Senate
6 December 1905
2nd Parliament · 2nd Session
- SENATE : POSTAGES AND TELEGRAMS
- PAPERS
- CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL
- TRADE MARKS BILL
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- PROPOSED NEW STANDING ORDERS
- QUESTION
The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 6257
SENATE : POSTAGES AND TELEGRAMS
The PRESIDENT:
– Before the business of the day is called on, I wish to lay upon the table a return of the amount paid in postages and telegrams for each senator. It was asked for by several senators, and is not in print.
Ordered to be printed.
page 6257
PAPERS
Senator PLAYFORD laid upon the table the following papers: -
List of officers of the Administrative and Instructional Staff of the Military Forces.
Despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the reply thereto of the Prime Minister,in regard to holding an Imperial Council.
Ordered to be printed.
The Clerk laid upon the table
Return to an Order of the Senate, dated 14th September, showing the number of officers, salaries,&c Post and Telegraphic Department.
Return to an Order of the Senate, dated 20th October, relating to postal matter carried be tween the Commonwealth and the New Hebrides and other islands during the year ending 30th June, 1905.
Return to an Order of the Senate of23rd November, giving a copy of the last statement of accounts from the British Treasury relating to the Pacific Cable.
Ordered to be printed.
page 6257
CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL
Message received from the House of Representatives, stating that it did not insist upon its disagreement to amendment No. 1, made and insisted on by the Senate, in this Bill.
page 6257
TRADE MARKS BILL
Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with amendments.
Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist
– I move -
That the consideration of the message be postponed until after consideration of Order of the Day No.1.
The PRESIDENT:
– I think that, under the standing order, the consideration of the message must be postponed to a future day.
Senator Playford:
– “ Unless otherwise ordered.”
Senator KEATING:
– I dare say that the consideration of the message will come on to-morrow. I have no wish to take advantage of honorable senators, but, in case Order of the Day No. 1 were disposed of very hurriedly - which I do not anticipate - I could then submit a motion in connexion with this message, and, if necessary, the debate could be postponed.
The PRESIDENT:
– I understand that the message contains a very large number of amendments, and I presume that honorable senators will want to have them in their hands.
Senator KEATING:
– The passing of this motion will not necessarily bind us to enter upon the discussion of the amendments immediately after the motion on the notice-paper has been disposed of.
The PRESIDENT:
– If the amendments are not printed, they will not be circulated.
Senator KEATING:
– I wish the consideration of the message to be postponed for the present.
Senator HIGGS:
Queensland
– I hope that the Senate will not agreeto the motion. There is any quantity of business on the notice-paper to engage our attention to-day. For instance, it includes a motion for the ratification of the agreement with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, a motion to adopt a report of the Standing Orders Committee, and a motion relative to the cable services. In my opinion, the consideration of these items cannot be concludedat this sitting.
Senator Keating:
– Then the consideration of this message would not come on.
Senator HIGGS:
– Will the Minister give the Senate an understanding that the business on the notice-paper shall be dealt with first?
Senator Keating:
– If the first motion on the notice-paper be disposed of, I shall then have the debate on this message adjourned until to-morrow. I do not wish to bring on the consideration of the amendments in the Bill this evening.
Senator HIGGS:
– If that is the understanding, I shall not oppose the motion; but I do not think it is fair for the Government to attempt to bring on fresh business, and exclude the consideration of my motion relating to the cable services.
The PRESIDENT:
– According to standing order 323 -
Every message from the House of Representatives shall be received without delay by the Clerk Assistant at the Bar, and be reported by the President as early as convenient -
That has been done - and a future time named for its consideration, or it may, by leave, be dealt with at once. “Leave” means the leave of the whole Senate. I am not quite sure now what Senator Keating has moved.
Senator HIGGS:
– The Minister has moved for the message to be considered today, if necessary.
The PRESIDENT:
– I think that “a future time” means some other day. I would suggest to the Minister that he should move that the message be printed and taken into consideration to-morrow, otherwise honorable senators cannot have the amendments in their hands to-day.
Senator KEATING:
– I ask leave to withdraw my motion for the purpose of moving another.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -
That the message be printed and taken into consideration to-morrow.
Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales
– I desire to ask through you, sir, whether the Government have complete power to bring this matter before the Senate. With our Standing Orders as I read them, taken in conjunction with the report of the Standing Orders Committee, I confess that I do not quite see where the Government gain the power. We had a standing order, No. 234, which, on the 30th August was replaced by others, under which it is clearly necessary, before a Bill comes back to the Senate, that it shall have been proceeded with in the other House by request, . and I do not believe that any such resolution has been passed in respect of the Trade Marks Bill. I suppose that the other House relied upon the report of the Standing Orders Committee, which begins as follows : -
That in any action taken in either House respecting any lapsed Bill, it shall be given full effect to by each House up to the final determination of the issue raised in such Bill,
I cannot see that that recommendation of the Joint Standing, Orders Committee gives the Senate power to take back this Bill. There is certainly, it seems to me, a lapse somewhere. I do not see where the Government gain the power to re-introduce the measure. 1 should like, sir, to have an explicit ruling on the point.
The PRESIDENT:
– It was manifest that the Standing Orders of both Houses concerning lapsed Bills were deficient. Each House referred the question to its Standing Orders Committee. The two Committees met as a joint Committee, and agreed that the Standing Orders did not sufficiently carry out the wish of both Houses. It was then determined that new standing orders should be made, which it was hoped would be sufficient. But there was a class of Bill which had been treated - at all events in the other House, a Bill had been treated - as a lapsed Bill, under the standing order which it was proposed to repeal, and, in order to meet that case, the Senate resolved on the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee, that any action already taken in either House respecting a lapsed Bill should be given full effect to by each House up to the final determination of the issue raised therein. That.I take it, is an agreement between the Houses. This resolution was passed by them in order to meet the class of cases referred to. Although it cannot be said that the Trade Marks Bill can be treated as a lapsed Bill under the new standing orders, it was exempted from them, and a specific course in iespect of it was agreed to by both Houses. Therefore I think that Senator Keating is in order in moving the motion, and that at would be a breach of faith with the other House if wedid not treat the Trade Marks Bill as a lapsed Bill.
Senator PULSFORD (New South
Wales). - I think, sir-
The PRESIDENT:
– I have given my ruling, and the honorable senator cannot speak unless he wishes to dispute it.
Senator PULSFORD:
– I simply wish to point out that you are under the impression that this understanding or agreement, or whatever it is, has been accepted by both Houses.
The PRESIDENT:
– I believe it has been.
Senator PULSFORD:
– I believe that it has never been considered in the other House.
The PRESIDENT:
– I do not know, but I was told that it had been.
Senator PULSFORD:
– I think that the report of the Standing Orders Committee has been simply tabled, but has not been considered.
The PRESIDENT:
– The other House adopted the report, I understand.
Senator PULSFORD:
– According to Hansard, the report has been simply tabled and has not yet been considered.
The PRESIDENT:
– We have adopted the report.
Senator PULSFORD:
– Yes ; but the other House has not.
The PRESIDENT:
– We have adopted the report and I think that we ought to adhere to it and keep good faith with the other House. Besides, what is a standing, order but a resolution of the Senate? It can alter a standing order by a new resolution.. Therefore, I think that the Senate meant, when it passed the resolution in August, that thisBill, or any Bill of a similar nature, should be treated as a lapsed Bill.
Senator PULSFORD:
– I venture, sir, to disagree with your ruling, and shall now proceed to put my disagreement into writing and to request that it be considered tomorrow.
The PRESIDENT:
– I am reminded by the Clerk that we have this Session dealt with the Life Assurance Companies Bill in the manner in which if is now proposed that we should deal with the Trade Marks Bill. Whether we were right or wrong in doing so, the honorable senator must see that, if he persists with his intention to move to disagree with my ruling, he will place the Senate and himself in an absurd position, seeing that we have already dealt with a Bill this session in a manner similar to that now proposed.
Senator Keating:
– And the GovernorGeneral has assented to it.
The PRESIDENT:
– And that Bill has been passed into law.
Senator Givens:
– If Senator Pulsford desires to fight the Trade Marks Bill, why does he not do so straight out, instead of taking despicable little points like this?
The PRESIDENT:
– I may say, so far as the Standing Orders Committee is concerned, that the question was debated at length by the Joint Standing Orders Committee, and I have certainly stated what was their intention, an intention which I think they conveyed to this Senate in plain terms.
Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I beg to give notice that I shall move -
That the ruling of the President on the subject of lapsed Bills in connexion with the Trade Marks Bill be disagreed to, on the ground that it is not in conformity with the Standing Orders and the report of the Standing Orders Committee.
The PRESIDENT:
– The debate on the honorable senator’s motion will be adjourned, and will be taken as the first business to-morrow. I now put the question that the message be printed and taken into consideration to-morrow.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 6259
QUESTION
CASE OF S. WILLIAMS
Senator WALKER:
for Senator Lt.Col. Gould
asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -
Has Samuel Williams, who is alleged to have embezzled a sum of £1,897, been suspended; and, if so, when?
Senator KEATING:
Protectionist
– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -
Yes. He was suspended on the 21st November, 1905.
page 6260
QUESTION
MILITARY FORCES
Senator WALKER (for Senator Lt.-Col.
Gould) asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -
With what number of magazine, breech-loading, and muzzle-loading rifles respectively were the
Military Forces of the respective States armed when they were taken over by the Commonwealth ?
Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist
– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -
Senator HIGGS:
asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -
- Is it true that non-commissioned officers from other States than Queensland are sent to the School of Gunnery to qualify as master gunners, sergeant-majors, quartermaster-sergeants, sergeants, and staff instructors; and that, after so qualifying, they are sent to Queensland and placed over the heads of Queensland men?
- Has the Minister any objection to sending sufficient Queensland non-commissioned officers to the School of Gunnery to qualify for any rank that may be vacant in Queensland ?
-
Does the Minister of Defence see any objec tion to the issue of orders to the following effect : -
- That no non-commissioned officer shall be transferred to Queensland unless a Queensland non-commissioned officer of the same rank is transferred to some other State?
- That all non-commissioned officers who have been transferred to Queensland exceeding the number of Queensland officers transferred to other States, shall be removed to their respective States ?
- That every military branch throughout the Commonwealth shall be made an enlisting station, and that the enlisted man’s fare shall be paid to the nearest recruiting station?
- Is it true that within the past few months 28 men have been transferred to Queensland to the alleged detriment of officers of the Queensland branch of the Commonwealth Permanent Military Forces ?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
- No. Since September, 1902, five (5) officers and twenty-four (24) non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Australian Artillery stationed in Queensland have passed through the School of Gunnery.
- No. 3. (a) and (b) The Permanent Forces consist off the -
Royal Australian Artillery,
Corps of Australian Engineers,
Australian Army Service Corps,
Australian Army Medical Corps,
Administrative and Instructional Staff (Officers),
Instrumental Staff (Warrant and N.C, Officers), and for the purpose of promotion above the rank of Corporal each of these is treated as one Corps throughout the Commonwealth, and on a vacancy occurring in any State for a N.C.O., the Senior N.C. Officer of the next lower grade, who has qualified, i.e., has. passed the necessary examination, and’ is recommended by his Commanding Officer and the District Commandant for promotion, is appointed to the vacancy irrespective of the State in which he is serving, and I do not consider that any change shouldbe madein this procedure.
-
The vacancies that occur in the Permanent Forces are comparatively few, and us there is no difficulty at the present time in obtaining suitable recruits as from time to lime required, it is not desirable that any change be made, otherwise the enlisting Officer would require to go to the various stations.
- Since the first January last the following transfers have been made to Queensland : - 28 Gunners, R.A.A., from New South Wales and Victoria to Thursday Island, to augment the garrison there. 1 Sergeant, R.A.A., from New South Wales, on promotion to Coy. Q.M. Sergeant. 1 Corporal, R.A.A., from New South Wales, on promotion to Sergeant. 1 Corporal, R.A.A., from Victoria, on promotion to Sergeant. 1 Sergeant, R.A.A., from Victoria, on appointment to Instructional Staff.
The N.C.O.’s were the senior in their respective ranks in the R.A.A, had passed, and were recommended - similarly as vacancies occur any Senior’ Corporal in Queensland would be transferred to wherever the vacancy existed.
page 6261
QUESTION
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Overtime
- Is the payment of overtime to the employes of the Federal Printing Department practically avoided by the present method of computing the men’s ordinary time?
- Is an ordinary week’s work computed at 42 hours, and is it the practice to refuse payment for overtime until 42 hours have been worked in any one week, although on some occasions the men are asked to work up to fourteen hours consecutively ?
Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
- Payment for overtime is not avoided by the present method.
- An ordinary week’s work is computed at 42 hours. The determination of the Printers’ Board prescribes that overtime shall be paid to any person “ who works in excess of the maximum number of 42 hours.” Accordingly, the practice has been to pay whatever time was worked over 42 hours as overtime. If, owing to the exigencies of the service, men are asked on some occasions to work longer hours than usual, the maximum of 42 hours is reached more quickly, and so is the commencement of overtime.
page 6261
QUESTION
EASTERN EXTENSION COMPANY’S AGREEMENT
Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist
– I move -
- That the Senate ratifies an agreement entered into between the Government of the Commonwealth and the Eastern Extension Company, a copy of which was laid on the table of the Senate, 19th August, 1903.
- That the above resolution be communicated by message to the House of Representatives.
Honorable senators will recollect that in 1903, when Senator Drake occupied the position of Postmaster-General, he brought a similar motion to this under the attention of the Senate. That motion was debated on a good many occasions, and gave rise to some most interesting speeches. We had a very long speech from Senator Smith, and another from Senator Higgs, both of which were highly interesting and instructive at the time. The motion was discussed on11th August, 1903, and again on 27 th August, and it was not referred to subsequently, until 30th September in that year. In the meanwhile Senator O’Connor, who was Vice-President of the Executive Council, had assumed the position of a Judge of the High Court, and I was appointed to fill his place. The discussion on the motion at that time turned on one point. A Conference in connexion with the Pacific Cable Board was proposed to be held in London at some subsequent date, and the feeling amongst honorable senators was that we should not ratify this agreement until the Conference had met, had discussed the question, and had made anv recommendations which it might deem to be necessary. When I took office on 30th September, I moved -
That the Order of the Day No. 4, Eastern Extension Company’s agreement further consideration in Committee of message No. 3 of the House of Representatives, be read and discharged.
In doing so, I said -
The Government have agreed to a Conference. I cannot inform the Senate at present as to when or where the Conference will be held, but I shall do so at the earliest opportunity.
There was considerable delay in the holding of the Conference, which did not meet until some time in July of this year, and we are now in possession of the report of its proceedings. Before I deal further with that matter, I may give a brief history of the events which led up to the framing of this agreement. I do not intend to go fully into the matter, because Senator Drake did so in moving a similar motion in 1903, and honorable senators, who spoke at that time, discussed the question from every conceivable aspect.
Senator Mulcahy:
– We were not all here in 1903.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I shall not go into unnecessary detail, but I shall refer to the history of the matter sufficiently fully to enable honorable senators to thoroughly understand the whole position. When the proposal to lay the Pacific Cable was under discussion, the Eastern Extension Company had what might be called a monopoly of the cable communication between Australia and the rest of the civilized world, and they thought that by making a proposal to construct an All-Red line, from Cornwall to the Island of Ascension, thence to St. Helena, to the Cape, thence by a land line to Durban, from there to Keeling Island, and eventually to the shores of Australia near Fremantle, and continuing by a cable round the coast as far as Adelaide, they might make a satisfactory agreement with the Australian Colonies. They dealt at first with three of the Australian Colonies only, and proposed to enter into an agreement with them. They proposed to reduce the cost of messages to South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania. In the case of Western Australia and South Australia., they proposed to reduce, the cost of ordinary messages from 4s. od. to 4s. per word - a reduction of od. per word - - of Government messages from 3s. 6d. to . 3s. per word - a- reduction of 6d. - and of press messages from is. od. to is. 4d. per word. In the case of Tasmania they proposed a reduction on ordinary messages of from 5s. 5d. to 4s. per word, on Government messages from 4s. 2d. to 3s., and on press messages from 2s. 5d. to is. 5d. The agreement was made on 14th ApriL 1900, that is, -before the Pacific Cable was laid. It was not laid until 8th December, 1902, or practically the commencement of 1903. The other line, the route of which I have described, was laid on the 1st November, 1901. The agreement entered into between South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania and the Eastern Extension Company is contained in a number of articles. Article No. 1 provides for a reduction in charges. Article 12 relates to the laying of lines. Article 14 provides that the South Australian and Western Australian Governments shall provide suitable places for stations at Glenelg, Adelaide, Fremantle, and Perth, and that such rights and faculties as may be reasonably required must be provided. Under article 15, South Australia was to provide for the use of the company a special wire between Adelaide and the Victorian frontier, and another wire between Adelaide and the New South Wales frontier. These wires have been constructed, and there are connecting wires between the South Australian frontier and Melbourne, and between the New South Wales frontier and Sydney. Article 16 provides that the company shall, on and after the opening for traffic of the Pacific Cable, be entitled to open local offices, and collect direct from, and d’eliver direct to, the public, messages in Perth, Adelaide, and Hobart forming part of the Australian traffic. Article 17 provides that the senders of messages shall say whether their cablegrams are to go by way of the Cape route to England or by the Port Darwin route. Article 21 provides that the agreement shall remain in force until rescinded, by mutual consent, in writing. This is the most important part of the agreement between South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania and the Eastern Extension Company. I may say, in passing, that another agreement was subsequently entered into between the company and New South Wales, to which I will allude in a few minutes. The words “ shall remain in force until rescinded by mutual consent expressed in writing “ practically made it an interminable agreement. I suppose we should have some power of breaking the agreement by paying suitable compensation to the company, but I do not think we could break it unless we paid compensation for any loss which the company might consider that it had sustained in consequence of its being broken. It is a most singular agreement, inasmuch as it contained no mention of the specific terms under which it might be abrogated; it must be’ by mutual consent, and must be in writing. The Commonwealth stands in the place of the three States that I have mentioned in respect of the agreement. We are bound by it as though each of the separate States was still a party to it.
Senator O’Keefe:
– Does that” mean that if we. wish to terminate the agreement we can only do so by paying compensation ?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I suppose that if we took from the company by Act of Parliament the rights which it enjoys under the agreement, we should have to pay compensation. The article which I have mentioned is one that I have never seen in any agreement before. There is no time fixed for the termination of the agreement ; there is no statement as to whether, if the agreement is broken in any respect, compensation shall be paid. If one party says, “We wish this agreement to lapse,” the other party can insist upon its being maintained.
Senator Dobson:
– What is the date of the agreement?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– April 14th, 1900.
Senator Dobson:
– Did New South Wales become a party to it after Federation ?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– In one sense yes, but in another sense no. This agreement having been made between the company and South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, negotiations were at the same time proceeding with New South Wales and with Victoria. Victoria absolutely declined to become a party to it, but New South Wales did not. She entered into the agreement after Federation was. accomplished, but before the Post and Telegraph Department had been taken over by the Commonwealth. Our Constitution provided that directly the Commonwealth was proclaimed certain Departments should be taken over. For instance, Customs and Excise were taken over at once. But other Departments might be taken over bv proclamation. The Commonwealth had been established some little time when Mr. Crick, who acted on behalf of the New South Wales Government at the time, entered into an agreement with the Eastern Extension Company in behalf of that State. I am informed - I do not pretend to know - that Mr. Crick was clearly within his rights in acting as he did in behalf of New South Wales, because the State Government was then administering the Department.
Senator Higgs:
– Who says, that he was acting clearly within his rights?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I do not know that I can absolutely fix that opinion upon any one in particular, but I have heard it so stated by more than one person. Indeed, I think there can be no doubt about it. The Department at that time had not been taken over by the Commonwealth. It was being administered by the New South Wales Government. Therefore, New South Wales had a perfect right to enter into any agreement it chose. I do not think that can be controverted. The point was brought up when this subject was under discussion in 1903, and the opinion which I then formed was that, no matter whether the contract which New South Wales made was a wise one or not, the Government of that State had a perfect right to enter into it. The agreement with New South Wales was to take effect from the ist January, 1901. The agreement between the company and the other three States mentioned was made on the 14th April, 1900. The agreement with New South Wales contained all the articles which were in the agreement made with South Aus/tralia. Western Australia, and Tasmania, except parts 5, 9, 12, 17, and 21. Article 1 provides for a reduction of charges. Article 14 provides that New South Wales is to maintain a special wire for the use of the company between Sydney and the South Australian frontier. That has. been done. The article with reference to the reduction in. charges on cablegrams between New South Wales and Europe was to take effect on and from the ist January, 1901. I may add that, although the Eastern Extension Company had entered into an agreement to reduce its charges from 4s. 9d. to 4s. a word, in- accordance with its. contract with South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, it had actually in the meanwhile reduced its rates from 4s. to 3s. 6d. per word for ordinary messages, and from 3s. to 2s. 6d. for Government messages. New South Wales at that time was paying 4s. nd. per word for ordinary messages. The company reduced that rate to 3s.. 6d. The rate paid on Government messages in New South Wales had been 3s. 8d. Under the agreement it was reduced to 2s. 6d. Press messages had been paying is, iod. That rate was reduced to is. 4d.
Senator Gray:
– Were those reductions voluntarily made?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I am not sure that the company was compelled to make the further reductions mentioned, but :t was done probably with an object. That object was, 1 believe, from the very start unmistakably a business one. The com. pany wanted - naturally from its point of view - to kill the Pacific Cable if it could*. Another reduction was made immediately afterwards - in June, 1902. The rates were then further reduced to 3s. for ordinary messages, as compared with 3s. 6d. ; to 2s, for Government messages, as against 2s. 6d. ; and to is. for press messages, as against is. 4d. The company also reduced the rate for messages from these States to the British Government to is. 7 Jd. per word. When these reductions were made as affecting New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania; Queensland and Victoria were still paying - Victoria, 4s. iod. a word for ordinary, messages, 3s. ?d. for Government messages, and is. iod. for press messages ; Queensland, 5s. jd. for ordinary messages, 3s. iod1. for Government messages, and is. 1 id. for press messages. Honorable senators can well imagine that the people of Victoria did not like this state of things. Victorian merchants did not like to see New South Wales merchants paying 3s. per word for their messages whilst they themselves1 were paying 4s. iod. They, therefore, made representations to Sir Edmund Barton, who was then at the head of the Commonwealth Government, that something ought to be done. He looked into the matter very closely, and, after considering the terms of the agreement, and the fact that it was interminable, he came to the conclusion that it would be a good deal better if the Government entered into an arrangement at once for a fresh agreement for a limited period of years, at the end of which time it could be terminated without any further trouble. He made a proposal to that effect to the company which was agreed to. An agreement was drawn up which contained exactly the same articles as are contained in the New South’ Wales,, and the South Australian, Western Australian, and Tasmanian agreements, with the exception that it terminates at a certain time, and that it gives the same privileges to Victoria and Queensland as the other States had secured under their agreements with the Eastern Extension Company.
Senator Turley:
– When does it terminate?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– It was made in 1903 for ten years, at the end of which time two years’ notice must be given of its termination. Therefore, it will terminate in 191 5, as I read it.
Senator Pulsford:
– That makes it an agreement for twelve years?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– Or it may continue for an indefinite period if no notice to terminate is given. Either party may give notice to continue the agreement, or, in other words, if it is not desired to alter the agreement, no notice need be given.
Senator Pulsford:
– Could not notice be given at the expiration of the eighth year?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– No.
Senator Staniforth Smith:
– The agreement may be terminated in fifteen years.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– Yes, absolutely.
Senator Staniforth Smith:
– That is, ten years from now ?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– But, according to that reading, the termination of the agreement must be in 1915. This is a very singular, and not a very clear, clause of the agreement. It is clause 25, which was inserted by Sir Edmund Barton, as follows : -
This agreement shall remain in force until the 31st day of October, 1915, and henceforth until terminated by two calendar years’ notice in writing by either party, such notice to expire at the end of some calendar year.
It has been held by some that we are compelled to wait until the termination of the contract in 1913, before two years’ notice may be given, while by others it is held that the two years’ notice may be given, for instance, in 191 1. I have looked up the correspondence on the subject, and I find that Sir Edmund Barton, writing to the Governor-General of the Commonwealth on the 25th March, 1903, said -
The term of the new agreement will be ten years, subject thereafter to two years’ notice on either side.
From this it will be seen that Sir Edmund Barton’s reading was that notice to terminate could not be given until the expiration of the contract in 1913-
Senator Higgs:
– Then it would not be possible to terminate the agreement until 1916 ?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– It could be terminated in 1915.
Senator Higgs:
– But we must wait until the end of a calendar year.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– We are close to the end of a calendar year now, and we can easily arrange that matter. I have given honorable senators a brief history of the events which have led up to the. present position. Sir Edmund Barton considered that iti would be a great deal better to have an agreement, made by all the States, terminable in a given time, than an interminable contract, in which only four of the States were involved, and which could not be upset, unless, possibly, at considerable expense. We now come to the Conference, & report of which was laid upon the table of the Senate on the 13th September of this vear. There are really only two points which we need take into consideration. One of these points is contained in paragraph 6, as follows : -
Sir E. Barton claimed, in his letter to Mr. Seddon, of rst June, 1903, that “ by reducing the term of the agreement to a reasonable period, the Commonwealth has obtained for the Pacific Cable a very great advantage, which cannot fail to be of immense and increasing value.” But we feel that this advantage is not definitely secured so long as any doubt remains whether the agreement will or will not be actually terminated after it has been in operation for ten years. We, therefore, earnestly trust that the Commonwealth Parliament will not ratify the agreement unless clause 25 is amended so as to read “ This agreement shall remain in force until the 31st day of October, 1913, and no longer.”
I shall comment upon that point a little later on. The second question is contained in paragraph 7, as follows : -
We are advised that the recital in the preamble of the Commonwealth Agreement, that it is desirable to substitute one agreement for certain other agreements, including the New South Wales agreement, and the similar agreement with South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, cannot safely be relied upon to prevent the revival of those agreements on the termination of the Commonwealth Agreement. We therefore think that an express provision excluding such revival should have been inserted in the Commonwealth Agreement ; and we trust that such a provision will be inserted before the agreement is ratified.
The gentlemen who formed that Conference or Committee, fell into a great mistake. The members were the Hon. Alfred Lyttleton, Under Secretary of the State for the Colonies; Earl Jersey, representing Australia; Sir William Mulock, representing Canada ; and Sir Sandford Fleming, representing New Zealand. As to whether the termination of this agreement in 1915 will revive the agreement between the Eastern Extension Company and the States of South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, and New South Wales, I have the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral, Mr. Isaacs, who as plainly as possible states that there is not the slightest ground for any supposition of the kind. The opinion is a long one, but I need only read the following : -
In my opinion the State agreements and the provisional arrangement will, on the ratification of the Commonwealth Agreement in its present form, be superseded and gone for ever-
Of course, there is no doubt about the matter. and the termination of the Commonwealth Agreement will not revive them. They could only be revived by express agreement between the Commonwealth and the company to that effect.
Senator Sir William Zeal:
– That is only an opinion.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– It is a very valuable opinion.
Senator Sir William Zeal:
– Is it?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I have looked up the terms of the agreement, and there appears to me to be no doubt that the AttorneyGeneral, to whom, of course, we have to trust in matters of this kind, is quite right. It was for these reasons that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company were never asked to include these points in the new agreement. In the first place, we were quite sure that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company would not agree to that course, and, in the second place, we did not think there was any necessity to make the request. This agreement was passed by the other House without a division, and, practically, without any objection.
Senator Staniforth Smith:
– The other House would not pass the agreement now.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I dare say it would ; at any rate, we have heard nothing to the contrary. Honorable senators have heard something about the pooling of the receipts, in regard to which Senator Higgs asked a question the other day. At that time the Government were not able to supply the information.
Senator Higgs:
– Of course, the Government knew nothing about it !
Senator PLAYFORD:
– Since thenhowever, the Government have received some information. In consequence of the two companies working here, both are put to considerable expense, which would not be caused if the receipts were pooled. The Eastern Extension Telegraph Company have to keep open offices, with a staff for the purpose of collecting and despatching telegrams.
Senator Dobson:
– In Melbourne?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– Yes.
Senator Dobson:
– Then the Government have ignored what the Senate decided.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– In what way? All that the Senate decided was that we shouldnot consider the point until the Conference was over.
Senator Dobson:
– The Government have given to the company the very thing the Victorian Government refused.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– But Victoria is very pleased over the matter. A special wire had to be laid down between Melbourne and Adelaide, and the Senate passed the appropriation for that special wire, in order to give effect to the agreement.
Senator Clemons:
– When ?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– Some years ago. However, I do not wish to go into that question, but merely to deal with the matter of pooling.
Senator Higgs:
– Senator Playford induced the House to pass that appropriation by stating that it was not intended for the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I do not recollect ; if I did, I must beg the honorable senator’s pardon. I know that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company have a wire, but whether it is that particular wire or not, I cannot say. A wire was provided which suits the purposes of the company as between the two places.
Senator Higgs:
– So long as it suits the Government purpose, I suppose it is all right !
Senator PLAYFORD:
– What we know is that the company have had a wire for a considerable length of time, and that until this provisional agreement was entered into the Melbourne people were paying considerably higher rates for their telegrams. When the tentative agreement was entered into by Sir Edmund Barton, effect was given to it immediately ; and I think the Senate know of the fact. The Senate also knew that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company had special offices and special consideration given to them, and certainly that they had a special telegraph line, which they were using by means’ of their own operators.
Senator Best:
– I think that the company have had a special office for two or three years.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– As to pooling, the Pacific Cable Board offered that they should receive 35 per cent, of the receipts, and the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company 65 per cent., for the period of the agreement.
Senator Matheson:
– On what date was this proposal made?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I do not know the date, but I believe that it was made very recently. The Eastern Extension Telegraph Company said they would not entertain the proposal except for a period of thirty years, or more, and then only on the distinct understanding that at the end of the term all the State agreements into which they had entered - the agreements made with South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, and New South Wales - should be revived.
Senator Macfarlane:
– They do not want the Commonwealth to ratify the agreement.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I do not believe that they care whether we ratify the agreement or not. ‘ In my opinion, it will be more advantageous to us than, to them if we do. I believe they have perceived that there was. no necessity for them to enter so hurriedly into the agreement. Thev imagined that they would meet with a great deal more competition from the Pacific Cable than they get. We do not want to approach the company and ask them for a variation ; we wish the agreement to be carried out exactly as it was approved by Sir Edmund Barton, and confirmed by the other House. Why do we not wish to vary the agreement? Because we are anxiousnot to have an interminable agreement. Suppose that the Senate did not pass the motion, and that the arrangement fell through, in what position would the Commonwealth be left? Victoria would be released to a certain extent. We could prevent the company from having a special wire between Melbourne and Adelaide, and between Melbourne and Sydney, but we could not prevent them from sending telegrams through the Department. Nor could we stop them from canvassing for telegrams. They are a great deal more up to date than are the Pacific Cable Board, I am sorry to say. The latter do not act on business lines. If a merchant sends a number of telegrams to Europe or England, the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company will open an account for him, and he can pay monthly ; but if he wishes to send a cablegram by the Pacific Cable, he has to pay cash every time he wires,.
Senator Matheson:
– That is the fault of the Federal Government. ,
Senator PLAYFORD:
– It is not.
Senator Matheson:
– The Federal Government are the agents for the Pacific Cable Company.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– Certainly not; the Pacific Cable Company have a Board, which manages its affairs.
Senator Matheson:
– Where are the company’s offices in Melbourne?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I do not know. I only know that we give to that company an advantage which we do not extend to the other, and that is to send all unmarked messages, by their route.
Senator Matheson:
– I know of no office of the Pacific Cable Company in Melbourne.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– The company should have an office here. It would be a business arrangement if they had. Suppose that I wished to send a cablegram to a place in Europe, what have I to pay? I have to pay 33. a word to the Eastern Ex: tension Company, and from 3s,. 6d. up to 4s. 3d. a word to the Pacific Cable Company. That is a very curious way of doing business.
Senator Best:
– Does not the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company make considerable rebates to good customers?
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I do not know; certainly they have no right to do that, because it is provided in one condition of the contract that they shall be bound by the Berne Convention with regard to telegraphic matters, and it precludes the making of rebates.
Senator Staniforth Smith:
– They have written to me, denying that they make any rebates.
Senator PLAYFORD:
– I contend that if we ratify the contract, we shall be in a better position, not to-day, but in the future. So great is the advantage which the agreement offers that, after looking into the whole matter very closely, I have every confidence in asking the Senate to ratify it. : Senator STANIFORTH SMITH (Western Australia). - We must all admit that Senator Playford has put the case as strongly as it is possible to put it on behalf of those who advocate the ratification of .this agreement. He has been on a Conference with regard to the Pacific Cable, and has studied this matter for a great many years, and therefore, advocating warmly as he does, the ratification of the contract, he is enabled to put the case as strongly as it can possibly be submitted. We, in endeavouring to answer his arguments, have not the advantage of the official information which is possessed in the Department, and therefore we are not able, perhaps, to refute as fully as could otherwise be done, the various statements which he has made. I think that ever since the Pacific Cable was laid down,, the attitude of the Commonwealth towards this great British enterprise has been unsympathetic and unfederal. We, as the largest partner in the undertaking - owning, as we do, one-third interest - are much to blame for the apathy we have shown. A previous Government came to an agreement with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, which vitally affected the Pacific Cable Company, and against the unanimous representations of every one of our partners, as well as the Secretary of State for the Colonies, they endeavoured to force the agreement through each House of this Parliament. The Senate, rightly, I think, refused to ratify the agreement until an expression of opinion had been obtained from our partners in this joint enterprise. A Conference has been held, and its report contains certain recommendations. It is proposed now by the Government to practically defy our partners, to disregard their decision, and to ratify the old agreement just as if no Conference had been Held. What was the good of our going to the expense of holding a Conference if the Government were determined to ratify the old agreement, no matter -what decision might be come to by our partners ? If we are not going to carry out our Empire obligations - and this certainly is a most important one - not only shall we destroy the usefulness of this Pacific Cable, and ‘make it a financial incubus on the partnership, but. it would probably result in this being the first and last enterprise which would be undertaken jointly by the various people of the Empire. So far, we have been actually assisting the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company to defeat our nation-owned Pacific Cable, and that fact is, I think, mentioned very clearly in the report of the Pacific Cable’ Conference.
We consider that this result must be directed mainly if not entirely to the fact that the Telegraph Company has been granted special wires, and has been allowed to open offices in Sydney and Melbourne under the New South Wales agreement of 16th January, 1901, and the Commonwealth agreement of 8th June, 1903.
In other word’s, we have had no compunction in granting valuable privileges to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, and withholding ,them from the Pacific Cable Company. We have given the former a special line from Melbourne to Adelaide.
Senator Playford:
– We are perfectly willing to give the other company a special line if it is wanted. We offered it to them.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– I shall come to that point immediately. We gave to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company a special line between Melbourne and Adelaide, which there was no occasion to do, and which I think we had no right to db, and by an Executive act the Ministry allowed them to open two offices in Melbourne, in face of the fact that the Commonwealth Parliament had refused to ratify the agreement. Senator Playford has just said that the Government have not refused to give the Pacific Cable Company similar advantages. Seeing that the various telegraph offices are receiving depots for the Pacific Cable Company, it Avas quite competent for the Government to give them a special wire from Melbourne, to Sydney, and from Sydney to Southport, to be reserved for cables sent over the Pacific route. But that has not been done.
Senator Playford:
– Did they ever ask for it?
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– They may not have asked for it, but we, as the largest partner in the Pacific Cable, should have treated them with common fairness. Why did we grant the use of a special wire to the other company ?
Senator Playford:
– Because it was asked for.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– Simply because a special wire was asked for, it was granted.
Senator Playford:
– Not necessarily.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– Why should we give to the one company a very valuable privilege, which we have withheld from the company in which we own a third interest?
Senator Playford:
– We have not withheld it.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– A special wire should have been reserved for the use of the Pacific Cable Company. I understand that when Mr. Reynolds was here he asked for a special line from the Government.
Senator Playford:
– I saw Mr. Reynolds, and anything in reason that he wanted could have been got.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
–By our action we have practically injured the Pacific Cable Company, and given gratuitous advantages to the other company, which they had no right to demand, and which, I venture to think, if we had been loyally carrying out our partnership arrangement, we had no right to give. If we take an impartial review of the whole situation, we are forced to conclude that, even under the disadvantages to which I have referred, the Pacific Cable has proved a great boon to Australia, and has more than justified its construction. As Senator Playford has admitted, for the first time, to-day, the reduction we have had in cable rates is solely due to the construction of the Pacific Cable. It is interesting to remember that before the Colonial Conference of 1887 sat, but after the invitations were sent out by the Secretary of State for the
Colonies, Sir John Pender, who was then chairman of the Eastern Extension Company^ made an offer to the PostmastersGeneral of the Australian Colonies to reduce the cable rate from 9s. 4A. to 4s. per word. Clearly, his object in doing that was to prevent the construction of the rival cable. I can produce a number of authorities to prove that, but I shall not weary the Senate with what Senator Playford hasalready admitted, except to direct the attention of honorable senators to this extract from a speech made by Mr. Deakin, the present Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, at the Colonial Conference which was held in 1887 -
Whether the Pacific Cable Company succeeded or not in entering upon active operations, it had already conferred considerable benefit upon the Australasian colonies by bringing the Eastern Extension Company to a much more liberal frame of mind.
Sir Edmund Barton, speaking in July, 1903, and referring to the Eastern Extension Company, said -
They maintained the higher rate while they had the opportunity of doing so, in the absence of competition, and it is a fact which must be placed to the credit of the account of the Pacific Cable, that undoubtedly it was the expected competition of that cable which largely led to the reduction of rates- by the Eastern Extension Company.
I am glad to find that honorable senators generally admit that ; but I question whether they realize the advantage which the Pacific Cable has conferred upon Australia by the reduction of rates referred to. Last year, 2,403,112 words of ordinary messages were sent by cable from Australia. The difference in the cost of sending those words as represented by the difference between 9s. 4d. and 3s. per word is equivalent to .£750,000 per annum.
Senator Best:
– The same number of words would not have been sent at the higher rate.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– I think the honorable senator is mistaken- in that, because I can show him a report of the Eastern Extension Company, in which they say that the traffic has not increased to any very great extent. Last year, Government messages representing 107,527 words, and press messages representing 274,851 words, were also sent, and in connexion with them a very large saving was made. So that we can say, and be well within, the mark, that the Pacific Cable enterprise has saved to the people of Australia not less, than £800,000 per annum.
That means that we are richer every year by that amount, and that so much less wealth annually leaves Australia as the result of the reductions in cable charges due to the construction of the Pacific Cable. Another very important benefit conferred by the Pacific Cable is that it has given us direct communication with the great Englishspeaking continent of North America, and with the British community in South Africa. I say this because it is admitted that the Eastern Extension Company built their line to South Africa to forestall the construction of the Pacific Cable. We are, therefore, in this, position - that as a result of the construction of the Pacific Cable we have secured a saving of , £800,000 a year to the people of Australia, and direct telegraphic communication with every continent in the world, with the exception of South America.
Senator Best:
– What follows from that ? We admit all that.
Senator Stewart:
– Let the honorable senator show us how to get out of the net.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– It will be admitted that these are immense advantages to the Commonwealth. I have gone into the question of the advantage derived by the Commonwealth from the construction of the Pacific Cable, because of the constant press misrepresentation to the effect that the Eastern Extension Company voluntarily reduced the cable rates, irrespective of the Pacific Cable. Now what do these immense advantages cost the Commonwealth ?
Senator Playford:
– About £28,000 a year.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.This year, we paid £25,283 6s. 2d. The cost is being, reduced as time goes on.
Senator Best:
– What does that sum represent?
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.Our share of the annual cost of the Pacific Cable. I point out that so far as we are concerned, this is only apparently the cost to us of the Pacific Cable, because reallv it has not cost us one penny. Until we decided to lay the Pacific Cable, we were forced by the Eastern Extension Company to pay them heavy subsidies, greater than we have ever had to pay for the Pacific Cable. From 1879, when the Eastern Extension Company laid their cable from Banjoewangie to Broome, in Western Australia, up to 1891, Victoria and New
South Wales paid in subsidies to the Eastern Extension Company £34,000 a year. From 1891 to 1899, the six States continued the subsidy. So that for twenty, years Australia has paid , £34,000 a year to the Eastern Extension Company, or a total of £680,000. Further, when the company reduced the cable rate to 4s. per word, we guaranteed them against loss, and had to pay £35,489 under that guarantee. It will, therefore, be seen that the payment which we at present make towards the cost of the Pacific Cable is merely a transfer of a subsidy, though at a reduced amount, from one company to another, whilst by this means we are building up a valuable asset for the Commonwealth, whereas the subsidy which we previously paid passed into the coffers of the Eastern Extension Company.
Senator Best:
– How does that affect the question? The whole question is whether this is an advantageous agreement.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.I am coming to that.
Senator Stewart:
– Then let the honorable senator come to it quickly.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.I shall take my own time, and Senator Stewart . is not bound to remain to listen to me. I have shown that the Pacific Cable, instead of increasing the burdens of the Commonwealth, has considerably reduced them, since we have effected a considerable saving in expenditure as the result of its construction. I wish now to go a step further andto show that we participate largely in. the revenue of the Pacific Cable Company, as none of the other partners in the company do. We charge terminal rates, whereas New Zealand, Canada, and Great Britain charge no terminal rates, andonly the ordinary telegraphic rates on internal messages.
Senator Matheson:
– The Pacific Cable Board object to terminal rates, and they will have to be discontinued.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.We do not intend to discontinue them.
Senator Matheson:
– Why does the honorable senator agree with the Board in one thing and not in another?
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– The Board may not be right in everything. The Board is not unanimous on the point to which Senator Matheson refers. The fact; remains that we do charge terminal rates, and so actually participate in the revenue received from the cable, whereas the other partners in the company do not. For even’ ordinary word sent by the Pacific Cable at the rate of 3s. per word, the Pacific Cable Board takes 2s. 7d., and the Commonwealth takes 5d. On Government messages, the Commonwealth takes 4d., and on press messages 2d. per word. This is not done by any of our partners, and if these terminal charges which we make are calculated, it will be found that we participate in the revenue derived from the Pacific Cable to the extent of something like £18,000 a year, which must be set against the payment we have to make of £25,000 a year towards the cost. Now, I propose to compare the Eastern Extension Company’s Cable with’ the Pacific Cable. The working expenses of the Eastern Extension Company are equal to three times, the working expenses of the Pacific Cable Company, because they have three lines, three sets of stations, and officers, and a number of canvassers, whom we do not employ.
Senator Best:
– That is expense incurred to create revenue, and can hardly be called working expenses, in the ordinary way.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.That expense is accurately described as working expenses. The working expenses of the Eastern Extension Company come to something like £150.000 a year, whilst the working expenses of the Pacific Cable Company are £51,000 a year, or one-third of the expenses of the other company.
Senator Mulcahy:
– What is the relative proportion of business done by the two companies ?
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– I am coming to that, if honorable senators will be patient. I compare how the traffic on the cables, owned by the two companies. Excluding press messages, which do not pay either company, in 1904, the Eastern Extension Company sent less than double the number of words that were sent by the Pacific Cable.
Senator Playford:
– Is the honorable senator taking into account telegrams sent by the Eastern Extension Company’s lines to India, China, and so on ?
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– I am dealing with the cable traffic to and from Australia. The working expenses, of the Eastern Extension Company were three times as, great as those of the Pacific Cable Company, whilst their receipts were less, than twice as great as those of the latter company.
Senator Best:
– Do the expenses include the press messages to which the honorable senator has referred?
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– The press messages practically do not pay, and in any case they represent a very small amount.
Senator Best:
– I should imagine they would represent a large amount.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
– No; they represent a total of 274,000 words, as against a total of 2,500,000 words of ordinary messages. The figures, I have given show that the Pacific Cable Company is absolutely in a better position under present conditions than is the Eastern Extension Company, so far as Australia is concerned. Of course, I am not dealing with the Cis- Indian and China traffic of the Eastern Extension Company. In proof of my statement, I can refer honorable senators to the half-yearly report of the Eastern Extension Company, dated 1st May of last year, in which it will be found that the chairman of the company, speaking of the Pacific Cable Company, said -
This severe competition, however, had entailed a considerable increased expenditure at all their Australian stations, with the result that the company’s cable system in Australasia was scarcely remunerative. The receipts at the present time barely covered the working expenses, and the directors did not anticipate much increase in the volume of traffic in the near future.
Queensland -- If no honorable senator proposes to speak in favour of the ratification, I should like to say a few words in opposition. As one who has always favoured a Pacific Cable, I have reason to complain of the manner in which this proposal is submitted to the Senate. In a motion which I have on the businesspaper, this very question is dealt with, and the debate stands adjourned. I did not, as I might have done, take the point that **Senator Playford,** with the present proposal, was anticipating the motion which stands in 'my name; because I was quite satisfied that tha matter could be debated as well on one motion as on the other. Honorable senators will see, however, that many of the remarks to-day might have been made in discussing, my motion. **Senator Playford** appears to us to-day as the friend of the Pacific Cable. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Not at all ; I am the friend of an agreement which I believe to be the best in the interests of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- It is contrary to the honorable senator's ingenuous, frank disposition that he should appear in anything like a deceitful *role.* He has told us that he is no friend of the Pacific Cable, and yet he urges us to accept this agreement on the ground that it will be to the advantage of that enterprise and of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I spoke of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- How can the agreement be .in advantage unless, as I imagine, it will SaVe the loss of the Pacific Cable. **Senator Playford** has fought against the Pacific Cable ever since it was proposed. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Of course I have ! {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- Twenty years ago, **Senator Playford** was fighting the Pacific Cable, and he succeeded so well at one of the Conferences that he was described bv one writer on the subject as an *advocatus diaboli.* Honorable senators who are inclined to support the1 Pacific Cable must view, with the keenest of criticism, the remarks made by the Minister of Defence, who is a friend of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, and an enemy of the Pacific Cable. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- No, that is not fair. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- The Minister of Defence has told us that the Extern Exten sion Telegraph Company have been permuted to open offices in Victoria, and have been granted special lines, and that these facts' afford the reason why we should ratify the agreement. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I did not say that that was the reason. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- The Minister of Defence said that one of the reasons for ratifying the agreement was to be found in the fact that the company had been granted special lines. In 1903, the then Government introduced an Appropriation Bill, voting several thousands of pounds to the construction of the special lines, in order, as we were told, to carry out the agreement. Honorable senators who were opposed to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, and favoured the Pacific cable, contended that it was not right to vote this money, when the agreement had not been ratified. **Senator Playford,** who was piloting that measure through, is reported on page 6044 of *Hansard* as saying, on 13th October, 1903 :- I am assured by the Department that these two lines are absolutely necessary for its proper working, and I am quite prepared to agree to the omission of the words " owing to the use of a line having been granted to the Eastern Extension Company in connexion with international traffic " in both instances. I then said that, in view of the Ministerial statement, I was prepared to withdraw my opposition to the vote, but I moved that the words quoted be struck out. **Senator Smith** opposed the striking, out of the words, on the ground that he wished the vote to be rejected, because otherwise the Government would point to it as an indication that the Commonwealth was agreeable to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company's, proposal. **Senator Playford** has told us to-day that we have granted this company special lines, and here I should like to quote a few of the remarks which I made on 13th October, 1903- I should not like to think that the Vice-President of the Executive Council was guilty of the fraud and deception of which he would be guilty if he were endeavouring to pass this vote in order that he might point to it later on as an indication of some sanction having been given by the Senate to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company's operations. I do not believe that he would do such a thing. He has informed us that he requires this money for the construction of a telegraph line, and that we shall want it whether any proposed arrangement with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company be ratified or not. We shall agree to the item on that understanding. The item was passed, but the words I have indicated were omitted. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The Minister of Defence has used the argument that we have granted concessions to this company. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- In October, 1903, we were told that the special line was required for the Department for special work. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- It has been used by the Department since. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- The Minister representing the Postmaster-General has told us that a special line has been granted to the company. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- The company have a little iron wire, which the Department were using, and for which another was to be substituted. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- Let the Minister who is interjecting, look up his answer given to me in regard to this matter. To show the want of frankness on the part of members of the Government, let me quote a speech made by **Mr. Deakin** in the House of Representatives when the amendment to which I have referred was sent down. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- That was the honorable senators own Government. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- I do not claim any Government. I shall support the Government whan they pass what I regard as good legislation ; but when a Government do what I think is not right, I hope I shall always be found criticising them and placing obstacles in the way of detrimental In order to get our amendments carried in the other House, or for some other reason, **Mr. Deakin** said on the 34th October, 1903- >The Senate have struck out all the words after the word "border" in the first item, and all the words after the word "borders" in the second item. These words merely constitute explanations which it was necessary to insert in the Bill, but which were placed there to afford information to honorable members of both Houses. Now that they have served their purpose, I see no reason why the Senate amendments should not be agreed to. He did not tell the House of Representatives that the Senate struck out the words so that neither the Government nor anybody else should be able to point to this special wire as an indication that it had agreed in any way to the proposed ratification of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company's agreement. What did the Government do after the Senate, because it had confidence in the Minister, had passed the vote? Apparently they went to the re presentatives of the Pacific Cable Company^ and said : " We have granted! the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company a special line. We are committed to this agreement ; we have allowed the company to open offices, and we, therefore, ask you to accept this agreement for a period of twelve years." If the Conference had been attended by a representative of the Senate, who understood the position, he would have said that the offices were not opened by the company until after the Senate had held up the agreement. I remember being informed that **Sir Edmund** Barton told **Mr. Warren** not to open his offices, not to do anything in Melbourne until the agreement had been approved by both Houses, but that gentleman. with the audacity which characterizes his company, opened bis offices, and special lines were granted to the company, after twenty senators had signed a document to the effect that they would not even consider the agreement until a Conference was held. A senator said, to-day, that we objected to the agreement because a Conference was not held. But that was not the only reason for our objection. There are many senators who objected to the agreement on the ground that it' would give the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company privileges to which they were not entitled, and which should not have been given by any one who had the interests of Australia at heart. Of course, when we obtained a victory, we were quite prepared to allow the proposal to go without stating that we were absolutely in opposition to it. We did not press the senators who said that they would oppose the adoption of the agreement because a Conference, had been held, to go further, and say that they were opposed altogether to the agreement. I ask honorable senators who have at heart the interests of Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, to realize that the position to-day is just as iti was on the 6th March, 1903. when the Prime Minister of Canada, **Sir Wilfrid** Laurier, sent the following telegram to the Prime Minister of Australia: - >Canadian Government protests against action your Government. Concession made by New South Wales to Eastern Telegraph Company regarded by Canada violation of spirit of agreement under which Pacific intentions of cable core was constructed. Action proposed now nothing less than extension objectionable concession for a period of years to other parts of Commonwealth. Canada assumed large share responsibility of Pacific intentions of cable core. Believed that all colonies, parties to contract, would do everything possible to direct business over a new line. > >Canadian Government much regret that departure from that understanding which has already occurred against their protest, and now urge upon Government of Commonwealth that no further extension granted to Eastern Extension Company. I have it on the best authority that the feeling in Canada to-d'ay is that it is not in the interests of the Pacific Cable that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company should be allowed to retain, offices in Melbourne, and to have a special line from that city to Adelaide, and to Sydney, and the feeling in England is exactly the same. At page 1.5 of this correspondence, there is a very interesting and informing letter by **Mr. Seddon,** the Premier of New Zealand, in which he says - >I beg positively to state, so far as New Zealand is concerned, knowing how far-reaching in securing business such concessions are, this Government would never have entered into the agreement respecting the Pacific Cable. **Senator Playford** says that, if we ratify this agreement, we shall be better off at the end of twelve years, because then they would have no special rights. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- We shall be free. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- What shall we be free to do at the end of twelve years, if we are foolish enough to allow the company to remain? We are losing nearly £90,000 a year. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- We are losing £80,000 odd now, and the amount is dropping every year. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- In 1903 we lost about £90,000. This loss has accrued from allowing the company to get special advantages unfairly in Victoria. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- But the honorable senator -will see that we cannot get rid of the special agreements with four States if we refuse to ratify this agreement. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- If we keep Victoria and Queensland for the Pacific Cable, we shall have a base from which we could work. We could then send the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company out of this State, and refuse to allow them to canvass for telegrams. **Senator Playford** has stated that, under the Post and Telegraph Act. we could not prohibit the company from canvassing for telegrams, opening offices, and receiving wires. If that is the view taken by this Government, when the Act gives the Postmaster-General absolute and exclusive control over the receiving, collecting, and delivering of telegrams, what hope have we that they will ever do anything against the company? They say that the company will still be here. If the .company could do as well without offices, why did they ask for an agreement? They wanted an agreement because they knew what a tremendous advantage it is to have open offices and special wires. **Senator Playford** mentioned what the Pacific Cable Board would not do in Australia, and pointed to their lack of business methods. Who is to blame in this connexion but the Commonwealth, through its PostmastersGeneral, for not giving the same privileges to the Pacific Cable Company as have been granted to the other company? Surely, if there had been any business enterprise in our Postmasters-General - surely, if they had been dealing with their own money - they would have adopted some method of trying to attract business to the Pacific Cable ! Nothing has been done. No one seems to have an interest in the Pacific Cable. They have not an office. Judging from the way in which it has been treated by Postmasters-General, and by the officials, one would think that the Commonwealth Government have no interest in the Pacific Cable. The other day the Government could not tell me even the names of the representatives of the Commonwealth on the Pacific Cable Board. They are doing nothing to attract business to the Pacific Cable, and giving all the privileges to the other company. What does **Sir Horace** Tozer, one of our representatives on the Board, say in reference to the disadvantages under which the Pacific Cable labours, and also in reference to the pooling scheme? In an interview published in the Melbourne *Argus,* on the 31st March last, he says - >We are fighting an uphill battle. The Eastern Extension Company is getting three times as much business as we are. We ought to get at least half the Australasian traffic. We transmit messages just as quickly as they do. The fact is, however, that the State Governments are strangely apathetic. They are letting things slide. Why, this very day I saw a cable message which had come from the British Government, and which was_ received over the Eastern Extension Company's route. That was not as it should be. All the Governments interested in the Pacific Cable agreed to send their messages over it. I believe the States have done this, but here is an instance of the British Government patronizing our competitor. All the States, as I said, are apathetic. They do not push our interests in any way. They just sit still, and let things happen. Referring to the pooling scheme, he says - >The suggestion has never been discussed by the Board, nor do I think there would be any chance of such a proposal being entertained. We can carry on as we are. There are vast vested interests against us. The capitalists talk about the cable being a "socialistic experiment," but I am confident that we can make a success of it. What annoys our partners - New Zealand and Canada - is the way our interests are neglected in Australia. We heard to-day from **Senator Playford** that certain proposals were made in reference to pooling, and that they came from the Pacific Cable Board. But the other day, when T asked for the correspondence in reference to this matter, I was told that there was none. Now where did the Government get the information which was laid before the Senate to-day by the Minister that under a pooling scheme, the Pacific Cable Company proposed to take 35 per cent. of the receipts, and the other company to take the balance? Did that information come from the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company? If it did not come from that company, it must have come by way of correspondence, and if it did, why was it not laid before the Senate? Why were we told that which apparently is not a fact? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I cannot tell the honorable senator. It may have come since he spoke, but I really do not know. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- If the Minister will pledge his word that that is the case, it is ail right. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I cannot. It may have come subsequently to that question being asked. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- The question was only asked the other day. In another case, we were told that negotiations were being conducted concerning the pooling. **Senator Keating** read a memorandum to say that my motion was under the consideration of the Government, and that there were certain negotiations going on which might have the effect of inducing them to urge me to alter its wording. Surely these negotiations could only be the result of correspondence ! There is too much mystery about the whole thing, and I suggest to honorable senators who have entered the Senate since this matter was discussed in 1903, and who, owing to the Government keeping thismotion in the background, have not had an opportunity of expressing their opinions, that they should take the advice of those who. for some years, have been deeply interested in the cable service, and that is to reject the proposed agreement. and endeavour to make the Pacific Cable a financial success. {: #subdebate-7-0-s3 .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER:
Victoria. -- Since I visited Ottawa on this matter someyears ago, I have taken a deep interest in it. and I largely agree with the views expressed by the last speaker. Before I make up my mind finally, I desire to know what was the result of the Conference held in London. I think that weare entitled to get this information from the Government. I cannot get any information. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The report was laid on the table of the Senate. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- The latest paper which I could get is dated 1st November, 1905. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- There is a report dated 13th September, 1905. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- That paper has not been supplied to me, and all that appears in the report of 1st November, 1902, is stale news to me. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- The later information does not advise us to ratify this agreement. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- That is what I wish to know. If that be so, I cannot reconcile it with my convictions to vote for the ratification of this, agreement. I am not saying a single word against the Eastern Extension Company. There can be no doubt whatever that it is a well-managed concern. It is ably and cleverly managed, and in that respect, of course, has a considerable advantage over any concern controlled by the Government. From the information I have received from the large firms in Melbourne and elsewhere, I find that it is universally admitted that they get more attention from the Eastern Extension Company than they do from the Government, representing the Pacific Cable Board. I can well understand that, because we know that the " Government stroke ' ' comes in, and what is everybody's business is nobody's business. I can easily imagine that, in the circumstances, the Eastern Extension Company will get the business, because of their special attention to the work. But I would ask why did four Colonies break the agreement entered into, and virtually destroy what they had themselves agreed to? The four Colonies to which I refer clandestinely made an agreement with the Eastern Extension Company, and that, in my opinion, was a monstrous thing to do, because it was a breach of faith with Great Britain, Canada, and the other Australasian Colonies who were originally responsible for this undertaking. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- To which Colonies does, the honorable senator refer? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The only Colony which did what the honorable senator said was New South Wales. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- And three other Colonies. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- They never broke any agreement. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- I am glad to say that Victoria and Queensland stood out from the beginning ; but I can tell honorable senators that had it not been for **Sir George** Turner, Victoria would not have stood out. The Postmaster-General of Victoria at the time was actually a party to the agreement, but when he asked his Premier, **Sir George** Turner, to ratify it, that right honorable gentleman - to his credit be it said - refused to do so. Let me say to honorable senators that if this agreement is not ratified, and Victoria and Queensland continue to stand out, the Pacific Cable will be able to hold its own, because Victoria commands nearly half of the whole of the cabling business, and the business of Queensland is considerable, and is increasing. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Victoria and New South Wales are about on a parity. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- I think that Victoria has always been ahead of New South Wales. **Senator Playford.** - For three months the Victorian business was 11,000 words, and that of New South Wales 10,554 words. The difference is a mere nothing. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- I will not argue that point. The fact remains that Victoria controls a very large portion of the business. When the Governments of the four Australian Colonies entered into the agreement with the Eastern Extension Company, they did so behind the back of Canada, New Zealand, and England, all of whom protested. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- New South Wales entered into the agreement after Federation. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- The New South Wales Government entered into the agree : ment after the other arrangement had been made, and that was a disgraceful thing, for which no excuse can be offered. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- And 'after the Post and Telegraph Departments had been handed over to the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- No, she could not have done that. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- They were not taken over until the 14th January. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Yes, the proclamation was dated the 1st of January. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- At a time when it was practically certain that they would be handed over to the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- Precisely, and I say the action of the New South Wales Government was taken deliberately. I cannot dwell upon it, because I can hardly trust myself to express my opinion of it. At that time, offices were opened by the Eastern Extension Company, and they are open now illegally. The Minister must be aware that these offices have been open for all "these years illegally, because once the Senate refused to ratify the agreement they should have been closed. They are open illegally now. In saying that I do not suggest that I would act harshly towards the Eastern Extension Company, because I admire their ability and their business habits and tact, but I do say that the Eastern Extension Company's offices are now illegally open in Victoria and in Queensland. Another matter to which reference should be made is that a special wire was erected by the then Government for the Eastern Extension Company, although for years previously the business had bean carried on over the old telegraph lines, and it: has not greatly increased of late ; in fact, it must have decreased very materially during tha year of the drought. The Government went out of their way to give the Eastern Extension Company a special wire, thereby further handicapping our own line, because the special wire naturally gave the Eastern Extension Company an advantage. I could have understood the action of the Government if they had constructed a wire over which both companies had equal advantages. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- We are quite willing to do so. and we have told the Pacific Cable Board that we will give them a wire at any time. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- Subject to the other company's privileges? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- No. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- I understand that1 the Eastern Extension Company have been given, a prior claim to a special wire. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- But we will give the Pacific Cable Company another wire. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- That would be absurd. To erect wires for which there is no necessity would only be to incur useless expenditure. I contend that the £30,000 expended on the erection of the special wire for the Eastern Extension Company was a useless expenditure, inasmuch as they could have done very well without it. It was only a sop to the company; it was throwing money away, and was very bad business on the part of the Commonwealth Government. It is shown throughout that the Eastern Extension Company, even in the Commonwealth, have been given advantages to which they are not entitled. All I ask for is fair play all round. I will not for a moment do any injustice to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, but we are doing a distinct injustice to our own company when we give special advantages to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- If the honorable senator desires to favour the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company he will vote against the ratification of this agreement. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- They have got an everlasting agreement. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- Did the Conference held in London recommend that this agreement should be ratified? {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- Yes. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- Subject to material alterations. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- I am prepared to support the recommendation of the Conference. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- Then the honorable senator must vote against the ratification of this agreement. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Undoubtedly, because wehave not made the suggested alterations. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- I shall follow the recommendation of the Conference, because I assume that its members knew what they were doing. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I am very doubtful about that. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- Then it must be because information was not given them which should have been given them. However, it is quite easy for the Government to find out all about it, because a gentleman is now in Australia who was a member of the Conference. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- He was our representative also. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- Then it is quite easy for the Government to find out all about it, and the Senate is entitled to the latest and best information. We should not be treated like children, and kept in the dark. We are entitled to all the in formation in connexion with this matter that is in the possession of the Government. It has often been said outside that ithe Eastern Extension TelegraphCompany reduced the cable rates; but I say, with knowledge, that the company never lowered the rates by one farthing until they were compelled to do so. Any one who is well posted in the matter must be aware of that. They are, therefore, not entitled to the thanks of the community, of the bankers, merchants, and traders of Australia for having reduced their rates. Up to the very last moment they kept their rates as high as they could. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- They offered to reduce their rates in 1900. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- Yes, on certain conditions. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- They have been no worse than other private enterprise concerns in that respect. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator FRASER: -- I am not saying that they are, but what I am saying is that they are not entitled to any thanks for having voluntarily reduced their rates when they did so only because of the competition of the Pacific Cable. On the information before me, I am compelled to vote against the motion. {: #subdebate-7-0-s4 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- If I had heard any better scheme propounded for the settlement of this longstanding grievance than that which is submitted by the Government, I should certainly support it. In the absence of anyworkable scheme for overcoming the difficulty, I am obliged to support the motion. This matter has been before the Senate time and again, but, as the Americans say, we have " cut no ice." We have never got any "forrarder," and we are now just where we were in 1903. Nothing has been done, no progress has been made, and no new light has been shed on the question. In allowing matters to drift, as we have done up to the present, we have actually been playing into the hands of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. Existing conditions will suit them much better than the agreement submitted by the Government. I have listened to the debate on the matter from both sides, and I am pleased to think that it is a matter in connexion with which no party feeling has been introduced. The debate has, in consequence, been logical and reasonable; but, so far, no workable scheme (has been submitted toovercome the difficulty with which we have been faced from the very inception of Federation. We are all aware that this difficulty is a legacy which the Commonwealth has taken over from the States. It is not the creation of the present or of any other Federal Government. It was brought about before the Federal authorities had any control over the Post and Telegraph Department, and I am sorry to think that the manner in which it was brought about reflects no credit on one of the States of the Commonwealth. The Government of New South Wales signed the agreement with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company under very suspicious circumstances. To the credit of the Victorian Government be it said that, notwithstanding the fact that the Postmaster-General of the day signed a similar agreement, the Government and Parliament to which he belonged repudiated it, and would have nothing to do with it. I cannot understand **Senator Fraser** blaming the other States for having brought about the present position. If the honorable senator had made himself acquainted with the whole of the facts, he would have known that three of the States to which he referred had nothing whatever to do with the present agreement. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- The honorable senator withdrew that statement when his mistake was pointed out. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator Fraser: -- I spoke of New South Wales, but I could not speak positively as to the other States. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I can assure the honorable senator that Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania entered into their agreements with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company before there was any Pacific Cable at all. The agreement, so far as those States were concerned., was entered into under very favorable circumstances, as they paid no subsidy. No advantages were given to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, such as had been given in arrangements which the other States entered into. Therefore, so far as those States were concerned, the agreement was a reasonable one, and no blame can be attributed to them. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The only blame was in making the agreement interminable. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- **Senator de** Largie is not quite accurate as far as Tasmania is concerned. She entered into a horribly bad agreement. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I must confess to be innocent of knowledge on that point ; but, as far as I understand the agreement entered into with .the three States mentioned, it was fair and reasonable. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- They had no choice. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I think that, from a monetary stand-point, they made a very good bargain indeed. Look at it from the point of view of Western Australia. She had no direct cable communication prior to the construction of the new route between Western Australia and Cocos Island to South Africa. That gave us a shorter route to Europe, and a much better one than existed before. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- The Eastern Extension Telegraph Company laid that line after the Pacific Cable Board had proposed to do it. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I have yet to learn that the Pacific Cable Board ever proposed to lay a cable from Western Australia to South Africa. Its scheme was confined to the Pacific, and did not propose to cross the Indian Ocean. There is no getting over the fact, however, that the present position is intolerable. If I saw any possible hope of making the Pacific Cable a successful concern, by not entering into an arrangement with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, I should gladly say : " Let us enter into active competition with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, and let us do all we can to enable the Government concern to come out on top." But I do not see how we can hope to compete successfully against the company. I can, on the other hand, see that we may lose a great deal of money, and that, having lost it, we shall be no better off than we are now. If we consent to the agreement introduced by the Government, there certainly will be a period when we shall be able to say that the whole of our relations with "the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company have come to an end. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- I think not. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- At the end of twelve years, the agreement will come to an end ; but under the present position of affairs it will be perpetual. All the advantages that the company has at the present time - and they are many - will be continued for all time. In the face of that strong position, surely something practical must be done. I have already said that the present position is intolerable, and I see no better way of ending it than to enter into a fresh agreement, putting the whole matter on a more satisfactory basis than it is at present. Regarding the matter from that stand-point, and recognising the fact that those who have opposed the proposal of the Government have not advanced a better scheme of their own, I feel justified in supporting it. {: #subdebate-7-0-s5 .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania -- There are several matters connected with this agreement which cause exceedingly grave doubts in my mind as to whether I ought to vote for it. In the first place, I wish to point out that the agreement contains a recital. Now, any one who has even a superficial knowledge of legal documents, will be aware of the value of a recital. The recital sets forth that it is desirable that the provisions of the old agreements and the provisional arrangement - shall, subject to the modifications hereinafter appearing, be combined in one agreement, which shall be in substitution for the said recited agreements and provisional arrangement. That is an expression of a desire and an intention. But I wish to indicate emphatically that this agreement which we are asked to ratify contains no operative words in any part of it whatever to give effect to that recital.I say, without fear of contradiction, that there is nothing in this agreement, if we assent to it now, that will prevent those old agreements with the States coming into force again when this new agreement lapses. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The AttorneyGeneral says quite differently. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- Well, I have a great respect for the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- Does not the question arise whether there is only a. temporary substitution? {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- It may. The recital is merely an expression of an intention as to something that is going to be carried out by the operative words of the agreement. The operative part of this agreement begins with the words- >Now this indenture witnesseth and it is hereby agreed and declared by and with the Commonwealth and its successors and the Extension Company their successors and assigns as follows, that is to say - If you do not find a distinct clause subsequent to those words which enacts that this agreement shall cancel all previous agreements, then I say it does nothing of the kind. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- The honorable senator maintains that the substance mentioned in the recital should be mentioned again in the subsequent part of the agreement? {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- That is what I say. The recital to a legal document contains nothing that is operative. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- If the recital says that the agreement shall be in substitution of another agreement it carries weight. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- No, it does not. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Then what is the use of a recital ? {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- It is the customary practice in the preparation of legal documents to set forth in the recital the purpose of the document and what it is intended to carry out. But if not provided for in the operative part, the statements in the recital form no part of the agreement. I point out another feature. The Pacific Cable Conference, whose report we have before us, dated 28thJuly, is signed by **Mr. Alfred** Lyttelton, Lord Jersey, **Sir William** Mulock, and **Sir Sandford** Fleming - men of high standing and repute. Clause 7 of their report says - >We are advised that the recital in the preamble of the Commonwealth agreement - That is not merely the statement of these men. They say deliberately that they are " advised "- - that the recital in the preamble of the Commonwealth agreement, that it is desirable to substitute one agreement for certain other agreements, including the New South Wales agreement, and the similar agreement which South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, cannot safely be relied upon to prevent the revival of those agreements on the termination of the Commonwealth agreement. I ask honorable senators to observe that the members of the Conference do not say " in our opinion," but distinctly "we are advised." {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- They do not say by whom, and we have the advice of the At torney-General absolutely to the contrary. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- I do not wish to institute any comparisons, but I do say that we are assured by these gentlemen that they are " advised " that this, recital is of no use as an operative part of the agreement; and I know, with great deference to the Attorney-General, that it is of no use. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The Commonwealth Government's representative on the Conference, Lord Jersey, is here now. and they could soon find out by whom the Conference was advised. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- Precisely. Whatever view we may take of the Eastern Extension Company, or of the Pacific Cable, or the matters in dispute, I maintain that if any honorable senator feels a doubt that at the expiration of this agreement the old agreements will come into force, he is not justified in voting for the ratification of this new agreement. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- Then the old agreements will remain in force? {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- Let us. get to the root of this matter. What is it? **Senator Macfarlane** says that the old agreements will come into force. But what are they? The position is that four States in the Commonwealth are, to use a phrase, "in the toils" of the Eastern Extension Company. They entered into their bargain voluntarily. This new agreement proposes' to drive the remaining States of the Commonwealth into the same toils, I will admit for a limited term of twelve or thirteen years. If this agreement is not ratified, the four States will remain in the same toils; but if the agreement is ratified, we shall add two more States for the twelve or thirteen years; and, in my opinion, we shall leave the other four States still in the toils of the company at the end of that term. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The inducement held out to tis is, that the States will be released at the end of twelve years. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- So they will be ; there is 'no doubt about it, in my opinion. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- I leave the Senate to judge between the Conference and **Senator Playford.** At any rate, we are bound to respect the four members of the Conference. {: .speaker-KC7} ##### Senator Sir William Zeal: -- There is no doubt about the point. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- I have not the slightest doubt, so far as I am capable of forming an opinion. It may be wrong, but I express it without hesitation. Seeing that this doubt has been thrown upon the matter by four gentlemen, whose repute is beyond suspicion, and who not only sign this report, but distinctly say. " We are advised " - and when thev say that, we must, of course, understand that such men would be well advised, or thev would not have quoted the opinion - surely a senator should hesitate to make the States run the risk - because that is what we are going to do - at the end of the agreement of being in the s.ame toils as they have been in preceding years. If there were no other reason - and there are others - why I should refuse to be a party to the ratification of this agreement, I say, deliberately, that that information is abundantly sufficient to justify me in refusing to assent to an agreement which is., at any rate, clouded with such doubt as to its real contents. There is another matter, which I mentioned two years ago. There is no question of policy about the matter at all, because 1 brought the same point under the notice of a previous. Government. This new agreement has been prepared as the result of negotiations. I have been unable to discover by whom those negotiations were instituted - whether by- the Eastern Extension Company or by some preceding Commonwealth Government. I should like to have some information on that point, although I may not be able to get it. I have said with regard to my own State - and I must be expected to look after its interests - that when those negotiations were commenced, it was perfectly easy for the then Government, just as it was for the present Government, to have made it a condition to leave Tasmania out for the remainder of this cable subsidy agreement. It is onerous, burdensome, and iniquitous to her, especially since s.he has entered into Federation. Tasmania suffers under the hardship of paying largely in excess of what she would have to pay if she were now free to make terms. This or any other Government, whose duty it is to look after the interests of every State in the Commonwealth, regardless of position, size, or other considerations, might, very well, when entering into these negotiations, have made a notification and expressly provided that Tasmania should escape, to that limited extent, from this special cable subsidy. {: #subdebate-7-0-s6 .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE:
Tasmania -- I feel myself in a somewhat peculiar position in regard to the ratification of this agreement. I recognise that four out of the six States are, to quote words already used, " in the toils " of a very unfortunate series of agreements with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. I do not desire to prolong the debate, or reiterate arguments already used, but I must say that I do not feel Justified in voting for the ratification of this agreement. My objections would disappear to a very large extent if I were satisfied that this agreement would be in complete substitution for the agreements now in existence between the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company and the four States. {: .speaker-KC7} ##### Senator Sir William Zeal: -- At a definite time. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -.At the expiration of this proposed agreement, in ten years' time. I believe that a number of honorable senators feel just as I do in this connexion. I therefore move - >That the following words be added to paragraph 1 : - " Conditionally on clause 25 of the agreement reading as follows : - ' 25. This agreement shall remain in force until the thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and no longer, and shall cancel all previous agreements entered into between the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company and any State of the Commonwealth."' The amendment is submitted for the purpose of testing the feeling of the Senate. I am in entire sympathy with the attitude of **Senator Higgs,** who deserves the thanks of the Senate for the pains and trouble he has taken during this and preceding sessions in marshalling the facts, and showing how objectionable the operations of the Eastern Extension Telegraph' Company have been. At the same time, **Senator Higgs** will admit that we are in an unfortunate position. Four of the six States have, at periods prior to Federation, entered into agreements which on the face of them are absurd. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator Fraser: -- They are worse than absurd. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- There may be a justification, for saying that these agreements are worse than absurd in some instances, but I shall attribute nothing further than folly to the responsible Governments or officials. **Senator Higgs, Senator Smith,** and others who have taken a keen interest in combating the operations of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, have not shown us how to surmount our present difficulty except by fighting that company. It has been stated that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company possess no privileges which the Pacific Cable Board does not, or could not, enjoy. The plain fact remains, however, that we are to a certain extent caught in the toils of the objectionable agreements at present in force. The question is whether it would not be better for us to submit to what we regard as unfair conditions for a certain term of years, if at the end of that time we are absolutely certain that the objectionable agreements will cease and determine. {: .speaker-KKL} ##### Senator Fraser: -- Make sure that it is so. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- It is so. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- The obiect of my amendment is to make the position quite clear. The report of the Conference shows that the members were not clear that the ratification of this agreement will determine the old States agreements. **Senator Clemons,** who is a lawyer, lays stress on the fact that the indication that the old agreements shall cease is only in the recital and not in the operative part of the agreement. What objection can the Government have to asking the Eastern Extension Telegraph Companv to make this point absolutely clear? If the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company positively refuse to make it clear that the old agreements shall cease at the end of ten years, we shall know exactly what the game of the company is- we shall know their motive for refusing. Acknowledging, as we do, that we should like to be freer from the operations of this company than we are, the best course would be to adopt my amendment. **Senator MACFARLANE** (Tasmania).There are one or two matters to which I should like to refer. **Senator Fraser** was very emphatic when he stated that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company had not given any reduction of rates until compelled to do so, and that statement excited considerable sympathy from those who are opposed to the ratification of the agreement. I find from the official papers, however, that so long ago as1891 the Eastern Extension Telegraph Companv offered to. and actually did, reduce their rate from 9s. 4d. to 4s. per word under a guarantee. {: .speaker-KC7} ##### Senator Sir William Zeal: -- That was a case of coming events casting their shadow before. {: #subdebate-7-0-s7 .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator MACFARLANE: -- The Eastern Extension Telegraph Company also offered to lay a third cable, which was done. Two years afterwards the different Colonies urged that under the guarantee there was a loss of £55, 000, and asked the company to raise the rates. The companv, however, urged that the experiment of the 4s. tariff should be continued, but ultimately agreed to make the rate 4s. 9d. per word, which continued until 1900, or thereabouts. These facts show that the company were not anxious for high rates. {: .speaker-KC7} ##### Senator Sir William Zeal: -- Were they not ? {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator MACFARLANE: -- This shows that the company were anxious to encourage business, and when the Colonies withdrew from the agreement, the company continued the low rate, in spite of heavy losses to themselves. The discovery of gold in Western Australia in 1896 led to an enormous increase in the Australian traffic, and in the three years succeeding the discovery the guarantee was exceeded by £i23>233> £170,515, and £121,016 respectively ; so that there was no loss to the Colonies. According to the information given to me, although these large receipts suddenly fell away again, they had put the company in a position to renew their offer to lay the Cape Cable with a reduction in the tariff, but without . any demand for subsidy or guarantee. We hear complaints of injustice being done to the Pacific Cable Board by reason of the fact that they do not enjoy privileges which are extended to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company I have no particular reason for being a friend of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, but only want fair play. The question is, whether having regard to the interests of the whole of Australia, there is any better course open to us than to ratify the agreement now presented. It is said that the company have been given a special wire. On the 29th July, 1903, **Sir Edmund** Barton said that this provision 'was necessary in order to facilitate the international traffic. He quoted the following extract from a. letter by the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company : - >It would materially expedite the cable traffic to have a line and system wholly devoted to it, and where it would not have to take turn with the large intercolonial traffic. It would also be a convenience to the public that they should be in direct communication with the agency that carries their messages from one end of the world to the other, instead of through the intermediary of the local Telegraph Department, whose jurisdictions end with the boundaries of the respective colonies. The international telegraph traffic is almost wholly a code, is of a special nature, and is worked under complicated and extensive rules and regulations. Referring to the proposal for a Conference, he said - >A conference for the purpose suggested in **Mr. Chamberlain's** last despatch, of seeing in what way our partnership interests in the Pacific cable can be reasonably dealt with, and whether the parties to the Pacific cable can agree upon a common ground of action in future, is quite after my heart, and I am perfectly willing to confer upon such matters. > >I have come to the definite conclusion that, so far as the question of entering into this agreement is concerned, a conference is unnecessary, and would only involve useless delay. Of course, a conference for other purposes is entirely another matter. The Conference has been held, and the result is, as I understand, that it suggests practically that the new agreement should be ratified, subject to an amendment of the kind which has been moved by **Senator O'** Keefe. We cannot do any better, I think. They sent out **Mr. Reynolds** to make terms with us in regard to the Pacific Cable. Speaking on this point on the 29th July, 1903, **Sir Edmund** Barton said - >It so happens that there is now on his way to Australia the general manager of the Pacific Cable Company, **Mr. Reynolds,** whose intention I know from official documents is to come here and to make such arrangements with the Government in reference to that cable as may be necessary. I shall welcome him most heartily. What has been the result of the Conference? Practically nothing, except that we know that the cable is making a loss, and that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company have offered to reduce their rate to 2s. 6d. a word, if the receipts will allow it. I do not know whether honorable senators have in their hands the papers which were circulated in 1903, and which. I think, are well worth reading. A question has been raised about sending telegrams in the way in which the senders desire. According to the Berne Convention, we must do as the sender of a cable may require. On this point, **Mr. Chamberlain** wrote on the 15th August, 1899, and a passage from his despatch is contained in the following extract : - >The question of fair treatment was raised by the Eastern Extension Company in a communication addressed to the Colonial Office in July, 1890, and by **Mr. Chamberlain's** direction the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Selbourne, replied as follows, dated London, 15th August, 1899 : - " In regard to the claim in paragraph 16 of your letter - that the Company should have the right to collect and deliver their international messages in Australasia in the same manner as prevails in this country - I am to observe that the Australasian Colonies are parties to the international telegraph convention, and are therefore bound to send any telegrams marked to go by the Company's route by that route." So that it is not a question of acting of our own free will. The Pacific Cable Company can get the same privilege if they require it. 4 {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- Is not **Mr. Chamberlain** against the agreement which we are asked to ratify ? {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator MACFARLANE: -- I see no evidence of it. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- Then the honorable senator has not read the papers. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- What **Senator Smith** saw was the despatch which **Mr. Chamberlain** wrote when he had not seen the agreement. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- He wrote a despatch in which he asked us not to ratify the agreement, and which will be found in my speech. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator MACFARLANE: -- As to rates, **Mr. Warren,** the manager of the Eastern Extension Company in Australia, on 25th July, 1901, wrote - >Under this sliding scale the tariff has been already reduced from 4s.9d. per word to 3s. 6d., and it is practically certain that a further reduction will be made to 3s. to the contracting States on the 1st January next. The reductions are automatic, and if no Pacific Cable were laid at all the rates would diminish to half-a-crown per word, with no power to the company to raise them again. If the rate comes down to2s. 6d. per word it could never again be raised, and 3s. per word does not pay the Pacific Cable. I have looked at the matter all round, and I cannot see that the Commonwealth can do better than ratify the agreement. I wish to be perfectly fair. I should very much like to see the cable in which we hold a third interest better supported than it is. But, in justice to the whole community, we must recognise that if we do not ratify the agreement we shall put four States to very serious expense. {: #subdebate-7-0-s8 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist -- The discussion has tended, I think, to bring the minds of many honorable senators who entertained diverse views on the subject into closer unanimity than at the outset. I have listened with a great deal of interest and attention to the speeches of Senators Higgs and Staniforth Smith, but so far as the motion is concerned, I would venture to say that interesting as their remarks have been, they have failed to point out how or in what way the Government could act better in the circumstances, than they have proposed. This agreement was enteredinto some time ago, and has been in operation since it was signed, subject, of course, to the ratification of the two Houses. The ratification of one House was given two years ago, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat the history of the agreement since that time. So far as the States are concerned, I think that **Sir Edmund** Barton, in agreeing with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company on the lines indicated in this memorandum of agreement, chose the lesser of two possible evils. There is no doubt that the company, in connexion with Australia, as elsewhere, were out for profit, and like all other business concerns, they endeavoured to make the most of the opportunities which arose. They do not pose, I suppose, as a philanthropic institution, but desire to make the largest possible interest on their capital. I have no great affection for the company. I recognise thoroughly that they have been motived by profit from the be ginning, and! although, in many instances, they may have endeavoured to get concessions from the States in the guise of persons who were endeavouring to benefit the people in the States, and in other parts of the Empire, still, to use the words of Thackeray, they always kept their eyes on the main chance. We are asked by this motion to ratify the agreement, and after some discussion. I think that honorable senators on both sides recognise that it is the lesser of two evils which it asks them to accept. The amendment of **Senator O'** Keefe goes very much further than I think any honorable senator would like to go. Clause 25 of the agreement reads as follows : - >This agreement shall remain in force until the 31st day of October, 1913, and thenceforth until terminated by two calendar years' notice in writing by either party, such notice to expire at the end of some calendar year. The amendment proposes that that clause shall be replaced by the following one: - >This agreement shall remain in force until the thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and no longer, and shall cancel all previous agreements entered into between the Eastern Extension Company and any State of the Commonwealth. We might as well ask for the moon as ask the company to accept an agreement under those circumstances. We have to bear in mind that there are in existence to-day between the company and the various States quite a number of agreements which will be in no way affected by this agreement, if ratified. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- Which agreements is the Minister referring to. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- Those honorable senators who have perused this agreement will have noticed that there are two classes of agreement referred to therein. The fourth recital sets out - >And whereas the present rates for the transmission of the Commonwealth traffic are governed by the two agreements, and the provisional arrangement next hereinafter mentioned - The two agreements and the provisional arrangement are referred to in that paragraph as *a, b,* and *c.* The sixth lec'tal sets out - >And whereas it is desirable that the provisions of the said recited agreements and provisional arrangement should, subject to the modifications hereinafter appearing, be combined in one agreement, which shall be in substitution for the said recited agreements and provisional arrangement. Those two agreements, and the provisional arrangement, concern themselves only with the transmission rates for Commonwealth! traffic,, and by the operation of this agreement its provisions would be substituted for the provisions, of those two agreements and the provisional arrangement, which are always spoken of in subsequent portions of this agreement as " the said recited agreements and provisional arrangement." Later on there is another recital which at first sight does not seem to have any bearing on this agreement at all, which will be found in paragraph 8 on page 10 of the papers. I draw **Senator O'Keefe's** special attention to this - >And whereas at the date of the transfer of posts telegraphs and telephones to the Commonwealth as aforesaid divers other agreements were subsisting between the Extension Company and the States now comprised in the Commonwealth or some of them the benefits and obligations of which agreements thereupon passed to and were assumed by the Commonwealth that is to say : - Then there are eight agreements recited, some of which' are perpetual, some for twenty years, and some for ninety-nine years. I will refer to one or two. No. 7, for instance, is as follows: - >A lease dated 13th July, 1900, from the Administrator of the Colony of Western Australia to the Extension Company for 99 years of two lots of land containing together 10 acres 2 roods 28 perches situate at Cottesloe near Fremantle in the Colony of Western Australia for station purposes. Then No. 8 is referred to in this way - >An agreement dated 17th July, 1901, being a grant by the Government of South Australia to the Extension Company of land about 3^ acres in extent situate near Jervois Bridge on the Port Adelaide River for station purposes with a covenant by the said Government for the construction of a wharf and deepening of the channel of the said river as therein expressed. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- Do these agreements give the company the right to carry on after the expiration of the agreement with which we are now dealing, if it is ratified ? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- No j only so far as the agreements themselves go. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- They would ownland, and so forth. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- That is all. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- - The Minister might answer the question whether they would be able to carry on the telegraphic business under an r of those agreements. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I cannot say exactly what those agreements are, but there is no doubt that they are not affected in any way by the agreement the Senate isnow asked to ratify, and they should not be. They are recited1 here as agreementsthat were in force and operation at the time of the transfer of posts, telegraphs, and telephones to the Commonwealth, and it is further recited in connexion with them, that - the benefits and obligations of which agreements thereupon passed to and were assumed by the Commonwealth. In a lease for ninety-nine years, provision is made that certain things shall be done by the lessee and by the lessor. Take, for instance, the grant of land in South Australia. I do not know exactly for what purpose it was granted. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- One purpose was for the landing of the cable. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- Obviously in that case certain conditions constituted an agree-, ment between the South Australian Government and the company, and honorable senators will have noticed that one of the covenants on the part of the Government was the building of a wharf. Then I refer honorable senators to agreement No. 5 - >An agreement dated nth May, 1894, by the Governor of New South Wales for the lease to the Extension Company for twenty years of a piece of land situated at La Perouse, Sydney, for station purposes. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Can the honorable senator refer the Senate to the four agreements entered into by the four States to which we are objecting? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- They are referred to in the recital with which I have already dealt. Those are the agreements which would be affected by the ratification of this agreement ; but I am pointing out now that there are here recited some eight agreements, and, with the exception of No. 4, concerning Tasmania, all the others seem to me to be agreements that have been entered into by this company with the various States Governments or Administrations in respect to matters incidental to the carrying on of their business in the several States, the leasing of land, the acquisition of the freehold of land, and so forth. I have not been able to read them all through, but I quote agreement No. *2,* for instance - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. An agreement dated 24th day of June, iS/5, between the Governor of the Colony of New Zealand of the first part the Governor of the Colony of New South Wales of the second part and the. Extension Company of the third part. Whereby by article 2 the Extension Company was empowered to lay a submarine telegraph cable be- tween New Zealand and Sydney in the Colony of New South Wales the terminal point on the coast of New Zealand to be at a point called Blind Bay or Golden Bay and the terminal point at Sydney to be at the telegraph station there. By article 6 the Governments respectively agreed to afford to the Extension Company all proper and reasonable facilities to enable the Extension Company to lay the said cable and keep the same in repair and to acquire any land necessary for their terminal stations in the said colonies including a free grant of any Government land suitable for that purpose. By articles 7 and 8 the Government of New South Wales agreed to afford to the Company certain facilities for working the cable at Sydney and by articles 12 and 13 provision was made for the indication of route without charge and limiting any terminal charge of the Government of New South Wales to the lowest ordinary rate. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- It is obvious that we do not wish to interfere with that. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- Honorable senators will notice that only the date, and not the term of the agreement, is stated. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The amendment is only intended to apply to the four principal agreements with the States. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- There would be no objection to that, but if by the amendment honorable senators propose to say that on the expiration of the term of the agreement, the Senate is now asked to ratify, all contracts between any State and the Eastern Extension Company shall cease, I point out that they would be proposing to deal with leases and grants of land made to the company subject to conditions with which they may have compiled. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- We desire the specific cancellation of certain contracts. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- Or something which will meet the objections stated in paragraph 7 of the report. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- Then I submit that the proposed new clause 25 should read in this way - >This agreement shall remain in force until the thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and no longer, and shall cancel the said recited agreements and provisional arrangement. The latter words are those by which reference is made to the specific agreements for which this is proposed to be substituted. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Would it not be safer to give the dates of the agreement which we desire to have cancelled? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I remind the honorable senator that thev are referred to throughout this agreement as " the said recited agreements and provisional arrangement." {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- Should we not also require to alter the date to 1915? {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- That is of the essence of the amendment. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I was not dealing with that, but with the legal aspect of the matter. It has just been suggested to me that there are two lots of agreements recited. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- I very much doubt if the clause which the Minister has suggested will meet what is required. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- I am willing that the matter should be adjourned, in order that Ministers may frame an amendment which will meet the object which we all have in view. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The honorable senator proposes to reduce the term by two years. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- Are Ministers in favour of the spirit of the amendment? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- Certainly ; but I do not know about altering the date of the termination of the agreement. So far as a provision making this agreement an absolute cancellation of the agreements for which it is substituted is concerned, we are certainly in accord with the amendment. Debate (on motion by **Senator Gray)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 6287 {:#debate-8} ### PROPOSED NEW STANDING ORDERS Debate resumed 'from 30th November *(vide* page 6065) on Standing Orders Committee's report *(vide* page 5531), and on motion by **Senator Keating** - >That the report be now adopted. Upon which **Senator Pearce** had moved, by way of amendment - >That the following new standing order be added to the report : - " An instruction canbe given to a Committee of the Whole on a Bill to consider amendments which are not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, provided that such amendments shall not deal with an entirely different matter." {: #debate-8-s0 .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania -- **Senator Pearce** gave the Standing Orders Committee notice that he would move a certain standing order, and would take the opinion of the Senate uponit. The honorable senator has not done so, andit appears to me that his change of opinion is a change for the better. The motion which he has now moved is one that might, and I believe would, find acceptance by the Standing Orders Committee. It will be within the recollection of the Senate that all similar matters have invariably been referred to the Standing Orders .Committee, which has been constituted for the express purpose of considering them. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- I have given up all hope of the Standing Orders Committee. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I think the honorable senator has no right to do that. The Committee has always given careful consideration to matters affecting the Standing Orders. Its Chairman is our President, who has taken an infinitude of trouble over every question brought before him. The Committee has never had a meeting without the President quoting a number of precedents and authorities on the questions at issue. For that reason alone I put it to **Senator Pearce** that it is a matter of courtesy that the matter should be referred to the Committee. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The majority of the members of the Committee have expressed opinions against any alterations. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I think not. We have simply found a difficulty in framing a new rule to carry out the object in view. The unanimous feeling of the Committee was that we ought to find a way out of the difficulty, and I am not at all sure that the proposed new standing order does not to a great extent help us. The Committee has expressed itself in favour of altering the standing order upon which the President has given a ruling, but we shrank from going to the opposite extreme. **Senator Pearce's** new proposal is an indication that he is willing to try to find a *via media.* As, however, he does not seem to be inclined to refer the matter to the Committee, I move - >That all the words after " the " be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "question of any alteration in the Standing Orders in reference to instructions be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration." {: #debate-8-s1 .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST:
Victoria -- Under ordinary circumstances, there is no doubt that the correct course would be to carry the amendment suggested by my honorable friend **Senator Dobson.** But it so happens that the Standing Orders Committee has had this subject under consideration, and could come to no agreement. The upshot of the discussion was that a majority rejected the proposal put before the Committee. {: #debate-8-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The honorable senator will excuse me for pointing out that the report of the Standing Orders Committee is to the effect that the (Committee is not "at present" able to make any recommendation. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That means the same thing. If there was any hope of the Committee coming to an agreement, I should say that the subject ought to be referred back to it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The Standing Orders Committee never had this proposal submitted to it. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- But it had before it the question involved in the proposed new standing order. It was felt that by reason of certain decisions that had been given honorable senators were unduly limited in dealing with Bills by the Standing Orders themselves, which stated that only matters relevant to the subject-matter could, be discussed. It was ' suggested to the Standing Orders Committee that greater liberty might be given. At present, the Standing Orders practically amount to saying that it is competent for the Committee of the Whole to deal with instructions which have been given to it relevant to the Bill before it. Such an instruction is of no use whatever. The Standing Orders at present, therefore, are of no assistance in the way of granting further liberty. It was, consequently, considered that we might provide that power should be given to the Committee of the Whole to consider such amendments as did not deal entirely with the subjectmatter of a Bill. When the Electoral Bill was under consideration, certain amendments were moved affecting portions of the principal Act. Those amendments were held to be irrelevant. It was felt to be a hardship that we could not, in considering a Bill amending a large number of machinery and other sections of the principal Act, turn back to other sections for the purpose of amending them. Of course it is very difficult to determine exactly the form of words which would enable us to obtain the increased liberty that we desire. **Senator Pearce** has now drafted an amendment to meet tlie end in view. The Standing Orders Committee, having considered! the subject without coming to a decision. **Senator Pearce** appeals to the Senate itself to carry out its own wishes in this regard. So far' as I have been able to gather, his motion does not carry out the wishes of the Senate. I think, therefore, that we should take the responsibility of 'affirming this proposed new standing order. If anything would be gained by referring it back to the Committee, I should agree to that course. But if the general sense of the Committee is taken, and it is conclusively indicated by the majority that we must have a standing order to this effect, then will be the time for the matter to be referred to the Committee, upon whom the duty will be incumbent to determine the form of the new standing order. **Senator Dobson** is hardly consulting the best interests of the Senate in the amendment which he has moved. Let us take the sense of the Senate. If it is determined that we ought to have a standing order in the direction suggested, we can refer the matter to the Committee to settle the form. If objection be taken to the verbiage of "this motion, let an instruction be given to the Standing Orders Committee to prepare a standing order to the effect desired. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Would the President not understand that to be an. objection to the report? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I have already said that I am in entire sympathy with the object of the motion. The only question is as to the verbiage - how to frame the standing order, so as to get rid of the difficulty presented, and, while giving further power to a Committee of the Whole, not to land us in other difficulties. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- If there is practically unanimity of opinion that a standing order should be prepared, the amendment may be altered accordingly, with a view to the Standing Orders Committee framing a standing order to the effect desired. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- I have no objection to that. {: #debate-8-s3 .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania -- It is probable that a large majority of honorable senators agree as to the desirability of some amendment of the standing order dealing with- instructions to a Committee of the Whole. If that be so, it does not appear to me that there is any great urgency for dealing with the matter. The Senate would commit a grievous mistake if it adopted this standing order straight away, without giving the Standing Orders Committee a proper opportunity to consider the whole question. If this motion be put without reference to the amendment, I shall be compelled to vote against it, and I hope many other honorable senators will take the same course, for the reason that we have not yet adequately considered the question. Further, the wording of the proposed standing order is most unsatisfactory. If I understand the matter aright, this question arose in consequence of a difficulty encountered in giving an instruction to a Committee of the Whole when we were dealing with an amending Bill. I have already expressed my view on this matter, but it was held by you, **Mr. President,** that certain amendments proposed were contrary to the Standin'g Orders; and a desire was then made manifest to extend the powers of a Committee of the Whole. I venture to suggest to Senators Pearce and Dobson that what we have to consider is the limit of the instruction that can be given to a Committee of the Whole on an amending Bill. In my opinion, on an amending Bill it ought to be competent for us to submit an amendment which is relevant to the subject-matter of the original Act. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- There is a ruling to the contrary, which was upheld by the Senate. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- If that is the difficulty, there does not appear to be much use in referring the matter back to the Standing Orders Committee. I think, however, that **Senator Pearce** might withdraw the proposed standing order, which appears to me to contain an absolute contradiction. If amendments are relevant to the subjectmatter of a Bill they cannot deal with an entirely different matter; and, in the contrary case, they would, in nine cases out of ten, be dealing with an entirely different matter. If the debate cannot be adjourned, I urge honorable senators not to pass the standing order as presented. I am prepared to consider any amendment which will give further time to the Standing Orders Committee to deal with the matter, with a view to the submission of some standing order. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment of the amendment, by leave, withdrawn. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- I ask leave to withdraw my amendment, with a view to submit another. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment (bv **Senator Pearce)** agreed to- >That the following words be added : - " but that the following motion be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, with a request to bring up a standing order to deal with the question : - " '3io,a. An instruction can be given to a Committee of the Whole on "a Bill to consider amendments which are not relevant to the subjectmatter of the Bill, provided that such amendments shall not deal with an entirely different matter.' " Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 6290 {:#debate-9} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-9-0} #### EASTERN EXTENSION COMPANY'S AGREEMENT Debate resumed *(vide* page 6287). **Senator GRAY** (New South Wales).My sympathies are entirely with **Senator Higgs** and **Senator Smith** in their attitude towards the motion of **Senator Playford.** Having regard to the rates charged by the two cable companies, I feel that we owe very much to the Pacific Cable Company. There is no doubt that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company would not have reduced their rates as much as they did had it not been from a fear of what the Pacific Cable Company might do. I recognise that the latter represents the British Empire to a larger extent than does the former, and as such I feel that it ought to be encouraged by us to develop its interests in the Commonwealth. At the same time, I cannot shut my eyes to the facts which have been submitted by the Government in connexion with the agreements entered into by four States with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. It is difficult for me to conceive how such *agreements* could have been entered into. It is altogether out of the ordinary routine of business details that agreements which are binding for ever should have been made by any Minister on behalf of a State, and I cannot understand how they came to be confirmed. We have, however, to deal with the agreements as they are. and it appears to me that the offer of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company to the effect that they will enter into an agreement binding themselves to a definite period is the only wise one which the Government could ask the Senate to accept. We have to bear in mind what the consequences of the agreements with the States would be if we did not accept that offer. I should not like to take the responsibility of voting against the motion. The question as to whether the interpretation put on that agreement by the Attorney-General is correct or not can only be regarded from a layman's point of view, and when lawyers differ, we may come to the conclusion that -on one side or the other there is an error. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that even in the law Courts of the Commonwealth there is a very large difference of opinion. We find that in three cases out of four the appeals from the ordinary Courts to the higher Courts are disallowed. If that is the case in ordinary legal affairs, laymen are justified in wishing it to be made absolutely clear that in voting for the motion they shall do so with the knowledge that in 1915 the agreement, so far as it binds the States, shall be cancelled. It is only from a fear of the consequences which might otherwise ensue that 1 feel obliged, in the interests of the Commonwealth and the four States concerned in the making of this extraordinary arrangement, to vote for the motion. I do *not* wish, and. I am sure that no other honorable senator wishes by his vote, to throw cold water upon the efforts of the Pacific Cable Company or any other company. I feel that I am interpreting the wishes of honorable senators generally when I say that our sympathies are entirely with the Pacific Cable Company, but at the same time we feel that, from a purely business stand-point, it would be folly on our part not to realize the consequences which would flow from our voting against the motion. For these reasons, I intend to vote wilh the Government. {: #subdebate-9-0-s0 .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART:
Queensland -- I have to complain of the very incomplete information which has been placed at our disposal by the Government. One would have thought that in connexion with this important matter the Senate would have been provided with exhaustive information with regard to every aspect of it. Instead of that, we have the bald proposition of the Government asking us to ratify an agreement which has been entered into provisionally, and if any one wishes an explanation, he gets one explanation from one Minister and another from his colleague, and is consequently left in a most hazy state of mind. I object to this sort of thine. I think it is desirable that we should know exactly what we are doing when we vote upon this most important question. In the first place. I have been anxious to discover what the position of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company will be at the end of 19 15 if we ratify this agreement, but" I have not yet been able to find that out. I have not been supplied with any definite statement on the point. Until I am satisfied on the point, I shall vote against the motion. I con- fess that at the first blush I was inclined to vote for the motion, but as the debate proceeded I considered that I found that the result of adopting the agreement would not be what I desired. I fondly imagined that if we ratified the agreement we should at the end of twelve months relieve ourselves of an incubus, whereas at present the company have a right in perpetuity to operate in four of the States. The Government, if it desired themotion to be passed, ought to have taken care to have supplied the Senate with all the information available. The Pacific Cable Company is an experiment in Imperial Socialism. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- At the end of that period the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company could not, without our consent, open offices, get special land wires, or restrict us in our terminal charges. They would be absolutely in our hands to do whatever we pleased. Of course, we could not take their cables from them, but they would be absolutely in our hands as regards carrying on business in Australia. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- They would be in the hands of the people of the Commonwealth ? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- All their rights as to offices, terminal charges, land lines, and everything else of that kind would absolutely cease. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- What I understand the Minister to say is that at the expiration of this agreement, if ratified, the company would not be in a position to carry on business without the consent of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- Yes ; but we could not knock them out of existence or take away their property. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- But the company would not be allowed to carry on business. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- We do not know what Government might be in power then. It would rest entirely with the Commonwealth to say what terminal charges or concessions they would give. The company would have to get all their concessions afresh. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- If that is the position, I think that the Government ought to agree to the amendment of **Senator O'Keefe.** {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- I have agreed to the amendment, but in another form. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- The Minister has taken the sting out of the amendment ! {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- The revised amendment is to add to the first paragraph of the motion the following words: - But only upon the following condition, namely, that instead of article 25 of the agreement, the following shall be article 25 thereof, that is to say : - " 25. This agreement shall be in substitution for the two agreements, and the provisional arrangement mentioned in the fourth recital of this agreement. This agreement shall expire on the thirtyfirst day of December, nineteen hundred and fifteen." I quote the fourth recital, for the benefit of honorable senators - And whereas the present rates for the transmission of the Commonwealth traffic are governed by the two agreements and the provisional arrangement next hereinafter mentioned that is to say (a) An agreement dated the 14th day of April, 1900, and made between the Government of the State of South Australia (then called the Colony of South Australia) of the first part the Government of the State of Western Australia (then called the Colony of Western Australia) of the second part the Government of the State of Tasmania (then called the Colony of Tasmania) of the third part and the Extension Company of the fourth part. (4) An agreement dated the 16th day of January 1901 and made between the Government of the State of New South Wales (then called the Colony of New South Wales) of the one part and the Extension Company of the other part. *(c )* A provisional arrangement made on behalf of the Federal Government with the Extension Company for applying to the other States of the Commonwealth the rates for transmission of telegraphic messages provided by the said recited agreements. So far as I am able to discover, the amendment goes a long way to meet what I desire. I wish to place my position clearly before the Senate. There is no doubt a good deal of difficulty connected with this matter, and a very great deal to be said on both sides. But we have to decide oneway or the other now. What appeals to me is this : If we ratify the amended agreement, it will absolutely expire at the end of 1915. I suppose that no attempt would" then be made to renew it. In any case, the people of the Commonwealth, through their representatives in Parliament, would have the whole matter in their own hands. If we do not ratify the agreement, where do we stand? The company will have the right, in perpetuity, to operate infour of the Australian States. When I have to choose *between* the two positions, notwithstanding the very forcible arguments advanced on the other side during the present debate, I am compelled to come to the conclusion that the course proposed by the Government, if amended as suggested, is the more beneficial one. It is advanced in opposition to this that, if we ratify the agreement, by 1915 there will not be any Pacific Cable, and that our first great experiment in Imperial Socialism will have been written down a lamentable failure. I hope that nothing of that kind will happen. I remind Senators Higgs and Smith that the comparative failure of the Pacific Cable to date has been due to the laxity of the Commonwealth Post and Telegraph Department, which has not shown the business enterprise and capacity of the local managers of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- Has our Post and Telegraph Department the power fo adopt the tactics adopted by the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company? Are there not rates fixed below which they cannot go? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- I am not aware of that; but if they are in the field to do business they should try to do business. At any rate, they might do one thing which is done by the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, and that is codify messages for business men. They have not been doing that hitherto. Seeing that the two cables are competing keenly for whatever business there is to be done, it is only due to our partners in the Pacific Cable Company that our managers here should at least exhibit the same enterprise and capacity as the managers of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company do. It is not enough to say that wehave Great Britain, Canada, and the Australasian States behind us. We cannot on that account afford to lie on our oars, and the authorities of the Post and Telegraph Department of the Commonwealth should rouse themselves to get a much larger proportion of the business than they have hitherto obtained. It has been advanced by **Senator Higgs,** and also, I believe, by **Senator Smith,** that if we refuse to ratify this agreement we shall Have complete control in Victoria and in Queensland. The population of those two States amounts to a little over one-third of that of the entire Commonwealth. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Nearly one-half. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -About 40 per cent., I think, is the proportion. In answer to this argument, I point out that, so far as Queensland is concerned, the Pacific Cable gets the lion's share of her business now. I admit that thereismuch room for improvement in the way of increased business in Victoria. But, while we should have a monopoly of the business in the two States named, we should have to enter into active competition with the Eastern Extension Company in the remaining States for all time. I do not suppose that any one here imagines that the Commonwealth is going to permit this company to retain its footing in Australia for ever. Whether we ratify this agreement or not, the day will ultimately arrive when the Commonwealth will have to come to terms with this company, and I believe the present is as favorable an opportunity to do so as will ever occur. If we ratify the agreement, at the end of ten years we shall be in a position to terminate all our arrangements with the Eastern Extension Company. If we do not, the company may carry o business in this country for a century to come. That, it appears to me, describes the position at the present moment. After the assurances given by the Government, I find that there is no other course open to me than to support the motion, if amended as proposed. I trust that if it is carried the Government will bring a little pressure to bear upon the management of the Pacific Cable in Australia to induce those responsible to "hustle" a little more in order to get a bigger share of the business, and show that an enterprise of this kind can be as efficiently carried out under Commonwealth control as by a private company. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- I ask permission to withdraw my amendment, in order that another, somewhat differently worded, may be submitted. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. {: #subdebate-9-0-s1 .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER:
New South Wales -- I move - That the motion be amended byadding to paragraph 1 the following words : - " but only upon the following condition, namely : - That instead of article 25 of the agreement the following shall be article 25 thereof, that is to say - " 25. This agreement shall be in substitution for the two agreements, and the provisional arrangement mentioned in the fourth recital to this agreement. This agreement shall expire on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifteen." If this amendment had not been submitted, I should have been prepared to support the motion, because when we take over a Department we must naturally expect to have to carry out the agreements that have been entered into by it. It has been pointed out that the proposed agreement is more favorable to the Commonwealth than is the existing condition of things. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The honorable senator need not believe it. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER: -- In my opinion it certainly is. I have been reading through **Sir Edmund** Barton's reply to the Premier of New Zealand, dated 1st June, 1903. One or two paragraphs in that letter give the reasons for the new agreement in a more concise form than I could give them, and 1 therefore propose to quote them : - . I hoped that you would attempt to show (1) in what way, other than the one it has adopted, the Commonwealth could have relieved itself of the virtually perpetual obligations of the contracts made with four of its component States, which by the Constitution devolved upon the Federal Go.vernment ; (2) in what way the Pacific Cable is likely to bc injured by the new agreement. You have, however, done neither of these things. When the Government of the Commonwealth assumed control of the Post Office, agreements were in force between the Company and the States of New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia. These States, in consequence of the agreements mentioned, enjoyed lower rates than the other two, where similar agreements were not in force. The citizens of Victoria and Queensland were, therefore, coinpelled either to pay the additional rates demanded by the Company, or resort to the inconvenient method of forwarding messages to Sydney or Adelaide for despatch at. the cheaper tariff, paying in addition the overland rates. It was obvious that in the Commonwealth this stale of things should not be allowed to exist longer than was absolutely necessary. The Commonwealth was obliged to assume the burden of the contracts then in existence, and the first problem that confronted this Government was how, consistently with its obligations under these contracts, it could secure uniformity of treatment to the citizens of Australia. The contracts could only be rescinded by mutual consent, and it is not to be supposed that the Company would surrender its undoubted advantages without receiving some compensation. The matter then became one for negotiation between the Government of the Commonwealth and the Company. The objects of the Government during these negotiations were twofold - (1)' To secure uniform treatment; (2) to set, if possible, a reasonable limit to the operation of the agreement which bound us. The negotiations were protracted and difficult, and it is the opinion of this Government that the result will be very satisfactory to the people of the Commonwealth, and of distinct advantage to the partners of the Pacific Cable. Further on the letter says - ' The Pacific Cable is not for a day, but it is to be held for all time, and it is surely the province of those responsible for the Administration of a country not to limit their views to momentary advantages, but rather to look ahead and proceed in such a manner that their actions will be of permanent benefit to the people whose servants they are. There can be no doubt that in reducing the term of the agreement to a reasonable period, the Commonwealth has obtained for the Pacific Cable a very great advantage which cannot fail to be of immense and increasing value. Lastly, the letter says - The matter has been fully considered by this Government. The agreement was not entered into hurriedly - in fact, the negotiations extended over twelve months - and it is with full confidence that its adoption will be for the benefit of the Commonwealth, without injuring Pacific Cable, which, however, will in the future reap distinct advantage, that Ministers propose to ask Parliament to ratify their action. The Pacific Cable has the support of the people and Government of New Zealand. It is an extraordinary idea that the cable will not continue to be worked if this agreement is made. New Zealand1 is one of the most go-ahead countries in the world at the present time, and does a great amount of cable business. The Pacific Cable also has a share of the Australian business. I think it is our duty to carry the amendment, and I trust that the Senate will be unanimous. {: #subdebate-9-0-s2 .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania -- I move - That the amendment be amended by leaving out the word "fifteen," line 11, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word " thirteen." It is quite clear nhat the policy which the Government has adopted with regard to this matter has been very truly described as a policy of drift. It 'is natural that such a policy should have been adopted, but it is not business, and is not in the interest of the Commonwealth. The Government accepted this agreement as a kind of legacy from its predecessor, who, in turn, accepted it as a legacy from the States ; and while I admit that the Government was faced with a difficult position, I cannot admit that it has done all it might have clone to carry out the wishes of the Senate. The Senate objected to confirm the agreement in 1903, with the object of having a conference of the partners to the cable. That Conference has since been held. I hold in my hand a copy of its report. The document is rather a disappointing one; but it is, I think, disappointing because the Commonwealth Government has. been luke-warm in the matter. It appears almost to study the interest of the Eastern Extension Company rather than of our partners. Consequently, the managers of the Pacific Cable seem to have been disheartened. A tone almost of despair runs through the report. It cannot be. admitted that it is recommended that the agreement should be ratified. I do not think the Conference recommends that it should be ratified ; but it says that if the agreement is ratified - and the impression that it would be could only have been gathered from the Commonwealth Government - two amendments should be made. After pointing out that the Senate,, after discussing the agreement at several sittings, adjourned the ratification for the object of securing a Conference of the representatives of the partners to the Pacific Cable, the report goes on to deal with the circumstances under which the Conference was held. Then conies this paragraph- >In the meantime the Australian Government allowed effect to be given to the agreement by permitting the company to open an office in Melbourne, and giving them a special wire to that city. Nothing could better illustrate the lukewarmness of the Australian Government with regard to the Pacific Cable and the backing given to the Eastern Extension Company than this fact. What does it mean? Although the Senate declined to ratify the agreement, and although twenty of us signed a petition backing up the action of the Senate, and urging that a Conference should be held, the Government has allowed the Eastern Extension Company certain facilities in Melbourne in defiance of our wishes. Is it possible for the Government to contend, in face of facts like that, that it has done its duty lo the Pacific Cable Company? What is the meaning of such conduct I am unable to understand. {: .speaker-KC7} ##### Senator Sir William Zeal: -- It was not done by the present Government. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- The last three Governments of the Commonwealth have simply allowed the matter to slide. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- Did any member of the present Government sign that petition? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- I could not say. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- Where is the docu-ment? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- It was sent on to the Cable Conference. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- The whole tone of the report of the Conference shows that it was influenced by the feeling that the Commonwealth Government was working against the Pacific Cable. Why do Ministers appear to flout the wishes of the Senate in this way? What was the use of our declaring that we would not confirm the agreement when the action of the Government virtually confirmed it, and gave to the company facilities which New South Wales, prior to Federation, made such a fatal blunder in granting? The action of the Federal Government has been, of course, most dis heartening to all those who desired to see the Pacific Cable placed in a proper position. I can quite understand, therefore, why the Conference came to such a very negative determination. Let honorable senators recollect that the Pacific Cable was laid down not only for the purpose of enabling us to have two strings to our bow, but also as an Imperial cable - an Imperial link. Is it a proper thing for us to leave our partners in the lurch, and absolutely try to back up the Eastern Extension Company? That is what has been done all through. The company itself has done nothing which honorable business men should not do. But at the same time it has done everything possible to throw a damper on the Pacific Cable. Before it was constructed, the company's agents talked about the cost and the impossibility of constructing and working it. I do not blame them. I do not accuse them of being guilty of anything but honorable practices. They have been active and diligent in pursuing the interest of their company. But is that a reason why we should do everything to help the company against our own partners ? The managers of the Pacific Cable now ' find that they do not get the business from Australia that they expected, and the fact that the Commonwealth Government is playing into the hands of the Eastern Extension Company naturally makes them hesitate to incur further expense in opening offices of their own. They feel, of course, that the Government is not only not helping them, but working against them. Another paragraph in the report of the Conference says - >We. consider that the Pacific Cable Board should forthwith be given such facilities, and that the Board should take steps to secure the largest possible amount of Australian traffic by all legitimate methods of business competition; This would, of course, involve the Board in very considerable expense in connexion with local offices, and with advertising and canvassing, and we think it might be left to the discretion of the Pacific Cable Board to negotiate an amicable arrangement with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, provided that no arrangement be finally concluded without the approval of the Governments concerned. That confirms what I have just said, that I believe that the Pacific Cable managers would, under other circumstances, have applied for terminable facilities; but the Government, in spite of the decision of the Senate, granted such facilities to the rivals of the Pacific Cable. Is it any wonder that the managers of the Pacific Cable do not know what to do? They looked to their partner, the Commonwealth Government, and they find that partner going against them and supporting their rivals by giving them facilities in spite of the action of one of the Houses of this Parliament. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Nothing of the sort; the honorable senator is simply ranting. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I am ranting to the point, at all events. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The statement has no foundation in fact. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- If my honorable friend thinks that that is the way a partner should act I do not agree with him. The E'astern Extension Company has got a firm, hold of the cable business in Australia and Tasmania. It has facilities which the Pacific Cable managers have not got to run the business. It understands the canvassing, and is apparently in touch with the Government. It has been able to induce the Commonwealth to grant facilities in direct conflict with the decision of this Senate. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The honorable senator ought to remember that the other House decided the other way, and confirmed the agreement. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- That is a nice position for the leader of the Senate to take up ! Of course, there was a decision bv the House of Representatives, but the Senate refused to adopt that decision. Then the Ministry flouted the Senate, and practically confirmed the agreement as far as they could by their actions. Does the Minister suggest that it is, not my duty to "rant," as he calls it, against that sort of business ? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- In 3903, when we were discussing this matter, the company had opened their office in Melbourne. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Thev did not open, the office until after the Senate had objected to the agreement. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I find on inquiry that the company had this office open before we discussed the matter. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- Under what terms and conditions did the company open, this office in Melbourne. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The terms and conditions of the agreement entered into. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- Of the agreement the Senate has, not yet confirmed? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Yes; they opened the office before the Senate was. asked to confirm the agreement. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- If the Senate does not confirm the agreement, or desires to postpone it until next session, will the Government give the company notice to quit ? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I do not know that it would be right and proper to do so. I do net think we could ask the company to leave the office simply because the consideration of the matter had been postponed ; but if we refused to ratify the agreement that would be another matter, and I should say that we could then give them notice. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- If we postpone the matter until next session, or refuse to ratify the agreement, will the Government be able to get rid of the company so far as the Melbourne office is concerned ? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Yes, in either instance." But I do not think it would be considered just or fair to give them notice to quit if the question were only postponed. If, however, the Senate refuse to ratify the agreement, the company will have to go. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I should like to know the terms and conditions on which the company have exclusive use of the line between Melbourne and Adelaide. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Tentative conditions. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- The same conditions as those on which they hold the office ? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The same conditions,. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I am glad that the Minister seems to think a resolution of the Senate of some value; but had he thought so previously he would not have given the company these great concessions. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I did not give the concessions. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- But the Minister is. supporting the action of other Governments that have given concessions. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I am only stating the facts. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I understand that, supposing the agreement is not confirmed, but is postponed until next session, the company will continue as they are? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Yes, until the matter is decided. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- It is two years since this matter was first discussed, and if there be postponement, the third year may follow. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I think it *is the* duty of the Senate to come to a decision one way or another. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- Is it right of the Government to grant concessions in spite of the contrary decision of the Senate? All the facts show how unbusiness-like has been the action of the Government. I do not accuse the Government of deliberately acting unfairly to anybody, but they must see that our partners have the right to complain. The members of the Board were not likely to use any but diplomatic language; but it is, clear from the sentence I have quoted that they1 are bitterly disappointed with the action of the Government- {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Perhaps I may *be* allowed to state the exact terms on which the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company occupy these offices and have the use of the special line. The conditions are that it must be "clearly understood that these concessions are tentative only, and that in case of the refusal of either House of Parliament to ratify the agreement, these privileges are to instantly cease, the office to be closed, and the use pf the telegraph line to revert to the Postmaster-General. In such an. event, no claim is to be made by the company for the loss of the privileges or for any ex:pense incurred in connexion with fitting up or opening the office, or in connexion with any arrangement made for the tree of the telegraph line. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- What is the date of the document from which the Minister is reading that information? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I see no date on the document, but the Secretary to the Department tells me that the date is March. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- -Why is the date not on it? I cannot accept :i document of that kind. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- The Minister read the document in, a tone, and looked at me in a way that suggested the remark, " I told you so." Yet the Minister has previouslytold us quite the contrary. He seemed previously to take the view that the company would remain for ever under the present terms, unless we absolutely refused to confirm the agreement. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Nothing of the sort. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I am glad to see that, so far as it goes, a business arrange ment has been made. But does **Senator Playford** not see that neither a Government nor a Minister has the right to make such an agreement? What was the use of our sending representatives to the Conference when, in the meantime, the Government made tentative arrangements under which the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company obtained all they desided ? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Before this matter was discussed at all, the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company had these privileges. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- How could the privileges be granted before the discussion took, place? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Has the official who is instructing the Minister any document to show that the facts are as stated, or is he speaking from memory as to the date ? {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- The Minister contends that these arrangements were entered into before the Senate discussed the matter. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I am informed that the arrangements were entered into on 10th March, 1.903., and Parliament did not meet until July." {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- The moment the Senate refused, as it did in strong and good speeches, to confirm the agreement, the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company ought to have had notice to quit. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The Senate did not refuse to confirm the agreement, and the honorable and learned senator knows that. The consideration of the matter was only postponed. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- It was pointed out at the time that the postponement was not a refusal to ratify. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- It was a tentative refusal to ratify. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- It was not a refusal. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The honorable and learned senator says that the arrangement was not entered into until after the Senate had discussed the matter, and when he is shown the contrary he takes other ground. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I said I thought it was quite possible that the arrangement was entered into before the Senate discussed the matter; but, if that be the case, it places the Minister in, if anything, a worse position. The moment the Senate refused to ratify the agreement, and referred the matter to the consideration of our partners, the company ought to have had notice to quit. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- The honorable and learned senator knows, of course, that the agreement took effect from the moment it was signed. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- Every honorable senator can see perfectly well that the Pacific "Cable Board have had the worst of the negotiations. When the suggestion was made to confer as to what should be done, the position was given away, and the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company got all the facilities they desired. **Senator Keating** has said that no one has pointed out in what way the Senate can improve the position, or .what better plan can be adopted than the confirmation of the agreement. From the point of view of the Ministers, I can quite understand that thev see no better way. They have made up their .minds to push this agreement through both Houses, and they have acted on the assumption that the agreement will go through in spite of the Senate's decision. A better way would be to show loyalty to our partners ; the Government have been disloyal. A better waywould be to bow to the decision of the Senate; that decision the Government have tried to flout. A better way would be to back up the Pacific Cable Board in every way, as our partners say we ought to do; the Government have not helped the Pacific Cable Board at all(, but have directly and positively helped their rivals. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I 'wish the honorable senator were in office, to do all these wonders ! {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I wish I were; it would be nice amusement for me. Both Ministers seem to think that nothing can be done - that if we alter a single word the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company will not accept the agreement. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Show us what can be done. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- How can the Minister, or anybody else, tell what the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company may do until the matter has been fully discussed, and the amendments are submitted to them ? When two lawyers are endeavouring tosettle or compromise an action, it is very common for one of them to say, " I shall go so far, but not a step further " ; but every negotiator takes much the same course, and nobody takes any notice of such words. A weak Government, however, have done so in their efforts to push this agreement through by the aid of all the arguments they can conjure up. The Eastern Ex tension Telegraph Company are entitled to fair play and justice, but not to the sympathy, support, and help of the Government as against the Pacific Cable Board. The Eastern Extension Telegraph Company have received that help, and that is the ground of complaint. **Senator Playford** commenced his remarks by " running down " the Pacific Cable Board; he could not submit this motion without showing his sympathy with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- That is absolutely untrue. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- Withdraw ! {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- Then I shall say that the statement is contrary to fact. {: .speaker-KC7} ##### Senator Sir William Zeal: -- I rise to a point of order. I submit that it is very improper for a Minister of the Crown to say that a statement of an honorable senator i's absolutely untrue. It is most disgraceful ! {: #subdebate-9-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I ask the Minister of Defence to withdraw the words. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I withdraw the word's, but that will not alter the fact. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I have to thank the Minister for withdrawing the words, and to offer to withdraw any words which he may regard' as offensive. We cannot see what is in the heart or mind of the Minister, but must judge him by his actions ; and it does appear to me, as I think it must appear to the public, that the Government seem to favour the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company more than they do our own partners. I hope that in the future the Government will keep their sympathy for the Pacific Cable Board, and show that sympathy by their actions as well as by their words. **Senator O'Keefe** appears to have consented to the agreement extending for twelve years. I admit that a ten years' agreement, with two years' notice, is a twelve years' agreement ; and the fact only indicates to us what thorough men of business control are the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. The company induced **Sir Ed'mund** Barton to assent to an agreement for ten years, and then managed to get inserted the longest term of, notice of which I have ever heard. Here is a company in hourly communication with their head office in London, and yet thev stipulate for a notice of that length. Did anybody ever hear of such a long notice? {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- Certainly. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- It is not as if the company had entered into big contractsin regard to shipping and so forth, and under the circumstances, I think six months' notice would have been ample. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- The company maintain a large fleet of ships. {: #subdebate-9-0-s4 .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA · FT; TARIFF REFORM from 1903 -- There are honorable senators who would agree to a term of ten years, but not to a term of twelve years; and **Senator O'Keefe's** action in consenting to the amendment now before the Senate has induced me to submit my amendment. For twelve years the company will have the whip hand and occupy the same premier position they occupy now. They will have the run of the Commonwealth, and will continue their canvassing. They will have their terminal offices, and the Pacific Cable Board practically say that it would hardly be worth their while to open rival offices, the report of the Conference suggesting that it would be better for the two organizations to negotiate. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- What has the honorable senator to offer as an alternative? {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- We ought not to hear it said repeatedly that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company will not agree to this or that; we ought to show that, while we are prepared to do justice to them, we are determined to do justice to ourselves and partners, and to the four millions of people we represent. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- How? {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- In four States the company have terminal facilities, but in Victoria and Queensland, which contain nearly one-half of the population of the Commonwealth, they have no such facilities. I would far rather let the company do the bestthey can with the facilities which they obtained most improperly from New South Wales after the Commonwealth was established, and before the Departments were taken over. But in the two States which have not given up their rights, the Pacific CableCompany would have a far better chance of getting business. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- The honorable senator is keeping the other four States crippled with the old agreements. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- No : I have no doubt that in the future, by compromise, a working agreement would be come to, but SenatorPlayford, like every other Minister who. wishes to get a proposal adopted, will not listen to any alternative. He will not admit that negotiation could achieve anything. He insists that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company will not go beyond the terms of this agreement. Therefore, it is exceedingly difficult to move the Government in any direction. I think that the Senate will regret the day, if the agreement be confirmed. For twelve long years it would place the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company in a better position, and at the end of that time I suppose they would have a larger proportion of business than they now get. I think that the Minister ought to have read more carefully the report of the Conference, and considered the suggestion that the two companies should confer, and see ifthey could nob come to an arrangement. If the Pacific Cable Company agreed to a compromise I, of course, should not dissent, because I presume that they would derive a benefit therefrom. No one can foresee the harm which we shall do to our partners if we confirm the agreement. We shall be practically surrendering the power of helping the Pacific Cable Company if we give the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company the right to have terminal facilities in Victoria and Queensland. We are losing . £80.000 odd a year, so that during the next twelve years we shall probably lose£1,500. 000, together with compound interest. I believe that if the Government would only negotiate with the old company they could arrange much better terms. I protest against what is being done. I prophesy that the agreement will prove to be disastrous to the Commonwealth'. I consider that the Government will be very much to blame if they allow the motion to pass. I quite agree with **Senator demons** when he says that Tasmania has been absolutely forgotten. The Tasmanian agreement is nothing to the rich Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, but it is everything to a State which has lost£150,000 a year by the operation of the Tariff alone. We have a right to complain that no Commonwealth Government has handled this question as it ought to have done. Considering that our duty is to conserve the interests ofour partners the action of every Government has been unintelligible. Question - That the word proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Senate divided. AYES: 9 NOES: 11 Majority ... ... 2 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment of the amendment negatived. {: #subdebate-9-0-s5 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- I intend to vote for the amendment of **Senator O'Keefe,** but against the main question when it is put, because I do not wish to see the agreement ratified. No State has. suffered, or is suffering more, on account of the action of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company than is Queensland. For years after agreements had been entered into between the company and some of the other Colonies in the group, Queensland was paying double rates for every cable message which was sent direct therefrom. For instance, in Queensland the Government were paying, I think, 9s. 4d. a word, while in other States the Governments were paying about 4s. 7d. a word, simply because the former State stood out of the agreement) which was sought to be entered into by the company. I admit that most of the private cablegrams used to be sent from Queensland to Sydney, to be transmitted thence, but of course they were subject to the ordinary telegraphic charges between point and point. At the present time Queensland is paying about £2,000 a year simply because it stood out, and wishing to do something to assist its people, constructed the cable which runs from Bundaberg to New Caledonia, and which was considered at that time to be the first link in a cable service to the States. But apart from all that, what we are asked by this agreement to do is to giveto the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company something which theyhavenever yet been able to obtain in Queensland, and that is the right to open offices to carry on their business as they have been able to do in other States. I for one decline to give the company any additional concession. **Senator Stewart** says that this is a piece of Imperial Socialism, by which we are going to do something to benefit the Commonwealth. I share his belief ; but I do not think that we are going to attain our end by entering into an agreement with a company who have done everything in their power first to burk the construction of the Pacific Cable, and next to endeavour to get agreements made with the States and to make arrangements which would cripple that cable as far as possible. By giving the company further facilities, how do we assist the Pacific Cable? We are simply putting more obstacles in its way by ratifying this agreement. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- But it will terminate their concession. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- Yes. Although the honorable senator is a bit of a Socialist, yet he is afraid of competition, even with the wealth of the Commonwealth at our back. I take it that as business grew, people would be inclined to use the Stateowned cable, but the honorable senator says that we should be afraid to compete with the other company on equal terms. I do not think that we should. What is the use of the honorable senator talking about Socialism when he suggests that a company could come along and wipe the floor with the Pacific Cable Company ? I do not believe that any companycould. From New Zealand **Senator Smith** has received reliable information to the effect that because the Pacific Cable Company have adopted business methods similar to those which are practised by their rivals, three cables are being sent by the former to one sent by the latter. If that can be done in New Zealand, it could be equally well done in Australia. There is no reason why better facilities should be given to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, nor is thereany reason why two of the States which are already free from their thraldom should be dragged in by this agreement, when I believe thatby remaining out and adopting other methods, we should be able to make the Pacific Cable a financial success, even to the detriment of the company who have had Australia in their grasp for manyyears. What object have we in view when we start an enterprise in connexion with the State? If we are to immediately climb down when a private company comes along, it is of no use to advocate that the Commonwealth should enter into a business enterprise at all. We should leave Queensland free.- A very large proportion of Her business is now sent over the Pacific Cable. If business methods are adopted, there is no reason why the same thing should not be said of New South Wales. Victoria is at present free from the' Eastern Extension Company, and if similar methods are adopted in this State, considering that the rates are the same, there is no reason why a very much larger share of Victorian business should not be sent over the Pacific Cable. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- Is the honorable senator right in saying that the' rates are the same? I understand that there is a difference of 6d. per word. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- There is a difference of 6d. per word on messages to the Continent of Europe, but the rates to Great Britain are the same. From information I have, I am aware that the Pacific Cable holds the record for the speedy transmission of messages, and that should certainly lead to increased business. Many years ago, communications were entered into between Queensland, New South Wales, and some of the other States, with the object of establishing the Pacific Cable, and we know that all the obstacles imaginable were thrown in the way of that proposal by interested parties. It was only when the Canadian Government took up the matter seriously, and sent representative men to Australia to interview the various Australian Governments in connexion with the matter, that any headway was made. I believe it was the visit of those Canadian representatives to Australia that enabled us to secure the construction of the Pacific Cable. Every one must know that so far nothing has *beith* done to induce people to use the Pacific Cable, whereas the Eastern Extension Company have canvassers out collecting cables from their customers, and have clerks employed to code messages. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- Is not that a matter in which the local managers of the Pacific Cable Company can help themselves ? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- How are they to help themselves when *every* telegraph office in the Commonwealth is a receiving office for the Eastern Extension Company? {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- Only if messages bear an intimation that they are to be sent by that company's cable. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- Persons desiring to send messages by the Pacific Cable cannot have them coded. If they require that done, they must do it for themselves, or go to the Eastern Extension Company, who do it practically free of charge. We have no one going round to make known the facilities offered to people to use the Pacific Cable, whilst the Eastern Extension Company have canvassers amongst the various business places, endeavouring to secure business. The Eastern Extension Company are perfectly justified in adopting, these methods to increase their business, but the Commonwealth Government, as partners in a good concern, are not doing what lies in their power to make the business in which they ave interested a success. If this were a business concern in which **Senator Gray** held a third interest, I am sure the honorable senator would feel that he was bound to do all he could to make it a success. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- I sympathize with the honorable senator's view, but I wish to know how we are to get out of the existing agreements ? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- There is no reason why we should try to get out of any agreement at all. The difficulty is that by ratifying this agreement honorable senators will drag in two States that are now free. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- But in order to free the whole. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- Yes, to free them at the end of ten years from now. But during that time, if Queensland and Victoria remain free vid adopt business methods for improving the returns from the Pacific Cable, there is no reason why that cable should riot be_ doing considerably more than half of the total cable business of the Commonwealth. Why, then, should we seek to enter into any agreement with these people? The States were under no obligation to them, and the Pacific Cable would be able to take their business, and it is now taking the business of the New Zealand Government. In those circumstances, of what use to the Eastern Extension Company would be the agreements they have now with the four States? The States are not bound under their agreements with the company to pav them any compensation, or to treat with them in any way. The Governments of the States concerned are not compelled to use the Eastern Extension Company's cables, and they can send all their business over the Pacific Cable as soon as they please. There is no undertaking that any business, whether private or State, shall be sent by the Eastern Extension Company's lines. If this is Socialism, all right, but when we come into competition with a private *company,* I am one of those who believe that with the power of the State behind an enterprise the State is able to carry it through successfully, and to secure the bulk of the business. I intend to vote for the amendment, because I believe that it will improve the motion ; but I intend also, when the original question is put, to vote against it. {: #subdebate-9-0-s6 .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania -- I should like to say a few words on the amendment, especially as I desire to indicate my attitude not only towards the amendment, but towards the motion in its proposed amended form. It seems to me that if these amendments had not been proposed, the Commonwealth would have been committed to an agreement which, while it would have been of no value to it, would have been of very great value to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. That was quite sufficient for me in dealing with the original motion. I am glad that the Government, after making a strong attempt to resist the efforts made to put the proposed agreement in a proper form, have shown a disposition to agree that it should be amended. However, I wish to go further than is proposed by the amendment. I agree with **Senator Turley,** that this agreement should be thrown out. I shall vote for the amendment, because it will improve the agreement, but I shall vote against the motion, even if it should be amended in the way proposed. I should like to indicate briefly one of my reasons which, affects the State of Tasmania. Speaking from knowledge I obtained elsewhere, I say deliberately that if we refuse to ratify this agreement, the Government will be in a position to enter into negotiations with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, which are very likely to result in the remission of the penalty Tasmania has had to pay for so many years. If this agreement is not ratified, and the Government have any regard for the interests of Tasmania, they will be given a good opportunity to rectify a blunder, and to put Tasmania into a Federal position in this respect. I ask honorable senators from whatever State they come to consider the position. Tasmania is paying the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company a subsidy of £4,200 a year. If honorable senators representing other States do not care very much for Tasmania, I can safely assume that they would prefer to consider her interests rather than the interests of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. When I put my demand on that ground, they will admit that there is some force in it. If we can secure the rejection of this agreement, and the Government will take up my proposition,I have good reasons for believing that Tasmania may be relieved of this subsidy. As honorable senators are aware, it is not a *per capita* contribution, and this subsidy of £4,200 a year is levied on and paid by Tasmania alone. I may mention that Tasmania has herself granted facilities which have been to the advantage of the whole of the Commonwealth. It is not long since the Tasmanian Government recognised that the cable rates to and from that State, which were necessary, because of this subsidy, were rather heavy on people who wished to communicate with Tasmania from the mainland, and on Tasmanians who desired to communicate with the Continent. They decided to reduce the rates, and that resulted in benefit to the whole of the Commonwealth, while I admit that it also benefited Tasmanians. The Tasmanian Government undertook the responsibility of reducing the rates, but if they did so, they had to guarantee to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company that its full receipts should be £5,600 a year. That meant that if by the reduction of rates the receipts of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company in Tasmania fell below £1,400 - the difference between the amount of the subsidy and the total amount the Tasmanian Government made themselves liable for - they would have to make up the balance. In the circumstances, the Tasmanian Government have certainly some right to expect that the Commonwealth will' pay some little regard to the interests of that State. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Does the honorable and learned senator think that he is speaking to the amendment? {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- I think that I can show that I am. The amendment has been moved in substitution for one which I drafted, and I say advisedly that if the amendment which I drafted had been carried, the agreement with Tasmania would have gone by the board, and certainly nothing could have suited me better. The amendment, as now proposed, leaves the agreement with Tasmania still in force. Although for that reason it is utterly unsatisfactory to me, I recognise that it will be for the benefit of the rest of the Commonwealth, as compared with the motion. I remind honorable senators that the agreement which we are asked to ratify recites other agreements than those to which .reference is made in the amendment. We have heard some talk with regard to the attitude of the Commonwealth, towards the two cable companies, and I point out that Agreement No. 8, recited in this agreement, is one which was entered into bv the State of South Australia since Federation, lt gives certain facilities to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, grants them / and, undertakes to build a wharf for them. <ind to deepen a channel. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Which the company paid for. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator CLEMONS: -- That is not stated here. I mention that as an additional reason why I am prepared to vote against the whole thing. I venture to hope that every honorable senator representing Tasmania will see that by rejecting this agreement, an opportunity will be given for the removal of the penalty now imposed upon that State, and for that reason I earnestly appeal to those honorable senators to .refuse to ratify the agreement. {: #subdebate-9-0-s7 .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS:
Queensland -- I was very much surprised to find that the proposal to reduce the term from 1915 to 1913 was rejected. I cannot understand why those of us who have the nationalization of monopolies on our programme should, when there is an opportunity to clip the wings of a huge cable monopoly, such as the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, refuse to do so to the extent of two years in the terni of an agreement. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- That has been disposed of. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- **Senator Keating** has told us that if we ratify this agreement, and limit the agreement to the period ending 19 1 5. the two agreements mentioned in the preamble will be superseded. But there are several other agreements concerning the leasing of portions of land and so forth' which will still be in force. **Senator Stewart** seems to have been misled by the statement of **Senator Keating** as to the company carrying on business in the Commonwealth at- the end of 191 5. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- Who is right? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- I ask **Senator Stewart** whether he is not prepared to accept the word of those who have worked with him for years in preference to the word of a Minister who is interested in the ratification of the agreement, and whose Government is anxious to have the matter disposed of? {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- The Government ought to be in a position to know. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- If the Government knows, Ministers say what is not correct. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- What statement did I make that was not correct ? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- The honorable senator led **Senator Stewart** to believe that at the end of 1915 there will be no competition from the Eastern Extension Company. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- I said that the company will have no rights with regard to terminal charges, offices, and wires to carry on business, and could only do so with the consent of the people of the Commonwealth. But of course we cannot take the company's property from it. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- **Senator Stewart** accepted that statement as meaning that there would be no competition, but I ask him whether he supposes that if we accept this agreement, we can be sure that at the end of 1915 we shall not have in power a Government containing members like the Postmaster-General and **Sir John** Forrest, who have been working in the interests of the Eastern Extension Company. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- We cannot make differential terminal charges between the Pacific Cable and the Eastern Extension Company, according to the Berne Convention. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- There is no use in any of us adopting as a plank in our political platform "the nationalization of monopolies, and making use of high-sounding phrases to the workers about the nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, if we are not prepared to help forward a bit of State Socialism when it comes in our way. This Pacific Cable is a bit of State Socialism. It is owned by the Governments of Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. This cable will be one of the very channels of our commerce. It is a bit of State Socialism which has compelled a tyrant monopoly to bring down its rates from 9s, /)d. to 3s. a word. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- The company did that years ago. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- Not so many years ago. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- In 1891. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- lt was done three years after the proposal for the construction of the Pacific Cable was made, and after a Conference at which **Senator Playford** was so eloquent against the project. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- The honorable senator is wrong. I was at no Conference before 1894-5. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- I am making these remarks for the benefit of honorable senators who think that the competition with the Eastern Extension Company will not still be in existence in 191 5. Let them consider the facilities which the company have been able to obtain from the present Commonwealth Government and the previous State Governments. No fewer than 467,493 words have been sent over the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company's Cable, as against 86,168 over the Pacific Cable. In New Zealand, however, where the Government is doing its duty by its partners, the Eastern. Extension Telegraph Company secured business to the extent of 79,213 words, whilst the Pacific Cable secured 285.744 words. Mark the difference ! {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Best: -- Could not the same be done in the Commonwealth by the employment of canvassers ? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- It appears to be difficult for the Pacific Cable to secure the same amount of business here, where the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company has so many friends in the present Government - friends who apparently are able to rut obstacles in the way of the Pacific Cable, and facilities in the way of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Does the honorable senator think that that argument has reference to the amendment? I must ask him not to discuss the main question again. He has had his opportunity to do that. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- I am advancing these reasons because some honorable senators ire prepared to accept the amendment on the ground that the agreement will terminate at the end of 1015. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- We have the assurance of the Government. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- *We* have the assurance of the agreement before us. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -rAt the end of 1915 the various Governments interested in the Pacific Cable will have lost about a million of money. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator Pulsford: -- No, no ! {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- Last year the loss was £90,000. This year it is £80,000. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator Pulsford: -- So that it is running down to the extent of £10.000 a vear ? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- But consider the amount of interest lost. Why should **Senator Stewart,** who is in favour of nationalization, support the 191 5 proposal? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I must* -ask the honorable senator to conform to the Standing Orders, which direct that a senator who has already spoken on the original question is not in order in discussing that question again when speaking to an amendment. The honorable senator is making a second speech on the original motion. I must ask him to keep the standing order inviolate. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- I do not wish for a moment to infringe the rules of debate. I merely wish to point out to **Senator Stewart** that if the Pacific Cable becomes a failure by reason of our assenting to this agreement, the opponents of nationalization will say, " There is a socialistic failure over which the Commonwealth- has lost a million of money." If the amendment is agreed to, I trust that the Senate will reject the whole agreement. {: #subdebate-9-0-s8 .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales -- It appears to me that we are going from bad to worse. We are discussing everything from Dan to Beersheba. **Senator Clemons** has argued all round the universe, and I do not know what **Senator Higgs** has not been doing. The matter is really not quite so involved as some have tried to make out. I do not think - as I believe some honorable senators know very well - that Australia, has benefited very much at the hands of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, and I am not at all overwhelmed with sympathy for that great concern. But at the same time I think we have to do what is best for the Commonwealth under the circumstances, and I fee'', after weighing, as far as I have been able, the arguments that have been used, th:t it is to the advantage of Australia that the agreement should be ratified. {: #subdebate-9-0-s9 .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist -- When I submitted this motion this afternoon, I pointed out that so far from there being any necessity for making specific provision for the termination of the agreements that had been entered into between the States and the company, the Attorney-General had advised to the contrary. I read his opinion. But as the wish was expressed that there should be no doubt uponthe subject, we gave way, and accepted an amendment. Now, we are blamed for giving way. We were blamed in the first instance for holding our opinion, and, secondly, we are blamed for accepting an amendment to make the matter sure. As to the chance of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company being able to get a special wire to Brisbane if this agreement is carried out, I mav say that the company has to secure three times as much business in Brisbane as it did in 1902, before it can secure that facility. In1903 the amount of business done by the company in Brisbane was 24,064 words. In 1904 the amount was 1,711 words. There has, therefore, been a great falling off. It is not likely, therefore, that the increased business will be done in Queensland to secure the special wire that has been mentioned. I trust that honorable senators having assented to an amendment to make the agreement quite ciear, will be satisfied to ratify the agreement. **Senator HENDERSON** (Western Australia). I desire to move that the following words be added to the amendment now before the Senate: - >Provided further that the company shall within three months from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and six, execute the agreement as so amended. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I do not think that that amendment can be added to the words of the present amendment, because the latter is to substitute a new clause in the agreement. I shall, therefore, put the present amendment first, and, if it be carried, the honorable senator may move to add the words he has just read. {: #subdebate-9-0-s10 .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST:
Victoria -- It appears to me that the result of the amendment now before us and of the amendment that has been indicated by **Senator Henderson** will te to enable the Eastern Extension Company to get out of this agreement if they desire to do so. I do not think that the company is specially anxious about the confirmation of this agreement, which I regard as an excellent compromise on the part of the Government to extricate us from a difficult position. As I read the agreement, if the Government desire to get any benefit from it at all, they will have to confirm it in exactly every word as it is printed. If the proposals before us be passed, the company will only have to refuse to consent to any fresh terms being imposed, with the result that the Government will not achieve what they regard as an excellent settlement of the trouble. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- It would be better to strike out the whole agreement. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- The Senate might as well do so as adopt the amendments. Personally, I rely on the statements of the Government that this agreement is accepted as an excellent settlement of the differences, and the Attorney-General seems to be quite satisfied that the Government will achieve what they intend. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- The Government has accepted an amendment to make the matter sure. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- But the effect will be to enable the other side to refuse to affirm the agreement. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator Staniforth Smith: -- We all know that. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Then **Senator Smith** and **Senator Higgs** will achieve all they have been fighting for with the assistance - unwittingly given, I think - of the Government. Those who regard the agreement as a fair and reasonable settlement will have to approve of it as it stands; if there is any alteration,the Government will not be able to enforce the agreement. Amendment agreed to. {: #subdebate-9-0-s11 .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia -- I move - >That the following words be added to paragraph 1, as amended : -" Provided, further, that the company shall within three months from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and six, execute the agreement as so amended." I did not avail myself of the opportunity to speak on the main question. I think we ought to congratulate ourselves that, after the debate of to-day, we have reached a position in which everything is actually as clear as mud - as easy to see through as a brick wall six feet thick. I take an exactly similar view to that entertained by **Senator Turley.** I shall, of course, support the amendment I now submit, but I shall then exercise my right to vote for wiping out the whole agreement. It has been submitted - very graciously, I think - by almost every honorable senator that four of the States are practically within the clutches of a great octopus, and must remain there for a considerable time yet. What that time will be none of us know. I am satisfied that the members of the Government themselves are by no means sure as to the road on which they are travelling. If there are four States in such a deplorable position, I cannot for the life of me see how we can work out their salvation by sending the other two States to perdition with them. That position seems about the most illogical that could possibly be taken up, and yet we are told that it represents the only hope for the four States. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- What remedy does the honorable senator propose? {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- My remedy is to wipe out the whole agreement, and do our duty towards our own cable, allowing the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company to find their own feet. This agreement was signed irrevocably by the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company in 1903, the Commonwealth being left to accept or reject it at any time within a" period from one to ten years, or, for aught we know, a hundred years. We are now at the end of 3 905., and this agreement was signed by. the Prime Minister, subject to the ratification of Parliament, early in 1903. Suppose, for argument sake, that we irrevocably ratify this agreement to-night, I desire to know whether the company will have the same option that we have had to regard it as a document which may be signed by them any time during the next five years, ten years, or hundred years. It is evident that everything in connexion with this cable business has been done in the most slipshod fashion, and nobody will take any responsibility. The matter has been done, and the agreement is simply there for us to accept or reject. That is a most cruel way to submit important business to an assembly of men who have to look after the welfare of the several States. I submit the amendment in order to make sure that, if the agreement is ratified, there shall be no uncertainty - that the company shall not be allowed to regard it as an agreement which may be signed in generations that are to come. {: #subdebate-9-0-s12 .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia -- **Senator Henderson** has raised an important point, which I think has been overlooked bv the Government; and I feel sure that the amendment will be accepted by **Senator Playford** as one that is eminently reasonable. In March, i'903, this agreement was signed by the Prime Minister, subject to the ratification of Parliament ; but the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company signed it irrevocably without any conditions. It was competent for the Commonwealth to refuse to ratify or to ratify that agreement immediately, or in one year, or ten years. To use a colloquialism, we had the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company "on toast." It occurs to me, however, that, conversely, the company might get the Commonwealth "on toast," if we ratify this agreement unconditionally. The company may take up the position that they can keep the agreement beside them,, and sign it when they please, in order to see how the enterprise works, and then, in two or three years- {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The law does not quite allow that; there must be acceptance within a reasonable time. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator Higgs: -- The agreement with Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Company, in regard to the Pacific mail sendee, has not been signed vet. {: .speaker-K6D} ##### Senator STANIFORTH SMITH: -- It appears to me that the company might, under the circumstances, accept or reject the agreement whenever they liked, within a reasonable time. What objection can there be to the amendment? It is quite possible that the manager of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company may send this agreement to London to receive the assent of their Board at the head office. But surely they can "do that within a space of four months. No doubt **Senator Henderson** worded his amendment with the object of giving the manager plenty of time in which to obtain the assent of the head office. It merely says that with'in three months from the ist of January next the company must accept the agreement, otherwise it shall lapse. It practically means that the company cannot hang up the agreement and say, " We shall do as you have done. Within a period of two and a half years you have not intimated your decision to us, and now we are going to see how the cat will jump - how the thing will work out - and when it suits us we shall sign the document ; but if at that time it should not suit us, we shall not sign it." I think that the Minister will agree to the amendment. **Senator PLAYFORD** (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I do not think that I can agree to the amendment, because it is only fair to treat the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company in the same way as they have treated us. The agreement was entered into subject to ratification by Parliament ; but in two years there has been no ratification, and the company has never made the slightest objection. If the agreement be ratified with the amendment asked for, the result will be that within a reasonable time the company will have to sign it, and the Government will take care that they do; but they are not going to tie themselves up to three or four months. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- Will the Minister tell me what the Government will do if the company do not sign the. agreement for twelve months? {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator PLAYFORD: -- I suppose that there are certain ways in which we could compel the company to sign the agreement. I do not think we ought to be unreasonable. **Senator Henderson,** who has moved the amendment, intends, if it be carried, to vote against the motion. Therefore, I do not look upon the amendment as a serious one. I now come to a serious point, which has been raised by **Senator Best.** He has pointed outthat, in consequence of the variation of clause 25 of the agreement, the company will have the power of saying, "All right; we shall not accept it." I want them to be placed in that position. We have said all through that the agreement contains a provision that the agreements which have been entered into with the States shall not be revived. The Government believe that to be the proper interpretation of the clause. The AttorneyGeneral holds that opinion. But some doubts have been expressed on the other side, and we have taken them into our consideration. We have put in clause 25 words which make absolutely clear the interpretation we put on the agreement, and if the company refuse to sign it, then we shall say that they were playing false with us from the very first. They will have admitted that they had up their sleeves something which they ought not to have had there, and that they were trying to get an unfair advantage from the Government. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Best: -- All the company need reply is, " Whatever our legal rights are we stand on them." {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator PLAYFORD: -- I do not care what the company may do. It will be quite enough for the Government that the company have unmistakably convicted themselves of intending something which we did not intend; and, so far as I am concerned, I shall show them no mercy when I have an opportunity of dealing with them in the future. It has been said that I am favorable to the company, and against the Pacific Cable Company. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I understand that the Minister is only speaking to the amendment. Of course, by-and-by,he will have the right of replying to the discussion on the main question as amended. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator PLAYFORD: -- I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate. **Senator HIGGS** (Queensland). - We have had a fine dramatic exhibition by the Minister of Defence. I ask honorable senators who have been out schnapper fishing whether they have ever dropped into the water as a bait a fine lump of squid, and hooked immediately a fish weighing, perhaps, 7 lbs. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- What has that to do with the amendment ? {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- In my opinion, the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company will grab the opportunity of having the agreement as it is, even with this amendment, as gladly as the schnapper would grab the bait I have described. The Minister knows well enough that this is merely an exhibition of theatricalism on his part. Acquainted with the history of the company as he is, he knows very well that they will at once accept the agreement, with the amendment of **Senator Henderson.** {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- I certainly know nothing of the sort. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- The Minister talks about fair play, and treating the company justly. Is not a period of three or four months sufficient to enable them to know what the agreement is? **Senator Clemons** was in doubt about the matter, but probably the company prepared the agreement for the Government. No doubt their directors already know what it is, and the manager will use the cable for the purpose of acquainting them with everything that has transpired. {: .speaker-K6M} ##### Senator Clemons: -- Until they sign the agreement, they will enjoy all the facilities that they would get under it. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Senator HIGGS: -- No doubt the directors in London are acquainted with the terms of the agreement, and all that it is necessary for **Mr. Warren,** their manager to do is to wire the few words used by **Senator Henderson** in his amendment, and to ask whether they will accept the agreement with that addition. In my opinion, a fortnight would be ample time to allow them. I dare say that by to-morrow the directors will know whether they have succeeded or failed. The amendment is a very reasonable one, and ought, I think, to be accepted on the voices. **Senator CLEMONS** (Tasmania). - We all know what the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company are with regard to negotiations. If they do not at once sign the agreement they will enjoy all the facilities which they would get thereunder. They may wait a year still enjoying all those facilities, and something may then- turn up which we cannot foresee, and which may induce them to back down. It is because I wish to prevent that that I intend to support the amendment. {: #subdebate-9-0-s13 .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE:
Tasmania -- The Minister has said that he does not look upon the amendment as a serious one, because its mover has indicated that even if it be carried he intends to vote against the motion. Being in an entirely different position from **Senator Henderson,** but still seeing that there is some force in the amendment, I would suggest to the Minister that ft is worth considering. {: .speaker-K0X} ##### Senator Playford: -- All right ! Let it go on the voices. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- I am not particularlywedded to three or six months, but I think we ought to fix a period within which the agreement shall be signed. I accept the assurance of the Minister that he will not oppose the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Question, as amended, put. The Senate divided - Ayes ... .... ... 12 Noes ... ... ... 10 Majority ... 2
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 December 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1905/19051206_senate_2_30/>.