Senate
31 August 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- MAIL CONTRACT: ORIENT COMPANY,
QUESTION
- LAND AT LARGS BAY
QUESTION
- BUSINESS OF THE SENATE
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS REGULATIONS ON OCEAN STEAMERS
QUESTION
- HIGH COURT EXPENSES
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
QUESTION
- MAIL SERVICE : TASMANIA
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT
QUESTION
- MILITARY FORCES : REPORT
COMMONWEALTH DEFENCES
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL
QUESTION
- NEW GUINEA: CASE OF MR. O’BRIEN
QUESTION
- NATIONAL MONOPOLY IN TOBACCO
PAPER
- Horse
ADJOURNMENT. -
- Special Adjournment: Russo-Japanese War: Declaration of Peace: Business of Senate

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

page 1718

QUESTION

MAIL CONTRACT: ORIENT COMPANY,

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask Senator Keating, without notice, -when we are likely to get a copy of the mail contract entered into between the Orient Steam Navigation Company and the Government of the Commonwealth.?

Senator KEATING:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– As soon as possible.

Senator Stewart:

– T think it has been laid upon the table of the other House.

Senator KEATING:

– The honorable senator will get a copy as soon as possible.

page 1718

QUESTION

LAND AT LARGS BAY

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– I. have been furnished with the following particulars : -

Messrs. Hackett and Crawford’s claim. - ‘Land acquired by notification in Gazette, 9th January. 1904; area, 3) acres; claim, ^254 lor value of land, and compensation under section 19 (1) (b) of the Property Acquisition Act, for ‘ damage caused to adjoining land by acquisition thereof for a fort; writ issued in May last, claiming £254; appearance. has been entered; proceedings are at present in abeyance pending consideration by the Department df an offer made by the claimants with a view to settlement by the acquisition of the whole block belonging to- the claimants, arid valuations are now being obtained by the Department.

Messrs. Gilbert and Stirling’s claim. - Land acquired by notification in Gazette, 9,th January,. 1904 ; area, i acre 2 roods 20 perches; claim, £177 10s. for- valuation of land and compensation under section ig (1) (i) of the Property Acquisition Act for damage caused to adjoining land by acquisition thereof for a fort; writ issued in May last, claiming £177 tas. ; appearance has been entered ; proceedings are at present in abeyance pending consideration of an offer to accept a reduced amount and costs, further valuations being obtained with a view of considering, thepurchase of the whole block.

page 1718

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator MATHESON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I wish to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, whether he cannot see his way to: originate’ some measures here next week?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– I am very glad1 to find that the honorable senator is soanxious to proceed to work, but I am not in a position at the present time to promiseany .other measures. We are waiting upon, another branch of the Legislature;

Later,

Senator MATHESON:

– I wish to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Age that a Bill to amend the Naval Agreement Act will be intra* duced, and, if so, whether he could not introduce that measure next week?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– I informed the Senate some time ago that the British authorities were going to supply the Commonwealth with vessels more modern and more effective than those supplied under the present agreement, but I have heard no more on t’he subject.

Senator Matheson:

– There is no Bill, then ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The Bill will come on in due course, but I have heard nothing more on the subject.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– But is it mot doubtful whether a Bill is necessary?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I think it is necessary, because an alteration of the present agreement is proposed.

page 1719

QUESTION

CUSTOMS REGULATIONS ON OCEAN STEAMERS

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, a question arising out of a statement he made in the policy debate with regard to a notice posted on the Peninsular and Oriental Company’s boats, and to which I drew his attention. He then promised that he would make further inquiries, and communicate with me later on. I desire to ask whether he has done so, and, if so, what he has learned?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– I asked that information should be given to me on the subject, but it has not yet been supplied, and therefore I cannot answer the question. I shall make further inquiry, and furnish an answer as expeditiously as I can.

page 1719

QUESTION

HIGH COURT EXPENSES

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– I understand that it is included in the papers relating to the High Court, which have been tabled, and are now with the printer.

– They never adjourned the Senate for a week for want, of work.

Senator McGregor:

Senator Givens:

– T have not the slightest intention, of withdrawing the amendment.

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator McGregor:

Senator McGREGOR:

– The honorable senator is always doing right. He restrictshimself so severely to what! is correct, that he hardly ever allows a curl to get out of place. It is a pity that he ever came out of a band-box for the wind to blow upon him. I do not like to see honorable senators protest against an adjournment for the purpose, to my mind, of obtaining a; little kudos which they will never get; for the public do not expect us to sit here doing nothing. They have no appreciation” of the man who wants us to leave our homes when there is no business for us todo. I trust that honorable senators will support the Government on this occasion,, and will in future take all the circumstances into consideration before objectingto what is proposed.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– I intend’ to support the Government, and I protest against such ai miserable exhibition as faces us on the notice-paper in regard to the business for next week. It consists simply of one line - “ Copyright Bill in Committee, clause 2.”- It is quite possible that the Bill might, be disposed of in two or three hours, and then there would be no more business to transact. Although-

I support the motion, I hope that the debate will have the effect of inducing the Government to give us more work to do. They should launch some fresh Bills here.

Senator Playford:

– Hear, hear.

Question - That the word “ week,” proposed to be left out, be left out - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 18

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1731

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE : TASMANIA

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

The amount paid to Tasmania for the PostalService to the Commonwealth, and, if by poundage rate only, how much per lb. ?
Is this only for sea carriage?
If so, is it considered adequatereturn for the fast service paid for by Tasmania to the Union Company of New Zealand?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

The amount paid to the Tasmanian branch of the Postmaster-General’s Department from 1st October, 1903, until 30th June, 1905, by the other States of the Commonwealth for the carriage of mails sent by those. States amounted to £3,295 19s.1d., the contributions ranging from that of Western Australia amounting to £61 5s11d., to that of Victoria amounting to £2,3449s. 5d. The whole of the payments were at the poundage rates provided under statute, viz.,1s. 4d. per lb. for letters and post cards, and 2s. 8d. per cwt. for other articles. 2. It is only for the carriage from Victoria to Tasmania across Bass Straits.
It is considered to be adequate when compared with the practice of other States, which is to carry mails from the border of an adjacent State by express trains without making any charge against the States by which those mails are sent.

page 1731

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA · FT; TARIFF REFORM from 1903

asked the Minister representing, the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

Is it the intention of Ministers in future to administer the third section of the Immigration Restriction Act as not applying to persons coming from Great Britain to the Commonwealth under contract to perform manual labour, and, if so, are Ministers prepared to introduce a Bill to amend the third section of the Immigration Restriction Act so as to make its provisions conform to such administration?
Are Ministers further prepared to amend section 3 of the Immigration Restriction Act so as to allow immigrants from Europe to enter the Commonwealth under contract to perform manual labour, so long as such immigrants are not hired Or engaged to perform any of the work or take the place of any workmen who may be on strike or otherwise engaged in fighting for or defending what they may consider to be their just rights?
If the reply to question 2 is “No,” are Ministers prepared to amend the Immigration Restriction Act so as to permit immigrants from Europe to enter the Commonwealth under contract, containing such special conditions and restrictions as Parliament may impose, to perform manual labour in connexion with the production of sugar, cotton, and other tropical products, in the tropical and semi-tropical portions of the Commonwealth ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

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

Any proposed amendment of the Immigration Restriction Act will be a matter of Ministerial policy, and as such duly announced to Parliament. Pending its amendment the Act will, of course, continue to be administered in accordance with its present terms. These do not forbid the Minister to deal with propositions of the nature referred to in question 3, and if any are submitted to the Government they will receive consideration.

page 1731

QUESTION

MILITARY FORCES : REPORT

Senator MATHESON:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is the Minister aware that Major-General Sir Edward Hutton Was in the habit of furnishing an annual report upon the Military Forces of the Commonwealth for the information of Parliament in May of each year?
Has such a report been prepared by the Military Board?
If so, what is the date of the report, and why has it not been submitted to Parliament prior to the introduction of the Estimates?
If no report has been prepared, will the Minister of Defence instruct the Military Board to give the matter immediate attention, that the Senate, at any rate, may be fully informed as to the condition of the defences of the Commonwealth before dealing with the Appropriation Bill 1905-6?
Will the Minister of Defence provide for the inclusion of the Inspector-General’s reports on the condition of the fortifications, armaments, forces, and equipment of each individual State, as appendices to the general report of the Military Board ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

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

The late General Officer Commanding furnished an annual report to the Minister, who laid it before Parliament. 2 and 3. No.
Yes. An interim report, from the 12th January, 1905, the date of their appointment, will be obtained from the Military Board at an early date, and a copy will be laid on the table of the House. The late General Officer Commanding made a report, dated 8th November, 1904, a copy of which I will place before Parliament.
No. I do not consider it desirable that the Inspector-General’s reports should be attached as appendices, but I shall place typed copies of same on the table of the library for perusal of members.

Just before Major-General Hutton left, he made a report, which he brought up to date. I will lay it on the table.

Senator Matheson:

– Will that report be laid on the table directly ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Yes.

page 1732

COMMONWEALTH DEFENCES

Motion (by Senator Matheson) agreed to - ,

That the Minister of Defence be requested to lay upon the table of the Senate a copy of the views expressed by the Honorable Alfred Deakin on the present condition of the defence of the Commonwealth, and communicated to the Herald on the 12th June, 1905.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I lay on the table a statement of the views referred to.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1732

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL

Motion (by Senator Keating) agreed to-

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to Parliamentary elections.

page 1732

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA: CASE OF MR. O’BRIEN

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
tern Australia · Wes

– I move -

That the papers having reference to the administration of justice in British ‘New Guinea laid on the table of the Senate on 24th August, 1905, be taken into consideration j and that the Government be asked to institute further inquiries.

I regret that it is necessary for me to initiate a. discussion on matters that affect, in some degree, the administration of affairs in British New Guinea. I have always held, and I have on many occasions voiced the opinion, that we should endow the local authorities in British New Guinea with as much power as possible, and that we should interfere with their administration as little as we possibly can. I believe that as we are not in a position to know the actual conditions in British New Guinea, the less we interfere with the course of administration the better it will be for the Possession. I will at once admit that it is a dangerous precedent to even appear to take the part of settlers against the constituted authority, or to interfere with certain judicial proceedings; except in very exceptional cases affecting the life or liberty of the subject, such as the Goarabari Island case and the case to which I now refer, both of which, I think, ‘justify Federal investigation. The man O’Brien was convicted on three charges before a properly constituted tribunal. He was accused of common assault in connexion with certain of the natives. In the first case he was fined j£$, and in each of the other cases he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, the sentences to be cumulative. He was offered the right to appeal on these cases, and refused to avail himself of that right. The magistrate presiding on the first occasion was Mr. Higginson, and on the second occasion Mr. Monckton. They are very able magistrates, and we can assume that the cases were properly inquired into and the punishment meted out was deserved. That my position may not afterwards be misunderstood, I should say at once that I favour severe punishment being dealt out to any white people guilty of ill treating the natives of British’ New Guinea. This man O’Brien was set to work at scrub-cutting at Kokoda, the magisterial station for the Yodda gold-fields., and he was guarded by a native armed with a rifle. He rushed the guard, and a struggle took place. According to the reports we have, both were wounded. The prisoner received a wound in the head, and the native guard was struck three times on the head with a half-axe. The prisoner escaped with the rifle, lt is further stated that the guard was very seriously injured, though it is a noteworthy fact that a few days afterwards he was able to give evidence before a board of inquiry consisting of two visiting justices of the peace. This is all we know of the case, and anything further is in the region of conjecture and assertion. It has been stated by one of the miners t-hat O’Brien threatened to shoot anybody who attempted to capture him. It is further stated by the magistrates that certain charges were hanging over the head of this prisoner O’Brien, and that he was to be prosecuted for theft, rape, and assault. Those charges may or may not be true. O’Brien may be- an unmitigated scoundrel, as the Government reports seem to convey, or he may only be a violent-tempered, but warm-hearted man, as described in the reports of the miners amongst whom he lived. According to the miners, when one of their number was lost, O’Brien was a member of the search- party, and, persevering after the others had given up hope, he was the means of saving the life of the wanderer. But whether the magistrate or the miners be correct, does not in the , slightest degree affect the present issue. Every man is held to be innocent until proved to be guilty, and merely alleged offences ought not to be taken into consideration. The only charge against O’Brien is that he was convicted of common assault, and that he overpowered his guard and escaped from custody; and on this account, a most extraordinary proclamation, which practically outlawed him, was issued by the Assistant Resident Magistrate, in the following terms : -

Should O’Brien appear to any member of the field, such member is perfectly justified in ordering him to stand or go in front of him to police, and if O’Brien fails to do either of these things he may be shot.

– I am surprised, that the members of the- Government have not taken any notice of this matter, seeing that in the case of the natives there was no hesitation in appointing a board of inquiry. .

Debate interrupted. Orders of the Day called on.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the consideration of Order of the Day No. i, Tobacco Monopoly, be postponed until notice of motion No. 3 has been disposed of.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:
New South’ Wales

– We do not know how long the debate on Senator Smith’s motion will be continued.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– I shall not be more than five minutes.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

– I presume that the Minister of Defence desires to reply to the honorable senator.

Senator Playford:

– No; I have not seen the papers. There is a gentleman coming down from British New Guinea who will give the information.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- Let the honorable senator ask for leave to continue his speech on another occasion.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– I do not see why I cannot continue mv speech now with the consent of the honorable senator in charge of the next order of the day. I shall not be more than five minutes.

Question .resolved in the affirmative.

Debate resumed.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I have lived amongst miners nearly all my life. Although I admit that miners are rough and ready, perhaps not so polished in their mode of speech as some of the city men, and may not doff their hat and pull their forelock in the presence of their so-called superiors; still, there are no more law-abiding, men in the Commonwealth, and_ that is proved on every field in Aus.tralia. I want honorable senators to understand that the miners on this gold-field are Australians.

Senator Millen:

– As this question is so important that other business has ,had to be set aside to discuss it, I think, sir, we should have a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.That the miners in British New Guinea are just as law abiding and as good men as the miners of Australia from whom they are drawn, is proved conclusively by the fact that there have been hardly any convictions amongst them. I wish now to say a few words about the treatment- of white prisoners in the Possession. We must recognise the peculiar conditions that exist there, differentiating as they do from those prevailing in Australia. The whole government of the Possession rests upon one word, “ prestige.” The belief of the natives in the power of the white man is even more important than their belief in his justice. It is a boast that since British occupation of the Possession, no white soldier has been there. That has been brought about, not only by the want of cohesion amongst the natives, but equally by the loyal support which has been given by the white colonists to the Administration. It would be a sorry day for the Possession if the white population were to adopt a hostile attitude towards its Government. When a prisoner is put to the work of scrub-cutting, it is regarded as one of the most menial occupations to which’ a man can be put there. It is an occupation which no one but a native ever undertakes. This prisoner was put to the work of scrub-cutting. He was guarded by a native with a rifle, and his gaolers were actually, if not theoretically, natives. Surely that reverses the usual order of things, , and is likely to create a very bad impression in the minds of the Papuans. It will profoundly and injuriously modify the natives’ view of the paramountcy and the power of the white population. For a white prisoner to work at what is considered a menial occupation, under the control of a native with a rifle, in an open field, in full view of the natives, and in a place where they are continually congregating from distant parts as they come to lodge complaints, or to receive instruction or advice, or to bring foodstuffs for the population at the Government station, is a thing which will revolutionize the views of natives in regard to the power and prestige of the white man. They will cease to recognise the superiority of a person whom they themselves can control with a rifle, and compel to work. Such a system is liable to make a white man an object of contempt rather than of respect to the natives, as he should be.

Senator Millen:

– I beg, sir. to call your attention Ho the state of the Senate. [Quorum formed.”]

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– The petition which was sent down to the Minister of External Affairs, and signed1 by thirty-three out of the thirty-four miners on the field, contains this statement in re gard to the degradation of working under the control of a native -

It acts like a dagger in the heart of a whiteman when he . knows that the ignorant savage isplaced in control over him by his own white men.

That is a position which should not be tolerated, and which is unnecessary. We have a white gaoler at Woodlark Island, as well as at Port Moresby, seventy miles distant, and all white men in prison should be sent to either one place or the other. For the sake of producing a moral effect upon the natives, no white man. should be placed “under native gaolers towork as an inferior to them. I regret that, in doing what I believe to be my duty here, I have been compelled to speak as I have with regard to the actions of certain men from whom I have received the greatest kindness. During my last trip to British New Guinea I was treated with the greatest kindness by every one I met, more especially by these very men whose conduct I am now discussing. When I reached the Yodda Field I was struck down with malarial fever, and these men treated1 me with the greatest kindness, so that I have no personal feeling other thai* gratitude to them in this matter. I believe that such an act is likely to be most detrimental to the best interests of the Territory, and to create a feeling of hostility on the part of the colonist’s against the ruling powers, and therefore I felt it necessary to bring the matter before the Senate. What I ask the Government todo is merely to request the Administrator to give a full report of the whole proceeding, with his reasons for taking no notice of this extraordinary proclamation which was issued, and his justification therefor, if a justification can be given. The people of British New Guinea, areentitled to the same rights and privileges, as far as possible, as we are, and an escaped prisoner there should receive the same treatment as we would demand for an escaped prisoner here. Were a prisoner to escape here in similar circumstances, and a right to be given to any person toshoot him, practically at sight, unless hewent back to gaol, it would be considered an outrage. Are we to deprive thecolonists in British New Guinea of such rights and privileges as we possess in that respect? The Chief Justice of the Possession possesses local knowledge, and would be able to furnish a report on thismatter. The miners have the highest opinion of His Honour, and would be quite willing, I am sure, to abide by his decision. If the Government would give a promise to ask Chief Justice Murray to give a report on the whole matter, especially with regard to the document I read, I think the miners in the Possession would be satistied, and the people of the Commonwealth would know exactly what had occurred.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the debate be now adjourned.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Before the question is put, sir-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - There cannot be any debate on this motion.

Senator Stewart:

– What is the object of adjourning the debate?

Senator Playford:

– I am going to get some information from the Secretary of External Affairs, who is returning from New Guinea next week.

Question - That the debate be now adjourned - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 4

Majority … … 7

Motion agreed to; debate adjourned.

AYES

NOES

page 1736

QUESTION

NATIONAL MONOPOLY IN TOBACCO

Debate resumed from 3rd August (vide page 540), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That a Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon -

The existence or otherwise of a combine, trust, or monopoly in the industry of the manufacture, importation, and sale of tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes within the Commonwealth.

If such combine, trust, or monopoly be found to exist, as to its effect on the industry, and on the Commonwealth.

As to the advisability or otherwise of the Government taking over the industry of such manufacture, importation, and sale, or any part thereof.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

That the Committee report to the Senate on 9th August, 1905.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– In view of the importance of this subject, one would have expected that the mover would see the reasonableness of the suggestion which has been made to him, to adjourn the debate until we had a more representative attendance. The effect of what has taken place in the Senate to-day has been that a large number of honorable senators have left the Chamber, and some, indeed, have left the State.

Senator Matheson:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- There being two questions involved in the motion, I shall consider it a complicated one, and shall put it in the manner suggested by Senator Millen.

Senator MILLEN:

– In that case it will not be necessary for me to move the omission of the third paragraph, and I shall content myself with voting against it when it is submitted. I come now to what, to my mind, is the crux of the whole position’. In approaching this question of the nationalization of the industry, I am brought face to face with a question which I am afraid we are too often inclined to overlook in much of the legislation brought before us, and that is the question whether the proposal submitted is constitutional. I’ may be met at once with the statement that it is not material whether it is constitutional or not, seeing that this is merely a proposal for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into it. But I cannot conceive of anything more like shirking our responsibility, more degrading to the Senate, or more childish in itself, than to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into something which we have not the tight !to deal with by legislative enactment. I shall be as brief as I can ; but it is obvious that a matter of this kind, which is not only of great importance in itself, but of considerable complexity, is not one which can be hurried over lightly. Further, I look upon it as one reason for addressing the Senate at some length, on this motion that the question involved is not merely that of a tobacco monopoly. It must be borne in mind that this represents the first concrete instance of an attempt to encroach upon what are States rights and States prerogatives. If, as I think I can show, there is no power under the. Constitution enabling the Commonwealth to carry on an industry, that that is a prerogative of the States, it is essentia] to the proper discharge of the responsibilities which rest on us, and to our individual and collective dignity, that we should refrain from asserting any right to operate in the domain secured by the Constitution to the States. On that point there is further evidence of the great gain which has resulted in the consideration of this matter from the delay which has taken place. Senator Pearce, when he first brought this matter before the Senate, was absolutely emphatic in his assurance that we had the constitutional power to do what he proposes. The honorable senator is not certain to-day. He will not to-day affirm, as he did when he first introduced the matter, that there is absolute constitutional warrant for doing what he proposes. The honorable senator was at first emphatic that it was constitutional to carry out his wishes. A little later he is wavering ; he is inclined still later to admit that it might be a matter of some doubt ; and finally he finishes up by saying that, in view of the doubt, we should ap point a Select Committee to take evidence and try to solve it. This shows that even the honorable senator in charge of the motion entertains grave doubts as to whether we have a constitutional warrant for nationalizing this or any other industry. It is in the hope of completing a conversionwhich has apparently commenced, and because of the great importance of the subject, that I propose to , refer To a few constitutional authorities to see if I can, ever* at the eleventh hour, convince the honorable senator of the unconstitutional character of the proposal he submits, and in the hope, gradually becoming fainter, that the Senate will refrain from appointing a Select Committee to inquire into a project when it must know that it has no constitutional warrant for giving effect to it. I have been surprised, in. reading through the speeches made by Senator Pearce, to find that one who has been so intimately associated with Federation from its earliest days, should have fallen into a grave and fundamental error as to what is the basis of the Constitution under which we, politically, Jive. It is quite evident that Senator Pearce has not yet grasped the wide distinction which marks our Constitution, following largely, as it does, that of the United States, as compared with that of Canada. The honorable senator’s error is shown by the interpretation he seeks to read into those simple words “ the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth,” forming the introductory portion of section 51. The interpretation which Senator Pearce gives to these words, if carried out literally, would simply mean that the Federation can legislate upon any subject which Parliament chooses to think necessary for “ the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth.” He absolutely denies that the powers of the .Commonwealth are limited to- the thirty-nine articles which are set out in section 51. It is somewhat difficult to speak to empty benches, and I beg to draw your attention, sir, to the state of the Senate. [Quorum formed.]. It is curious that Senator Pearce, in his efforts to bolster up an opinion whichappears to be necessary to him for the maintenance of his case, should have quoted a number of constitutional authorities, every one of which, I think, can be shown to be absolutely against the conclusion at which he arrives. This is a remarkable instance of a man1 who, having, first of all, formed an opinion, immediately seeks to turn all facts and authorities to the support of that opinion. The honorable senator referred to a quotation from remarks by Mr. Justice Clarke; and I invite honorable senators to note with what unfailing regularity every one of the authorities relied on by Senator Pearce is absolutely fatal to his case. I shall not trouble the Senate with the rather long quotation from Mr. Justice Clarke, but merely read the words in which Senator Pearce summarized the quotation, and.. I think, fairly enough -

The words (“ peace, order, and good government,”) either mean that we have the power to legislate for those purposes, except where we are expressly forbidden, or, except the power is expressly reserved to the States, or their insertion was unnecessary.

That is an affirmation that we have the power to legislate beyond the expressed thirty-nine articles in section 51, or that the words, “ peace, order, and good government,” are unnecessary. ‘ As elucidating the argument to which I wish to address myself a little more fully, let me point out that the honorable senator appears to have ignored altogether the vast difference between our Constitution and that of Canada. Here a’ll power is reserved to the States, except that expressly and specifically transferred to the Federation; whereas in Canada, all power rests in the Central or Federal -Government, except that power which is specifically and expressly transferred to the States. That being so, there seems to be ho doubt’ that we are limited absolutely and entirely to the articles set out in section 51. Yet Senator Pearce, because none of the! thirty-nine articles expressly provided for the carrying on of any industry, seeks to draw some comfort from the words, “ peace, order, and good government,” and to contend that those words give power to legislate on anything we believe to be necessary for the welfare of the Commonwealth. Let me show the error of that position. If there is one point on which the Constitution is clear, it is, I think, that the Federation is absolutely powerless outside the powers expressly transferred from the States. One of the frequent sources of trouble in the early days of most Federations has been in deter.mining exactly where the limit of one authority ends, and the other commences. But it has never been disputed in America that the powers of the Federation there are limited to the transferred powers. I venture to’ think that Senator Pearce, in quoting the words, “ peace, order, and good government,” has dissociated them from words in the context which absolutely qualify them. The words on which Senator Pearce relies are in the first portion of section 51 -

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 -

Then are enumerated the thirty-nine articles. Senator Pearce selects the words “ peace, order, and good government,” shutting out the other words, “ subject to this Constitution,” just as he shuts out the words which follow, viz., “ with respect to.’* The section as a whole does not provide that Parliament shall have power to make laws for “peace, order, and good government “ - nothing of the kind. The section provides that the Parliament shall have power, “ subject to this Constitution,” to make laws for the “ peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth,” and then come the words, “ with .respect to,” followed by the thirtynine articles. It is to be observed that this limitation, so clearly and sharply set to the powers of the Federation, is repeated in numerous other places throughout the Constitution. Senator Pearce said that if the words “ peace, order, and good government “ do not imply some power other than those set out in the articles, they are superfluous and unnecessary. My answer is that if the words mean an unlimited power to legislate on anything that may be regarded1 as for the “peace, order, and good government “ of this country, and are not limited by the thirty-nine articles, why are the thirty-nine articles enumerated? Why does the section not simply read, “ The Parliament shall have power to make laws foi; the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth “ ?

Senator Dobson:

– Even then the laws would be subject) to the Constitution.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am leaving those words out.

Senator Dobson:

– But I think those words would have to be implied.

Senator MILLEN:

– Senator Pearce suggests that the words “ peace, order, and good government “ either gives us power beyond the thirty-nine articles, or they are unnecessary. But if they mean that we may go beyond the thirty-nine articles - if they give us unlimited power - why are the articles enumerated ? There would have been no Federation if there had not been the qualifying words. I pass now to the sharp limitation placed on our legislative powers. In the course of my argument, I shall use, as far as I can, every section of the Constitution, and every authority quoted by Senator Pearce, because I require nothing better to show the fallacy of his argument. Let us turn to article xxxi. of section 51. This provides that we may legislate with respect to -

The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person, for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws.

Senator Pearce laid some stress on this article as proving that we have the power to acquire the tobacco monopoly. The article gives power for the “ acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person.” For what? The “peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth “ ? Not at all. There is a limitation. We have power to secure the “ acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person, for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws.” There again is a sharp limitation. If it had been intended to mean, as Senator Pearce has represented, that we have unlimited power to legislatein any direction in which it appears to us the “ peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth” demands, why do those limitations run throughout the Constitution? We have only power to legislate, or even to acquire property, under the section where that property is required “ for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws.” Curiously enough, this is one of the sections of the Constitution brought forward by Senator Pearce in order to show that we have power to legislate outside the Constitution. Senator Pearce also quoted article XXXIX. of section 51, and I admit that it was surprising to me to find the honorable senator appealing to those articles for support of his contention that we have power beyond that there prescribed. Every authority cited by the honorable senator seems to repeat and confirm the limitations and prescriptions which are around us in regard to the extent to which we may. or may not, legislate. Article XXXIX., following, of course, the preamble to the section, gives power to legislate on -

Matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament, or in either House thereof, or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the Commonwealth.

If that article proves anything, it proves that we are absolutely bound by the thirtynine articles, and not, as the honorable senator desires to show, that we have any power beyond. If the words “ vested by this Constitution “ had , been omitted, the honorable senator might have contended that we had a roving legislative commission. But turn where we may in the Constitution, we find ourselves hedged about sharply, and in the most pronounced fashion. Though we have ample sovereign power, as wide as it is possible to conceive, it is in regard to a very strictly limited number of subjects; and the subject on which Senator Pearce desires to legislate is not one of those set out in section 51. I think it must be held that our powers are limited1 to the various subjects for legislative action which have by this section been transferred from the States to the Federation. If it will be admitted (that we are limited to these transferred powers, then I ask whether the power of carrying on manufactures and industries was one of the powers transferred, and, if so, where and how was it transferred? It may be presumed that every one will readily admit that, prior to Federation, the States had an absolute right to manufacture if they pleased. There can be no doubt that any individual State had unquestionable power to start any industry, any manufactory, or any distributing business which it might choose to carry on. If that power did rest in the States, it must rest “there’ to-day, unless it has been specifically transferred. That it rests there unless transferred is made clear by section 107, which says -

Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth, or withdrawn from the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be.

That express and wise provision is the very basis of the Federation. I submit that prior to Federation the power of carrying on manufactures and industries was with the States. If it has been transferred, I ask for the proof of the transference. There is nothing in the thirty-nine articles, not even by implication, to say that it has been transferred. Therefore it has not been transferred, but still remains with the original repositories - the States. For us to legislate in what is unquestionably and constitutionally their d’omain is to do something which would be not only wrong in itself, but pernicious in its ultimate effects, and possibly produce between the States and the Federation friction, which I am sure we would all deplore. It is rather curious that Senator Pearce, who sought to show ‘that we have power to carry on an industry, does make a little concession to the principle of States rights, does show a little inclination to occasionally recognise the binding power of the Constitution, when he admits that we could not take over the management of the mines of the States because they are reserved to the States. Where are they so reserved? In the Constitution there is no reservation in regard to mines that is not also a reservation in regard to every other State power. There is no list of subjects reserved to the States, because that was not necessary. All power remains with the States, except with regard to the thirtynine transferred subjects. I challenge Senator Pearce to show that in the Constitution there is a reservation to the States of power in respect to mines which is not also a reservation in respect of the right to carry on the business of manufacturing or distributing. If it is constitutional for the Federation to carry on manufactures, it is also constitutional for the Federation to interfere with the management of mines, for the power which secured to the States their original rights over mining and such matters is exactly the same as the power which secures to them the right they originally had of entering upon trade and commerce in all its various forms. In dealing with this aspect of the question, Senator Pearce seemed to find some little comfort from the quite imaginary difference between the possession of a power by a State and the exercise of the power by the State* Speaking of manufacturing, he said -

This is a domain that has not been touched upon by the States authorities.

That is burking the whole question. Whether a State possesses a power or not is one thing; and whether it chooses to exercise the power or not is another thing. The honorable senator will see that the objection he takes - that the States have never exercised this power - could be taken against the Commonwealth to-day, with regard to many subjects upon which it has not yet legislated. It might be said that we have no power to deal with quarantine and lighthouses, because we have not legislated regarding them. But that fact does not destroy our power in the slightest degree. It is still ours, and unquestionably we can legislate whenever we see fit. We are proceeding to deal with copyright, but we have not yet dealt with weights and measures, or with marriage and divorce, or with a variety of subjects. Will Senator Pearce, when a Bill is brought forward, contend that we have no right to deal with those subjects, because our powers, having been dormant, have ceased to exist ? Yet that is exactly the point he raises with regard to the power of the States to carry on the manufacture of tobacco, or any other commodity. When he brought forward that remarkable statement, Senator Playford, with> that point which always marks his interjections, said -

The States could manufacture tobacco and” cigars.

Senator Pearce replied

In taking over these powers we should not beinterfering with any powers which the States haveexercised.

He does not deny that the States possessthe powers, but merely says that they havenot exercised them. In other words, hecontends, if his language means anything, that, because the powers have been allowed! to lie dormant, therefore, the Federation can step in and take them. Nothing more destructive of the very basis of our Constitution than that was ever uttered, either inside or outside these walls. I think Senator Pearce began to recognise the extraordinary doctrine he was promulgating, becausefollowing the quotation I have just made, Senator Playford again returned to thecharge with this question -

But we’ should be depriving the States of their right to manufacture tobacco and cigars which., they have at present?

What was Senator Pearce’s reply? Hefound the question too puzzling to answer, and, therefore, he brushed it aside, and proceeded to quote a statement from an> author which had no reference to it. Heignored the unpleasant truth, which possibly was the wisest thing for him to do - and commenced his next sentence by saying, “ There is a sentencefrom a writer on the United States Constitution, Ashley,” which he proceeded’ to quote, and1 which Had no referenceto the very pertinent question put to him. In view of the fact that he retreated under the cover of silence from that question, he must recognise that his position is absolutely untenable. Does he expect the Senate to appoint a Select Committee to consider the advisability of doing something, the unconstitutionality of which he as beginning to recognise? No matter how desirable it may be- if it were fifty thousand times more desirable than he contends at is - surely that is no justification for us to attempt to do that which the Constitution expressly forbids? One of the many errors in which the honorable senator fell was in affirming that this is a domain into which the States have not yet entered. That is absolutely incorrect. It is not a question -of whether they have entered into the domain of the manufacture of tobacco, because that article is a mere incident in the situation. The point is, Have the States entered into the domain of manufacturing j and I affirm that they have. Victoria has brick- works, while New South Wales, in addition to clothing factories, has a dock, which is prepared to manufacture as well as repair vessels, for private persons as well as for the Government. These are proofs that-the States have - modestly,’ it may be - entered into this domain. The facts I mention afford conclusive proof, if it were required, that, prior to Federation, the States had the right to carry on industry of any kind. The Constitution is absolutely silent as to its transfer, and, therefore, we may assume that the power still remains with the States. If the States have that power, it is evident that they may exercise it at any time with regard to not merely tobacco, but a variety of articles. Victoria has just started a brick factory. If Senator Pearce can prove that it is constitutional for the Commonwealth to start a tobacco factory, it must be equally constitutional for the Commonwealth to start a “brick factory. He wants a monopoly in the manufacture of tobacco, and presumably he would want a monopoly in the manufacture of bricks. What is he going to do with Mr. Bent and the Victorian 1)rick-works ? It is quite evident that the very fact that those State brick-works are in existence demolishes at once the slightest pretence that can be advanced for the contention that the Federation has any power to carry on these industries. I shall admit that there is no specific prohibition against the Commonwealth carrying them on. But my answer to that objection is that no specific prohibition is necessary, for the simple reason that there is a general prohibition against the Commonwealth legislat ing on any subject outside the thirty-nine articles. Senator Pearce also said that not only was there no prohibition against the Federation undertaking this business, but that this question of industries was not specifically reserved to the States. It was not necessary to specifically reserve anything,. All that was done was to specify the subjects of legislation which were transferred to Federal control. There was no need to specify other articles, because the residue of powers continued with the States, and amongst these was the right to carry on manufactures or industries of any kind. I pass to the rather ingenious contention which Senator Pearce founded on section 51 of the Constitution, which gives us power to legislate, amongst other things, with regard to old-age pensions. He argued that as we have power to legislate in regard to old-age pensions, we must necessarily have power to raise the money for their payment in any way we like. That is another of those extraordinary doctrines which could only have been formulated by a gentleman who was prepared to interpret anything as supporting the cause which he was advocating. It is quite true that the Federation has very wide powers of taxation, though they are not absolutely supreme, as is generally assumed. The Court has already taught us that there is a limit even to our powers of taxation. It is a limit in one direction only, but it still exists. It is useful to remember it, because no matter how desirable, in our opinion, it may lie to go outside the Constitution, there is a power which will pull us within it again, and that is the Court. In proof of what I say, I remind honorable senators of the case, instituted by New South Wales against the Commonwealth, to test the point whether the Commonwealth could charge duties upon States’ imports. It is a little matter, perhaps, but if shows that our powers of taxation are not absolutely unlimited; and it illustrates the danger of going outside the Constitution. Senator Pearce has made a great mistake by regarding all money, irrespective of the way in which it was raised, as taxation. He confuses taxation and profits - two very different things in the case of an individual, as they are in the case of a State. He quotes Professor Harrison Moore, on the point. Here again I invite the attention of the Senate to the fact that the very authorities whom Senator Pearce quotes take the ground from beneath his feet, figuratively speaking. Yet he seemed to draw some measure of comfort from them. Professor Harrison Moore said that -

An exercise of the taxation power occurs whenever a compulsory contribution of wealth is taken from a person, private or corporate, under authority of the public’s powers.

I invite attention to those words. But Senator ^Pearce twists that statement of Professor Harrison Moore’s into these words - that Professor Moore holds -

That the whole matter of the raising of money in any form by the Government is covered - by the word “ taxation.” Professor Harrison Moore never said anything of the kind. He was not so stupid as to say that the whole matter of raising money in any form is covered by the yord “ taxation.” What he did was to give a general definition of what taxation is. That is surely a widely different thing from saying that taxation means raising money in any way whatever. It is the very contrary. Professor Harrison Moore’s definition of taxation absolutely excludes the idea of profit. Before passing from this aspect of the case, I should like to refer to other authorities quoted by Senator Pearce. In Hansard, he is reported as having quoted Judge Cooley. Judge Cooley was writing with regard to the Constitution of the United States. The words upon which Senator Pearce relied, and which I shall briefly quote, were Judge Cooley’s comments upon the section of the American Constitution which corresponds with our own section. Judge Cooley said -

The import of the clause is that Congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers-

To secure peace, order, and .good government? Not a bit of it, but -

Congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers to carry into execution all the express powers.

It is a curious thing that Senator Pearce should have relied upon the authority of Judge Cooley, who expressed himself in such pellucid terms, showing clearly that we cannot strain the .Constitution in order to draw to ourselves powers which the Constitution does not convey. Senator Pearce relied upon that authority for saying that the simple words “ peace, order, and good government,” give the right to legislate outside the thirty-nine powers expressly conveyed - the very thing which Judge Cooley set himself to show could not constitutionally be done. Says the Judge -

It neither enlarges any powers specifically given -

Surely that is clear enough - nor is it a grant of any new power to Congress. But it is merely a declaration , for the removal of all uncertainty that the means for carrying into execution those otherwise granted powers are included in the grant.

That is an authority upon which I, as an opponent of Senator Pearce’s motion, could rely. But the honorable senator seeks to widen the powers of the Constitution by quoting an authority as diametrically opposed to his opinion as Judge Cooley is. The same fatalistic course was apparently driving the honorable senator when he selected another author to support him. He quoted from Mr. Ashley. Mr. Ashley says -

No one in our day denies that the United States Government has a right to supplement the powers expressly stated in the Constitution.

If that were all, the authority quoted would have, supported the honorable senator’s contention. But Mr. Ashley goes on to use the words -

By such means as are reasonable and wise -

To do what ? - to carry out those powers.

Not one jot or tittle is added or can be added to powers expressly conveyed. All that is meant by the term “ implied power,” is that Parliament has and must have, by implication, the power necessary to give effect to the powers specifically conveyed in section 51. I must again draw attention to the state of the Senate. [Quorum formed.] It may be said that the fight is hopeless, as the Senate has made up its mind. I do not know, nor in one sense do I care, whether that is so or not; but I feel that in this matter, up to the last moment, it is my duty, and the duty of those who feel with me, to advance any argument which we think will influence a single vote with a view to prevent the Senate from making a. regrettable mistake. For that reason, I wish to refer honorable senators to the information conveyed to us. b” Senator Playford, when he indicated1 the opinion “iven by his then colleague the Attorney,-General, and by the AttorneyGeneral of the Ministry preceding. It could not be contended that the opinions of the gentlemen to whom he referred were prejudiced by political considerations, or that there was any party influence at work. I would not suggest that gentlemen occupying the position, of Attorney-General would allow themselves to be so influenced in giving their legal opinions. That considers- tion makes their view all the stronger. Moreover, it was given at a time when there was no possibility of their being ever unconsciously biased. And, further, any influence that might have affected Mr. Deakin would have induced him to regard the proposition favorably; because his opinion was given with regard to a proposal which appealed to his colleagues, namely, the Iron Bonus Bill. Not even the bitterest enemy of the Deakin Government could say with fairness and truth that it was other than a friend of that measure. I think it is a fair assumption, judging from its general policy, that the Barton Government was, if anything, inclined rather to favour the course outlined by Senator Pearce, not with regard to this particular, industry, but with regard to industries generally, than to oppose it. Now what did Mr. Deakin say ? I shall not go through the whole of the long letter which he wrote, but I desire to invite the attention of honorable senators to the two or three more pertinent sentences contained in it, because they seem to me to sum up the position so accurately, and yet so forcibly, that I venture to say that they will stand with us for all time as an admirable and unchallengable exposition of the powers which are ours by right, and also of the limitation placed upon those powers by the Constitution. Mr. Deakin’s letter was written to Mr. Kingston, and I remind honorable senators that Mr. Kingston was at the time acting as President of the Bonus Commission, and had written to Mr. Deakin, as Attorney-General, to know whether or not it was competent for the Federation to carry on an industry, such as the manufacfacture of iron. Of course, the proposition here is the manufacture of tobacco, but it will be obvious to anybody that whatever limitation there is with regard to the manufacture of iron must be a limitation or prohibition against the manufacture of any other article. Therefore, the principles laid down here apply with equal force and validity to the proposition now before the Senate. Mr. Deakin wrote -

Dear Mr. Kingston,

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!

I interrupt the quotation here, to say that Senator Pearce laid great stress on the trade and commerce sub-section. The honorable senator seemed to think that, under it, because the United States of America could build railways, we could manufacture tobacco. He quite overlooked the vast difference between trade and commerce and manufacture. Mr. Deakin points it out in the next line of his letter. He says -

Commerce only begins where production and manufacture end.

– I do not even except Senator Styles, who ought to know better. It is to me deplorable that honorable senators should ‘give expression to utterances of that kind, which, honestly speaking, I think they would1 scout in their sober moments. Mr. Deakin in his letter goes on to say . something -which, has a bearing on Senator Matheson’s interjection. I have no wish to quote the whole of the letter, but honorable senators will see the application this has to the point with which I am dealing. Mr. Deakin goes on to say -

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.

I say that these remarks of Mr. Deakin are going to stand side by side with the decisions of Judge Cooley and other eminent American authorities that I have quoted, for the benefit of those whose duty it will be later on to interpret the Constitution. These opinions are absolutely sound and absolutely clear, and they were given in circumstances which show that the author of them was free from any consideration due. to any party or public crisis, and was in a position to judge on the points submitted to him coolly and impartially, and entirely upon the wording of the Constitution itself. Mr. Deakin is not alone. We have another opinion from his successor as Attorney-General, a much shorter one, and so short that I may as well read it. He states -

You ask me - Has the Commonwealth power to establish the manufacture of tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes, close all present establishments, and prevent private persons in future manufacturing of such articles.

This question appears to me to be governed, with the exception mentioned below, by the opinion given by Mr. Deakin on the 18th July, 1903, to Mr. Kingston, President of the Royal Commission on the Bonuses for Manufactures Bill in connexion with the establishment of iron works by the Commonwealth. The text of that opinion is printed at page 184 of the report of the Commission.

That is the opinion with which I have already dealt -

With that opinion I entirely agree. The only difference between the iron industry and the tobacco industry, so far as regards the principles there laid down, seems to be that it is not easy to conceive how the manufacture of tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes can be incidental to the execution of any of the express legislative powers of the Commonwealth.

With regard to the manufacture of iron, I quoted the portion of Mr. Deakin’s opinion which gives, if any can give, a colouring to the contention of the supporters of this motion. I did that in all fairness, but this opinion of the later Attorney-General makes it quite clear that, while incidentally it might be held that the manufacture of iron was necessary to the proper exercise of the power with respect to defence conferred by the Constitution on the Commonwealth, it is not possible, by the hugest stretch of imagination, to suppose that the power to manufacture and sell cigars is necessary to the carrying out of any of the powers expressly conveyed to the Commonwealth under section 51.

Under these circumstances it would be necessary to administer the tobacco monopoly in the interests of growers and makers.

A literal confirmation of the words I have been using.

In the hands of the Slate the administration could, without doubt, encourage local manufacture and culture. There is but one source from which to derive money, namely, the tax on the consumer, but the amount drawn can, according to the policy of the State in fixing prices for the sale of tobacco and the purchase of the leaf,, be applied either to the assistance of the grower, to the State employes, or to the revenue -, or it can be reduced in the interests of the consumer, or increased within certain limits to his detriment.

I think that is a very clear exposition- of the case. He says that there is only outsource from which we can obtain money to carry oh the industry, and that is the consumer. Senator Pearce says that the consumer is not to get- any benefit, and, there- fore, so far as he is concerned, he would still have to pay a price which the honorable senator has spoken of as being excessive. The benefit is apparently to be divided between the State on the one hand, and the employes on the other. The honorable senator, of course, may contend, that the consumer is not at all injured, provided the price is not raised^ and that, so long as he is charged no more than the price which he is charged to-day, he will have no cause to complain. I wish to direct the attention of the honorable senator to an interjection made during the recent debate. Senator Playford had been urging with regard to the combine that it had not raised the price, and, therefore, had not so far proved injurious to the consumer, when Senator McGregor interjected -

It might be injurious also if the price is not reduced as much as it ought to Ee.

If the existence of the combine is injurious because the price is not reduced as much as the circumstances of the trade will permit, surely that argument is equally potent when applied to the manufacturer of the article in the hands of the State? Whilst it might be admitted that Senator Pearce does not propose that more than 6s. per lb. should be charged for tobacco, I venture to say that, in the absence of any alteration of the Tariff, sooner or later, the consumer will be able to get tobacco at a lower price than that which now obtains, but under State control of the industry it is impossible that he can do so. In connexion with an interjection which Senator Pearce made just now as to the cost of tobacco and so on, I should like to point out that Mr. Bruford says -

The tobacco would therefore have to be sold to retailers at something over twice its cost price to realize the present revenue of ^’250,000 per year-

Senator MILLEN:

– But what I have read is an indication that when there is a big Government monopoly, and an impossibility on the part of trie people to obtain their supplies elsewhere, there is removed the incentive which does tend in private hands to keep up quality to a reasonable level. In a paper called the Traveller, another writer states -

As is well known, the products of the State monopoly of France, With the exception of its higher priced cigarettes and smoking tobaccoes, are hopelessly inferior. French cigars of domestic manufacture are the worst in Europe - those of Italy alone excepted. The truth appears to be that tobacco manufacture in France has gotten into a rut, and there is not a man in the Republic who is strong enough to pull it out. For so rich a country as France, its State monopoly in tobacco is but a poor revenue producer.

I could multiply quotations of the kind, but I think I have read enough to convince honorable senators that whatever may be said of the national monopoly in Franca from the stand-point of revenue, it is, at any rate, not satisfactory to the consumer. Of course, it may be asked why the French people do not uproot the system, and. allow private enterprise to have its way. But the same difficulty confronts the French people which confronts us, when it is proposed to establish a State! industry in Australia. One of the big restraining influences is the recognition of the fact that there are vested interests; and, as the abandonment of an industry of the kind by the State would estrange a great many people, the French Government hesitate to destroy the monopoly. It must be remembered that there are an enormous number of electors in France concerned in the maintenance of the industry. Every man who wishes to retail tobacco there has to obtain a licence, and each one, to” some extent, becomes an upholder of the system. It is true that he may be only an individual, but he is a little centre of influence, which works for the maintenance of the present state of affairs. Apart from that, one can quite understand the French Government shrinking from parting with a business which produces such a large portion of the revenue. A stock argument used in the House of Commons, in regard to’ the duty on beer, is that, whatever may be the moral aspect of the tax, the Treasurer cannot afford to give it up. The Treasurer of France might reasonably shrink from a change which might ultimately work out, but which for a few years Would probably dislocate its finances. When a motion, corresponding to this one, was being discussed elsewhere, the question was asked, “ Is not the Senate the special guardian of States rights “ ? and the reply made was “ Yes, and pays about as much attention to them as does the honorable member.” It has been the invariable practice here for the President to check any remarks derogatory to the other Chamber ; and one might have hoped that that House would have followed so excellent an example. A little while ago, I touched on what I regard as the overstating of the case against this combination. It is affirmed that the combination has absolute control of the retail traders, that it binds them to prices at which they are to sell, that it has stipulations and conditions which practically make them, as it were, its bond slaves. I venture to say that there is not one word of truth in thai affirmation. What the combination does is only what is being, done by every large mercantile firm the world over. It has been Said that the retailers affirm that thev are not at liberty to lower their prices. That is perfectly true. But when it is looked into, as I believe it will be by the Select Committee, it will be found that the arrangement by which retailers have fixed certain prices is one arrived at by their union. The combination simply sends out its trade lists and binds merchants, to whom it principally sells, not to undersell it with the retailers. All the evidence I can collect is clear on this point, that the combination has never sought to control the retail selling price. If that be a fact, it is regretable that contrary statements should be made, which- can only tend to inflame the passions of persons who may not view the matter as coolly as do the members of the Senate. I think I may reasonably conclude my remarks now. I have pointed out that this proposal is, in my opinion, an absolute violation of the Constitution ; and that even if it were constitutional it is undesirable that the Federation should enter upon an industry of this kind. I have endeavoured to show that, from the revenue stand-point, it would not be so materially advantageous as Senator

Pearce has represented, that the cost of distribution would be higher, and the amount of profit lower than he set out, and that the consumer could hope for no relief or benefit from the proposed monopoly. 1 have indicated where I think some advantage might result from an inquiry, and that is to the grower, and to him alone. But when I boil down my objections, all centred, as they are, in the final paragraph of the motion, I find myself in this position : That I would sooner lose the whole of the motion than accept it in its present form. I hardly suppose that Senator Pearce is prepared to strike out that paragraph ; if he is, I shall vote with him entirely ; but if he is not I can only vote against him, holding, as I do, that apart from its utterly unconstitutional character, it is a very pernicious proposal indeed. It is - and probably that is one of the reasons why it is made - the first direct socialistic proposal that we have had here. It is well that that fact should be emphasized and recorded. We have been told that the Labour Party is sometimes a party of Socialism, and sometimes not.’ I hardly know what it pretends to be. But here we have put forward, with the support of its members, a proposal which I submit is the first attempt to nationalize an industry of the Commonwealth. We have here a concrete illustration of what is proposed to be done should the electors give the Labour Party the power to carry it out - the nationalization of the tobacco industry ; and not far down on the noticepaper is a proposal for nationalizing another industry. I shall vote against the motion, not only for the particular objections I have to this specific proposal, but because, in my opinion, it is the first attempt to, by the introduction of State enterprise, utterly abolish that which has so far built up this community to what it is, and that is private enterprise. I understand, sir) that it is not necessary to move an amendment for the elimination of the third paragraph.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- No.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator PLAYFORD:

– If it were proved that the consumers were being injured by the monopoly, the Select Committee might report that, in its opinion, the best way to cure the evil would be for the Commonwealth to take over he manufacture of the article. But I do not wish by my vote to affirm -

The advisability or otherwise of the Government taking over the industry of such manufacture, importation, and sale, or any part thereof.

Millen. He most unfairly suggested that Senator Pearce ought not to proceed with his motion, on account of the scanty attendance at the time he was speaking. I wish to put it on record in Hansard that prior to 4 o’clock this afternoon there was as large an attendance of senators as there has been at any time this session. But as soon as Senator Playford secured the passage of a resolution that the Senate should, at its rising, adjourn until next Wednesday week, many honorable senators seized their bags and papers, and cleared off to catch trains for Sydney and Adelaide. It is scandalous that Senator Millen should use such an argument to support the contention that the debate on the motion should be dropped.

Senator Millen:

– Is the honorable senator thinking of Randwick again ?

Senator MATHESON:

– The allusion is one which I fail to understand. This opposition to proceeding with the motion springs from the action of the leader of the Senate which we endeavoured to prevent this afternoon. If Senator Playford had waited until the ordinary time to discuss the question of adjournment, the whole of the New South Wales and South Australian senators would have been in their places at this moment.

Senator Millen:

– I rise to order. Is that question before the Senate?

The DEPUTY- PRESIDENT. - The honorable senator is not in order.

Senator MATHESON:

– Where am I out of order? I am merely replying to the remarks of Senator Millen. I absolutely fail to see why, if other honorable senators do not choose to attend at the well-advertised days for the sitting of the Senate, a debate should be suspended. We who are ready to give our time and intelligence to the business have a right to expect that other honorable senators shall be in their seats.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

-I wish . to propose the amendment suggested by Senator Millen. I move -

That after the word industry, in sub-paragraph 2, the words “ and the cultivation of tobacco “ be inserted.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– It is a little refreshino:, after the admirable speech ofmy honorable friend Senator Millen. to find that the leader of the Senate has taken upon himself a wee bit of responsibility, and has announced to us the momentous fact that he is going to vote against a paragraph of the motion which he believes to be absolutely illegal and futile. My idea of the responsibility and duty of the leader of a party is not that he should sit smiling in his seat, and allow a large section of the Senate to do just as they please, and waste time in discussing motions which-

Senator Pearce:

– Is the honorable and learned senator in order in saying that honorable senators are wasting time?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT. - Senator Dobson is not in order.

Senator DOBSON:

– I bow to your ruling, but I am unaware that accusing honor - orable senators of wasting, time is out of order.

– Are we discussing the transcontinental railway ?

– I am speaking of the Labour Party as constituted in this Chamber and another place.

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Playford:

– We must dispose of one amendment before another can be moved.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- That is the practice of the Senate. At the request of Senator Millen I have decided to divide the question, as it is a complicated one.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Dobson) negatived -

That the. following words be added to subparagraph 3 : - “ Provided that before No. 3 inquiry is proceeded with by the Committee, they shall obtain the opinion of the Attorney-General that in case of a report of the Committee in favour of the said industry being taken over by the Commonwealth being adopted by Parliament, the Government has the power to enforce and carry out the Act embodying such report.”

Amendment (by Senator Findley) agreed to -

That the words “9th August” in thethird paragraph be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ 12th October.”

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT. - Does Senator Pearce wish to reply?

Senator Pearce:

– No, sir.

Question - That the first paragraph and sub-paragraph 1 be agreed to - resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That sub-paragraph 2, as amended, be agreed to - resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That sub-paragraph 3 be agreed to - put.

Senator DOBSON (Tasmania).- The leader of the Senate told us-

Senator Pearce:

– Is the honorable and learned senator in order in speaking to this question ?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - The honorable and learned senator has already spoken.

Senator DOBSON:

– I have not spoken to the amendment moved by Senator Findley.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - When I called upon the mover of the motion to reply he declined to avail himself of his right. I then commenced to put the question in parts, and there can now be no further debate.

The Senate divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 4

Majority … …8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sub-paragraph 3 agreed to.

Second paragraph, and third paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). -I move -

That the Committee consist of Senators Keating, Stewart, Gray, Story, Styles, Findley, and Pearce.

I may mention that this is the old committee, with the exception of Senator Playford who, being now Minister of Defence, has intimated that he does not desire to be re-appointed. I have nominated another South Australian senator in his place.

Senator DOBSON (Tasmania).- I demand a ballot for the election of the committee.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Standing order 278 states that the senators to serve on a Select Committee shall be nominated by the mover, but on the demand of one senator they shall be selected by ballot. The ballot will take place.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– May I suggest that if there is to Be a ballot it should take place when there is a larger attendance of senators. Personally, however, I have no objection.

Senator DOBSON (Tasmania). - The fact had not struck me that the members of the old Committee have already secured a quantity of information, and I therefore withdraw my demand for a ballot. Nevertheless, I hope that the members of the Committee will obtain an opinion from the law officers which will enable them to come to a conclusion whether it is worth while to spend any more money on the matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1766

PAPER

Senator PLAYFORD laid upon the table the following paper: -

Return to Order of the Senate of 3rst August - Copy of views on the present condition of the Defences communicated by the Prime Minister to the Herald on 12th June.

The Clerk laid upon the table :

Return to Order of the Senate of 24th August, relating to the purchase of pistols for Light

Horse

page 1766

ADJOURNMENT. -

Special Adjournment: Russo-Japanese War: Declaration of Peace: Business of Senate

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

-1 wish to refer- to a matter which I consider to be of some importance, and which occupied the time pf the Senate during the earlier part of the sitting. I refer to the determination to adjourn till Wednesday week. I wish to allude to the way in which that adjournment was arranged^ I understand that an understanding was arrived at earlier in the day with a number of honorable senators that an adjournment should take place, and that it was perfectly understood before the sitting commenced that a motion to that effect would be carried. I heard nothing about that arrangement. If I had heard of it I should have been in a position to go to Queensland if I had desired to do so. But the matter was sprung upon me suddenly. I never expected any adjournment, and made no arrangement. That being the case, I have a double complaint to make against the leader of the Government; first of all that he did not acquaint me, as well as other senators, with his intention to move for an adjournment, and, secondly, that there should be any adjournment, at all. Out of courtesy to honorable senators ‘when an action of this kind is contemplated, the Minister ought to give due notice, so that we may make suitable arrangements to go away if we desire. We cannot make up our minds and get ready ort such short notice.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I should like to ask the Minister of Defence whether he has not a Ministerial statement to make with regard to the peace which has been arranged between Russia and Japan. I understand that an announcement has been made in the other House, and surely we might expect a similar announcement from the Government in the Senate if they have any official information.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– So far as I know no official information has been received by the Cabinet with regard to the conclusion of peace in the East; at all events, I am not aware of it. In reply to

Senator Stewart, I wish to say that I did not know what I was going to do with regard to an adjournment until a short time before the Senate met.

Senator Givens:

– There was some sort of understanding.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– There was not the slightest understanding with any honorable senator, so far as I was concerned ; and. I took the earliest opportunity when the Senate mct to make it known what I proposed to do. If Senator Stewart had desired to go to Queensland he could have made arrangements to leave for Sydney at 5 o’clock.

Senator Dobson:

– What business will there be when we meet on Wednesday week ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The Copyright Bill and the Electoral Bill.

Question resolved iri the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 August 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1905/19050831_senate_2_26/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate31 August 1905

QUESTION

MAIL CONTRACT: ORIENT COMPANY,

Senator STEWART:QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator Stewart:

Senator KEATING:

QUESTION

LAND AT LARGS BAY

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator MATHESON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator MATHESON:

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator Matheson:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator PLAYFORD:

QUESTION

CUSTOMS REGULATIONS ON OCEAN STEAMERS

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

QUESTION

HIGH COURT EXPENSES

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Givens:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Stewart:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator GIVENS:Queensland

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Keating:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator McGregor:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:South Australia

Senator Givens:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Givens:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Givens:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Givens:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Givens:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Playford:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Playford:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Playford:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Playford:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Playford:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Playford:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Playford:

Senate
31 August 1905

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator MATHESON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania