Senate
15 December 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- STEAMER AND RAILWAY PASSES
QUESTION
- PROROGATION
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
QUESTION
- POSTMASTER, MOUNT BARKER
QUESTION
- MILITARY COMMANDANT : QUEENSLAND
QUESTION
- BRITISH NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- ENGLISH MAIL CONTRACT
PAPERS
QUESTION
- DEFALCATIONS
CONTRACT IMMIGRANTS BILL
MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL No. 3
- Second Reading
SUGAR BOUNTY BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT

The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 7052

QUESTION

STEAMER AND RAILWAY PASSES

Senator CROFT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Defence to a paragraph in this morning’s Age about the motion of which Senator Walker gave notice, relative to steamer and railway passes, and which he withdrew. It states -

On Wednesday, however, Senator Walker withdrew his amendment, no doubt to the relief of many senators who plead so ostentatiously for economic administration of Commonwealth affairs.

It goes on to say that a reply which the Minister gave toa questionby Senator Mulcahy was not a complete one, and that he promised to put himself in a position to say whether honorable senators were in the habit of getting passes fortheir friends. I desire to ask him whether any honorable senators have ever received passes for the use of their friends?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– I promised, in answer to an interjection by Senator Mulcahy, to make inquiries into this matter. I have done so, and I find that no such passes have ever been given.

page 7052

QUESTION

PROROGATION

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire, to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, whether there is any truth in the report in this morning’s Argus that the prorogation of Parliament will take place on Wednesday next? I may say that I was in hopes that itwouldtake place earlier.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The date of prorogation will depend entirely upon the progress of business in the two Houses. I expect that it will take place on Wednesday or Thursday next.

Senator Walker:

– Shall we adjourn today at the usual time?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Yes.

page 7052

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I propose to ask the Senate to meet on Monday.

Senator Walker:

– At what hour ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I am in the hands of honorable senators as to the hour, but I would suggest that, in order to have plenty of time in which to complete our work, we should meet at half-past 10 o’clock.

Senator Pulsford:

– Not earlier than half-past 2 o’clock.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– As there is an objection to our meeting on Monday at half-past 10 o’clock, I move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Monday next, at half-past two o’clock p.m.

Senator MATHESON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

– I believe that I can take advantage of this motion to call the attention of the Minister of Defence to the question of the promotion of Colonel Lyster.

The PRESIDENT:

– On a motion that the Senate at its rising adjourn till an unusual hour or day, not moved under standing order 60, the debate must be confined to that question. But on the motion to adjourn the Senate at the close of this sitting Senator Matheson may bring forward the matter.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– If Senator Playford thinks that there is any chance of the prorogation not taking place until Thursday next, I think that he might ask the Senate to meet on Monday at halfpast 10 o’clock, if by doing so it would save a day. I booked my passage first for today, and then for Wednesday next, because there is always very great difficulty in getting a comfortable passage to Tasmaniaat this period of the year.

Senator Playford:

– I cannot please every honorable senator.

Senator DOBSON:

– Exactly ; but if, as I understand, the senatorsfrom New South Wales do not propose to return to Sydney at the week end, what object can be served by fixing the hour of meeting at half-past 2 o’clock?

Senator Higgs:

– Why not move an amendment’ to meet at half -past 10 o’clock?

Senator DOBSON:

– I move-

That the word “ two “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ ten.”

Senator Playford:

– I shall not oppose the amendment, because it is entirely for the Senate to fix the hour.

Senator Pearce:

– Is it the intention of the Minister to ask the Senate to sit tonight?

Senator Playford:

– No, not unless that is generally desired.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I shall be very glad if honorable senators can see their way to meet at halfpast 2 o’clock on Monday. It will be impossible for Senator Gould, who is now in Sydney, to be here on Monday at halfpast 10 o’clock, but he could be here at half-past 2 o’clock. I was most anxious to go to Sydney to-night, but, of course, I could not get back by Monday morning. At the same time, I recognise that the convenience of the majority should be considered.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The majority wish to meet at half-past ten o’clock, because it is an exceptional time.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I admit that it is an exceptional time, and if the majority feel that we ought to meet on Monday morning, I cannot press the interests of three or four senators.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 7053

QUESTION

POSTMASTER, MOUNT BARKER

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, without notice, whether he is now prepared to answer the following questions which he was unable to answer yesterday: -

Is it a fact that prior to the adoption of the Public ServiceClassification scheme the postmaster at present at Mount Barker received in salary and allowances£250 per annum?
Does the Minister not consider that an injustice has been done to this officer by reducing his remuneration from £250 to£189 after thirty years’ service? If so, will the Minister cause steps to be taken to remedy such injustice?

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

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

Prior to classification, this officer received a salary of£210 per annum and quarters as postmaster at Renmark, with an allowance ofabout£20 per annum as commission on Savings Bank work, for registration of births and deaths, and also for acting as Electoral Registrar.
He applied for the position at Mount Barker, which was advertised at a salary of£210 per annum, less a deduction of 10 per cent. for rent. He was perfectly aware of the conditions attached to the office, and it cannot be admitted that any injustice has been done.

page 7053

QUESTION

MILITARY COMMANDANT : QUEENSLAND

Senator MATHESON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, whether a Promotion Board has been appointed, whether the Inspector-General is its chairman, and how it comes that Colonel Lyster has been made temporarily Commandant in Queensland without the matter coming before the Board for its approval ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– A Promotion Board has been appointed, with the InspectorGeneral as its chairman. During the absence of Colonel Plomer on leave for three months, Colonel Lyster has been appointed temporarily to take charge of the forces in Queensland. He has not been promoted to any higher rank; he will retain his present position at the same salary, and will only do the work of an officer who is on leave of absence.

Senator MATHESON:

– Is it not a fact that Colonel Plomer is on three months’ leave of absence pending his retirement, and is the Senate to understand that an appointment to the position of Commandant is not promotion to an officer who does not hold that office?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Colonel Lyster has not been promoted to the position of Commandant of a State, but has only been asked to take charge of the forces of Queensland while its Commandant is on leave of absence. If eventually he is to be promoted to the position of a Commandant, and it is necessary that the matter should go before the Promotion Board, of course it will.

Senator MATHESON:

– Is it not a fact that Colonel Plomer has practically retired; that he will not return to Queensland after the three months’ leave has expired ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Undoubtedly. Colonel Lyster will fill the position of Commandant in Queensland during Colonel Plomer’s leave of absence, without increase of pay, without any promotion, and without any promise of getting promotion, when the position falls vacant upon the retirement of Colonel Plomer.

page 7054

QUESTION

BRITISH NEW GUINEA

Appointment of Administrator

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The Cabinet have not considered this question. I expect that the Minister of External Affairs, who deals with the affairs of the Possession, has considered it, and no doubt it will be brought before the Cabinet in due course, when every attention will be given to the expressed wishes of members of the Senate.

page 7054

QUESTION

ENGLISH MAIL CONTRACT

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, without notice, whether in regard to the question of calling for tenders for a mail contract in lieu of the Orient contract, he isthis morning in a better position to give a clear recognition on behalf of the Government to the word “ immediately “ in the resolution passed by the Senate on that subject more than two months ago?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– Yesterday I made inquiries as to the progress made, and’, on behalf of the Postmaster-General, I have to say that when he set out to consider the conditions of tender, he found that inquiries would have to be instituted into a variety of matters arising out of the developments of ocean communication, that those inquiries have been set on foot and that he does no) expect to receive the necessary information to enable him to frame the conditions before at least the end, of this month. He is not in a position at the present time to state the conditions on which tenders will be called. Inquiries will have to be made outside Australia, and the information which is desired is not expected to be to hand until at least about the end of the year. Under these circumstances, it will be impossible to lay upon the table of either House at this time any set of conditions which could be said to be the conditions on which tenders will be invited.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Arising out of that answer of the Minister, I should like to ask if the result will probably be that the tender will be accepted before Parliament meets again ? I understand that tenders are now being called for. Will they be so framed that Parliament will not have an opportunity of seeing them until they have been dealt with?

Senator KEATING:

– I am not in a position to answer thatqueston. I do not know when the call for tenders will go out, nor do I know what time will be allotted for the receipt of them.

ADJOURNMENT(Formal).

Pacific Islands Mail Services : New Guinea : Case of Mr. Richmond.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– In accordance with standing order 60, for the purpose of calling attention to a matter of urgency, I desire to move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 10 o’clock to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is a difficulty About this motion. The Senate has already decided that, at its rising, it shall adjourn until Monday. I quite understand that these formal motions for the adjournment of the Senate are simply moved to enable a senator to bring forward some matter of urgent public importance. But seeing that the Senate has already decided to adjourn until half-past 10 o’clock on Monday morning - and the significance of that as affecting formal motions never struck me until this moment - it is difficult to meet the objection.

Senator HIGGS:

– Will you permit me to read the first few words ofstanding order No. 60 -

A motion, without notice, that the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate for the purpose of debating some matter of urgency.

The matter of urgency in this case is -

The want of due attention shown by the Secretary of External Affairs in regard to motions carried by the Senate, and requests for information by honorable senators; and the disadvantage and possible injury likely to result from this want of attention.

Four honorable senators having risen in their places,

Senator HIGGS:

– The particular matters concerning which the Senate has cause for . complaint affect the alleged mail contract for the Pacific Islands mail services, and the case of Mr. Richmond in New Guinea. Honorable senators will remember that last year some of us took great exception to the expenditure of j£i 2,000 for the purposes of mail services for New Guinea. One of the grounds of exception was that, if there were to be increases of expenditure in these directions, tenders ought to be called for. There was placed before the Senate at the time a memorandum of a proposed agreement between Messrs. Burns, Philp and Company, and the Commonwealth Government. We understood that Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Company were ‘ to sign the proposel contract on the one hand, and that the Commonwealth Government was to sign it on the other, after some alterations had been made. Those alterations were communicated in some Ministerial replies given in the Senate last year. They were to the effect that in the new contract with. Messrs. Bums, Philp, and Company, there would be stated the passenger fares to be charged to and from the Islands, and the rates for freight - two very important alterations, in view of the fact that we were subsidizing a company which would compete with other steam-ship owners. Believing that the Department of External Affairs would see that those alterations were made in the contract, and that everything would proceed in an ordinary business-like way, nothing was done to raise the question again until some time this year. While taking exception to the expenditure of the .£12.000, in view of the approach of the discussion on the Appropriation Bill. I sought for information concerning this particular contract. At first I gave notice of a motion that there should be laid on the table of the Senate a copy of the contract, or a copy of the agreement - I am not sure which word I used - with Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Company. I thought that that would be taken as a purely formal motion. But when it was called on, the Minister at the table said “not formal.” At the time I thought he did so under a misapprehension.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– What were the words of the honorable senator’s motion ?

Senator HIGGS:

– They were-

That there be laid on the table of the Senate a copy of the agreement between the Government and Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Co., having reference to Pacific Island Mail Services.

The Minister having said “ not formal,” I asked him at a later stage whether he had done so under a misapprehension. I asked the Minister of Defence whether he would make inquiries into the matter. I said that I understood that there was no such agreement in existence, and that there was a rumour to that effect. I asked him if he would make inquiries, because if no such agreement was in existence, it was useless to move that a copy of it be laid on the table of the Senate. The time for the consideration of the Appropriation Bill was approaching, and we wanted this information. We could not get it. The Appropriation Bill was brought before the Senate, and in Committee the matter was brought up again. Senator Playford had a message sent over to the Department of External Affairs, asking the Secretary to attend here, a message which should have been unnecessary, as the Secretary should” have been present in the Senate when his Estimates were under discussion. When the Secretary for External Affairs put in an appearance the Minister was furnished with a memorandum concerning the Pacific Islands mail services. The Minister told us, acting under information from Mr. Atlee Hunt, that it was a ten years’ contract. I call attention to those words, “ a ten years’ contract,” because I wish to show later on that there has been a great deal of quibbling about the use of words. That information was entirely misleading. The information which the Minister quoted was. signed bv Mr. Atlee Hunt, and appears in Hansard at page 5747. At the conclusion of it appeared these words -

Pending inquiries by me into the New . Guinea services, the formal contract was not completed. As a result of these inquiries changes were made, and the draft contract has now been forwarded to the contractors for signature.

That was on the 24th November - about three weeks ago. The draft contract, we were informed, had been sent on to the contractors for signature. Very shortly afterwards, my motion was carried. On 8th December, finding that no copy of the contract was forthcoming, I moved in the Senate -

That there be laid on the table of the Senate a copy of the proposed agreement between the Government and Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Company, having reference to the Pacific Island Mail Services, and stated by the Honorary Minister (Senator Keating) in a speech on the 23rd November last to have been “completed though not yet signed.”

Five days later I asked the Minister why a copy of the agreement had not been laid before the Senate. The honorable senator said -

The Prime Minister informs me that he does not think it well to lay the proposed agreement on the table. It has been forwarded for signature, and it is expected that it will shortly be signed.

I asked a question arising out of that answer -

Whether the Prime Minister is aware that the Senate has ordered that this proposed draft agreement shall be laid on the table?

The Minister replied -

I think it was the agreement, and not the draft agreement, that was ordered to be laid upon the table.

– In my opinion, the case has not. been promptly dealt with, owing to the failure of the Secretary to the Department of External Affairs. Accord ing to information which appeared in. the daily press of 10th October, reporting an interview with the Prime Minister -

An extraordinary situation has arisen in British New Guinea in consequence of Mr. Richmond, the head of the Lands Department, having got at loggerheads with the Administrator, Captain Barton, over a matter which the Prime Minister described yesterdayas -

I draw particular attention to these words - so trifling that it is rather embarrassing.

That information could come from no one else but the Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, who had lately been to New Guinea. This, matter, which is described as “trifling,” has, owing to the questions asked in the Senate, proved to be an apparently gross case of injustice - a case which shows either dereliction of duty on the part of a high officer, or de famation of character by the chief of the Lands Department in New Guinea. The questions which I asked on this matter were set out in detail, as I have frequently to set out questions, in order to get the desired information. If a question be asked in a general way, the facts cannot always be obtained, and it is necessary to so arrange them as, to elicit definite replies. The first questions were evaded by the Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, and I had to ask the Minister next day whether he noticed that they had not been replied to. The Minister, I suppose, in his usual whole-hearted way, asked for definite and straight replies, which we then got. The questions had reference to the composition of the Council in New Guinea which suspended Mr. Richmond. We then discovered that the Council was composed of very few men, and that Captain Barton, who was accused, voted to suspend Mr. Richmond for disloyalty.

Senator de Largie:

– I think Mr. Richmond got off very cheaply considering who were his judges !

Senator HIGGS:

– Mr. Richmond has been deprived of his good name, and no doubt of his livelihood ; at any rate, we can get no information as to whether he is being paid his salary. No doubt Ministers are fully engaged with business, but they ought to demand from the Secretary to the Department of External Affairs definite replies when questions are asked. And when a motion is carried by the Senate that a copy of a certain agreement, or proposed agreement, be laid on the table, the Government ought to ascertain from the secretary why he is not prepared to comply with the request, and why he has neglected his duty, if it appear that he has done so.

Senator Givens:

– The secretary is the boss of the whole affair.

Senator HIGGS:

– Where there are so many Ministerial changes, it frequently happens that the secretary of a Department is the boss, and that Ministers are at his mercy. I call attention to these matters, because the session is likely to close soon, and there is the possibility of loss through the expenditure of £12,000 in an irregular way. Perhaps I ought not to use the word “irregular,” seeing that it may be construed as a reflection on a vote of the Senate, but, at any rate, I may describe the position as unsatisfactory. There is a fear that the gravest injustice may be done to Mr. Richmond, owing to the fact that in New Guinea there are a number of officials who have no sympathy whatever with Australian sentiment. The facts of this case, and the failure to furnish definite replies, show that the Secretary to the Department of External Affairs is in sympathy with those who compose the Executive Council in New Guinea.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am in somewhat of a difficulty as to how to put this motion, seeing that we have already decided that the Senate, at its rising, shall adjourn until 10.30 o’clock on Monday next. One of the rules of the Senate is that we cannot rescind an order unless a certain course of procedure is adopted. Under the circumstances, the only way out of the difficulty - although that way is not strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders - is simply to put the question again -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until halfpast ten o’clock a.m. on Monday.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– There can be no harm in a little duplication. The object of Senator Higgs is to ventilate the two matters to which he has called attention. These affairs, however, are not in my Department, and I cannot be expected to have a complete knowledge of the facts. Under ordinary circumstances, I should have asked that the debate be adjourned, so as to enable me to obtain the necessary information for honorable senators. It will, I think, satisfy honorable senators, and also Senator Higgs, to know that I am definitely promised by the Prime Minister that this paper will be laid before Parliament next Tuesday, when, of course, both

Houses will be sitting. Senator Higgs has thought fitto criticise very severely the Secretary to the Minister of External Affairs. I can assure the honorable senator that the Prime Minister will not shelter himself behind the secretary in any matter of this sort.

Senator Higgs:

– I know that.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The Prime Minister will take full responsibility, just as I would in a matter affecting my own Department. It is only fair to the Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, to say that, in my belief, he has been acting all through with the unmistakable approval of his Minister.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland).- Before I ask leave to withdraw the motion, I must express regret that the Minister has not given some promise on his own behalf, if he cannot do so on behalf of the Government, that speedy justice will be done to Mr. Richmond. This gentleman has been, as I say, under suspension for three and a half months, and, as all the papers are here, there can be no just reason for any delay.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - In reply to a question asked the other day,’ I said that the Board appointed to investigate the case had not been able to meet in consequence of the absence of the Public Service Commissioner; and that is one of the reasons for the delay.

Senator Higgs:

– I ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

page 7058

PAPERS

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I lay upon the table the following papers : -

Public Service Act1902. - Copies of recommendations and Executive approval in connexion with the promotion of W. C. Harris, postmaster at Guildford, Western Australia.

Correspondence between National Political League, Fremantle, and Commonwealth electoral officials respecting names which appeared on Commonwealth electoral rolls, and were not enrolled on State electoral roll.

By way of explanation, I may say that the file of papers in connexion with the last- mentioned matter is not complete, but consists only of what is essential for the information of Senator Henderson, who asked for their production, and of other honorable senators who are interested. The other infor- mation is not included, because it was regarded as not essential, and as likely to make the file too bulky. If however, Senator Henderson, or any other honorable senator, wishes to see the complete . file, the Department will be very glad to afford an opportunity.

Ordered to be printed.

page 7059

QUESTION

DEFALCATIONS

Cheques on Public Accounts.

Senator PULSFORD:

asked the Minis ter of Defence, upon notice -

In view of certain defalcations that have lately occurred in the Federal Public Offices, will the Treasurer consider the desirability of issuing instructions that all cheques issued in payment of public accounts be made payable to “ Order “ instead of to “ Bearer.”

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

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

The Treasurer has had this matter under consideration. The subject is a difficult one, and will be very closely inquired into so as to protect the revenue without unduly inconveniencing the public creditor.

page 7059

CONTRACT IMMIGRANTS BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 14th December, vide page 6972) :

Amendment (by Senator Pearce) further considered -

That the following new clause be inserted to follow clause 8 : - “8a. (1) Any employer who in the contract makes any untrue representation, by which the contract immigrant is, or is likely to be misled to his detriment, as to the wages, hours, or conditions of labour at the placewhere the contract is to be performed, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

Penalty : Twenty pounds.

The Court may in its discretion order that the penalty or any part thereof be paid tothe contract immigrant, and in that case the same shall be so paid.”

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

That the words “or is likely To be,” lines 5 and 6, and sub-clause2 be left out.

Proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland). - I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “ 9A. The Minister shall lay on the table of each House of the Parliament annually a printed return prepared up to the 30th day of June of each year showing -

The names and addresses of employes who have entered into contracts or agreements under the provisions of this Act ;

the number of contract immigrants engaged by each employer and brought into the Commonwealth ;

the places at which the contract immigrants have agreed to work;

the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment, i.e., rates of wages, number of working hours, class of manual labour.”

I think it is very necessary to provide for the production of an annual return, in order to show the Parliament and the people how the law is working. We shall all be in a position then to see whether it has had any effect in reducing wages or making worse the conditions of labour. Senator Pearce has given notice of his intention to move the insertion of a new clause, containing a valuable provision, which I had overlooked, and which I shall be very pleased indeed to embody in my amendment. If that portion of paragraph a of his proposal which provides for an annual return showing the nationality and occupation of contract immigrants were embodied in my proposal, there would be no necessity for him to move an amendment.

Senator Playford:

– I prefer the proposal of Senator Pearce to that of the honorable senator.

Senator GIVENS:

– At any rate, Iintend to test the feeling of the Committee on the subject. I cannot understand how the Minister can possibly object to my amendment, because it does not affect either the principle or the working of the Act, but only enables the country, through Parliament, to know how it is working. Without a provision of this kind, Parliament will have no means of judging accurately whether the Act has had the effect of reducing wages or making the conditions of labour worse.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I am quite in accord with the object which Senator Givens and “Senator Pearce have in view, and that is to provide for the production of an annual return on this subject, but I think that Senator Givens has gone a little too far in asking that the return shall include the names and addresses of each employer, the rate of wages, number of working hours, and class, of labour. The law provides that the Minister shall not allow a contract to be entered into, or a contract immigrant to land unless the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment are at least equal to those which are current here in that occupation. It is not necessary to provide for a return to contain all that information, because, at any time a member of Parliament could see a copy of any contract if he wished. I prefer to accept the proposal of Senator Pearce, because I think it quite right that the Parliament should be provided with a return showing the number of contract immigrants, with their nationality and occupations, the number of contracts disapproved, and the number of contract immigrants refused admission.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I think that the Minister has adopted a very wise course, and I would ask Senator Givens to withdraw his amendment in favour of the one to be moved by Senator Pearce. What we want to know is the number of persons who have availed themselves of the provisions of the Act, and have been able to get through under the conditions. Any other detailed information which might be needed could be obtained either in statistics or by inquiry at the office of the Minister.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - In view of the fact that the two proposals are somewhat similar, except that Senator Givens is asking for the supply of some particulars which’ are not included in my proposal, it might be convenient, sir, if you were to put each paragraph of his amendment separately, so that I might have an opportunity to introduce my proposal.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - That will be a very complicated way of proceeding. It would be very much better for Senator Pearce to relyupon the assurance of the Minister, that he will accept his proposal, and to deal with this proposal en bloc, than to have halfadozen divisions, because we might wish to move other amendments from this side.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland). - I ask you, sir, in the exercise of your discretion, to take the course which has been suggested by Senator Pearce.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Certainly.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - I move -

That the following words be leftout : - “ prepared up to the 30th day of June of each year.”

In the principal Act the word month’ is mentioned, and without this amendment we should have the presentation of two returns covering different periods. For statistical purposes it would be very useful indeed to have the returns prepared fora similar period.

Amendment of the amendment agreed to.

Question - That paragraph a be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 19

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Paragraph a negatived.

Amendment (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That the following new paragraph be inserted : - “ (a) The number of contract immigrants admitted intothe Commonwealth, the nationality and occupation of such immigrants.”

Senator GIVENS (Queensland). - In regard to paragraph b, I wish to impress upon the Committee the necessity for obtaining this information. We may find employers bringing out contract immigrants wholesale.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– If Senator Givens intends to insist on his amendment it would be better to make it read somewhat as follows : -

The number of employers engaging such contract immigrants and the number of contract immigrants engaged by each such employer.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - What is the use of putting in this provision? It is quite superfluous. Of course, every return furnished to Parliament furnishes some information, but many returns furnish perfectly useless information. The proposal that we should have information as to the number of immigrants admitted commends itself to every one; but why ask for these further particulars? The information can always be obtained from the office. It appears that some honorable senators desire to pillory employers who bring in contract immigrants. They are making our legislation as offensive as possible.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– It is quite right that Parliament should be in a position to know if employers are bringing in a large number of contract immigrants. Some of us would also like to know whether particular employers bring in immigrants possessed of special skill for special trades, or whether hundreds of people are imported to work in the canefields of Queensland. If Senator Givens’ amendment is carried, we shall have that information. I hope it will be agreed to.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland).- I have no objection to amending the amendment, as suggested by Senator Keating. I, therefore, ask leave to amend paragraph b as I have moved it, and to make it read as follows : -

The number of employers engaging such contract immigrants and the number of such contract immigrants engaged by each employer.

Paragraph b amended accordingly.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I do not think this amendment ought to be adopted without discussion. It appears to me that Senator Pearce’s amendment, which is very carefully framed, and which the Government have accepted, gives all the information one can desire. We have already struck out paragraph a, of which paragraph b is merely consequential, and, therefore, to retain the latter would be useless. There is not much harm in supplying information as to the number of employers engaged in contract labour, but the paragraph goes on to provide that the returns shall show the number of contract immigrants engaged by each employer.

Senator Mcgregor:

– Surely that is useful information.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I differ from the honorable senator in that respect, and suggest that all that is necessary is to accept the concession of the Government.

Paragraph b, as amended, agreed to.

Question - That paragraph c be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 11

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Paragraph c agreed to.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland).- In regard to paragraph d, it is highly important that Parliament should have this information each year. Honorable senators have expressed a desire that the wages and other conditions of labour in Australia shall not be lowered or altered in any way, and to that end it is necessary to know how the Act is working.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - I suggest to Senator Givens that he should not press paragraph d. No doubt the information would be valuable, but it can be obtained by moving for a return, when necessary. An annual return might prove as bulky as Hansard, seeing that, as all contracts differ, each would have to be shown separately. What would be the value of such a return ? Immigrants would be working under the contracts, and I cannot see in what way Parliament could take any action.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator FRASER:
VICTORIA · PROT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I agree with the remarks of Senator McGregor. In my opinion, there will be precious few immigrants under contract, and, therefore, I do not think more time should be wasted over this matter.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– If there is a reason why I should support this proposal of Senator Givens, it is that urged by Senator Pearce against its adoption. Senator Pearce evidently anticipates the influx of a large number of persons under contract - so many that the return will probably be as bulky as Hansard.

Question - That paragraph d be agreed to - put. The Committee divided -

Ayes … 9

Noes …15

Majority … 6

Question resolved in the negative. .

Paragraph d negatived.

Amendment of the amendment (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That the following new paragraphs be added : -

Number of contracts disapproved.

Number of contract immigrants refused admission and reasons for such refusal.

Proposed new clause, asamended, agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause11 -

This Act shall not be construed to apply to domestic servants or personal attendants accompanying their employer to Australia.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I ask the Minister whether a man sent out here in charge of stud stock with the intention that after remaining here for a short time,he should go back again to the country from which he came, could be prevented from landing under this clause?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I cannot say whether he would be a domestic servant or personal attendant ; but there need be no fear that such persons will have any difficulty in landing.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– When we were considering this material question, one point raised was not satisfactorily settled. From the use of the words “ accompanying their employer to Australia,’’ it would appear that domestic servants or personal attendants may be excluded under the operation of this Bill unless they are accompanying their employers.

Senator Playford:

– Quite right, too ; otherwise we might have people coming in here in thousands, as domestic servants or personal attendants.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I do not believe that any member of the Labour Partywould object to domestic servants being allowed to come here under contract.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Yes, there are plenty of them in Australia.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I have no wish to raise a long debate on the matter, and if there is much objection to a suggestion that these words might be omitted I shall not press it.

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA · FT

– I am still in need of some information as to what is a domestic servant ? A man was engaged at good wages to bring out stud stock, and it was only after a great deal of trouble that he was permitted to land. How are people in England to know what todo in such cases?

Senator Playford:

– They will know what to do under this Bill. They have only to enter into a contract with such persons, and send in the necessary papers.

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

– Surely we do not wish to prevent the introduction of stud stock, and a man engaged in London cannot acompany them, unless with the leave of the Minister here.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - There will be no difficulty about that. The honorable senator could only accomplish what he desires by striking out the words “ accompanying their employer to Australia,” and to do so would be to open the door to any one who chose to call himself or herself a domestic servant or personal attendant, to come in without let or hindrance.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 and title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Motion (bv Senator Playford) agreed to-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

Report adopted.

Motion by Senator Playford proposed -

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– The Bill has now been fully considered, and honorable senators are in a position to make up their minds whether, as a whole, it is a good or a bad Bill. Certainhonorable senators voted for the second reading in the hope that provisions in the measure to which they objected would be struck out in Committee. Certainly from my point of view none of the objectionable provisions of the Bill have been struck out in Committee. We have it on the authority of some honorable senators that the effect of the. Bill will be that there will be so many contract immigrants introduced under it that the annual return giving particulars of their contracts will be as bulky as Hansard. That may be an exaggeration, but it shows that the hopes which some honorable senators had in supporting the second reading of the Bill have not been realized. In order to give those honorable senators an opportunity to decide whether the Bill as amended meets with their approval, I intend to call for a division on the motion for the third reading.

Senator CROFT (Western Australia).I propose to follow the example of Senator Givens. After having carefully watched the proceedings and taken very little part in the discussions on the two Bills which have recently engaged our attention, I am satisfied that in the Senate there is a certain section who are so well pleased with these measures that I cannot but view them with suspicion.

Senator Dobson:

– Do not use that silly argument !

Senator CROFT:

– Having made a statement which may reflect upon some honorable senators, I shall illustrate what I mean by pointing to the sequel - which may be seen from the notice-paper - to the passing of the Immigration Restriction Amendment Bill. Senator Pulsford, when referring to the clauses of the Bill sanctioning arrangements being made with foreign countries, has already asked -

Will the Department of External Affairs intimate to the Governments of India, Japan, and China that the Commonwealth of Australia is now prepared to consider such arrangements.

Senator Millen:

– That has nothing to do with the Contract Immigrants Bill.

Senator CROFT:

– No ; but having made astatement, and having been encouraged either to supply proof of its accuracy or to withdraw it, I point out that, having passed one Bill, Senator Pulsford is desirous of inviting the whole of the inhabitants of China and Japan who desire to come here to come.

Senator Millen:

– That is a most unwarranted statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does Senator Croft think that that has anything to do with the third reading of this Bill?

Senator CROFT:

Senator Fraser:

– No one would oppose it.

Senator HIGGS:

NOES: 9

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Questionsoresolvedintheaffirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 7069

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL No. 3

Second Reading

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

When the Customs Tariff Act was before Parliament, the question of the desirability of giving some encouragement to the manufacture of iron and steel from local ores was seriously considered ; and it was, I think, the opinion of the majority that some assistance was advisable, and that the best method was that of bonuses. Accordingly, there was inserted in the Customs Tariff Act what is known as “ Division VI. a - Metals and Machinery,” which had for its object the granting of bonuses. Throughout the Commonwealth there are extensive and valuable deposits of both coal and iron ore. In New South Wales the deposits of coal and iron are in close proximity, and in Tasmania and South Australia there are also large deposits. At the present time the Broken Hill Proprietary are using iron ore flux in connexion with their operations at a place called Iron Knob, where there is a perfect mountain of ore of high percentage. I am not aware at this moment whether there are any deposits in Queensland.

Senator Drake:

– There are large deposits in Queensland.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I know that iron ore is found in Western Australia, and, indeed, in every other State of the Commonwealth. All communities which have reached a high state of prosperity by means of manufactures have possessed) the advantages of large supplies of native iron and coal. England herself owes her manufacturing supremacy and her prosperity mainly to her wealth of resource in thatrespect, and the same may be said of Belgium and that part of Germany known as Westphalia, where the chief centres of industry are Dusseldorff and Essen. We have similar examples in Pennsylvania and other places in America. At the beginning of Federation it was, as I say, considered that the development of the iron industry could be best assisted by means of bonuses, and!, therefore, when the Customs Tariff Act was before Parliament, Division VI. a, to which I have referred, was inserted. The division reads -

To come into operation on dates to be fixed by proclamation, and exempt from duty in the meantime, except as to iron, galvanized, plate, and sheet. Proclamation to issue so soon as it is certified by the Minister that the manufacture to which the proclamation refers has been sufficiently established in the Commonwealth, according to the provisions of any law relating to bonuses for the encouragement of manufactures or to the establishment of manufactures under the direct control of the Commonwealth or State Governments, but no proclamation to issue except in pursuance of a joint address passed on the motion of Ministersby both Houses of Parliament, stating that such manufacture is sufficiently established.

– I understand that the only material alteration in the present law, which is proposed in this Bill, is the omission of all reference to the bonus.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– That is the material alteration. The Bill contains only two clauses, and provides merely for the repeal of that part of the Customs Tariff

Act which has reference to laws relating, to bonuses ‘for the manufacture of iron. It provides that if a State or private individual can prove the establishment of iron works, the output of which is sufficiently large to provide for the wants of the Commonwealth, then, on a motion passed in both Houses, the provisions of Part VI.a of the Tariff can be brought into operation.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– I do not know that there is any very great scope for debate or comment of any sort on this Bill. As the Minister has said, by the Customs Tariff Act, the operation of a part of the Tariff is suspended until it is put in force by proclamation, when certain industries are sufficiently established under any Act authorizing the payment of bonuses. This Bill repeals the reference to bonuses in the introductory words of the part of the Tariff referred to. When the measure was first introduced it was proposed by a certain strong-willed Minister-

Senator Millen:

– The honorable and learned senator is not referring to Sir William Lyne?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I make no personal references. As at first introduced, the measure left the proclamation to the Minister, and now the original provision leaving the matter to Parliament is also re-enacted. The Bill will render the bringing into operation of the part of the Tariff referred to in no way dependent on bonus legislation, or upon the will of the Minister, to whatever fiscal faith he may belong, but will leave to Parliament, as it should do, an opportunity to deal with the whole matter when” the time arrives for action to be taken. This Bill of itself is of no particular advantage to anybody, nor is it calculated, as far as I can judge, to do a.nv harm to anybodyIt amounts to a little more, but only a very little more, than the addition’ of another page to the printed matter in our statute-book. The only criticism I can offer to the measure is that it is one of those Bills which illustrates the strong tendency displayed bv some members of the Government - and Senator Playford isnot one of them, because the honorable senator always calls a spade a spade - to apply a verv large name to a very small thing. We had an instance of the kind in the Commerce Bill. Senator Playford agreed with us on that subject, and* the Government subsequently adopted an amendment which, to some extent, limited the expresion used in that case. Here we have a Bill “for an Act to encourage manufactures in Australia.”

Senator Mulcahy:

– It is the greatest humbug in the world.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– It reminds one of the frog in the fable, who blew himself out with the idea that he was giving himself the appearance of an ox. We have recently had a good deal of make-believe, but I do think that the policy of make-believe-and Senator Playford smiles in sympathy - is being carried a little too far. The titles of our Bills should. at least correspond in some way to their importance and utility. Still, if the Government prefer to dress this small matter up in peacock’s feathers in this way, I do not grudge them the indulgence of that vanity, and I shall not move any amendment on the title. But I commend my observations on the point to Senator Playford.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I rise, as a moderate protectionist, to say that if this is a sample of the encouragement to be given to local industries by a protectionist Prime Minister and Minister of Trade and Customs, I am heartily disappointed with it.

Senator McGregor:

– Is it not moderate protection ?

Senator MULCAHY:

– It is exceedingly moderate. We are asked to say in this Bill that if Parliament pleases it may, at some future time, when an industry has been established, give that industry some encouragement so that it may be established. If ever there was an illustration in legislation of putting the cart before the horse, this measure is one. In connexion with one measure introduced this session, the Minister of Defence was frank enough to admit that it was a sham and a fraud, and I think that the same terms might be appropriately applied to the Bill we are now asked to deal with. I quite agree with Senator Symon, that it will do neither harm nor good. The only qualification of the statement which I would make is that it may do some little harm by deceiving people. It will, certainly not add to the reputation of Mr. Deakin and Sir William Lyne as solid protectionists anxious to encourage the industries of Australia.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– This Bill is short, but I cannot say that it is also sweet. It opens up the flood-gates of debate if honorable senators chose to take advantage of it. I am amazed at the audacit or shall I say the foolishness, of the Minister in submitting such a Bill at a time when the life of the session is beginning to be counted by hours. It might lead to prolonged debate, and might even encourage one like myself to deal with the subject for a few hours. If I were not strongminded I should be drawn into the vortex; but I propose to avoid it, and I hope other senators will do the same. I do not propose to discuss the matter from Dan to Beersheba. I shall not dwell, as I might do, on the iniquities brought to light in the attempts to prevent the importations of harvesters. I shall not permit: myself to be dragged into a discussion of the threats against the consumers of Australia in favour of certain manufacturers. I shall not take advantage of the opportunity to point out the efforts made to increase the burden of taxation without benefit to the Treasury.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will see that this Bill has reference to the pro3uction of iron only.

Senator PULSFORD:

– The Minister of Defence has pointed out that iron is the basis of a great many manufacturing industries, and on a measure dealing with iron we should be able to discuss a vast number of subjects were we so inclined. I congratulate the Ministry on having had the wisdom to forego the attempt made” in the first instance to put the power to bring this wretched little Bill into operation at the pleasure of a single Minister, and I congratulate honorable senators that it is still in the hands of the Parliament of the Commonwealth to deal with the matter in its due time.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– It is only on the assumption that the Government are laying down a new rule, under which it is to be usual to introduce legislation of a kind to which all sorts of ugly names can be given, that I can understand why such a piece of sham legislation as this is should be trotted out in the last days of the session. It would not require a very powerful microscope to show that there is no appearance of genuineness about this measure. I speak, not so much as a protectionist, but as one able to take a sober view of fiscalism at all times, when I say that I am unable to understand why this measure should be introduced at this stage, when we have a Tariff Commission at present engaged upon an inquiry into the question dealt with in this measure and similar questions. The Government should certainly have waited until the report of the Tariff Commission was before us before they introduced legislation dealing with this subject. Surely we ought not to pass the Bill until we receive the later information which will be contained in the report of the Tariff Commission. To introduce the Bill at this time is neither more nor less than to offer an insult to that body. No immediate good could be done by its enactment. Blast furnaces could not be erected, and pig-iron produced and converted into steel, in practically a day. Even if the furnaces were now in process of erection, considerable time would elapse before pig iron and steel could be produced. Not only have the ironworks to produce iron, but to produce it in sufficient quantity before division VI. a of the Tariff can be brought into operation. In view of that fact, what necessity is there for passing this measure? Really it is the greatest of the farces to which we have been subjected during the last week. The Government will act most fittingly by withdrawing the Bill, because it is only a laughing-stock. It must be remembered that the Senate is pledged to a policy quite opposed to that which it seeks to enact. After a calm and protracted discussion, it affirmed the principle of establishing national ironworks. To introduce a measure of this kind, therefore, is to fly in the face of that affirmation. I protest against the measure being sneaked in in this manner. Does the Minister wish to defy the Senate or to work in accord with its deliberate opinion? If he wishes to defy the Senate, what interest is now actuating him? He certainly is not urged forward by any public interest. He may be influenced by underhand reasons; there may be wire-pulling which is not apparent to us. I am fully satisfied that there is no public demand for the measure. That proof has been furnished very recently in the State which possesses the most natural advantages for the production of iron by Mr. Sandford - a gentleman who, I supposey knows more about the iron trade than does any other person in Australia - who has undertaken the establishment of ironworks without waiting for this Bill to be enacted. When a bonus was asked for, undoubtedly his evidence went to prove to the Royal Commission that it was not necessary. Since Parliament is not prepared to grant a bonus to privately-owned ironworks, another means is being taken to attain the same end. To me this Bill is neither more nor less than an attempt to place the Senate in a position from which it could not very well recede. If we were to give our countenance to this measure, it would be alleged by-and-by that by our action we had encouraged certain persons to invest their money in the iron industry. After iron works had been established, and it had been found that there was not sufficient work to occupy the men, the ironmaster would come along and say, “Here are a certain number of men who are out of employment. Are you going to see these fine works, this fine industry, closed from want of protection ? Give us the protection that we want, and these men will all be fully employed, and the country will be prosperous.” That, apparently,, is the little, game which the Government are playing, but if that be not their object, this proposal is a piece of hypocrisy from beginning to end. Protectionist as I am, I am not going to give my assent to a hypocritical measure of this kind, and to the placing of the Parliament in a position from which it could not very well recede, especially when it might be pointed out that there were many unemployed workmen in the community. There is only’ one thing I submit for the Senate to .do, and “that is to clearly indicate that it adheres to its decision that if the industry is to be worthy of the financial support which it will require it should be a national one. I hold that the Senate will be best conserving the interests of the States by supporting the establishment of national ironworks instead of allowing them to be established in any one State, either by a State Government or by a private company. If the ironworks were established and controlled by the Commonwealth Government, the interests of all the States would be equally conserved; but if they were” established by a State Government, and were to be kept going,, they would exercise’ a controlling influence over the Government railways throughout the Commonwealth, because the Australian market is only sufficient to keep one really up-to-date blast furnace going all the year round. I am glad that the States Governments have announced that they do not intend to start State ironworks, because if they did we should lind ourselves in the same predicament as we should if they were started by Mr. Sandford or any one else. To allow the ironworks to be in the hands of a State Government would be to create a monopoly which could control the price of the iron which would be required for the railways of the different States. How much greater evil would it be if the ironworks were controlled by a private company ! I . do not wish it to be understood that I am making any reflection upon Mr. Sandford, because I believe that he is a good citizen, deserving of every reasonable encouragement which/ can be given to him to establish iron-works in New South Wales. What we have to consider is the interest of the whole Commonwealth, and that, I submit, can best be conserved by the establishment of Commonwealth ironworks. Senator Playford has stated that the Prime Minister, when he was AttorneyGeneral Jil “the Barton Government, expressed an opinion which is quite opposed to that view. I interjected that he was wrong in making that statement, and I now propose to read the opinion which Mr. Deakin gave on the 18th July, 1903, at the request- of Mr. Kingston, the Chairman of the Bonus Commission.

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

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

The trade and commerce power, vast though it is, does not appear to extend to production and manufacture - which are not commerce. Commerce only begins, where production land manufacture end. See Kidd. v. Pearson, 12S U.S. 1, 20. Moreover, the fact that the trade and commerce power is limited to external and InterState trade and commerce indicates that the power which the States undoubtedly possess to undertake Government industries within .their own limits is not shared by the Commonwealth under this sub-section.

Under sub-sections (I.), (II-), and (III-), taken together (trade and commerce, taxation, and bounties), the authority of the Commonwealth over industrial development is of the largest; but though it allows of control, regulation, and guidance, it in no respect points to direct establishment or management of any industries.

Nor can I find in any other part of the Constitution any express authority for the course suggested.

– He would be an extraordinary man who could work up any enthusiasm in support of a measure of this kind. I do not know that there is sufficient grit in it even to justify indignation. I could neither be enthusiastic nor indignant about it. It is so small, it is so insignificant, it is so absolutely useless and absurd, that the sooner we go to a division upon it the better. I merely rose to say that I shall assist my honorable friend Senator de Largie to wipe the Bill out of existence. That is the best thing we can do with it.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– There may be some truth in what has been said about this being a comparatively harmless measure, but, as a protectionist, I am going to vote for a Bill which, if it does not do any good, certainly will not do any harm to a cause in which I believe.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 12

Majority … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 7076

SUGAR BOUNTY BILL

Second Reading

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators have received a vast amount of literature in connexion with the matters dealt with in this Bill - matters which have been under consideration for a long while, and have been discussed on many occasions. The period covered by the Sugar Bounty Act of 1903 expires on the 31st December, 1906. In the paper laid before Parliament on the 18th October, 1904, containing a communication from the Premier of Queensland, together with a memorandum from Dr. Maxwell, the director of the Government Sugar Experimental Station, it is shown how exceedingly important this industry is to that State. The Premier of Queensland in that letter wrote -

You will admit the importance of the industry when I inform you that one-fifth of the cultivated soil of Queensland is under sugar cane, that two-thirds of the value of her agricultural exports must be credited to sugar, and that about one-twentieth of her white population are dependent for their livelihood on the cultivation and manufacture of sugar. The State Treasury has also a large direct interest in the question, for no less than half-a-million of public money has been invested in the erection of central sugar mills.

These were the statements made by the Premier of Queensland when he was expressing a desire that the operation of the original Act should be extended for a period beyond December, 1906. Honorable senators are doubtless aware why that Act was passed. The sugar industry in Queensland has always to a large extent been carried on by means of kanaka labour, and the object of the legislation was to assist in the realization of a White Australia by the deportation of these coloured workers at the earliest possible moment. To that end, Parliament felt it to be its duty to encourage to the utmost the carrying on of the industry, not only in Queensland, but in New South Wales, by means of white labour. Section 2 of the Sugar Bounty Act 1903 provides that there shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a bounty on sugar-cane delivered after the commencement of the Act in July, 1903, and before the 1st January, 1907, in the production of which white labour only has been employed, after the 28th February, 1903, or employed for a period of twelve months immediately preceding delivery for manufacture. Section 3 of that Act provides for a bounty of 4s. to 5s. per ton of cane, calculated according to its sugar contents. This is equal to a bounty of £2 per ton of sugar. By the

Customs Tariff Act of 1902, the duty on imported sugar-cane is £fi per ton, while, according to the Excise Tariff Act of the same year, the Excise duty is fixed at £3 per ton. The employment of white labour against black labour is thus protected to the extent of £2 per ton of sugar equal to about 4s. 5d. per ton of cane. Section 3 of the Pacific Island Labourers Act 1 901 provides that no Pacific Island labourer is to enter Australia after 31st March, 1904, and by section 4, that no such labourer is to enter Australia before 31st March, 1904, except under licence. AH agreements for the employment of coloured labour terminate on the 31st December, 1906, and bv section 8 of the Act just mentioned, the Minister may cause a Pacific-Island labourer found in Aus.tralia after that date to be deported. I do not suppose that these kanakas will be deported all in one batch ; but the operation will be carried out as speedily as possible twelve months hence. I think I can best explain to honorable senators the position in regard to the sugar bonus if I read the report of Dr. Maxwell, in answer to a series of questions put to him by Sir William Lyne. Before I proceed to do that, however, I may say that in 1904 the whole question was laid before the Government, and a request made, as I have said,’ for a continuance of the bonus after the end of next year. The letter of the Premier of Queensland, an extract from which I have already read, also contains the folowing : -

But it was held by those best acquainted with the Queensland sugar industry that the term during which the bonus would be payable was too short, and that it should be extended to at least ten years, in order that the industry might accommodate itself to the altered conditions. The experience of three years has proved the wisdom of this view. There is no hope tha-t two years hence the industry will be independent at once of coloured labour, and of the bonus granted for white-grown cane. There is no hope that within the next two years it will be so firmly established as a white labour industry, a-s to bc able, without the bonus, to pay the wages which white labour has a right to expect for such work. Such being the case, nothing can be more reasonable than the contention of the cane farmer that, as the Commonwealth Parliament has decided that, after igo6, sugar must not be grown by kanaka labour, it is the duty of the Commonwealth Parliament to provide a means by which sugar can be profitably grown, after that date, without the aid of the kanaka. And the only means consistent with the policy of excluding coloured aliens, and of finding sufficiently remunerative employment ‘ for our own race, is the continuance of the bonus now given for white grown cane. Unless this action is taken, there appears to be little hope for the sugar industry of this State. In view of the fact that no bonus may be granted after 1906, cane growers are restricting rather than extending their operations, and, indeed, it is probable that large areas now under sugar cane will soon pass out of cultivation. So far as Queensland is concerned, this result, harmful in any circumstances, would be disastrous in existing circumstances.

That letter was supplemented by a memorandum from Dr. Maxwell, who has, perhaps, a more intimate knowledge of this industry than any other man within the Commonwealth. Dr. Maxwell said -

An extension of time of not less than five years from 31st December, 1906, for the continued payment of bonus on white grown cane, is advised as necessary in order that the sugar industry, at its present dimensions, may continue to exist.

That means that after a certain period, unless we are prepared to continue the bonus for a further term, the effect on sugar cultivation in Queensland will be most disastrous. I have statistics showing that in Queensland the number of persons who grow sugar by means of white labour has very considerably increased.

Senator de Largie:

– And so has the sugar grown by black labour.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The quantity of sugar grown by white labour has consider-, ably increased, though there has also been an increase in the sugar grown by black labour. The owners of plantations and the number of persons employed in connexion .with white-grown sugar have increased year by year since the bonus has been in operation. In the larger plantations in the north, which employ many people, there has been an increase in the output of sugar, partly due to better seasons. There has also been a considerable increase in the number. of owners and cultivators of small plantations; and this is a branch of the industry we desire to encourage as “far as possible. The following is an extract from the report showing the first question asked by Sir William Lyne, and the answer given by Dr. Maxwell : -

Question 1. - For what further period does it appear necessary to extend the system of paying bonus on white grown cane?

Answer. - In order to estimate this question, it is necessary to briefly review the results of the operations of the bonus legislation from its enactment to this date. Three years of the first period of five years ‘have matured, and the fourth year is close to completion. The results are indicated, in the first place, by the increases during, those years in the number of white canegrowers, and in the areas registered to earn the bonus, in the several districts of the State of Queensland, as shown by the official figures.

Then Df. Maxwell gives a table showing the areas registered for bonus, and the number of white cane-growers. According to this table, the number of growers in 1902 was 1,521, as compared with 2,048 in 1903, a considerable increase. In 1904 the number of growers had increased to 2,429, a further increase of nearly 500, and in 1905 the number had increased to 2,681.

Senator Dobson:

– Can the honorable senator give the increase in the number of growers by black labour?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Those figures are not given in the report, but I should point out that the increase in the production of sugar by black labour does not represent a proportionate increase in the number of black labourers employed but is due to the larger area brought under cultivation, and the good seasons experienced. Dr. Maxwell goes on to say : -

It is seen that very notable increases have been made in the total number of white growers, and in the gross areas registered to earn the bonus.

I have not given the areas, but they are as follows: - In 1902, the number of acres cultivated by white growers was 36,538 ; in 1903, 53,571 acres; in 1904, 63,277 acres; and in 1905, 72,606 acres. So that there has been a gradual and steady increase, first of all in the number of white growers, and secondly, in the area of land they have cultivated. Dr. Maxwell goes on to say -

The full results of the operations of1905 are not yet to hand, but the figures given under this year in the table indicate that these increases are steadily progressing. The table shows further that the increases in the number of white growers and of registered areas have transpired mainly in the Southern and Central Districts, and that a small relative progress has been made in the tropical north.

It is but natural that the number of white growers should increase in the colder districts rather than in the tropical districts of the north. The report continues - “The total number of all cane growers in Queensland at the beginning of this year was 3,422. The number of white growers according to the latest official figures is 2,681, or 78 per cent. of, the whole.

When the figures are analyzed it will be seen that, although 78 per cent. of the total number of growers are white growers those who cultivate with black labour are those who own the larger plantations and cultivate the larger areas. That accounts for the fact that the total output of sugar grown by black labour is greater than that grown by white labour. Dr. Maxwell says further -

The increases in the number of white growers, and in registered areas, do not necessarily convey a correct indication of the actual progress that white cane production has made, relative to the whole. At the close of the third year of the current period of the bonus operation the crop of 1904 comprised as follows : -

Black grown cane, 947,105 tons, or 71.38 per cent.
White grown cane, 379,884 tons, or 28.62 per cent.

So that, although 78 per cent. of the total number of growers cultivate sugar with white labour, they produce only about onehalf of the quantity produced by black labour. The report continues : -

These figures show that, at the end of the third year’s operations of the bonus legislation, less than one-third of the sugar production of Queensland was eligible for the bonus. Something more than two-thirds of the whole was black grown. The figures covering the crop of 1905 will not be fully available for some three months, lt is estimated, however, that the proportion of current year’s crop that is earning the bonus will be at least one-third, and may amount to, or exceed, 35 per cent. of the whole.

The actual situation is, therefore, that after four years operation of the bonus, approximately one-third of the sugar crop of Queensland is produced by white labour. In connexion with this summary result, it has to be repeated that the progress has taken place almost wholly within the Southern and Central Districts, which are the districts of densest settlement, and of the more temperate climatic conditions. The figure in Table “ A “ shows that in the first year of operation of the bonus,1,485 growers were registered in these districts, and only thirty -six in the districts of the north. These numbers show that more than one-half of the total number of white growers registered at this date were prepared for and actually entered upon production solely by white labour the moment that the legislation was enacted. These early registrations included farmers upon the smallest areas.

Senator Dobson:

Senator Mulcahy:

– How long is it to go on?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Here are these questions again. How can I tell how long it must go on ? I can only say that in the interests of the industry, and of the whole community, it should be continued for another five years, and honorable senators will find that in this Bill we are proposing an increased Excise duty and an increased bonus.

Senator Dobson:

– And the Government are not proposing to put an end to it at any time.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– So far as we are concerned, it will end at the close of the five years’ period provided for in this Bill, and it will then be for Parliament to say what should be done in the circumstances. We are doing now what was done four years ago. We are proposing the passing of a Bill to continue the system of bonuses for a period of five years, and we leave it to Parliament then to again review the situation. In five years’ time Parliament will be in precisely the same situation, and must again review the whole matter. The question for Parliament to consider now is whether the bonus should cease at the end of the term already provided for, and we should run the risk of inflicting enormous injury upon one of the chief industries of Queensland. It must be ‘borne in mind that people who have been cultivating sugar in Queensland for many years past with black labour are being compelled to give up that labour. They must be given time to prepare for the altered conditions under which the industry is to be carried on, if it is to be continued, and what honorable senators are now asked to consider is whether, in the circumstances, it is proper to continue the bonus, at all events for another five, years. We must do it. We cannot get away from it, unless we are prepared to destroy the industry. I am a believer in the White Australia policy, the majority of the community believe in it, and surely we are not going to say that the State of Queensland shall suffer immense loss in consequence of the action we have taken in compelling the deportation of kanakas ?

SenatorMulcahy. - Have not the sugar planters been aware for several years that the kanakas must be deported? Was not that provided for under the State law?

SenatorPLAYFORD. - The sugar planters are aware that the Queensland Parliament passed a law providing for the deportation of the kanakas many years ago, but when they were brought face to face with the question, they were afraid to give effect to the law. They found that they could not do so without the risk of fearful loss, and the result was that Sir Samuel Griffith, and others, who had been instrumental in passing a law to provide that the kanakas should go at a certain date, turned round and passed another law tosay that they should not go. That was the position when Queensland became a part of the Commonwealth. I have given honorable senators Dr. Maxwell’s answer to the question as to the period for which it appears necessary to extend the system of paying a bonus on white grown cane. The second question was -

Should the bonus continue to be paid in its present amount, or are there reasons for a revision ?

That was a very intelligent question, to which the expert furnished the following answer : -

The purpose of the bonus is to substitute white for coloured labour, making it thus, in the first place, a matter of cost. In a report furnished by me to the first Federal Prime Minister, Sir Edmund Barton, in1901, it was shown that the relative costs of labour were : -

The present schedule of bonus was based upon the cost of labour, and upon other considerations, existing when the legislation was enacted. With the progress of white production, white labour must continue to command a higher compensation in the form of wage, and of better domestic provision for workmen. The existing measure of bonus must, therefore, tend to fall below, and not to exceed the cost of substituting white for coloured labour. It is the possibility of failure of the present measure of bonus to meet the difference in cost between coloured and white labour which is, in part, confirming the larger employers of wage-earning labour in holding to the use of aliens.

This question can be understood as also relating to the relation between the excise and bonus, the arrangement enacted being that the bonus shall not exceed two-thirds of the excise. If the results of each year are considered separately, it will be found that in some years the bonus is less, and in others more, than twothirds of the excise. In the average of years it is indicated that the mean of the bonus paid in the several districts will be almost exactly two-thirds, or a fraction less.

Dr., Maxwell does not give a very definite answer to the question. The third question was -

Should a reducing scale be adopted with a view to the gradual diminution and extinction of the bonus?

Inreply, Dr. Maxwell wrote -

– I have not read the report line by line, because I have skipped over a considerable portion of it.

Senator Dobson:

– Will the Minister give us the policy of the Government, if they have any?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The policy of the Government is embodied in the Bill. The fourth question was -

Are there reasons for a revision of the present rate of duty?

The concluding paragraph of Dr. Maxwell’s answer read -

The present rate of import duty is £6 per ton, as compared with a duty of approximately £3 per ton upon foreign sugars entering the United States of America, in which country no excise upon home-grown sugars exists.

The present import duty of £6 on foreign produced sugars entering Australia, although low when compared with rates of duty operating in some other countries, appears to be adequate for its purpose.

He makes a long statement, which I shall not read, but in which he shows what has been paid for sugar in various parts of the world, including the United States, and sums up the position in the paragraphs which I have just read. The fifth question was -

What are the foreseen effects of an increase of the duty?

In reply, Dr. Maxwell wrote a long statement, which concludes with these paragraphs -

Therefore, if an increase of excise, with a corresponding increase of bonus, is made, it is likely to induce or force an immediate substitution of white for coloured production in those districts where the natural and economic conditions allow at once of the change.

If the amount of the increase of excise should be such as to lower the protection below a given sum, then, in those districts where white production is far from being fully and immediately practicable, the result will be the handing over of that proportion of the present production of sugar by British farmers using alien labour in Queensland to the producers of black sugar by the cheapest labour, in other countries, for consumption by the Australian Commonwealth.

That is to say, that if we lower the “duties too much, and do not1 give a certain protection, we shall have Fijian black labour competing against our white labour, and competing with success, too. The sixth question is -

What are the main factors which govern the cost of sugar to the consumer, and what modifications are possible that can lower the cost?

That is a practical question, and no doubt honorable senators have read the reply, in which Dr. Maxwell looks upon the refining as a factor that adds to the cost, and points out that, by reason of having a monopoly with regard to the production of sugar, the company, so long as they do not go beyond a certain limit, appear to be able to regulate the price. Of course, they cannot regulate the price wholly, because if it were made too high black-grown sugar would come in from Fiji and other countries, and compete with their article. Within tha* limit, however, the company can raise the price at their own sweet will and pleasure. The seventh question reads -

Can any leading modification be made in the regulations governing the administration of the bonus legislation, which could contribute to its adoption more rapidly, and upon a more extensive scale?

To that question Dr. Maxwell replied -

It is required that the fundamental regulation governing the eligibility of land to register to earn bounty shall be modified and broadened. It is necessary that areas that have not been yet brought under white conditions shall not be at any time prevented from doing so by restrictive regulations. It is also to be advised that provision shall be made for the re-registration of areas which were placed under white conditions, but which have lapsed, and become again ineligible for earning bonus. These primary registrations were made in good faith, and the lapses have been due, in the most part, to the unripeness of the conditions necessary to the change from black to white production. Unless such modifications in the administration are made, the progress of the bonus legislation will be blocked by its own provisions.

That is to say, a man registered to grow cane under white conditions, but in course of time he reverted to black labour, and therefore he could not get the bonus simply because the conditions for the time were such as would not enable him to profitably grow cane. Dr. Maxwell says, “Let the man go back to the white conditions, and when he goes back do not be toohard upon him ; make your registration a little elastic.” The eighth question reads as follows -

What are summarily the lines upon which the substitution of while for coloured labour can be induced, and sugar production in Australia be placed the most expeditiously and permanently upon a white basis, without risk or diminution of the industry?

– I should be glad if we could have an understanding that before the Senate parts with this Bill we shall have the Excise Bill before us. I do not think we ought finally to agree to the payment of the bounty until we have that measure under our consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 - “ White-grown cane or beet “ means sugarcane or beet produced on a white plantation and in the production of which white labour only has been employed after the first day of January One thousand nine hundred and seven, or for a period of twelve months immediately preceding the delivery thereof for manufacture or (in respect of the cane crop which will be cut in the year 1906) from the commencement of this Act to the delivery of the cane crop for manufacture.

Clause verbally amended.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I intend to move -

That the words “ in respect of the cane crop which will be cut in the year 1906” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ in the case of cane cut in the year 1906, after the expiration of one monthafter the commencement of this Act.”

We wanttogive the growers a little time to get ready. This amendment will give them a month.

Senator Millen:

– There are some matters of importance connected with this clause, and I suggest that progress should be reported.

Progress reported.

page 7083

ADJOURNMENT

Attendanceof Senators : Public Servants in Civic Positions : Federal Capital.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PEARCE:

– I trust, at any rate, that you will instruct the Clerks to prepare a record of those who have taken part in divisions. I also desire to ask whether

Ministers have taken steps to give effect to the promise which they gave, to take into consideration the advisableness of withdrawing the minute under which public servants are prevented from holding positions on local government bodies. So far as I can learn, nothing whatever has been done. Will Ministers undertake to bring the matter under the notice of the Cabinet?

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I do not “desire to delay the Senate, but I urge upon honorable senators the necessity for remaining at their posts until Parliament actually goes into recess. I understand that there is a movement on the boards to try to substitute Lake George for Dalgety in the Act of Parliament fixing the Capital site. If honorable senators stay away, it is very likely that that movement may succeed. I urge them to post themselves up in the reports of the Commissioners on the various sites, in view of the suggested substitution of Lake George for Dalgety in the Bill which is coming from another place.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator has no right to discuss that Bill before it comes here.

Senator HIGGS:

– I have simply said “another place.” That may mean anywhere.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think that the substitution of “ another place “ for n House of Representatives “ makes any difference; but the honorable senator is not out of order in what he has said.

Senator HIGGS:

– If honorable senators are satisfied that Lake George is the site that ought to be selected in preference to Dalgety, by all means let them vote, for it. But Knowing that this movement was on foot, I looked up the Commissioners’ reports, and found that though, when Lake George is full of water, it presents a very beautiful aspect, it is only full occasionally, and sometimes it is absolutelydry. 1 ask honorable senators whether they are going to vote for building a Federal Capital which is to last for all time, on the borders of a stagnant sheet of water, which will give rise to all kinds of diseases, including typhoid.

Senator Millen:

– That is an absolutely incorrect statement.

Senator HIGGS:

– The Senate has already made a selection. I favoured Lyndhurst as against Dalgety ; but I hope the Senate will adhere to its decision, and not give way to any pressure which may be brought to Dear by the New South

Wales Government, led by Mr. Carruthers. Some honorable senators seem to think that it will be an advantage to them politically to make this suggested change. But if any change is made after what has taken place lately, Mr. Carruthers will get the credit of it.

Senator Gray:

– Is this a debate on the Federal Capital question”?

The PRESIDENT:

– We have a standing order which permits irrelevant matters to be discussed on the motion “ That the Senate do now adjourn.” and Senator Higgs is quite in order. I do not think that the rule is a good one, and it was not amongst the original Standing Orders, but the Senate insisted oh its incorporation.

Senator HIGGS:

– I think the standing order was adopted at the instance of New South Wales senators. However, we have been shown a photograph of a beautiful city on a beautiful lake - Lake George.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator is casting a reflection on the value of the report, and on the integrity of the man who made it.

Senator HIGGS:

– Instead of a beautiful lake we shall have only one partiallyfilled with water, exposing all the dead cats, dead dogs, and other refuse similar to that which finds its way into the stagnant waters at Balmain and elsewhere in Port Jackson. That is not the sort of place we want for a Capital site. I hope honorable senators will bear in mind the urgent necessity there is to adhere to our original selection, and not allow ourselves to be led to depart from it by reason of any political move.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– Senator Higgs began to-day’s proceedings with a motion for a special adjournment, and he concludes the 3ay by taking advantage of the motion for the ordinary adjournment. I shall not follow the honorable senator into an examination of the merits of any of the proposed sites, but simply join with him in suggesting that honorable senators try to be present next week, with a determination to do what they believe to be right.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– Senator Pearce has asked me what has been done in regard to the- promise I made relating to public servants who are hot allowed, in certain cases, to take positions on municipal bodies, and so forth. T may inform the honorable senator that the matter has not been lost sight of. It has been brought under the notice of the Government, and submitted to the Minister of Home Affairs, who will call attention to it in Cabinet at an early date. The record of. the attendance of honorable senators is always printed, but I agree with Senator Pearce that it would be far more interesting and useful if a printed list showing the attendance at divisions were issued. Under the present method, an honorable senator may attend for only a few minutes, and yet he is recorded as having remained for the entire sitting. This affords no real criterion as to the amount of attention any honorable senator may give to his parliamentary duties; and a return of the attendance at divisions would afford more information.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.21 p m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 December 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1905/19051215_senate_2_30/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate15 December 1905

QUESTION

STEAMER AND RAILWAY PASSES

Senator CROFT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

PROROGATION

Senator WALKER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator Walker:

Senator PLAYFORD:

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Walker:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator MATHESON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

Senator Playford:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Higgs:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Playford:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Playford:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator PULSFORD:

QUESTION

POSTMASTER, MOUNT BARKER

Senator STORY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

MILITARY COMMANDANT : QUEENSLAND

Senator MATHESON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator MATHESON:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator MATHESON:

Senator PLAYFORD:

QUESTION

BRITISH NEW GUINEA

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

QUESTION

ENGLISH MAIL CONTRACT

Senator CLEMONS:TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator KEATING:

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

The PRESIDENT:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Fraser:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Dobson:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Dobson:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Fraser:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Dobson:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Fraser:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator de Largie:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Givens:

Senator HIGGS:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Higgs:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Higgs:

Senate
15 December 1905

Senator CROFT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator MATHESON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Senator MATHESON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator FRASER:
VICTORIA · PROT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA · FT

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland