, there would be nothing in it. But, as has been very properly said by way of interjection by Senator Millen, we have a new Constitution, and I am quite sure that you, Mr. President, will indorse the sentiment that in the early action that is taken under a new Constitution the greatest attention and care must necessarily be given to the forming of precedents. I therefore appeal to honorable senators to’ agree with me that we should, in appropriate phraseology, indicate to the Governor-General who is the representative of His Majesty, and as such, is practically a part of our Parliament, that we take exception to the phraseology of his speech. Honorable senators will recollect that Parliament consists of the Monarch and the two Chambers of the Legislature and the Governor-General, as the representative of the Monarch, is practically a part of our Parliament. It is therefore appropriate that he should become acquainted with the wishes of this Chamber in reference to so important a matter, and that he should not run the risk of being led astray through the forgetfulness of Ministers. I submit that my motion is appropriately, and temperately worded. It merely refers to the position which this Chamber occupies under our Constitution. I may further say that I have no intention to withdraw the motion on this occasion. I say that, not because I think there was a breach of faith after I took action previously; but merely a matter of forgetfulness.

Senator Drake:

– There was nothing like a breach of faith.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I shall be pleased to hear what the honorable and learned senator has to say on the subject, when he . replies to me. I am quite sure that the majority of the Senate will vote for the motion. I have no intention of withdrawing it as I did before, because I think the time has arrived when our opinion should be put on record, and not be a mere question of some Minister’s lapse of memory. Therefore I beg with some diffidence, but with the hope that the motion will be unanimously agreed to, to submit it to the Senate.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).I beg to second the motion.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · Protectionist

– The honorable senator who has submitted this motion to the Senate, has assumed the position of an exceedingly watchful - I will not say dog in this matter ; he has evidently been extremely watchful concerning the privileges of the Senate, on this, and other occasions. I entirely agree with all that he has said with regard to the constitutional position. The matter naturally divides itself into three particulars. First there is the question of the form of the preamble of money Bills; secondly there is the form of the Governor-General’s Speech in proroguing Parliament ; and, thirdly, there is the form of the GovernorGeneral’s Speech in opening Parliament

Senator Neild had to admit . that the mistake made in the first instance had been rectified on every succeeding occasion ; so that that matter may be regarded as settled. The honorable senator cannot say that the Government have in any way departed from the promise they made, because in every money Bill introduced since, the preamble has been altered in such a way as to meet with his perfect approval. There remains the point on which Senator Neild rather unfairly taxes my colleague with having broken faith.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– No.

Senator PLAYFORD:

-“ Breach of faith “ were the words used by the honorable senator.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Neild said that it wasnot a breach of faith, but a lapse of memory.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– That is so.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The words I mentioned must have been used, because my colleague ejaculated that there had been no breach of faith.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– I said nothing of the kind. Senator Playford has already been corrected by yourself, sir, and he ought not to repeat his statement.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Whether Senator Neild did, or did not, intend to make such a charge, I know that my honorable colleague understood him to do so; at all events, my colleague was not likely to deny that there had been a breach of faith unless something in the nature of such a charge had been said. However, it is probable that the charge was made unintentionally, and may be regarded in the same light as the little lapses of memory which we all now and then have to acknowledge. In regard to the prorogation of Parliament, my colleague understood that the words objected to would not again appear in His Excellency’s speech, and that promise has been carried out clearly and unmistakably. I now come to the last phase of the question. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the opening speech of His Excellency, no reference was made to the Senate, the whole credit for the grant of supply being given to the other branch of the Legislature. On a former occasion I pointed out how that had occurred through absolute inadvertence, and in this connexion I cannot do better than read the remarks which I made when I distinctly promised that a similar reference should not again appear. As leader of the Senate, whose duty it is to guard the privileges of this Chamber, I am willing to acknowledge the mistake, and take a certain amount of blame for the appearance of those words. On the 10th March last, in submitting a motion relating to the order of business, I made reference to this matter in the following words: -

In making this motion I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks upon a question to which I omitted to refer when speaking on the Address in Reply.

I may say that when I spoke on the Address in Reply I had on my notes a reference to the subject, but, as sometimes happens to us all, I overlooked it. I went on to say -

The matter is to some extent a personal one, and also affects the Senate. I refer to the criticism passed upon paragraph 14 of the GovernorGeneral’s speech. The paragraph reads - 11 The Estimates of Expenditure will be framed with economy, having due regard to the magnitude and importance of the interests under your control.”

As that is addresed by His Excellency to the House of Representatives, the word “ your “ makes it appear as if the subject dealt with in the paragraph was under the sole control of the House of Representatives. That criticism has been offered, and i wish to say that, so far from that being in the minds of Ministers, we recognise that there is a dual control of Commonwealth finances. We know that if the Senate has not in every particular the same control’ over the finances as has the House of Representatives, it has a very considerable control, and a very much larger power than the Upper Houses of the States Parliaments.

We old politicians are in the habit of using the old forms without taking into consideration the altered position of the Senate on the one hand, and the House of Representatives on the other, and this is an instance in which an old form was by some means adopted-

I regret that the use of the word “ your “ in the paragraph quoted should have given rise to some little misapprehension as to what members of the Ministry really think. I take a certain amount of blame to myself as leader of the Senate that I did not read the paragraph in this light when it was under consideration by the Cabinet. I can assure honorable senators that there is no intention on the part of the Government to claim for the House of Representatives any more power over matters of finance than that House is entitled to under the Constitution.

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - I. have very little to say. Both Ministers cry peccavi, and then try to place some element of responsibility on me. For a Minister to suggest that a private member is to be made the sole guardian of the position of this Senate under the Constitution, seems to argue such a lamentable absence of any reasonable defence, that I offer my condolence to the Ministers on getting into a place so tight as to necessitate such a proposition. As to Senator Playford, his good-natured face removes all asperity ; like a patent pill, it removes all difficulties. He has only to give us one goodnatured glance to prevent our saying anything unpleasant; and we are happy to have in such a responsible position, one who keeps us, if not in good order, at any rate, in good humour. I repudiate in the most emphatic manner the charge that I suggested the smallest breach of faith to any one. What I said was that there had been a lapse of memory or want of attention. If I wanted any reason for carrying out my intention not to withdraw the motion, it is to be found in the pertinent interjection of Senator Styles a few moments ago, “Suppose there were, a change of Government?” Such changes do occur in the whirligig of politics, and what would become of us if we were bereft of the forgetful representation of the two present Ministers ? In the preparation of the next Viceregal Address those gentlemen might be absent, and there would be no watch-dog to see that due recognition . was given to the position which this Chamber occupies, not at our whim or personal fancy, but under the Constitution. I cannot see that the motion contains the smallest personal or party taint.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Could the motion not be amended so as to be a simple affirm’ation ?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– The motion has been moved, seconded,, discussed, and replied to, and I must .respectfully insist on taking the decision of my comrades as to whether it is a proper proposition to be affirmed by this Chamber.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 947

QUESTION

FEDERAL IRON WORKS

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I. move -

That this Senate affirms the principle of iron works being established and owned by the Federal Government, for the purpose of manufacturing pig-iron, and steel from native ore, believing this would be in the best interests of Australian industry, State rights, and Commonwealth prosperity.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity so early in the session of submitting this motion. We cannot give too much attention to this very important motion. So far, the Senate has not had an opportunity to discuss the question, although it has been twice brought before the other House. I quite expect that the Government will take up the attitude that my motion transgresses our constitutional rights. I’ do not intend to speak at any great length on the constitutional aspect of the question, as I prefer to leave its discussion to the legal members of the Senate ; but I cannot resist the temptation to quote the opinion which the Prime Minister furnished to the Chairman of the Bonus Commission when he was Attorney-General. Whilst it is not decidedly in favour of my motion, I do not think it .can be said to be decidedly against it. It reads as follows : -

You ask for my opinion, for the information of the Bonus Commission, as to the powers, if any, of the Commonwealth to establish iron works.

In my. opinion, no such power is included in the express gift of legislative power to the Federal Parliament.

The trade and commerce power, vast though it is, does not appear to extend to production and manufacture - which are not commerce.

Commerce only begins where production and manufacture end. (See Kidd v. Pearson, 12S, U.S., 1, 20.) Moreover, the fact that the trade and commerce power is limited to external and Inter-State trade and commerce indicates that the power which the States undoubtedly possess to undertake Government industries within their own limits is not shared by the Commonwealth under this sub-section.

Under sub-sections r, 2, and 3, taken together (trade and commerce, taxation and bounties) the authority of the Commonwealth over industrial development is of the largest ; but though it allows of control, regulation, and guidance, it in no respects points to direct establishment or management of any industries. Nor can I find in any other part of the Constitution any express authority for the course suggested.

The implied powers of legislation remain to be determined, but include (under sub-section 39, of section 51) matters “incidental” to the exercise of the express powers.

The manufacture of iron may be incidental to the execution of many such powers, e.g., defence, or the construction of railways. The Commonwealth might clearly undertake the manufacture of any goods for its own use ; and probably if it did so, and it were incidentally advantageous to the interests of the economical working of the undertaking, that it should also manufacture for other consumers, such manufacture would also come within its implied powers. Except as above, it does not appear that any power to establish and conduct’ manufactures can be implied from the Constitution.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– No, it is the actual cost of production. On page 123 Mr. Jeans speaks of the production of iron in England under the most modern system. He says -

I may add that I have had brought under my notice within the last few months an important proposal to establish in the Midlands, works on modern lines, where it appears probable to produce pig iron at 30s. per ton, and steel billets at 67s. peT ton.

In the North of England I have reason to believe that an equally low cost may be reached from Americanization of some of the leading plants.

Further, on page 332 of the same work, I find that Mr. Jeans refers to the Dominion Iron Company’s Works at Sydney, Canada. These works were established owning to the Dominion Government giving the very great bounty of ns. per ton for the production of. iron. That amount is a little less than is proposed in “ the Bill introduced by the Government in another place. There the amount specified is 12s. per ton. The Dominion Iron Works Company estimates that the cost of producing pig iron is 25s. per ton, which is only a little more than onehalf of the amount of the bounty received, from the Government. Mr. Jeans says that the promoters estimate the cost of producing pig iron at 23s. a ton.

The cost of steel blooms is estimated at 47s. per ton, which is materially under any estimate I met with in the United States, and which I should venture to regard as below the figures likely to be averaged over a term of years.

If we remember that this company has received an enormous sum of money in the shape of bounties from the Canadian Government, it will be a guide for us as to the profits that are likely to be made by gentlemen who are anxious to secure bounties from the Commonwealth Government. No doubt we have in Australia excellent facilities for the production of iron. In Canada the iron ore has to be brought from Belleisle, in Newfoundland, to Nova Scotia, a considerable distance by ship, .and then it has to be taken a considerable distance by train. I dare say that in Australia it would also be necessary to take the ore a considerable distance by water and by rail. But I do not think that we should have to carry our ore so great a distance as is necessary in Canada; and if iron can be produced at 23s. per ton there, I have no reason to doubt that it’ can be produced at quite as low a rate in Australia. There has been considerable argument as to the number of hands who would be employed in this industry if it were established. I would draw attention to the fact that while a considerable number of hands are employed in iron works in the old country, where the plant is for the most part antiquated, and the work is done in a very old style, yet in the up-to-date iron works of America and Canada the number of hands employed is very low indeed. If our works were established on modern lines the number of hands required to supply sufficient pig iron for the Australian market would not be so very great after all. Those who expect to give employment to thousands and thousands of hands, as the Minister for Home Affairs said would be the case, in another place, have not taken a proper grip of the facts. Our iron works must be established on uptodate lines. It would be foolish to establish them on any other lines. We should require, for instance, to have thoroughly up-to-date furnaces, steel converters, and rolling mills. Otherwise the establishment of such an industry in this enlightened age would be almost a crime. In Mr. Jeans’s book honorable senators will find particulars of the number of hands employed in one of the great iron works of Pittsburg, the Duquesne blast furnaces. The number of hands employed there is 477, made up as follows : -

This is one of the greatest iron works in the world, and the output is 620,000 tons a year, which works out at about 1,300 tons per man per annum. At this rate 115 men could make enough iron to supply the whole of Australia. Yet we have gentlemen promising that if iron works were established they would lead to the employment of thousands and thousands “of men. Indeed, I have seen figures by which it was sought toshow that 10,000 men could be employed. Mr. Jeans says -

At the same works, in the steel department, 343. men are engaged at the open-hearth furnaces, converting, by the basic process, which is coming so much into vogue in America. The. average per man was 1,350 tons per annum.

– We need not go far in order to ascertain that the cost of iron is as great, if not greater, in the United Kingdom than it is in the United States. The only time the iron manufacturers in Scotland or England were able to buy their raw material cheaper was during what is known as the dumping period, when the surplus stocks of America were sent there and sold for less than the cost of production. Senator Dawson says that there cannot be trusts under free-trade; but as a matter of fact we are paying higher prices for pig iron and rails in Australia under free-trade, than are paid in the United States of America. Free-traders like to deal in generalities. but 1 now give them a concrete instance, in the fact that iron under free-trade is actually dearer than it is under protection. We could have iron produced here cheaper, under State enterprise, than it can be bought at the present time. For the benefit of honorable senators, I shall refer to the results of the iron industry in America, so far as they affect manufacturers who require to purchase raw material. I quote again from American Industrial Conditions and Corn-petitions. The writer says -

One of the largest manufacturing concerns in Bridgeport, Conn., in May, 1901, sent a communication to the press, pointing out that manufacturing associations in the various cities were handicapped in the cost of their raw material, such as coke, coal, pig iron, and steel. They believed that as these materials were produced cheaper in the United States than in any portion of the world, and are sold abroad at lower prices than at home. The Secretary of the Tariff Reform Committee declared to an Industrial Commission, now sitting in the United States, that the Trust sell tin-plates abroad at a dollar a box less than at home. Wire nails sold in the United States at 3 dollars 50 cents a keg were sold abroad at 2 dollars 20 cents. Steel rails were sold at 5 dollars a ton more in the United States than abroad. Plain wire is quoted at n dollars cheaper to the Canadian than to the home buyer. When barbed wire was being sold to the Americans at 4 dollars per roo lbs., it was being sold to Canadians at 3 dollars 25 cents, and to more remote foreigners at 2 dollars 20 cents.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The universal experience is that, under protection, the home consumer pays more for what he purchases than does the foreigner.

Senator Trenwith:

– That has often been said, and as often refuted.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That is a problem that I shall leave to another occasion. It is sufficient for me to say that, under protection in the United States, iron is, to-day, being produced at a lower cost than, ever it was before; and the manufacturers, notwithstanding their justifiable complaint that they are unable to purchase at as low a price as persons abroad, are buying iron cheaper than they used to buy it.

Senator Gray:

– Then what do they want protection for?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I might just as well ask the honorable senator why he wants free-trade.

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator has said that the price is lower in America than anywhere else, including the United Kingdom.

Senator DE LARGIE:

The average profits made during 1900 in’ the United States iron and steel trade is 2oi per cent, on the capital invested. A document placed in my hands shows that the Jefferson Furnace Company has paid dividends amounting to 1,917 per cent, on their capital, being an average of 66 per cent .per annum for 29 years.

The writer adds that -

This is in nowise an exceptional circumstance. As to the profits derived in the Dominion of Canada, where the . iron industry has been created by bounties paid by the Canadian Government, I find that the same writer says -

The Dominion Iron and Steel Company have issued a statement that if their estimate of an annual production of 400,000 tons be realised, they will have to receive from the Canadian Government up to the end of 1907 bounties to the total amount of ^1,621,000, or an average of ^231,572 per annum.

These quotations justify me in saying that no matter how this industry is brought into existence in Australia it will be found to be a very profitable undertaking for those who secure control of it. Recognising the enormous profits to be derived from the industry, and recognising the fact that under a system of bonuses, or of protection for its support, it is the ratepayers who have to pay the piper. I desire that whatever profits are to be derived from this industry shall go into the collective pocket of the taxpayers in return. I may say that in America, the United States Government set a precedent in the establishment of iron works. Two or three years ago they called tenders for steel armour plates for their war vessels, but the prices tendered were so great that they determined to start works of their own. The moment they threatened to do so the prices came down with a run, and the next time tenders were called for they had been reduced by’ something like £20 per ton. This was the result of a mere proposal on the part of the Government to start iron works. Congress gave the Government power to do so, but unfortunately they did not take advantage of it to establish iron works of their own. We have a case in point in Japan, where iron works have been established by the State, and, according to a Blue-book published by the British Government, those works are at present in a very flourishing condition; and the very fine ironclad vessels in the possession of the Japanese Government are to a great extent due to them. I should like to read for honorable senators an article published in the Sydney Worker of June last on the establishment of iron works by the Government of Japan. In that article it is stated that -

Mr. Ernest Griffiths, of the British Consular service in Japan, has prepared an interesting report on this new development in Japan, which is appended to the annual report from Shimonoseki, and has been published by the British Government as a parliamentary paper. This document states that the Government of Japan, as a result of inquiries by a Commission and experts, who studied the great iron and steel industries of Europe and America, induced the Japanese Parliament to appropriate 20,000,000 yen, equivalent to ^2,000,000, for the establishment of works at Wakamatsu in the north-west corner of the island of Kin-Shiu, near the open ports’ of Moji, and Shimonoeski The works cover about 320 acres, and harbour improvements are being made, which will enable a ship of 3,000 tons displacement to berth at the quay wharf, which extends along the front of the works. The quay and all parts of the works are connected with a main line of railway, and there are about 20 miles of railway within the works. The raw material, consisting of magnetite, hematite, and a smaller quantity of zimonite, are all obtained in Japan, although supplies are also drawn from Hu-peh in China. Two iron mines and three coal mines have been acquired by the Government, all of them within 20 miles of the works,, and connected with them by rail. It is estimated that when in full working order the establishment will require 250,000 tons of ore, 380,000 tons of coke, and 800,000 tons of coal per annum. Iron ore will be laid down on the works at a cost of ros. per ton. A recent official announcement states that the works are designed to supply the steel materials required by the Government Department. The works will, however, supply certain kinds of steel to the public, but only in large quantities to the Japanese engaged in the industry at prices lower than those ruling for imported articles of a similar kind.

I also claim for our Australian iron-works, when established, that they will be able to produce the raw material at a much lower cost than that for which it is at present being bought in Australia. The article proceeds: -

The production of pig-iron began in February, 1902, and in May of that year Siemen’s steel was being produced at the rate of 40 tons daily. In June the production of rails and plates was started. The head of the works has stated that from 90,000 to 100,000 tons of steel can be produced annually, and that the profits will undoubtedly cover in a reasonable time the capital invested in this most important industry.

Senator Gray:

– Are the wages given in that article?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– No, wages are not mentioned. Whilst I should like to see Australia follow the example of Japan in the establishment of State iron-works, I hope we shall never follow the Japanese example so far as wages are concerned.

Senator Gray:

– I was merely raising the question of the industry paying there as compared with its prospect of paying here.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I have already referred to the cost of production in the United States and in Canada, where wages are high and the conditions are somewhat similar to our own. From the information I have supplied on that point we can get a shrewd idea of the profits likely to be derived from the industry, allowing for the wages which must be paid here. I hope honorable senators will interest themselves sufficiently in this question, and I have no doubt that they will find that we have everything to gain from a national and an industrial stand-point by the establishment of iron-works by the Government. The workmen engaged in the industry would be much better treated if they were employed by the Government than if they were employed by a private employer. We know that that is the case at present. We know that the conditions in America are not too good, so far as the worker is concerned, and we know that they are infinitely worse in the United Kingdom. It is indeed scandalous that in the United Kingdom workmen, who have to bear the heat and burden of making iron, have to work for the low wages to which I have referred, namely, 10s. per week. I recognise that we shall have to pay a decent rate of wages for work in. our hotter climate, but I recognise also that we shall be in a position to do so. We have abundance of iron ore and coal, and our natural facilities for carrying on the industries will enable us to pay good wages. I prefer that it should be established under the benign influence of the Government, and in the hands of the State, rather than that the profits to be derived from the industry should go to private persons, who are to be assisted in its establishment, as proposed by the Government, to the extent of ^2 50,000. In this twentieth century, I should regard such a proposal as a crime, when we are aware of the enormous profits to be derived from the industry, and that at the present time manufacturers have to pay perhaps twice as much for their raw material as they would have tq pay if State iron-works were established here. I, therefore, ask for the establishment of State iron- works to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers, and the interests also of the manufacturers, who will be enabled to purchase the raw material they require at a lower price than they can purchase it at present if this industry is carried on in Australia under the control of the Government. From every standpoint, honorable senators must admit that we have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by carrying into effect the motion I have the honour to submit this afternoon.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · Protectionist

– I desire to inform the Senate of the position which the Government take up with regard to this motion. We must all congratulate Senator de Largie, who has shown that he has studied the question with a great deal of care, and who has given us air immense amount of exceedingly valuable information. But I think this is certainly not the proper time for us to commit ourselves to any special principle with regard to the question. Honorable senators who have followed the course of events during the last year or two will remember that the Barton Ministry believed that the States should take up the manufacture Of iron. In the first Bill they introduced they inserted a clause dealing with that subject to this effect -

Provided that no bonus shall be paid in respect of pig iron, puddle, bar iron, iron or steel pipes or tubes of steel, unless the same is manufactured in works operated by a State Government.

That was the original intention of the Barton Government. They proposed a bonus for the purpose of establishing this exceedingly important industry, and they preferred that the bonus should be paid to some State authority. It was a doubtful subject possibly, but they recognised at the time that so far as they could see the Constitution did not give power to the Federal Government to establish works of this character. Senator de Largie, in his opening remarks, alluded to the opinion on this subject given by Mr. Deakin at the request of Mr. Kingston. I also quoted an opinion by the present AttorneyGeneral. From the report of the Royal Commission which subsequently sat on the Bill, I know that that is the opinion of Mr. Kingston. I have never heard a contrary opinion expressed by any legal authority. It would not take me by surprise, however, if I heard that there was a lawyer who took an exactly opposite view to the gentleman whom I have named. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee,’ which’ was afterwards converted into a Royal Commission, and a report was brought up. In the meantime we had ascertained the opinions of the various States on the subject. The Prime Minister, in reply to a request by Mr. Kingston, forwarded the following communication to the Premier of New South Wales : -

Herewith I forward a copy of clause 3 of the Manufactures Encouragement Bill, as recently amended in the House of Representatives, and shall be glad if you will be good enough to inform me whether, in the event of the Bill passing into law in its present form, there is any probability of advantage being taken of its provisions by your Government.

If you can kindly favour me with a reply in this matter before the reassembling of the House of Representatives (fixed at present for the 22nd hist.), I shall be much obliged.

Sir John See made the following reply:

I desire to inform you that my Government have given the fullest consideration to the matter of the establishment of iron works and works of a kindred character, and are of opinion that such should be carried out by private enterprise rather than by the Government of the State.

I might add that we favour both a duty and a bonus, and should be glad to support any action taken by the Federal Government in regard thereto.

From Mr. Irvine, the Premier of Victoria, the following reply was received : -

There is no probability of advantage being taken of its provisions by the Government.

Mr. Philp, the Premier of Queensland, made the following reply : -

There is no likelihood of this ‘Government adopting the course indicated, as it is not our intention to erect or carry on manufacturing works in Queensland.

Mr. Jenkins, the Premier of South Australia, said, in his reply : -

I have the honour to inform you that the probability of advantage being taken of its provisions by this Government depends entirely upon circumstances.

Mr. Jenkins was asked by telegram to explain what he meant by the phrase “it depends entirely upon circumstances,” and he wired the following explanation : -

Referring to your telegram of 17th inst. re Manufactures Encouragement Bill, this Government has no intention of starting such works, and the circumstances referred to in letter of Sth July mean the discovery of coal deposits, which could be utilized in conjunction with our iron ores.

Sir Elliot Lewis, the Premier of Tasmania, replied that that State did not intend to take advantage of the Bill. Every attempt was made by the Government to ascertain the opinion of the States, who undoubtedly have the power, if they chose to exercise it, to undertake these works. It is very doubtful whether the Commonwealth has the power without an alteration of the Constitution. If we were to pass a Bill, in which we exceeded our powers, the High Court could be invoked to declare our legislation ultra vires. The members of the Royal Commission were equally divided in their opinion, and the report, which was carried by the casting vote of the chairman, was signed by Mr. Kingston, Mr. Groom, Mr. McCay, Mr. Mauger, Sir E. Braddon, and Mr. Watson. It was signed by both free-traders and protectionists. They recommended the Bill, as it stands, without the clause relating to the States, because the States had informed the Government .that they would not undertake the work. The only alteration which the Commissioners recommended was that provisions should be inserted in the Bill -

Securing the equitable settlement by conciliation or arbitration of all industrial disputes in relation of any work for the earning of bonuses.
Securing to the Commonwealth or to the State in which the work for the earning of bonus is being chiefly carried on a right of purchase of the undertaking, after a fair interval, at a valuation.

The first recommendation is adopted in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, and the second one has been inserted in the Manufactures Encouragement Bill. Senator de Largie* has said that it would become a monopoly, and would be injurious to the best interests of the people of the Commonwealth. Under the provisions of the Manufactures Encouragement Bill, it cannot become a monopoly injurious to the best interests of the people of the States, because it contains a provision that, after the termination of the bonus, the States can step in and take over the works at a fair valuation. If it is such a wonderfully prosperous concern the States will step in. The chance of any monopoly growing up in the circumstances is guarded against.

Senator de Largie:

– The Government wish to establish a vested interest.

Senator Pearce:

– That report was only carried on the casting vote of the- chairman.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Yes. I can quote a portion of the majority report to show that the six gentlemen by whom it was signed did not believe in the Commonwealth undertaking the work.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– But they did.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– According to the report they did not ; they reported in favour of a Bill under which neither the Commonwealth , nor the States were to undertake the work. The minority report was signed by Mr. Hughes, a free-trader, Mr. Winter Cooke, a free-trader, Mr. Kirwan, a freetrader, Mr. Watson, a protectionist, Mr. Joseph Cook, a free-trader. Here we find a report signed by one protectionist and five free-traders. What is the substance of their report? It is that it will not pay anyone to undertake the work.

Senator Pearce:

– But they did not say so.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– They said something very much like it -

The evidence given Jailed to establish a case in its favour.

Senator Pearce:

– In favour of the bonus.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– No, in favour of the Bill. They did not give the slightest hint that they approved of the Commonwealth undertaking the work, but they said -

The evidence given failed to establish a case in its favour. Several witnesses thought the establishment of iron works in the Commonwealth premature, and much of the evidence was strongly against any attempt by the Government to establish the iron industry by the payment of bonuses.

In a previous paragraph they said -

The evidence failed to show that there was any commercial necessity for the bonuses proposed.

There we have the majority report in favour of the Bill which was introduced in another place, and those who dissented from that report are certainly not in favour of the construction of these works for the Commonwealth. The opinion of those who have looked into the legal aspect of the question is that it is not competent for the Commonwealth to enter upon such an enterprise. *

Senator de Largie:

– Not quite so strong as that.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I do not pretend to be a great constitutional authority, but certainly there are no express words in the Constitution which give that power to the Commonwealth.

Senator de Largie:

– Take the Prime Ministers opinion.

Senator PLAYFORD:

Debate resumed from 13th April (vide page 879), on motion by Senator Drake -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

– Whatever shape the Bill was to assume, that statement appeared in the Argus, and was not contradicted, and if Senator Dobson is in favour of an Arbitration Bill, we may assume that there is a reasonable prospect that such a Bill will become law sooner or later.

Whilst Senator Symon’ s attack on the Bill as a whole seemed to me to be anything but Australian, his attack on the exemption in favour of mail steamers trading with Western Australia seemed to me to be highly parochial. The honorable and learned senator looked at the question through South Australian spectacles, and could see nothing but Port Adelaide. His vision was so obscured that the whole of the interests of Australia in this question appeared to him to be bound up with the interests of that port. I laid down the condition at the outset that we should protect Australian shipping from outside competition, and dealing with the exemptions of mail steamers trading between . South Australia and Western Australia I contend that I can support that exemption consistently with my claim for the protection of Australian shipping from unfair competition.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I should like to hear the honorable senator do so.

Senator PEARCE:

– If Senator Dawson remains in the Chamber he will hear me do so. I should like first of all to point out that the persons primarily interested in the question are the Australian ship-owners.

Senator Guthrie:

– The Australian seamen.

Senator PEARCE:

– I shall show that they dare not say, have not said, and cannot say that the competition of the mail steamers trading between Western Australia and Adelaide constitutes unfair competition.

Senator Guthrie:

– It does. Senator PEARCE.- In the Argus of 1 2th December, 1903, I find this correspondence on the subject -

To the Editor of the Argus.

Sir, - In the absence of any public statement from the Australasian Steam-ship Owners’ Federation as to the true position occupied by the managements oi the P. and O. Company and Orient-Pacific line as to the intercolonial trade, and in. order that the public may have a proper understanding of that position, we ask you to publish the enclosed correspondence. This we insider goes to show that those responsible for the management of the two mail companies have throughout shown a desire not to interfere with >e coastal companies, and to the extent of refusing all cargo for intercolonial ports, and maintaining their passage rates between ports on the coast on a much higher level - in fact, our second class fares are in almost every instance in excess of the coastal companies’ charge for first class. - Yours, &c,

G. Wesche, acting agent P. and O. S.N. Company.

Anderson, general manager in Australia Orient-Pacific line of steamers. Sydney, December ro.

Here is the correspondence referred to in that letter : -

Sydney, 22nd September.

T. Appleton, Esq., Chairman Steam-ship Owners’ Federation, Melbourne.

Dear Sir, - Referring to Mr. Anderson’s recent conversation with you on the subject of the threatened restrictive legislation regarding the Australian coastal trade, we desire, on behalf of the British mail companies, to put the following to your association : -

These proposals are being much discussed in the press and in Parliament, but we observe no public acknowledgment on the part of your association of the policy which we have hitherto pursued of declining all coastal freight business, and maintaining our passage rates at a much higher level than those of the Australian companies.

Consequently there will naturally be some feeling in the public mind that our companies are concerned in the “ cruel competition “ made so much of by Hie maritime trades unions and their political allies. In view of the regard we have always evinced for the interests of Australian companies, this position is entirely unsatisfactory to us. The value of our abstention from your cargo trade, and the sacrifice thereby involved on our part, may be illustrated by the fact that frequently the rates of freight offering on Australian stages of our voyage are double what we can obtain between Sydney and London - from five to ten times the distance. We desire, therefore, to know definitely what your association intends to do in the circumstances. Obviously, if your association is to hunt with the hounds, which are after the proposed legislative quarry, you cannot expect us to permit you at the same time to run with the hare which carries the mail companies’ support of your trade.

The occasion seems to us to call for some public declaration from you to the effect that your association does not regard our services as competing with its own, and asks for no legislation imposing restrictions upon them. - We are, &c, A. G. Wesche, Acting Agent P. and O.S.N. Company.

Anderson,

General Manager Orient-Pacific Line. Senator Givens. - They bounced them into it.

Senator Guthrie:

Sydney, 29th October.

T. Appleton, Esq., Chairman Australasian Steam-ship Owners’ Federation.

Dear Sir, - We Would now acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 26th inst., replying to ours of the 22nd September, and read with considerable regret the decision arrived at by your association. We cannot agree with you that the action of the English mail companies in abstaining from Competing for cargo and passengers on the coast is well known to the electors of the Commonwealth. Our opinion is that the reverse is the case, and that this is due to the speeches of politicians who have lost no opportunity of reflecting on the opposition (so called) which the coastal companies have received from the English mail companies. In any case, their statements stand, and we consider that nothing short of a public announcement by the Australasian steam-ship owners, such .as was indicated in ours of the 22nd ult., will suffice to give the public a full understanding of the position. As to the time such a statement should be made, it appears to us that no time can be better than the present, being, as we are, within six weeks of the Federal elections. To allow any dubiety to exist as to the position is to leave the electors in ignorance, and to do so would be inimical not only to our interests, but, in our opinion, to those of the community generally.

As to your reference to the last sentence but one in our letter of the 22nd ult., we would say we considered that the public would read into your continued silence an acquiescence in the statements so freely and publicly made, and thereby subject us to a passive opposition to our interests which our policy has not deserved. We have had, and continue to have, an anxiety to work in harmony with your association, but a continuance of good relations must, we contend, be dependent on a mutual regard for our respective interests. - We are, &c,

G. Wesche,

Acting Agent P. and O. S.N. Company.

Anderson,

General Manager Orient-Pacific Line.

Senator Dobson:

– There is no justification there for the clauses dealing with the coastal trade.

Senator PEARCE:

– To this the Australian steam-ship owners replied : -

Australasian Steam-ship Owners’ Federation, 30th October. Dear Sirs, - I beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 29th inst., which will have my attention. - Your-6, &c,

T. Appleton, Chairman. And these letters concluded the correspondence : -

Sydney, 23rd November. W. T. Appleton, Esq., Chairman Australasian Steam-ship Owners’ Federation.

Dear Sir, - With reference to the letters which have passed between us, viz., those from us dated 22nd September and 29th October, and your replies of 26th October and 30th October, we shall be glad if you will favour us with your final decision as to the matter at issue. - Yours, &c, A. G. Wesche, Acting Agent P. and O. S.N. Company.

Anderson, General Manager Orient-Pacific Line.

The following letter was sent by Mr. Appleton yesterday :J-

Dear Sirs, - I regret having been unable to answer yours of 29th October earlier, but in order that your repeated request for a public pronouncement by the Australian owners upon the question of the mail companies’ policy in the Australian coastal trade might have full consideration, I have given ample time for the reconsideration of the decision conveyed to you.

I now desire to inform you that we still differ from you as to the necessity for any public representations on our part, and our decision remains unaltered.

As to the statements made by politicians reflecting upon the mail companies, you are in no way singular, as we have quite a plethora of reports of speeches of politicians , who have made utterly absurd and inaccurate statements reflecting on the Australian owners, and even in this case we have hitherto refrained from dealing with these irresponsible people, preferring, as far as possible, to treat these statements with the contempt they deserve. - I am, &c,

T. Appleton. Australasian Steam-ship Owners’ Federation, nth December.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Does, the honorable senator admit that Federation has resulted in an increase of the revenue of Western Australia by £200,000 a year?

Sentaor PEARCE. - If Senator Dawson were speaking on the other side of the fiscal question he would say that the Government of the Commonwealth was wringing out of the withers of the Western Australian taxpayers £200,000 ‘a year. But the point is that the exclusion of the mail steamers from the traffic between, Western Australia and South Australia will not only have the effect of ‘keeping up the isolation that now exists, but of intensifying it, and of getting back to the state of things that existed before we accepted Federation. We have the assurance that if this Bill is passed in its present form, the mail companies will cease to call at intermediate ports, but will drop their mails, passengers, and cargoes at one port,- where they will have to be transhipped to other ports of Australia.

Senator de Largie:

– What port is that one likely to be?

Senator PEARCE:

– It is quite clear that in the minds of the South Australians Port Adelaide will in future be the Mecca of the mail steamers. For instance. Senator Guthrie is reported in the South Australian Register, of 6th October, 1903, to have spoken as follows: -

The time was not far distant when mail steamers would have to abandon their coastal trade. The day would come when the goods carried by those ‘boats would be discharged into smaller coasting vessels, and when that day arrived Port Adelaide, by its geographical position, would become the first port of the Commonwealth.

– Means have been found in the. past for overcoming competition by the formation of trusts and rings. We have had experience of a shipping ring in Australia before to-day, and we know what it means. When under this Bill we shut out to a certain extent the competition of the world, we should at the same time take due precaution to see that we do not give a power to shipping trusts or rings which will operate to the detriment of the people of Australia. We must recognise that we shall be giving to the shipping people the power to tax the people of Australia.

Senator Fraser:

– We cannot. prevent itSenator PEARCE. - I think Ave can pre-

A-ent it.

Senator Dobson:

– Competition is the best means of preventing- it.

Senator PEARCE:

– We could prevent it by passing an anti-trust law or by legislation which, if necessary, would regulate the fares and freights to be charged.

Senator Higgs:

– Or by establishing our own lines of steam-ships.

Senator PEARCE:

– That would be the best preventative of ail. The suggestion is not one to be laughed at, and I remind Senator” Fraser that it has already been made by a gentleman at whom he will not laugh. It will be remembered that exSenator Reid, speaking to ‘the members of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce on their experience of the tyranny of a ring in the shipping trade of Australia, and the ocean snipping trade, expressed the opinion that the time Avas rapidly approaching when the State Government of Victoria would ha>e to take into consideration the possibility of interfering in the shipping industry by building a State fleet.

Senator Findley:

– He Avas a State socialist then.

Senator Fraser:

– Under this Bill, they will have far more power than they have now.

Senator PEARCE:

– I am pointing out that Ave shall still have means for dealing with them after Ave pass this Bill. I should like to ask the AttorneyGeneral, seeing that in this Bill there are provisions dealing with almost e’ery matter relating to shipping, if it is possible for us to make some provision regulating freights and fares,, so as to prevent any monopoly in the shipping trade operating to the detriment of the people of Australia. I thank honorable senators for the patience with which they have listened to me, and I trust that when the Bill leaves the Senate it will be found to be a measure framed in the interests of the Australian people.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania).As one of the few mercantile members of the Senate, and one who has been for more than forty years engaged in navigation and shipping, I should like to say a few words on the Bill. I. was surprised and disappointed that the Attorney-General gave so very few reasons, in moving the second reading, for its introduction. The main provisions of the Bill merely deal with the coastal traffic. Its saving clauses, and all of good that is in the Bill, are to be found in the Merchant Shipping Act. That Act carries us through, and would serve to carry us through for many years to come.

Senator Guthrie:

– No it does not.

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

– lt provides for the well-being of the seamen for which there is so much anxiety to provide now. I was somewhat surprised to hear the AttorneyGeneral refer us to obsolete English laws which the honorable and learned senator held up for our example. He did not, however, tell us the results of them. He quoted the navigation law of Cromwell’s time. That law was very far-reaching, and, amongst other provisions, it enacted that all foreign vessels travelling up and down the English Channel should lower their colours to the British flag. When Admiral Blake called upon Van Tromp to. obey that navigation law, he was met with a broadside that very nearly blew his ship out of the water. If we legislate in the extreme way in which England did in those days, we shall only bring disaster upon ourselves. Senator Symon, and I am very glad to say Senator Pearce, have shown how unnecessary and impracticable are many of the coasting trade provisions of the Bill. We cannot, as the Tasmanian Parliament found out, lay a stamp duty on the transfer or the mortgage of any British ship in the Commonwealth. The Tasmanian Parliament found out that a provision of that kind would be ultra vires. The signing of ship’s articles - the enrolling of the crew of a British vessel - is not regulated by any colonial legislation or regulation. We have not been given this power, and if honorable senators look at covering section 5 of the Constitution, and sections 261 and 264 of the Merchant Shipping Act, they will see how very limited are our powers in many respects. The Government are aware of this fact, and they remind me of an old Scotch divine, who, whenever he came to a difficult text, told his congregation that it was a matter of great difficulty, but that they were to look it boldly in the face and pass on. That is what the Government are doing. They have paid no attention to this difficulty, but simply ignored it. What is this Parliament to gain by ignoring the difficulties, and attempting to carry out what it has not the power to perform? If we take the Merchant Shipping Act as our guide, we shall find that we have the greatest facilities for carrying out our shipping in the best way. Senator Pearce has shown how very advantageous it is to part, and I hold to the whole, of this Commonwealth to have competition. We could not want a stronger argument than he has given to show the great advantage that foreign and British vessels have been to the Commonwealth as against Australian-owned vessels. We know that many of the British vessels which come here have not been paying their expenses in the trade which they carry on with Australia, and that while the P. and 0. Company have been able to give a dividend to their shareholders, it has been earned from business done elsewhere. What is going to be the result if we multiply the burdens on these British vessels by increasing their expenses ? They will only give us less facilities than we have. Shipping companies, like every one else, do not carry on their business from philanthropic motives. They are asked for good value, and want to be paid for it. We cannot expect that they will bow to laws which do not pay them. If it does not answer their purpose to carry passengers round, our coast with these limitations, mail steamers will not do it. If Western Australia is to have a preference in this matter, I hold that Tasmania has a far greater claim to a preference than any other of the States, because we are developing, not only a large tourist traffic but a trade in fruits to Western Australia. The only chance we have of getting our produce taken direct to that State is by foreign-owned vessels. There is not sufficient trade to induce the State-owned ships to go round, unless they are going to foreign parts too. The trade is only a small one, and is confined to the fruit season. It wail be killed if the facilities which are proposed to be given to Western Australia are not extended to Tasmania. I object particularly to the clauses of the Bill which restrict the facilities of shipment by our own producers, and the facilities for travel by our sea-travelling public. That, to my mind, is a great blot on the Bill, in addition to the blot that we are interfering in trying to carry out what the mother country has not given us power to perform. Last year, when the introduction of this Bill was anticipated, the TasmanianHouse of Assembly passed a resolutio . I shall read the telegram which appeared in the Argus: -

A motion moved by Mr. Guesdon was carried in the House of Assembly adversely criticising the rumoured intention of the Federal Ministry to interfere with the present freedom of InterState carriage of passengers and freight as likely to detrimentally affect important industries, and promote the formation of combines, and result disastrously to Australian interests. If such legislation should be introduced the Tasmanian Pre. mier is to be requested to bring the emphatic protest of the Tasmanian House of Assembly effectually under the notice of the Federal Ministry and Parliament.

The motion has been forwarded to the Legislative Council for concurrence.

The motion refers to the possible interference with British-owned vessels registered outside the Commonwealth.

The State Government were instructed, if the Bill had been proceeded with, to communicate with the Federal Government on this matter. The resolution holds good now, and I hope that better counsels will prevail, and that a greater portion of the Bill will be withdrawn, or, at all events, so amended in Committee as to remove those blots. Speaking at Perth on the 27th February, Sir John Forrest said -

It had been said by Mr. Kingston that the coastal steamer companies were subject to a cruel competition with the mail steamers. He (Sir John) denied that there was any cruel competition. Last year 48,000 passengers travelled between Western Australia and the eastern States, and of these 36,000 were conveyed in Inter-State and only 12,000 in mail steamers. Furthermore, the mail steamers carried no cargo between Australian ports, while the coastal steamship companies had had the carriage of£3,000,000 worth of cargo from the other States. They had made fortunes out of the Western Australian trade, and, not satisfied with having the great bulk of the trade, they wanted to “ cobnobble “ the lot. Until Western Australia had been provided with the same means of transit as the other States, nothin? should be done to interfere with her communication by sea. He was confident that if British ships were debarred from participating in the Inter-State passenger traffic the added profits to the coastal steam-ship companies would simply go towards swelling their already healthy balance-sheets. When they saw an alliance between Mr. Kingston, Mr. Guthrie (a South Australian Labour member), and the shipping companies, they might depend upon it that there was something wrong. Shipping companies did not form alliances with Labour parties unless they hoped to get some profit out of them.

Senator Guthrie:

– It is not true that there is any alliance.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– I was not the author of the statement; I am onlyquoting the opinion of one of the Ministers who are responsible for the introduction of this Bill. I have a number of notes on the different clauses, but perhaps the proper time to deal with them will be when the Bill gets into Committee, if it ever does. I hope that the provisions restricting traffic to Inter-State ships’, instead of allowing British vessels as a whole to join in it, will be withdrawn.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I rise for the purpose of replying to some of the criticisms of the Bill which Senator Symon made last evening. He took up the attitude which has been very correctly described, I think, by Senator Pearce. First of all, he railed against the Government for introducing a measure containing what, in his opinion, were provisions that were beyond the powers of this Parliament; and, secondly, he pointed out that if those provisions were not ultra vires he was so opposed to the principles contained in them that he would oppose the Bill on that ground. In other words his attitude towards the Bill was one of uncompromising hostility. Whatevermay have been the character of its provisions, if we were competent to pass them, he would be, it seems, opposed to them on the ground of policy; and if he had any doubt as to our competency to pass them, he was opposed to the Bill on that ground. He pointed out that it was not within the province of this Parliament to apply to foreign ships the provisions of Part IV., as sub-clause b of clause 185 purports to do.

This part of this Act shall apply to -

All British ships, and
All foreign ships carrying passengers or cargo shipped in any port in Australia to any port in the British dominions.

The honorable and learned senator suggested that it is not competent for this Parliament by any legislation to impose upon foreign ships trading to Australian ports, and trading from Australian ports to other ports in the . British dominions, conditions and restrictions the like of which we apply to Australian registered ships. On what does he base that contention? He pointed out to us that the foreign merchantman or the British merchantman is, wherever it may be, on the high seas, under the jurisdiction of, and subject to the law of its own country. I think that every one in the Senate agrees with that principle. He also pointed out that when a foreign merchantman or a British merchantman is in a port other than a port in its own country, it is subject to the municipal law of that country. Everybody agrees with that principle. But the enunciation of those two principles does not support Senator Symon in the conclusion he comes to, that it is incompetent for us to apply the provisions contained in portions of Part IV. of the Bill to vessels coming under the designation of clause 185 b :

All foreign ships carrying passengers or cargo shipped in any port in Australia to any port in the British dominions.

As to the power of the Federal Parliament to legislate upon this matter, I may refer to the two sections of the Constitution which deal with it. We first of all have section S1 ‘

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to : - (1) Trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States.

So that under section 51 sub-section (1) the Commonwealth Parliament is empowered to legislate with respect to trade and commerce, not merely amongst the States themselves, but between the Commonwealth and other countries. As to what is included in the words “ trade and commerce,” if we turn to section 98 we find that it is provided that-

The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extend to navigation and shipping, and to railways the property of any State.

The combined operation of sections 51 and 98 of the Constitution is to give this Parliament power to legislate with respect to navigation and shipping between the Commonwealth and other countries. Our jurisdiction is not limited to legislating with respect to navigation between theStates themselves. We have the power to regulate navigation and shipping coming under the designation of trade and commerce, between the Commonwealth and other countries. Senator Symon, adopting the suggestion ‘which, I think, came from Senator Best, seemed to read into the Constitution a restriction upon our powers in this regard, by a reference to covering section 5 of the Constitution, Using the words of Senator Symon as applied to the Attorney-General in introducing this Bill, I think that honorable senators might have noticed that, when he adopted that suggestion, there was not in his argument his customary eloquence nor in his intonation that fervor and ‘zeal that characterized his criticism in other respects during the course of his speech. On reference to covering section 5 of the Constitution it will be found that it provides that -

This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State, and of every part of the Cora, mon wealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.’

Senator Macfarlane:

– Hear, hear.

Senator KEATING:

– But my honorable friend who interjects will know/if he reads the history of this section, and the debates that centred round it in the different conventions and in the States Legislatures when the Constitution was in a state of political flux, that, as a matter of fact, that section was only put in for greater certainty - in order that there might be no possible room for doubt as to the laws enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament being operative in every State as the law of the land. The section- further goes on to say -

And the laws of the Commonwealth shall be enforced on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

I submit that, to read into that section a meaning which would restrict the powers of this Parliament in legislating, is an utterly wrong interpretation. All that the latter part of that section means - the part of it with regard to the operation of the Constitution and of Commonwealth laws on British ships - is, I submit, to make certain that on British ships whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth, all the ordinary statutes of the Commonwealth apply; and, unless there is a special exemption section, have full fora: and operation just as if those ships wen; part and parcel of the territory of any of the States.

Senator Walker:

– What does the honorable and learned senator mean. by “destination”? A vessel’s last por of Call may have been a European port.

Senator KEATING:

– I am not concerned with the interpretation of the section in that respect. I am pointing out that it has no restrictive operation whatever on our powers of legislation. It is not designed in any way to restrict the powers of legislation of the Commonwealth Parliament. It is only descriptive of the extent of the operation of our legislation, in the absence of any express provision to the contrary. It would be competent for us, in certain legislation, to say that a particular portion of a Bill should not apply to any ship in Commonwealth ports.

Senator Macfarlane:

– A vessel’s port of destination may be Europe. Senator KEATING. - I am not now concerned with whether the port of destination is in Europe or in the planet Mars.

Senator Best:

– Covering section 5 was expressly altered by the Convention in favour of the present limitation.

Senator KEATING:

– What I am pointing out is that it is not designed to be a limitation on the legislative powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. It is simply descriptive of the extent of the operation of Commonwealth legislation in the absence of any expression of intention to the contrary. In other words, if this Bill is passed without a special provision, to exempt ships from its operation, the Bill, as a matter of course, will have full force and effect upon those ships whose port of destination and whose first port of clearance are as described in the Constitution. Senator Best says that covering section 5 was expressly altered from the shape in which it stood at first. In 1883. when the several Colonies were represented for the purpose of securing some form of Federal legislative machinery, a Bill was adopted and sent to England to be passed by the Imperial Parliament for the creation of a Federal Council. No reference was then made to the operation of the Jaws of that Federal Council upon ships. But when the Bill came before the Imperial authorities in England, they inserted a clause somewhat similar to this, making the laws that would be passed by the Federal Council, under the Federal Council Act 1885, have full force and effect upon ships whose first port of clearance “or” whose port of .destination was in the Commonwealth. It must be remembered that in that instance that was done without any suggestion or invitation on the part of Australia whatever. The Imperial draftsmen themselves inserted in that Federal Council Constitution Bill a section of that character - much wider than the present section - making the laws of the Federal Council operative upon ships whose port of clearance “or” whose port of destination was in Australia. That Act was in operation from 1885 until the establishment of the Commonwealth. The extent of the operation of the Federal Council legislation was too wide and vague under such a clause. In the Federal Convention that section was at first adopted as it stood in the Federal Council Act, because the members of the Convention no doubt believed that if the Imperial authorities, without any solicitation on the part of Australia, were willing to give such wide force to the legislation of the Federal Council, they would be equally willing, if not more willing, to concede a similar degree of force to the legislation of the Federal Parliament. However, after further consideration, it was pointed out that the section was really too absurd as it stood. Then it was made to take its present form, because under the more widely expressed terms of the section in the previous Act the Federal Council laws might be considered to be operative on a vessel weeks before she had first sighted Australia, which was manivfestly absurd. My contention with regard to this section as it stands is that it was only intended to define the operation of our legislation where we have no express provision to the contrary; and that the power which

– I am not a lawyer, but I refreshed my memory on this subject. I am quite willing to accept the Honorable R. E. O’Connor as a good lawyer. I do not think there is a sounder lawyer in the whole of Australia, though there may be a more brilliant lawyer. I listened attentively ‘to the interesting address delivered by the AttorneyGeneral, and to the very able and scathing criticism of the Bill we had from Senator Symon. Curiously enough, though I am as anxious as is the Attorney-General to improve the condition of our seamen, I have drawn conclusions opposite to those drawn by the honorable and learned senator on this matter. I think that the fewer restrictions we place on commerce the better it will be for those who are engaged in it. I hope when we get into committee that many of the clauses of this Bill will be amended in a liberal direction.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - May I be permitted to sug’gest to Senator Pearce that this is really only a matter of personal convenience to myself, because if I am prevented from giving this notice of motion to-day, I shall give it at the next sitting of the Senate, and it will then- take precedence of the order of the day, in which the honorable senator is interested.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is: That Senator Neild have leave to give the notice of motion which he has read. There being no dissentient voice, leave is granted.

Notice of motion given accordingly.

page 987

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Wednesday next.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– Why can we not sit tqmorrow ? We have come from all parts of Australia to attend to our duties in the Senate, and Senator Playford should give some reason why we should not meet tomorrow. Are we to have an enforced holiday ? There is important business for us to do, and if we cannot go on- with it, it says very little for the arrangement of Government business.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · Protectionist

– There is no business on the paper for tomorrow. I will give the honorable and learned senator the reason why I did not ask honorable senators to meet to-morrow. A function, to which -half the members of the Senate have been invited, has been fixed for to-morrow. The majority of honorable senators have intimated to me that they would rather not meet to-morrow, and I have given way to their wishes, although, personally, I should very much like to have gone on with the business.

Question resolved in’ the affirmative.

Seriate adjourned at 9.50 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 April 1904, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1904/19040414_senate_2_18/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate14 April 1904

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:

QUESTION

BLIND SEA-PASSENGERS

Senator PEARCE:

Senator DRAKE:Attorney-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

QUESTION

CAPTAIN P. N. BUCKLEY

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

QUESTION

MAILS FOR NEW ZEALAND

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

QUESTION

DESIGN FOR POSTAGE STAMPS

Senator KEATING:

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT

Senator DOBSON:TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

PRINTING OF PAPERS

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Drake:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PLAYFORD:South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · Protectionist

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator MULCAHY:Tasmania

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Drake:

Senator MULCAHY:

PAPER

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

PARADE STATES

RENT FOR COMMONWEALTH PREMISES

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Senator PLAYFORD:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · Protectionist

FRAUDULENT MARKS ON MERCHANDISE BILL

QUESTION

GRANT OF SUPPLY

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator Playford:

Senator Millen:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator Drake:

Senator STYLES:VICTORIA · PROT

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator Drake:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator Drake:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator PLAYFORD:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Lt Col Neild:

Senator PLAYFORD:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Lt Col Neild:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Lt Col Neild:

Senate
14 April 1904

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE:
Attorney-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · Protectionist

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator PLAYFORD:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator STYLES:
VICTORIA · PROT

Senator PLAYFORD:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator DRAKE:
Attorney General · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP