Senate
19 December 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- NEW GUINEA: CASE OF MR. RICHMOND
TOBACCO MONOPOLY
QUESTION
- CONVENING OF PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- ENGLISH MAIL CONTRACT
QUESTION
- SUGAR MONOPOLY
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
COPYRIGHT BILL
PAPERS
QUESTION
- STATEMENTS BY MR. CARRUTHERS
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE INCREMENTS
EXCISE (SUGAR) TARIFF BILL
- Second Reading
ELECTORAL BILL
QUESTION
- REFRESHMENT ROOM
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1903-4 AND I904-5
- Second Reading
SUGAR BOUNTY BILL
ELECTORAL BILL
EXCISE (SUGAR) TARIFF BILL
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1903-4 AND 1904-5
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Colonel Hoad’s Report

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

page 7311

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA: CASE OF MR. RICHMOND

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask the Min.ister of Defence, without notice, a question arising out of his reply yesterday to my question regarding the number of meetings which have .been held by the Board appointed to inquire’ into the case of Mr. Richmond, in British New Guinea. He will remember that he said that one. meeting had been held, namely, on the 5th October. I wish to ask the Minister whether he thinks that the method adopted to investigate this case is an expeditious one ; whether Ft is fair to Mr. Richmond to have his case so long undecided ; and whether, if the Board cannot soon come to a determination, he will endeavour to get a stipendiary or other magistrate appointed to take the place of any Commissioner who is unable to take part in the inquiry.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– I think’ that the honorable senator can form his own opinion as to whether the time which’ has been taken by the Board has been reasonable, or whether the inquiry has been as. expeditious as it ought to be. I do not think he ought to ask me to comment on a matter which affects my colleagues, and of which I have no personal knowledge.

Senator Higgs:

– It does not affect the honorable senator’s colleagues.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– To a certain extent it does. I shall bring the -matter under the notice of the Prime Minister, and I have not the slightest doubt that’ a decision will be arrived at in the case as quickly as possible.

page 7311

TOBACCO MONOPOLY

Report of Select Committee, ‘ presented by Senator Pearce-, read by the Clerk, and ordered to be printed.

page 7311

QUESTION

CONVENING OF PARLIAMENT

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, whether, in view of the fact ‘that we are supposed to be within a few days of the close of this session, he can give the Senate any idea as to when the next session of the Parliament will be commenced?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– I cannot give my honorable friend any information, as I have not consulted my colleagues on the subject.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Arising put of that answer, I desire to ask the Minister whether he will represent tq his colleagues the importance of calling Parliament together as early. as possible next year, seeing that the general elections are to be held in the following December, and that its members desire a chance to give sufficient time to the business of the country, and to have a reasonable period in which to prepare for the elections.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I shall represent my honorable friend’s views on the subject to the Prime Minister.

– But. the Minister will not tell us.

Senator KEATING:

– I am not in a position to give to any honorable senator some of the information in connexion with this matter ; but I will say that the Government are respecting in spirit and letter the resolution of the Senate.

page 7312

QUESTION

SUGAR MONOPOLY

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, whether, in view of the fact that the session is likely to end to-day or to-morrow, he will afford me an opportunity, say, halfanhourafter the recess for luncheon, to take a division on my motion respecting the nationalization of the sugar industry, which has been fully discussed during the session? I would remind the honorable senator that without my concurrence, he could not have deprived me of the opportunity to have it fully dealt with on Thursday last, and that I gave way to him upon getting his assurance that I should be afforded an opportunity to get a vote taken thereon.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– If the Government business is finished I shall afford the honorable senator the opportunity which’ he desires. There will be messages passing between the Houses directly, and the consideration of them will take some time. I recognise that the honorable senator very kindly gave way to me on a certain occasion, and I shall doall I possibly can, as I told him then, to assist him to get a division taken on his motion.

page 7313

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the leader of the Senate, without notice, whether facilities will be afforded to honorable senators during the recess to visit the Northern Territory? It is possible that in time we shall be asked to take it over. We heard recently a reference to one Member of Parliament having visited the Northern Territory.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator should not argue the matter.

Senator WALKER:

– My reason for asking the question is that some honorable senators might like to do exactly what he has done, in order to be able to judge for themselves as to the feasibility of working the Northern Territory with white labour.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– All I can promike is to bring the matter under the notice of my colleagues.

page 7313

COPYRIGHT BILL

Message received from the House of Representatives, stating that it had agreed to the Senate’s amendment in clause 75.

page 7313

PAPERS

Senator PLAYFORD laid upon the table the following papers : -

Report by Captain Collins, Secretary for Defence, on the various matters relating to the Canadian Defences and System of Defence Administration-

Report on Endemic and Epidemic Diseases in New Caledonia and the New Hebrides in relation to the Laws and Practice of Quarantine in Australia, by W. Ramsay Smith, D.Sc, M.B., CM., South Australia.

Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth and Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Co. Ltd.

Ordered to be printed.

Memorandum by the Agents-General, on the question of Immigration, dated London, 10th November,1905.

Report on the Inspection of the Military Forces in Tasmania by Major-General H. Finn, InspectorGeneral of the Military Forces of the Commonwealth.

Report on British New Guinea for the year ended 30th June, 1905.

page 7313

QUESTION

STATEMENTS BY MR. CARRUTHERS

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister in a position to lay on the table information regarding the statements of Mr. Carruthers, that was promised several days ago?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– I have not received the papers from the Department concerned.

Senator Pulsford:

– Can the Minister make any statement?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I am not in a position to do so. The matter is not in my Department. A request has been forwarded for the information required, but I have received no reply.

page 7313

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE INCREMENTS

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Whether all increments granted to civil servants for the current year and provided in the Appropriation Act are payable as from the beginning of this financial year.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

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

No. At least twelve months must elapse between the date of commencement of the previous increment and the date of commencement of the increment for the current year?

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, without notice, whether the return in regard to the increments, &c, to public servants will be circulated before the prorogation of Parliament?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– The return is, I understand, being printed. I shall ask that a copy be supplied to honorable senators, if possible, before the Senate rises.

page 7313

EXCISE (SUGAR) TARIFF BILL

Second Reading

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

– I am inclined heartily to fall in with the suggestion of the Minister. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of any proposal to limit the operation of the Excise Bill under ordinary circumstances, one has to remember, so far as this Bill is concerned, that we can only take ‘ it into consideration with due regard to the Tariff. I venture to say that long before 1913, this, or some other Chamber, will have an opportunity to discuss the whole Tariff question, and then can be reconsidered the extent and effect of the duty imposed on sugar under the Excise Bill. For the present, it seems quite immaterial whether the limit be fixed at 1913, or any other year. Parliament is simply left free to consider the whole matter between now and 1913; but the proposal throws on Parliament the obligation to reconsider the question if nothing is done in the meantime. Seeing that the Government have met us to some extent, and bearing in mind the absence of any disadvantages, I think we may fairly fall in with the proposal, and allow the Bill to go into Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time. hi Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

In lieu of the Duty of Excise imposed on sugar by the Excise Tariff 1902, there shall, as from and including the first day of January One thousand nine hundred and seven, be imposed* on sugar the following Duty of Excise : -

Sugar - per cwt. of manufactured sugar - Four shillings which duty shall be charged, collected, and paid to the use of the King for the purposes of the Commonwealth.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the clause by adding the following words :-“ until the first day of January One thousand nine hundred and thirteen.”

– But this Billfixes a definite date, and the Government ought really to consider what is meant by the amendment.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - As the Bill came to the Senate, no limit of time at all was fixed in regard to the Excise duty of £4 per ton; therefore, we are certainly doing something in the right direction. The amendment will make it compulsory on Parliament to reconsider the question, and, moreover, we are following on exactly the same lines as those followed in the previous Bill.

Request agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported witha request; report adopted.

page 7316

ELECTORAL BILL

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments) :

Clause 4 (Interpretation) -

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After paragraph a insert nev paragraph : - (aa) By omitting the words “ for Home Affairs “ and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ of State administeringthe Act.”

Any person who having announced himself within three months before the day of election as a candidate for election to the Parliament shall before the poll for the election is closet offer promise or give directly or indirectly to a for any club or other association, any gift, dona tion or prize, shall be guilty of an offence agains this section.

Senator Millen:

– I think that the provision ought to be general, and not limited to three months

Senator KEATING:

– Another new clause proposes to restrict the defamation of a candidate. It reads: -

Any person who makes or publishes any false and defamatory statement in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be liable on conviction to a penalty of one hundred pounds or six months’ imprisonment.

Provided always that it shall be a defence to a prosecution for an offence against this subsection if the defendant proves that he had reasonable ground for believing and did in fact believe the statement made or published by him to be true.

Provision is also made to enable a man to restrain by injunction the repetition of such an offence.

Senator Millen:

– Are not the circumstances sufficiently covered by the ordinary slander and libel laws?

Senator KEATING:

– The only difference is that under this new clause proceedings could be taken before a Court of summary jurisdiction.

Senator Dobson:

– That is all covered by the criminal libel provisions.

Senator KEATING:

– No. The honorable senator knows that if a candidate were to take advantage of those provisions, it would mean that the other person would have to be prosecuted on information or indictment, but under this new clause he could be punished summarily by a Court of summary jurisdiction acting under the Judiciary Act. We are asked by the other House to insert a. new clause, providing for a reduced rate in connexion with telegrams containing matter relative to an election, so long as they contain only - the names of divisions, names of candidates, and the numbers of votes polled for each candidate, and lodged for transmission on the day of or before noon on the day after the day of election may, subject to regulations, be transmitted on payment of the rates prescribed in the Second Part of the Second Schedule to the Post and Telegraph Kates Act 1902.”

– No. A candidate will be able to envelope and direct 1,000 addresses to be weighed at the postoffice, and to be transmitted at the same rate as is charged for” the transmission of newspapers, that is to say -

On all newspapers posted for delivery within the Commonwealth (without condition as to the number contained in each addressed wrapper), by registered newpaper proprietors, or by. newsvendors, or returned by an agent or news-vendor to the publishing office, one penny per twenty ounces on the aggregate weight of newspapers so posted by any one person at any one time.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Do I understand that for the sum of1d. a separate circular would be sent and delivered?

Senator KEATING:

– (Yes.

Senator Walker:

– Suppose that a candidate happened to be contesting a Senate seat for New South Wales, with its 600,000 electors, and sent through the post 600,000 addresses ?

Senator KEATING:

– If the addresses were not too heavy, they would go through the post at a very low rate. These are all the alterations which are of any importance. I thought it was better on the first amendment to indicate the general scope and purport of the amendments of the other House.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

-I am obliged to the Minister for outlining this very lengthy list of amendments, which, under ordinary circumstances,, would, I think, have provided material for at least a week’s work. The fact that, in order to consider the amendments, one has to be provided with the Act. the Bill as introduced here, the Bill as it left here, and a schedule of the amendments made by the other House, will give an idea as tothe intricate problems which is presented to those who desire to ascertain what changes have been made. That is another argument in favour of the contention that the Government ought to have brought in an amendingBill, instead of proceeding as they have done. There are two amendments to which, at the proper time,I shall invite attention. It will be remembered that I took an active part with regard to an amendment to place in the hands of a Commission the duty of subdividing each State into electorates, rather than to leave the plans of the Commissioners to be submitted for the approval of each House of the Parliament. I propose to ask the Committee to adhere to its decision, for reasons which I shall submit by-and-by. The other matter on which, I think, it might reasonably be asked to express its opinion, is the insertion of a new clause which proposes to make considerable financial concessions to candidates for election. I am entirely opposed to that proposition. Of course, the Minister, in merely indicating the scope of the amendments was not required to address any argument in its favour. The Senate is largely ignored, and that arises entirely from the fact that we have been content to take a subordinate position. I cannot conceive of any argument justifying them which will at all outweigh the strong feeling which is found to be entertained throughout the constituencies if it is seen that the Legislature has conferred any special concessions or privileges upon those who constitute the Parliament.

SenatorMulcahy. - All candidates should be treated alike.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am dealing with that new clause, which provides that postal and telegraphic facilities should be granted to candidates, as compared with the rates charged to other people transacting any other business. I would very much’ sooner see a proposal for increasing the emoluments of members of Parliament than see increases obtained in these petty ways.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment, inserting new clause 4A, agreed to.

Clause 8 -

TheGovernor-Generalmay appoint three persons in each State to be Commissioners for the purpose ofdistributing the State into Divisions in accordance with this Act.
The persons so appointed shall be respec tively a Judge of a Court ofthe State, the SurveyorGeneral or head of the Survey Department of the State, and the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for State, unless the GovernorGeneral, by reason of any of such persons not being available, or for other reason appearing to him to be sufficient, thinks fit to appoint other persons instead of any of such persons.
Each Commissioner shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit this clause.

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I have a few observations to make as to why this clause should not be omitted. There are two points to which I propose to address myself ; first, the merits of the proposal itself, and, secondly, the position of the Senate with regard to the other House in the shaping of the laws of this country. So far as the proposal itself is concerned, honorable senators will Be aware that it has been advocated on the ground that it is always difficult to expect a House of Parliament, the individual members of which are directly concerned, to be entirely free from personal bias or prejudice in matters of this kind. It was therefore thought by the Senate - and I hope we think so still - that this question should be taken altogether from Parliament, and placed in the hands of an absolutely impartial Commission, I could expand that argument, but the matter was before the Senate so recently that I do not propose to do so. But I would remind honorable senators, in justification of the fear expressed during the debate, that not long ago we had in the Federal Parliament itself subdivision schemes rejected with the result in the case of my own State - and I believe in two other States as well - a most inequitable representation of the people was secured. It was inequitable in this respect that on the one hand we had electorates of 10,000 and 12,000, and on the other hand, electorates of 30,000 people, having the same voice in the shaping of the laws of the country. The basis of our parliamentary system is. certainly equality of voting power. By general reasoning and experience we should be convinced that it is essential to remove from members, who are so directly and personally interested,the whole question of determining the boundaries of their individual electorates. I come now to what, to my mind, is an even more important reason why the Senate should adhere to its proposal. That the Minister should ask us to agree to the amendment of another place was inevitable. On a similar occasion some time since - though not in this session - I pointed out that it was unfortunate for the Senate, and one of the factors which was likely to weaken this Chamber, that we never could expect Ministers here to champion the rights of the Senate with regard to legislation; that whenever a dispute occurred between the two Houses, Ministers in the Senate were practically bound to support the. decision of the other House, and to ask us to surrender our will to the House of Representatives. That arises from the fact that a large number of Ministers are in the other House, and that’ that House more directly controls the fate of Governments. I pointed out that the Senate was seriously handicapped in having those who conduct its business, standing as advocates of the rights of the other Chamber against the Senate. That position is illustrated to-day. I make these remarks without personally reflecting upon the Minister in charge of the Bill, or his colleague. The position seems to me to arise from the facts of the case. It would occur whatever Minister was in charge, and whatever members of the Senate held office. I direct attention to the matter not so much with a view of criticising Ministers, as of pointing out the facts that have to be taken into considerati on, by the Senate, if it wishes to maintain the rights which the Constitution confers upon it. I have pointed out the disabilities under which the Senate is. placed in the fact that the Ministers who should be the natural leaders of any movement for the assertion of its rights naturally become advocates of the rights of the other Chamber. Another matter upon which I desire to touch is as to the right of the Senate to express its .will or to insist upon that expression being observed in relation to this matter. The chief argument, so far as I have been able to learn, against the proposal of the Senate is that this is .a subject which comes more exclusively within the province of the other branch of the Legislature, seeing that it affects the electorates of members of the House of Representatives. But I venture to say that there never has been brought before the Senate a proposal in which State rights were more closely involved than they are in this. The subdivision of a State into electorates affects the States, as States ; because the acceptance or, rejection, of a subdivision scheme may deprive a State of representation to which it is entitled, or may secure to a State representation to which it is not entitled. Let ustake the case of a redistribution being necessary after a census has been taken. Let it be assumed that, as the result of that census, one State is entitled to more members, and another State to less, than it previously enjoyed. A subdivision scheme is designed. It is submitted to the House of Representatives, which rejects it. It never comes before the Senate, and it would not matter if it did, because the proposal of the House of Representatives is that both Houses must approve. In the case which I have indicated, where the redistribution would secure larger representation to one State and smaller to another, the rejection of the subdivision scheme by the House of Representatives would have the effect of depriving one State of additional representation, and of securing to another State representation to which it was not entitled. Therefore, I say that it is entirely a matter of State concern which, properly comes within the functions which the Constitution imposes upon the Senate;. For that reason I hope that the Senate will stand by its proposal. Honorable senators are aware that not long since a member of this Chamber, who took a very prominent part in shaping the Constitution, expressed his profound dissatisfaction as to the state into which the Senate was drifting as a coordinate branch of the Federal Legislature and I am sure that if honorable senators expressed their candid opinion they would share that dissatisfaction. The Senate has not taken up that strong position which it was expected to occupy when Federation was first launched. It is rapidly drifting into the position not of a glorified Legislative Council, but of a Legislative Council unglorified.

Senator Pearce:

– Oh !

Senator MILLEN:

– -I am expressing my firm conviction.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– We have not reached that state of degradation yet.

Senator Pearce:

– I should resign if I thought that.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator will perhaps be saved the necessity of doing so if he waits a few months longer.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– What does the honorable senator mean by a professional politician ?

Senator DOBSON:

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– As the Senate is a co-ordinate branch of the Parliament, I cannot admit that the other House should have any more power with regard to the division of the States into electorates than it has. Each State is represented by six senators, and we are all supposed to take a broader view of questions than are the representatives of divisions of a State. Unfortunately, we have had a notable instance in which, from the want of a similar provision, New South Wales has been practically deprived of an additional member, and we cannot, without protest, admit that such a state of things should continue. Let us look at the provision in the new clause. The Commission would be altogether free from political ties, and would include a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State, the Surveyor-General, or head of the Survey Department of the State, and the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State, unless the Governor-General should think fit to appoint a gentleman to act on behalf of any one of them who could not perform the duty. It is our duty to see that the provisions of the Constitution are carried out. Why any politician should be at liberty to tamper with the Constitution, I fail to understand. In fact, our own action in appointing Judges to try distputed returns proves that we have found, by experience, that sometimes an outside authority will take a more impartial viewthan we can. I was on a Select Committee of the Senate in which, unfortunately, party feeling was carried to such an extent that, although we met over! and over again, we could not come to a satisfactory conclusion in regard to a petition against the appointment of a senator. I was very much struck then with the advisability of having an impartial tribunal like the Supreme Court to settle a matter of that sort. In like manner, I think that justice will more probably be done by adhering to our clause. Unfortunately, there is a tendency outside to look upon the Senate as a sort of revising Chamber. Even members of the other House have sometimes twitted us about it. Let us avail ourselves of this splendid opportunity to maintain the dignity of the Senate by adhering to our previous decision.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I do not think that we ought to be influenced by the fact that members of the otherHouse have expressed themselves in an unkind or improper way in regard to our action. We ought to view this matter from a right stand-point. I do not see any reason for departing from our previous judgment. In matters of this sort, it is in the highest degree desirable that any decision should be given by an entirely impartial tribunal. I have had, I suppose, as much experience in electoral matters as has the majority of the people. Time after time I have found that a correct decision has been prejudiced by the action of interested parties when they had to be the judges. The position of the members of the Senate as compared with that of members of. the other

House,, is, I think, equally strong, and equally needs safeguarding. We arecalled upon, I think, to see that the Stateis cared for, that its interests are not overlooked in any form, and that we do all that lies in our power to support everything which may tend to insure an impartial judgment, and preserve us from the prejudicial influence of any passing feeling which might be in the minds of honorable members in another place when matters of this sort came up for consideration. Therefore I trust that the Committee will firmly adhereto its clause.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:
New South Wales

– In his address, Senator de Largie seemed to confuse the issue as between the right of Parliament to legislate and the transfer of that right to some other body. In my speech I endeavoured to explain that in our action we were really asserting the rights of the Parliament, because we were prescribing the conditions under which the Commissioners should give their decision. The Commissioners provided for in the clause would not be men of whom we should have no knowledge, but men with whom we should be thoroughly well acquainted, and upon whom we could rely to do what was fair, just, and reasonable. If a man has committed an offence, he is not tried by the Parliament, but by some authority whom it has appointed for that purpose. The Parliament was called’ upon to provide for the division of the Stales into electorates, and it laid down the rules under which that work shall be done, and prescribed the persons by whom they were to be carried into effect. I think that if Senator de Largie will look at the question from that clear stand-point, he will see that the Parliament is not asked to surrender any of its rights.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 8

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to..

Amendment inserting new clauses9a, 9b, and12a and amendments in clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Subdivisions and polling places).

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Insert following new paragraph : - “ (44) Appoint such polling places for a division outside the division, but not more than ten miles from its boundary as he thinks necessary.”

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– Does not the Minister think that this amendment will lead to difficulties? It seems to me that there might, for instance, be polling places for the Melbourne electorate in the Kooyong electorate. Will they be distinguished from the Kooyong polling places?

Senator KEATING (Tasmania- Honorary Minister). - The powers under this provision will be exercised in the less densely populated localities. Persons might be upon the boundary of a division, and it would be more convenient for them to vote at a polling place outside their own division than in that division. To meet suchcases, officers are empowered to supervise the voting of electors at polling places outside their own divisions.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).What necessity is there for the insertion of this amendment? The words are surplusage. The original Bill provided that the Governor-General may appoint such other polling places for each division as he thinks fit. He does not say where they are to be located.

Senator Keating:

– The provision is not quite clear.

Senator MILLEN:

– I suppose that in furtherance of the policy of humiliation which it has taken upon itself, the Committee will agree to the amendment of the other House, whether advantageous or not. The Minister is always a traitor to the rights of the Senate.

Senator Keating:

– The same might be said by members of another place as to amendments accepted by the Minister there.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I wish to understand the effect of the amendment made by another place. Hitherto it has been the custom to establish polling booths all over the State of Queensland, at which electors can vote outside their own divisions. For instance, a man can vote in Brisbane for any division in Queensland. If this amendment is carried, it appears to me that that arrangement will be knocked upon the head.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania- Honorary Minister). - This amendment will not interfere with the present arrangements, but is intended to meet certain classes of cases. Where it may be convenient for a number of electors living on the boundary of an extensive constituency to vote at a polling place in an adjoining constituency, they will be permitted to do so.

Senator Turley:

– They can do that under the Bill as it stands.

Senator KEATING:

– But that provision of the Bill did not seem to contemplate the appointment of special polling places. What Senator Stewart has described applies also to Tasmania. One can vote in Launceston or Hobart for any electorate in the State. But this amendment will clearly indicate the class of cases to which I have referred.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - The Minister’s answer makes it clear that this amendment is either unnecessary or highly pernicious. First he says that this provision will not interfere with the existing arrangement. The GovernorGeneral already has power to make a polling place for a division in another division a mile away from it, or 500 miles away. But, on the other hand, the insertion of this amendment will limit the Governor-General to the appointment of a polling place outside the boundary of a division. On the well-known principle that where a certain thing is expressed other things are excluded, the amendment ought not to be agreed to. If the Governor-General wished to appoint a polling place in Adelaide to be the polling place for some other part of South Australia, he would not be able to do it, because it might be said that the other division was more than ten miles away. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).The statement has been made, although, perhaps, the Chairman did not hear it, that I had no authority to pair Senator Symon in the last division. I wish to put it on record that I had absolute and unqualified authority to pair Senator Symon on the second reading or otherwise, as I liked.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Committee has nothing to do with pairs.

Senator MILLEN:

– Nevertheless, I draw your attention to the remark.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I made the remark referred to, because, in a previous division, Senator Playford voted. Senator Millen said that he had no authority to pair Senator Symon on that occasion

Senator Millen:

– I had every authority, and I made no such statement.

Amendment in clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 17 -

Section fifty-six ofthe Principal Act is repealed, and the following section is substituted in lieu thereof : - “ 56. Claims may be in the Form B in the Schedule, and shall be signed by the claimant and witnessed by an elector, and shall be sent to the Electoral Registrar keeping the Pollingplace Sub-division or Division Roll on which the elector claims to be enrolled.”

House of Representatives’ Amendments. - Omit “and witnessed by an elector”; insert “or” after “polling-place”; and omit “or division.”

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the amendments be agreed to.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I desire to take this opportunity to make a personal explanation. It will be remembered that just before the adjournment a dispute arose between Senator Millen and myself as to authority for pairs. I have since ascertained that Senator Millen has authority from Senator Symon to pair him, and that Senator Playford has given a “ dead “ pair, which Senator Millen can call for at any time. I have to say that I was entirely under a misapprehension. At the same time, it would be much more satisfactory if authority of this kind were exercised before the bells stopped ringing, so as to avoid misunderstanding.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

-I drawattention to the fact that these amendments open up a question which was discussed when the Bill was originally before the Committee. The effect of them is to place those charged with the administration of the Bill in a possible difficulty.. As honorable senators are aware, it is quite optional whether those who administer the Act divide the electorate into subdivisions or polling places, or leave it as one division. The amendments have been passed on the assumption that there will be subdivisions, but if there are not, there can only be one roll for a division. The provision was that where there was. a subdivision roll, an electors could have his name on that roll, or, otherwise, on the polling place roll, but that when there was no polling place or subdivision roll, then the name went on the general roll.

Senator Keating:

– There will be a polling place roll.

Senator MILLEN:

– I should like an assurance to the effect that the difficulty I have indicated is not likely to arise.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I am assured that there is no electorate in which there is not a number of polling places and polling place rolls. Whether there be subdivisions or not, there will be a number of polling place rolls, which, in the aggregate, will constitute the division poll, though not printed as a separate document. The words “ polling place “ cover all possible cases that can arise.

Senator Millen:

– If that be so, it would be better to have it so set out in the Act than to leave it to the option of those who havethe administration. If each electorate is subdivided the Bill may work all right.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 19 -

Section sixty of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “ Returning Officers for a Division,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ Electoral Registrar keeping the Polling place or Sub-Division Roll.”

House of Representatives’ Amendments. - After “ amended “ insert “ (a) by omitting the words in the presence of a witness,’ and inserting in lieu thereof the words ‘and witnessed by an elector’ ; (i).”

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the amendmentbe agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I do not propose to do more than direct the attention of the Committee to this amendment, which is one of a series, the effect of which is to very materially alter a provision made by the Senate in regard to witnesses. It will be seen that the House of Representatives have substituted an ordinary elector for one of the authorized witnesses in certain cases, and in other cases has dispensed with the witnesses altogether.

Motion agreed to.

Amendments in clauses 20, 21, and 26, new head-line, and new clause 2 6b, and amendments in clause 27, agreed to.

Clause 28 -

After section one hundred and nine of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - “ 109a. The following persons are authorized witnesses within the meaning of this Act : -

All Commonwealth Electoral Officers for States … all Postmasters Postmistresses or persons in charge of Post-offices; all Police or Stipendiary or Special Magistrate of the Commonwealth or a State ; all Justices of the Peace . . . all legally qualified medical practitioners.

Amendment inserting the word “or” after the word “Postmasters,” line 6, agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit “ or persons in charge of post-offices “ ; insert “ who are permanent officers in the Public Service of the Commonwealth.”

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I do not think that the Senate ought to agree to this amendment, which will throw unnecessary obstacles in the way of people in vastly-populated districts voting by post. We have been told that the principal abuse in connexion with this system of voting occurs in the large cities where “ persons in charge of post-offices “ do not exist.

Senator Pearce:

– There are a number of contract post-offices within half-a-mile of the city of Melbourne.

Senator STEWART:

– In any case, the electors have access to other public servants, whereas in the back-blocks the person in charge of the post-office may be the only official within a day’s journey. It has been suggested that these persons in charge of post-offices may not be respectable - that they may be more amenable to questionable influences than other public servants. If they are not respectable they should not be permitted to hold even unofficial positions in the service of the Commonwealth. The suspicious frame of mind which seems to possess certain honorable senators is, in my opinion, a real affliction. They should proceed on the assumption that every man is honest until he has been discovered in the perpetration of some dishonorable act. Instead of that, every man who has not the hall mark of the Commonwealth Public Service, and is not stamped eighteen carat as a Public Service officer, is not regarded as an honest man. This is a flagrant libel upon a large section of the citizens of the Commonwealth. What we should consider is the convenience of the people for whom this system of voting was devised, and at times a person in charge of a post-office may be the only witness available to an elector unless he is prepared to undertake a journey whichmay involve theloss of a day in hunting up a legal witness under this clause.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 11

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit, (clause 28) “ All justices of the peace.”

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

-I regard this amendment as a positive insult to the unpaid magistracy. It is absurd to suggest that justices of the peace should not be capable of witnessing an application by a man to be entered on the electoral roll. I should look upon justices as the very best men for the purpose.

Senator STEWART (Queensland). - Being a justice of the peace myself, I naturally feel some delicacy in dealing with this amendment. It would appear that the letters “J.P. “ after a man’s name, instead of being the hall mark of uprightness, integrity, and honesty, are regarded as the sign manual of iniquity. That is how the letters have been interpreted by our honorable friends in another place. I do not consider whether individual justices of the peace have acted wrongly or rightly, but I look at the question broadly, and consider whether it would be a convenience to the electors if justices of the peace were permitted to witness these applications. I think that it would. The justice of the peace holds an official public position. If he abuses his office he ought to be brought to book in the ordinary fashion, but until he does so we should proceed on the assumption that the State has been justified in appointing him to that honorable position. In the bush it is almost impossible to get a public servant who could witness these applications, and justices of the peace are often the only persons available for the purpose. I hope the Committee will not agree to the amendment.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I agree with every word that has been said by Senator Stewart, but at the same time I am bound to point out the very grave danger of the course the honorable senator has advocated. He must recognise that when this Bill left the Senate we included justices of the peace in the list of authorized witnesses, but the other House has ventured to strike that out. What Senator Stewart now asks the Committee to do, without the slightest tremor, and without any evidence of nervousness that I could discover, is to disagree with an amendment suggested by the House of Representatives.

Senator Stewart apparently is willing to ask the Committee to precipitate the Senate into the dangerous position of venturing to express an opinion at variance with that expressed by the House of Representatives.

Senator Stewart:

– I do it with bated breath.

Senator MILLEN:

– Certain honorable senators have decided that the Senate shall accept the position of recording angel for another place, and though I might have been prepared to vote on a matter of principle to disagree with the amendment of another place, it is unnecessary to waste time in disagreeing with an amendment which is of no great importance.

Senator Pearce:

– Why did the honorable senator vote in the last division against the House of Representatives’ amendment ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Because I happened to be sitting on this side, and because I believe in the proposal. I recognise that certain honorable senators have absolutely branded the Senate as the subordinate House of the Parliament, and have decided that its sole function is to fall in with any views to which the House of Representatives has given expression. On an amendment involving a principle of major importance, honorable senators have accepted the suggestion of Ministers that their business is merely to fall in with the views expressed in another place. As we have decided that we should do so in matters of vital importance, it appears to me to be a waste of time, of which we have not now too much to spare, to disagree with the House of Representatives on matters of much less moment.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– I agree with Senator Stewart that we should include justices of the peace amongst those authorized to witness these claims. It is absurd to say that whilst a policeman may be trusted to carry out this duty, a justice of the peace, who is appointed to his office as a man of integrity, standing, and position in the community, cannot be trusted to perform the same duty. A justice of the peace accepts grave responsibilities as such, and is invested with a power of imprisonment. Surely a man who is given the power to take away the liberty of another might be trusted to witness a document of comparatively little importance. Something has been said about the Senate being a recording House for the decisions of the House of Representatives, and the reference was: to the proposal made in the Senate to appoint Commissioners to distribute the States into electorates.

Senator Millen:

– And for which the honorable senator voted.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I did, and I am as strongly in favour of the principle as ever, but in expressing my approval of the clause submitted by the honorable senator, I recognised that the matter was one which peculiarly affected honorable members in another place, and I said that if they insisted that the distribution by the Commissioners should be supervised by Parliament, 1 would not be prepared to insist on the amendment carried in the Senate on the Bill as originally introduced.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I am at variance with certain honorable members in another place, who apparently have no faith in the eligibility of justices of the peace to act as witnesses to the signatures of electors. In my opinion, some of the assertions which have been made in* regard to these gentlemen are too sweeping and altogether undeserved. If the attention of the authorities has been drawn to cases in which justices of the peace have not exercised due caution and carried out their functions properly, they, should be removed from the commission of the peace. But to s,ay that because there are a few isolated cases of that kind all justices of the peace are to be placed in the same category is doing a manifest wrong to a large body of men who are performing responsible duties to the satisfaction of thousands of citizens throughout the Commonwealth. I believe that too many conveniences, cannot be provided for those who desire to vote. I wish to see that responsible persons shall be appointed for that purpose. I wish justices, of the peace to be shown that respect which they deserve. They are called upon to perform public duties, and apparently their only reward is abuse from a certain section of the community. I do not suggest that justices of the peace do not make mistakes at times. When we have a large army of honorary magistrates, is it to be expected that all their acts will meet with the approbation of every citizen? I voted for the post and telegraph officers being included in the list of eligible witnesses because they were Commonwealth officers, whose appointment would very greatly convenience a number of persons. If we cannot trust those over whom we have some control, whom can we trust? For these reasons I intend to vote against the amendment.

Motion negatived.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit (clause 28) “ all legally qualified medical practitioners.’

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - I think it is very desirable to retain legally qualified medical practitioners, in the list of eligible witnesses. In the case of a female voter it is very necessary that her medical adviser should be competent to witness the document if she desired to vote by post.

Motion negatived.

Amendments in clauses 32, 38, and 46 ; amendment inserting new clause 4<5a; amendments in clauses 47, new clause 47 a, and amendments in clause 50 agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Insert new clauses : - 50A. After section two hundred and two of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - “ 202A. - (1) No party to the petition shall, except by consent of all parties, be represented by counsel or solicitor.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I move -

That the amendment be amended by the insertion of the words “ or by leave of the Court “ after the word “ parties.”

The spirit of the amendment will be preserved by my proposal, but it will prevent the possibility of one party debarring the Court from having the benefit of counsel in very complicated cases, perhaps involving constitutional difficulties. Section 27 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act gives effect to the principle of my amendment.

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- I do not think that the Committee ought to agree to the insertion of these words in the new clause, because it would rest with’ the Court to say whether or not counsel should appear. In my opinion, it would be far better to allow the provision to remain in its present form.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I am opposed to the alteration of the new clause, because I desire that an, appeal of this sort shall be as free as possible from legal difficulties or heavy expense. Suppose that a poor man believed that he had been “jockeyed” out of a seat by underhand means, or by some means which in his opinion would justify an appeal to the Court. If the Court were free to allow the other party to engage expensive counsel, he would be greatly handicapped. I think that the provision to allow one party to be represented by counsel, with the consent of the other party, is a fair one. I contend that the Court should not be asked to decide whether counselshall appear or not. We should not subject a poor man to the handicap of having to meet counsel feed without regard to cost.

Senator Millen:

– No; because there is a. limit to the cost.

Senator GIVENS:

– The honorable senator knows very well that in the old days many expensive counsel never fought a case for a fee, but fought merely for the love of equity and justice. They never reached out their hand to take a fee, but they kept in the back of their gown a pocket into which the money could be put - a fashion which is still followed. A high and mighty counsel who would be above taking filthy lucre for discharging a high and honorable duty always kept in’ the back of his gown a pocket where he could not see the client putting in a dirty fee; but it got there just the same. It will get there just the same under this. The poor man who takes his case into Court, should not be handicapped by having to employ expensive counsel. Any one who is possessed of a fair knowledge of our election law is permitted to plead his own case. The Judge is supposed to be qualified, and there ought to be no need for counsel to assist him. If counsel’s services are necessary, the Court should pay for them.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - I think that the honorable senator’s objection to the amendment made by the House of Representatives does more credit to his heart than to his head. Let me instance a case that might occur. Suppose a man new to public life found himself opposed in an election to the present Attorney-General,admittedly one of the leaders of his profession. Would it be fair that this untrained man should have no assistance in his contest with one of the keenest legal intellects in the Commonwealth ?

Senator Stewart:

– That is a very extreme case.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is by no means an extreme case. But suppose that Senator Givens himself was opposed by a very much less experienced candidate. What chance would that man have in his contest before the Court? Is it fair that an ordinary layman opposing a legal candidate should be deprived of legal assistance if he can obtain it? We can push this care for the poor man too far. It is fair and equitable that if the parties cannot agree as to engaging counsel, the Judge, whose integrity we can trust, should have a discretionary power.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted in the amendment be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 8

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of the amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Verbal amendment in clause 51 agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - At end of clause 51 add : - 206B. - (1) Any person who having announced himself within three months before the day of election as a candidate for election to the Parliament, shall before the poll for the election is closed offer promise or give directly or indirectly to or for any club or other association, any gift, donation or prize, shall be guilty of an offence against this section. Penalty : Five pounds in addition to any other penalty provided by law.

Providedalways that it shall be a defence to a prosecution for an offence against this subsection if the defendant proves that he had reasonable ground for believing and did in fact believe the statement made or published by him to be true.

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I intend to move an amendment to strengthen proposed new clause 206c, which deals with the case of any person who publishes any false or defamatory statement. The amendment which I intend to move has reference to a newspaper that publishes false or defamatory statements. Although it may seem to make a candidate a judge in his own. cause, my proposal would enable a candidate to apply to a resident or stipendiary magistrate for an order directing the person who has published the false or defamatory statement to afford space for a reply. In other words, it is an attempt to bring into electioneering the principle of fair play. It provides that where a statement is made criticising the action of the candidate, he shall be given, if the statement is made unfairly, an opportunity to place his reply before the public. If the person who has made the statement fails to carry out the order of the Court, a penalty is provided. It may be argued that newspapers are private property, and that by this amendment we should be interfering with private property. I reply that they are public property. They are powerful weapons for influencing public opinion. When the owner of a newspaper uses it in a public contest to prejudice a certain candidate, he should be prepared to give the candidate space to defend himself. In another place a similar provision was introduced at a late hour. Since then it has been re-drafted and carefully considered ; and I am assured that in its present form it will be acceptable to many of those who previously opposed it. The matter was not taken to a division elsewhere, and I feel sure that if the Senate adopts my amendment it will be accepted as merely carrying out the principles, embodied in the proposal sent to us by the House of Representatives.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– I do not take it that Senator Pearce has absolutely submitted his amendment, and, in any case, it has not yet been put from the Chair. I suggest that these proposed new clauses be submitted to the Committee separately.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It would be more convenient to deal with the proposednew clauses in that way, considering that they deal with separate questions. The first new clause concerns gifts by candidates.

Senator Walker:

– I suppose this clause does not include the annual fee which may be paid to a cricket club?

The CHAIRMAN:

– That depends on when the fee is paid.

Senator PEARCE:

– It must not be within three months of the day of election.

Senator Millen:

– I do not think these fees should be given at all.

Senator Keating:

– Such a payment will not be a gift, donation, or prize, but art annual subscription as member of the cricket club.

Question - That proposed new clause 206b be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That proposed new clause 206c be agreed to.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - I move -

That the following be added to the proposed new clause 206c : - “ (3) If, after any person has publicly announced his intention to become a candidate at an election, any newspaper -

Penalty : Twenty-five pounds.

Penalty : Ten pounds.”

No amendment shall be proposed to an amendment of the House of Representatives that is not relevant thereto ; nor can an amendment be moved to the Bill unless the same be relevant to, or consequent upon, either the acceptance, amendment, or the rejection of a House of Representatives’ amendment.

That standing order, in my opinion, makes it abundantly clear that any amendment submitted at this stage must be relevant to the amendment under consideration. The amendment sent to us from the House of Representatives proposes to provide a new tribunal for a candidate who complains of slander or libel.

SenatorMillen. - The honorable senator is now dealing with the merits of the amendment proposed by the House of Representatives.That amendment provides that a candidate who complains of libel may, instead of seeking the protection of the ordinary Law Courts by a somewhat lengthy process, take summary proceedings and, temporarily, at all events, obtain an order directing the “cessation of the libel. But Senator Pearce now submits an amendment entirely foreign to the proposal of the House of Representatives. He proposes that a newspaper statement, which clearly cannot be libel, for that is provided for in 206c -

But it is perfectly in order to propose any amendment to an amendment made by the one

House to a Bill of the other House, provided it is” consequential “ in its nature, that is to say, consequent upon, or relevant to the amendment under consideration.

– One is just as bad as the other.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Being an outandout free-trade newspaper, the Argus is sure to be the biggest sinner. The report of the incident referred to is absolutely untrue. It is absolutely impossible for us to believe that the Argus reporters, sitting in the gallery, within sound of our voices, and with their eyes open, even although they wear winkers or blinkers, did not understand what was taking place here. It would be a gross insult to them to refuse to say that they declined to put down what did take place, and deliberately put down what did not take place. What conclusion can we draw? It is that, when the report was sent to the office, it was not to the interest of the conductors of the journal that the whole truth should be told. There is a difference between the Argus and the Age, and it is that the Age report, although condensed, was fairly accurate. The part of the Age report of which I complain is the statement that we had wasted an hour of time in calling attention to the perquisites of Members of Parliament. We drew the attention of the general public to the fact that it is not safe to rely on the statements, which are made in the public journals, including the Argus and the Age.

In its original statement, the Argus singled out Senators Smith and Neild for contempt, but to-day it admits that their names are not mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report, and that it interpolated them into the report. What kind of honesty and decencyis that ? The newspaper claims that it ran into its paragraph three paragraphs from the Auditor-General’s report. Was there any indication given by a mark which is known to a newspaper reader, that the paragraph contained three items from the Auditor-General’s report? Absolutely none. It was a deliberate and most malicious attempt to cast a slur upon, this Parliament. As this is true with regard to newspapers in Melbourne, so it is generally true with regard to the daily newspapers in the capital of every other State.

Senator Gray:

– Do the weekly labour newspapers state everything which is, true.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The weekly labour newspapers will fight for their principles and party as vigorously as any other newspapers will do; but, at the same time, they will give fair play. If, for instance, the honorable senator were to feel aggrieved by a statement made in a labour newspaper concerning his principles, or his arguments, or his conclusions, he would be allowed space in which to point out that it was utterly mistaken. On the other hand, the daily: newspapers will blackguard a man, insinuate anything about a Member of Parliament, and will not publish a solitary line in contradiction of their statement. I have had personal experience of both the Age and the Argus in that respect. It would be the quintessence of hypocrisy on our part to protect or shelter these miserable rags, and the contemptible humbugs and hypocrites who run them. For these reasons I am not only in favour of the new clause to which we are asked to agree, but also of the addition which Senator Pearce desired to make, and I am very sorry that these maligners cannot be introduced to the gaol barber.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania - Honorary Minister). - The proposal before the Committee is to insert new clause 206c. I hope that Senator Pearce will not press his amendment, becaus.e, i in my opinion, the new clause will amply protect the most tender-skinned candidate from the abuse of free criticism at the time of an election. I agree with some honorable senators that there is a disposition on the part of certain persons in public life to too strongly deprecate criticism. I agree that there must be not only freedom of speech for Members of Parliament, but also a reciprocal freedom on the part of those who are called upon in the public interests to criticise their actions and their utterances. There may be certain newspapers which, in the opinion of honorable senators very often go too far, but whether we take daily or monthly newspapers, or newspapers which voice the aspirations of any particular class, they are all tarred with the same brush, and possess just the same amount of virtue and vice as does an ordinary individual. They have their partisan feeling, and they act in. just the same way as does a private individual with respect to public questions. Undoubtedly the newspapers exercise very great power, and influence the mind of the community very largely. I know from per.sonal experience that in many instances they do resort to tactics in connexion with elections which must be reprehended very strongly by those who become the victims of them. When I was standing for a country’ electorate, a. newspaper brought out a most unblushing damaging statement regarding myself about three days before the date of polling. It arrived, and was disotributed in the district on the evening before polling day, while I was on my way back to a town in Tasmania. I did not see the statement until the day of the elec-i tion.

Senator Findley:

– This amendment would not protect a man in a case like that.

Senator KEATING:

– It could not possibly protect me in that case because I was not in a position to take any action. On the morning of the polling day the newspaper came out with a statement to the effect that, following its usual fair practice, it did not publish any statements regarding candidates on that day. It published the, damaging statement three days before polling day, and got it distributed in the constituency on the evening prior to that date, when it was too late for me to get in any reply which could get back to the constituency. The new clause to which we are asked to agree provides that if a candidate be defamed as to his personal character or conduct, the person who is responsible for such defamation, whether he be the owner of the newspaper, or a ma,n who has simply circulated ai print got up for the occasion, shall be guilty of an offence, and liable on conviction to a penalty of £100 or six months’ imprisonment. That means that the party aggrieved can take summary proceedings before a stipendary or special magistrate under the provisions of the Judiciary Act. It also provides that - it shall be a defence to a prosecution for an offence against this sub-section if the defendant proves that he had reasonable ground for believing and did in fact believe the statement made or published by him to be true.

In other words, any person who has been guilty of making an untrue statement, or of knowingly defaming a candidate, could be prosecuted summarily. It would not be necessary for the party aggrieved to wait for the tedious process of law connected with a prosecution for criminal libel if it amounted to that, or the tedious process of the law which is necessary for recovering damages in a civil action. But he can take the party straight into a Court of summary jurisdiction, and have him dealt with there ; and he may restrain a repetition of the offenceby an injunction. That, I think, gives veryample protection to a candidate who may fear hostile criticism.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It is not hostile criticism, but untruthful criticism to which it refers.

Senator KEATING:

– If the honorable senator had read the amendment, he would know that it is not necessarily untrue criticism. The truth may often prejudice a candidate. And who is to be the judge as to whether or nota published statement unfairly prejudices an election?

Senator Pearce:

– The magistrate.

Senator KEATING:

– I. do not know that under any Statute in any State of the Commonwealth discretion is given to such a tribunal to determine whether or not a published statement is unfair. In an action for libel, the Judge himself has no jurisdiction to determine whether the matter complained of is, or is not. in fact libellous. He has no jurisdiction to determine whether or not a newspaper has or has not in fact exceeded the bounds of fair comment. All that he can do is to day down principles. The jury alone can determine whether the matter complained of is libellous. The. jury has to determine whether or not the newspaper in question has gone beyond the bounds of fair comment. But here we are asked to give to a stipendiary magistrate a jurisdiction which is not even reposed in a Judge of the SupremeCourt. I admit that newspapers, especially when they take a partisan view of politics, often exert a power which may absolutely crush a certain, candidate. But the clause as it stands enables a candidate to take proceedings in a Court of summary jurisdiction. It protects a candidate against unfair or unwarrantable criticism. He can take proceedings to restrain a newspaper. The honorable senator ought to be satisfied with the provision inserted by the House of Representatives. His own amendment would prove to be impracticable and unworkable.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I hope that every honorable senator who values courage and manliness of character will vote against this amendment. The press, as a whole, is fair, though there are times when things are done which are to be regretted. But any newspaper of standing which values its position recognises the obligation to allow anybody who has been aspersed in’ its column to give an explanation. There are newspapers in Australia which have not been true to that position; they have suffered in reputation in consequence. But could there be anything more unsatisfactory than the position of a candidate fighting his way through an electorate who has to admit that he has been a party to this provision ? It might do him more harm than any newspaper criticism could possibly do. I also draw attention to the self-evident fact that any criticism which appeared in a newspaper two or three days before an election could not possibly be affected by the amendment proposed by Senator Pearce; and it is statements that are published immediately before an election that are of the greatest importance. I do earnestly impress upon every member of the Senate who values his reputation for courage and manliness in conducting a political fight to vote against this proposal.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I intend to move an amendment to Senator Pearce’s amendment. Some provision of the kind is really required. It is all very well for Senator Pulsford, who has the daily press of Sydney at his back, to talk about manliness and courage. We are all very courageous when we are well supported. But Parliament should legislate to protect the man who has no support behind him.. I agree with all that Senator Dawson has said with reference to the daily press. There is no getting away from the fact that it is often grossly unfair. Fortunately for many of us, we have no reason to care about the unfairness of the Melbourne press.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Why should we ask for special privileges for ourselves in which the public will not be allowed to participate ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– We are quite justified in inserting such a provision in the law with which we are dealing. The press is a great power, but a great responsibility rests upon it. We should impose some penalty for gross unfairness at election times. For my part, if I could formulate a law compelling the press to publish the truth at all times, and to punish newspaper proprietors for not publishing it whenthey profess to give an account of the proceedings of Parliament, I should do so. But I see a difficulty in the way of a proposition of that kind. As the newspapers exert a great power, I would place upon them a severe penalty for an abuse of the responsibility resting upon them.

Senator Findley:

– We ought not to forget that if they are powerful their power is derived from the people.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I have never obtained any daily newspaper support during my political career. I have at all times been able to snap my fingers at it. But I recognise the unfair treatment that some of the public journals mete out to candidates. The treatment of which I complain not only concerns the party to which I belong. Since I have been a member of this Chamber I have observed that honorable senators opposite have been continually carped at. Senator Fraser has been as much criti- cisedby the Age as any member of the Senate.

Senator Fraser:

– I never mind it.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I move-

That the amendment to the House of Representatives’ amendment be amended by leaving out the words “ Penalty, £25,” and the words “ Penalty, £10,” and adding the following words : - “ and the owner, manager, publisher, printer, or editor shall publish the correction as ordered. Penalty,£25.”

Senator Findley:

– Why make the publisher responsible? The publisher of the Age or the Argus has no control over the journal.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– My honorable friend’s acquaintance with the law of libel will have shown him the necessity of mentioning almost everybody who is responsible

For the production of a newspaper, if the right person is to be reached. Otherwise responsibility will be avoided.

Amendment of the amendment to the House of Representatives’ amendment agreed to.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - I have seldom listened to a reply from any Minister which more skilfully answered something not contained in the proposition under consideration, and more cleverly evaded replying to what was really proposed, than was the case with Senator Keating’s speech upon my amendment. He must be aware that I do not propose to deal with attacks on the private character of Individuals. I deal with attacks on their public character, and their public policy, which are of infinitely greater importance to a politician at election time. In order that fair play may be given to candidates who are unfairly attacked in reference totheir public policy, an opportunity should be secured to them to reply. The same facilities should be given as have been taken to make the charges. Those honorable senators whovote against this amendment will vote against fair play in electoral affairs. Those who vote for it will support the principle that our great journals in political fights shall be conducted on the lines of fair play. Its opponents will enable the newspapers to carry on the despicable tactics to which they have resorted to in the past.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I was in hopes that Senator Pearce would withdraw his amendment, which, I think, will be practically ineffective. According to the honorable senator’s proposal, it will be an offence to publish anything which may pre judice the candidate’s chances of election, unless the newspaper affords an opportunity for reply. But newspapers occasionally publish, in the public interest, statements which are absolutely true, but which undoubtedly prejudice the chances of a candidate. I speak with some little experience, and I have suffered from misrepresentation by the press. Miserable parochial untruths have been told of me, and there have been serious distortions of my public conduct. But the publication of the real truth was much more harmful at the time. The imposition of an income tax in Tasmania was a proposal of which myself and my colleagues were all proud, but it was that proposal which really condemned us politically ; andyet, according to Senator Pearce’ s proposal, a newspaper which made reference to facts which would prejudice our election-

Senator O’Keefe:

– But there would have been no dispute about the facts in such a case as that.

Senator MULCAHY:

– But the press pointed out all sorts of consequences that would follow the imposition of an income tax, and while these comments doubtlessly seriously prejudiced our election, I am sure that no judicial tribunal would, on that ground, have condemned the press. I wish it were possible to make the press act fairly and justly, but I am afraid that, by some of the proposals from another place which we have adopted, we are in danger of making ourselves ridiculous. We can no more make editors truthful or virtuous by Act of Parliament, than we can make people sober by the same means.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

– I, too, am afraid that by legislation of this sort we may make ourselves ridiculous. Is it proposed that the press shall be allowed no liberty - that it shall be gagged? A free press is a most valuable institution in any community. There are truthful newspapers and lying newspapers, just as there are truthful men and lying men. Under the proposal of Senator Pearce, although a candidate’s character might be as black as night, no adverse comments could be made by the press on the ground that it would prejudice his chances. I have been in political life for thirty years, and I have always found the press, as a whole, willing to give me fair treatment, and to insert any contradictions which were necessary. We Shall stand higher in the public estimation if we avoid passing silly provisions such as this. Although’ the press may sometimes go too far, it is too valuable an institution to be hedged round with undue restrictions. Personally, a section of the press in another State has been hammering at me for years past. The Bulletin has been “ at me “ for goodness knows how long, but I do not mind ; it does not affect me in the least. I have known cases of men being returned ‘to Parliament for no other reason than that they had been persecuted by the press. If a candidate has a just claim, and is not too thin-skinned. he will get fair play, on the whole.

Question - That the amendment to the House of Representatives’ amendment as amended be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment to the House of Representatives’ amendment, as amended, negatived.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania- Honorary Minister). - This is a different proposal from that submitted by Senator Pearce. This is a practicable and workable provision, the essence of the offencebeing the publication of something whichis false and defamatory. On the otherhand, the essence of the offence in the- clause proposed by Senator Pearce was that the statements were calculated to unfairly prejudice the candidate - purely a matter of opinion. The term of imprisonment provided is the maximum ; and, according to the Acts Interpretation Act, the offence is one cognizable summarily - that is to : say, under the Judiciary Act a case may be taken before a police, stipendiary, or special magistrate authorized to act in a Federal judicial capacity. Senator Gould has pointed out that ‘an aggrieved person will also have the remedy at common law for defamation, but that might result in giving the remedy at a time when it was of little use. Therefore the matter may be dealt with summarily. There are other provisions in the clause, notably those in the paragraph marked “2,” by which the candidate can restrain the repeated commission of the offence. In other words, he can make application for an injunction to restrain the repeated publication of the defamatory matter. I think that this is a provision which might stand, as no candidate would be likely to take advantage of it who had not a very clear case to take before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. It is not a provision such as the last, which we have negatived, and which would have the effect, if it were included in the measure, of restraining newspapers from indulging in faithful and honest criticism.

Question - That proposed new clause 206c be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 6

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 206d agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - At end of clause 51 add : -

After section two hundred and seven of the Principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ 207A. Any candidate duly nominated for election as a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives shall, subject to regulations and to the payment of the charges prescribed in the First Schedule to the Post and Telegraph Rates Act 1902, be entitled to transmit through the post one copy of an election address or manifesto relating to such candidature, to each elector whose name appears on the roll for the State or Division, as the case may be, for which the candidate is nominated.”

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - It does seem to me to be extremely undesirable that we should be conferring upon candidates for parliamentary honours privileges not conferred upon the general community. The purpose of this new clause is to give candidates some privileges which they have not now and to relieve them of some expense which would otherwise be thrown upon them. I ask honorable senators not to agree to this amendment, that we may show the people outside that we are not prepared to obtain in this way concessions which we cannot honestly justify.

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- I am sorry that I cannot agree with Senator Millen. In whose interest will these election manifestoes be published? Evidently in the interest of the electors ; and in the circumstances it is not asking anything unreasonable to require the Postal Department to carry these documents at newspaper rates.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - I point out that while under this clause a candidate is to be entitled to transmit through the post one copy of an election address or manifesto relating to his candidature to each elector whose nameappears on the roll for the State or division for which he is nominated, it means that the manifestoes will be carried through the post for1d. for 20 ozs. Where there is a letter delivery, the letter-carriers will have the duty cast upon them of distributing the manifestoes, and possibly a manifesto will have to be delivered to each of eighty electors at a cost to the candidate of1d. Ordinary persons are not to be given this concession, and we do not propose, that it should be extended to candidates for the States Parliaments. I would prefer that Parliament should be invited to pay each candidate the whole of the expenses incurred in his candidature directly,rather than that concessions to candidates should be made in this way.

Question - That proposed new clause 207a be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 4

NOES: 20

Majority … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

House of Representatives’ amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment in clause 53, amendment omitting clause 54, and amendments in the schedules agreed to.

Resolutions reported ; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Keating) agreed to -

That a Committee, consisting of the Honorary Minister (Senator Keating) and Senators Millen and Stewart, be appointed to prepare and bring up reasons for disagreeing to certain amendments of the House of Representatives.

Reasons brought up and adopted.

page 7344

QUESTION

REFRESHMENT ROOM

The PRESIDENT:

– I beg to lay upon the table a report from the Joint House Committee as to the working of the refreshment room. It is not in print, and as it is not very long, perhaps the Clerk mayreadit ?

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear !

Report read by the Clerk.

Senator Croft:

– Is not the report open for discussion, sir?

The PRESIDENT:

– Not now, but the honorable senator can move that it be printed and discuss it on some other day.

Motion (by Senator Croft) agreed to -

That the report be printed.

page 7344

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1903-4 AND I904-5

Second Reading

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 postponed.

Schedules.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– In connexion with the Department of the Treasury there is a sum of £3,352 f°r payment into trust fund, Government printer., “ to enable temporary charges to be made in respect of departmental printing.” What is meant by that?

Senator Playford:

– It means that a trust fund is formed for the purpose of securing certain material, and, as work is done, that material is charged to the various Departments.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - I beg to call attention to the item of .£400 which,, under the heading of the House of Representatives, is provided as “Allowances towards, expenses of candidates at elections which were declared void.” I should like to know whether this money was paid under any resolution!, and also the names of the candidates affected. Have all such expenses been paid?

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

– In the cases of Mr. Chanter, Mr. Blackwood, Sir Malcolm McEacharn, and Mr. Maloney the elections were declared void through no fault of the candidates, and this money is towards the expense to which the candidates were put.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Gould., - Do I ‘understand that the expenses, were paid to all candidates under similar circumstances, whether thev were successful or unsuccessful ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Yes. Sir Malcolm McEacharn was an unsuccessful candidate.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Is this money paid on a resolution by both Houses, or only on the determination of one House?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The moneywas voted in an Appropriation Bill.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– When that Appropriation Bill was before us, the justification for the item was that the elections were voided, not because of any act of the candidates, but because of the action of the electoral officers, and it was, thought unfair to penalize the candidate.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:
New South Wales

– All I desire to know is that all parties have been treated alike, and that the payment has been made on the authority of both Houses. Can the Minister state the total amount paid in this way ?

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustralianMinister of Defence). - I am informed that the Cabinet’ decided to pay £100 to each of the four gentlemen I have mentioned. That money was paid, on the Cabinet resolution, out of the Treasurer’s advance account, and Parliament is now asked to approve of that action.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - I see that, according to these Estimates, the Senate is debited with £95 for postage and telegrams, as against£411 debited to the House of Representatives under a similar heading. I take it that the postage and telegrams referred to are those supplied at the expense of the Commonwealth to members of either House using the Post and Telegraph Department on public business. I do not cavil at either amount, but, in my opinion, it would be much better if a fixed allowance was paid to each Member of Parliament on this account, instead of leaving matters in such a way that, while one gentleman may spend £5, another may not spend 5s. in this connexion.

Senator McGregor:

– A fixed allowance would be most unfair, because, while some honorable senators have much correspondence, other honorable senators have little or none.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

– It appears that a record is kept of the expense incurred in this way by each individual senator; and I should like to know whether a similar practice is followed inanother place.

Senator Playford:

– I cannot say.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- I am told the rule is, that where the hand-writing is known, the postage is debited accordingly, whereas if it is not recognised, the expenditure is charged to general account. This record places some honorable senators in an invidious position, because, while one may not have to write more than halfadozen letters a session to his constituents, or on public business, another may require to send forty or fifty. I think it would save a good deal of unpleasantness if the whole of the cost were charged to one general fund, reliance being placed on the discretion of members of the Parliament to use the Post and Telegraph facilities only when absolutely necessary.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I think this is really a matter for the consideration of the Joint House Committee. It would never do to have a fixed allowance in the way Senator Gould first suggested. Any telegrams or letters which a Member of Parliament has to send on public business connected with his constituency, are paid for by the Commonwealth. Some Members of Parliament have a vast amount of correspondence, whereas, in my own case, for example, a few shillings will cover the cost of the telegrams, and less will cover the cost of postage on letters that I have sent during the four or five years of Federation. That is owing simply to the fact that I am able to go to Adelaide every week, and see my constituents and others, and have, therefore, no special call for heavy correspondence. I can imagine, however, that senators from Western Australia, Tasmania, and Queensland, who cannot see their constituents frequently, are called upon to send many letters and telegrams. No hard-and-fast rule can be made in a case of this kind, but I think it is a subject which might well be inquired into by the House Committee.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– I hope the Minister will use his influence to have this business conducted in such a way as not to give rise to invidious distinctions.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I desire to call attention to a matter of which, under ordinary circumstances, I should scarcely have referred. In view of the class of criticism which has recently been directed towards Parliament, I submit that it is absolutely incorrect, and likely to convey a wrong impression, to include the item of£400, which has been referred to, as an allowance towards the expenses of candidates, under the heading of the House of Representatives. Such an item ought properly to Se charged to the Department of Home Affairs. As the item appears now, * some newspaper critic will jump to the conclusion that this ^400 represents some of the frequently-discussed perquisites we are supposed to enjoy. This expenditure is not occasioned by the House of Representatives, or its work, but is simply due to some defect in administration as conducted by officers of the Department of Home Affairs. I do not propose to move any amendment, but simply to call attention to the matter in the hope that, in future, such items will be debited to the proper Department.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). I see that ,£50 is provided in the schedule for the expenses of Sir John Cockburn in attending the Vienna Congress on Working Men’s Insurance. Has Sir John Cockburn sent in any report? At present, there is a Royal Commission inquiring into the question of old-age pensions, and if Sir John Cockburn’s report is to be of any value, it ought to be made available at once.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I have made inquiries, and, so far as I can ascertain, Sir John Cockburn has sent in a preliminary statement, and that he is forwarding, or is about to forward, a more complete report. The Government will expedite matters by sending a cable, if necessary, asking Sir John Cockburn to hurry up with the information.

Senator Pearce:

– Any action should be taken at once, because the Royal Commission on old-age pensions will be drawing up the report in the course of a month.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - There are two other items on which I should like to get some information. The first is with respect to the vote of ^267 for “ Advertising, resources of the Commonwealth.” I should like to know whether this represents the final payment to Mr. Plummer.

Senator Playford:

– Yes.

Senator MILLEN:

– Then I should like some explanation of the term “ Expenses of investigation of Norfolk Island Affairs -£is-“

– The survey work carried out under the vote appearing on these Estimates was done at the expense of the Commonwealth, and why should not the North-West coast be surveyed in the same way ? This Wakitipu Rock is as close to the coast of Tasmania as many of the reefs which have caused destruction of vessels plying on the North-West coast are to that portion of Australia, and yet the location of this rock appears to have been undertaken without any trouble at all, whilst the survey which I have repeatedly urged is left with an empty promise that the matter will be considered. The Government have communicated with the Admiralty, and some time in the dim and distant future the work may be undertaken. This grievance is of too long “standing, and it is high time that it was redressed. Until the coast is well surveyed,, we cannot reasonably expect the owners of ships to send them into that part of the Commonwealth. It cannot be denied that a very much better service is needed than is now provided. I hope that during the recess trie- Minister of Defence will take some definite action in this matter.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - I gathered from the remarks of Senator Playford that for ^283 we have obtained a rock and a report, but that for ,£75 we have received only a report on Norfolk Island. I desire to ask whether the suggestion that it should be handed over to the Commonwealth has been entertained by the Government, or whether it has fallen through?? It seems to me that it was unjustifiable to pay £75 in order to _get a report as to the condition of affairs’ in the island, unless the Government intended to consider its contents.

Senator Playford:

– The late Government considered the report, and dropped the subject. The present Government have not taken it up.

Senator MILLEN:

– Do I understand the Minister to imply that the present Government are not doing anything in this matter?

Senator Playford:

– Nothing at all.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - I would ask the Minister, if it has not already been tabled and printed, to get the report on Norfolk Island printed and distributed for the information of honorable senators. The producers on the island have suffered very considerably from the operation of our legislation. Until the enactment of the Federal Tariff, absolute freedom of trade prevailed between New South Wales and Norfolk Island. Many coffee plantations were established on the island with the idea that a good trade could be done with Australia, but the high Federal duties practically rendered their products valueless to the planters. Either Norfolk Island will have to be annexed by New Zealand, or some step must be taken to bring it under the control or jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, or give preferential treatment to its products. I hope that Senator Playford will look through the report and consider the possibility of doing something, by means of which the Norfolk Islanders may be able to exist and obtain a market for their products.

Senator Playford:

– I shall see the report, and consider what the honorable senator has said.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - The Minister of Defence has not yet given the Committee any information concerning the item of ,£93 for copies of the picture entitled “ Opening of the First Parliament of the Commonwealth.”

Senator Playford:

– I know nothing about the item. Let the honorable senator go and ask Mr. George Reid about it. It is really unfair to expect me to answer all these questions about twopenny-ha’penny items.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - As a matter of principle, we ought not to pass any items without getting a proper explanation from the Minister. I understand that in the case of the copies of this picture, the money has been expended. It illustrates to some extent the farcical nature of the position into which the Senate has allowed itself to drift. I move -

That the House of Representatives be re. quested to leave out the item “ Cost of copies of pictures ‘Opening of the First Parliament of the Commonwealth,’ £93.”

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 17

Majority … …11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

SenatorPULSFORD (New South Wales)’. - I think that , £917 is a very large sum to be required for temporary assistance for the administrative staff of the Department, of Home Affairs. I presume that on the Estimates in chief there was a considerable sum voted for this purpose.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - On the second reading of the Bill, Senator Pulsford asked me if I had any explanation concerning this item to offer. I made an explanation, in which I. showed that, in consequence of a number of officers for whom provision had been made on the Estimates not having been appointed until six or seven months had elapsed, temporary assistance had to be obtained by the Department, and that, through its employment, it made a saving of over£900, simply because no permanent officers had been appointed. Yet he rises again and quietly asks me to give the explanation a second time. I was blamed because I was not supplied with information concerning an item of £93; but when I do give an explanation concerning an item of£917, I am asked to give the information a second time.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– On page 17 of the schedule we are invited by the Treasurer to appropriate £1,305 for the Navigation Commission,£2,166 for the Tariff Commission, and . £196 for the

Old-age Pensions Commission. The last item is a very moderate one, and I feel quite sure that the Old-age Pensions Commission is doing good work. But the other two Royal Commissionsare exceedingly expensive. I desire to ask the Minister if it is proposed to convert the Select Committee on Tobacco Monopoly into a Royal Commission, and, if so, what expense is likely to be incurred, whether the matter will come before the Senate, or whether the Governor-General will act on his own motion? I should also like the Minister, if it is in order, to tell the Committee whether, as a question of policy the Government approve of what theSelect Committee on Tobacco Monopoly want, because, if they do not, they ought not to go to the expense of appointing a Royal Commission.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I do not think that Senator Dobson can be serious in asking me this series of questions. How can I be expected to state what the SelectCommittee want ? Am I supposed to know what they want? Let the honorable senator ask Senator Pearce, its chairman, for information. How can I tell what they want ?

Senator Dobson:

– Is a Royal Commismission to be appointed ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I do not know. The matter has not come before the Cabinet.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - We are told that the sums of moneyincluded in this Bill on account of Royal Commissions have been paid. Are they the total sums to date?

Senator Playford:

– I believe they are, although of course some little items may not be included.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- I understand that all expenditure up to the 30th June this year is represented. I wish to emphasize the fact that the appointment of Royal Commissions is a means of spending a great deal of money. Sometimes they elicit useful information, but that is no reason why we should incur an excessive expenditure on account of them. We are now told that it islikely that the Select Committee on the Tobacco Industry will be appointed a Royal Commission. I hope that no such appointment will be made until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion. Another ground of objection to the appointment of so many Royal Commissions is that, to a great extent, they relieve Ministers of the responsibility that properly attaches to them. If Ministers are not to take the responsibility for which they are paid, we might as well have a number crf clerks occupying their offices instead ot parliamentarians of experience. I certainly raise a protest against the appointment of Royal Commissions unless there is an absolute need for them.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). Reference has been made to the Select Committee on the Tobacco Industry, of which I happen to be a member. The Committee has obtained a large and valuable amount of evidence, and has almost completed its work; but there are still four or live witnesses to be examined. Parliament is about to go into recess. If the Committee is not converted into a Royal Commission it cannot complete its work, and the consequence will simply be that when the Senate meets again next session I shall have to move for its re-appointment. The Commission, if appointed, will not be an expensive one. I do not think it will be necessary for it to go beyond Melbourne. The few witnesses who are to be examined have themselves expressed a desire that they shall be summoned. It has to be remembered that the work of the Committee directly challenges the financial interests of persons who are interested in a large industry. It would be unfair to allow a threat to remain hanging over their heads, as would be the case if the Committee did not bring its labours to a conclusion. The expense involved will not be considerable.

Senator Millen:

– What has been the cost to date?

Senator PEARCE:

– About ^100. It has been the most economical Committee of which 1 have heard. I have no fear that it will be challenged on that score.

Senator Millen:

– I am not challenging the honorable senator.

Senator PEARCE:

– I can assure honorable senators that if a Royal Commission is not appointed I shall not allow the matter to drop. Immediately we meet again next year, 1 shall move that the Committee be reconstituted. If, however, it is converted into a Royal Commission its members will be able within a very short time to consider “their report and present it to the Governor-General.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - There is one aspect of the proposal to convert a Select Committee into a Royal Commission to which I must direct the attention of the Government.

Senator Playford:

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - If the Minister cannot give us any information as to the item of ,£132 for the protection of the revenue in Western Australia., I shall feel it my duty to submit a request asking another place to eliminate the item. What is the use of the Estimates if the Minister can give us no information ?

Senator Playford:

– I have given a good deal of information, but I db not know all these two-penny-halfpenny details.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- If I asked the Minister to give me a present of ,£132 I wonder whether he would call it a twopennyhalfpenny matter. I move–

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the item “ Protection of revenue, £132.”

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - If the honorable senator, as my agent, were to spend £132 on my behalf, and he told me that he had spent it in the most satisfactory way, I should take his word. Cannot the honorable senator take the word! of the late Ministry, who authorized this expenditure to which he takes exception? Certainly not one member of the late Government would authorize expenditure of this kind unless it was perfectly justified. I do not think so badly of the late Ministry as to imagine for one moment that Mr. Reid, Mr. McLean, or Sir George Turner, or any of their colleagues, would do such a thing. These gentlemen are our personal friends, though opposed to us politically, and I think that under the circumstances we may trust them.

Senator Playford:

– Yes.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - In connexion with the item, “ Expenses of officer* on. special duty as attache” to the Japanese Army!, ,£203.” I should like to know whether the Minister has. had any report from that officer.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - The officer in question was Colonel Hoad. His report was printed and circulated a. year ago, and a very valuable report it was.

Senator GUTHRIE (South Australia).I direct attention <to the items under the heading “Naval, Miscellaneous,” “No. 1 payment into Trust Fund - Naval Agreement special pay account, ,£4,810,” and “ No. 2 payment into Trust Fund - Royal Navy Reserve account, ,£200.” What is the difference between these two trust funds? I am under the impression that they refer to the same fund, and I should like to know why they are separated in this way.

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - I believe that the first item makes provision for the payment of Commonwealth men employed on board the Imperial Fleet at the higher rate which they are paid as compared with that paid in the Imperial service. We pay the amount required into a trust fund. I believe that the item connected with the Royal Naval Reserve account is explained in exactly the same way.

Senator Guthrie:

– We do not pay any Royal Navy Reserve men?

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - We have only just discussed an item of expenditure set down as “ Protection, of revenue.” Honorable senators will notice that the Department of Defence hasadopted a sensible course, and, underthe heading “ General Services,” there appears the item “Law costs “ (including costs and verdict) in the case of Evans v. Finn. That gives the information which the Committee are entitled to have in regard to these items, and I direct attention to that item to show that some of the Departments understand what is required. In this instance, a special case is referred to, and if honorable senators desire further information on the subject, they can look up the records of the case.

Senator Playford:

– I have taken a note of the matter referred to by the honorable senator, and will see that it is attended to in the preparation of the next Estimates.

– This is for a special case in which a special team was sent over, and the expense was met out of the Treasurer’s Advance.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - I believe that the sum of £100 was voted for the purpose on the Estimatesinchief, and there is a vote here of , £58 for the transport of a rifle team to Western Australia.

Senator Keating:

– That only applied to the South Australian team; the other vote of£107 was for the New South Wales team.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- We originally voted £100 for railway fares and transport, and this shows the way in which the money was applied.

Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - The explanation given does not apply to the vote of £107 to be found under division 87. I am very anxious to get this matter cleared up, because, when I went to see about the transportation of a rifle team from Western Australia to Williamstown, this year, I was told that a special grant could not be given, and that the money would have to be taken out of the amount which was set aside for travelling expenses. Therefore, the vote for travelling expenses wasreduced by that sum. In the case of other States, last year there was a special vote, so that, as is usual when there is any question of special expenditure, Western Australia has not been placed upon an equal footing with, the eastern States.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - This amount was not considered to be a proper charge against the ordinary vote for travelling expenses, and therefore a special vote is required. The Minister of the day requested the Treasurer to pay, out of his advance account, this amount for the pur- pose therein set forth. It was paid before the end of the financial year, and now the Parliament is asked to approve of what he did.

Senator Matheson:

– Because it was over and above the amount which had been provided on the Estimates for travelling expenses.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I do not think so.

Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - The Minister of Defence is not well posted in the accounts kept by his Department. This sum has had to be brought in as a special vote because it was over and above that which Had been voted in the ordinary Estimates for travelling expenses.

Senator Playford:

– Very likely.

Senator MATHESON:

– There has been that much less to spend in the State. This item of travelling expenses is of vital importance to the Rifle Association.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– On page 29, under the head of “ Rifle clubs and associations,” the honorable senator will see an item of £110 for transport of rifle team to Western Australia from Victoria.

Senator MATHESON:

– That is quite right. It was all speciallyvoted last year; but in dealing with Western Australia this year the cost has been taken out of the amount which was voted on the Estimates for travelling expenses. I went into the matter with the Minister and his secretary, but they would not grant a special vote for this purpose.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - The same course has been taken with every State. If the amount of the vote is not sufficient to cover the expenses, and the Minister approves of a further expenditure, he asks the Treasurer to give him an advance. In this case the Treasurer was asked for an advance, and the Parliament is now invited to approve of what he did.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - I should like theMinister to give the Committee some information concerning the item of £16, 118 for arrears under section 19 of the Victorian Act No. 1722.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - In moving the second reading of the Bill, I explained that a few days before the establishment of the Commonwealth the Victorian Parliament passed a special Bill to increase the salaries of a number of the officers in the Departments to be transferred. For a time we refused to pay the increases, but afterwards we found that they had to be paid, and they were paid in a lump sum. Of course, the additional expenditure has been charged to Victoria.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to an item of £7 to satisfy a query of the Auditor-General in connexion with an over-payment of salary made in 1903-4. Can any one get paid by raising a query ? I have no doubt that there has been a proper gayment made. What is wrong is the way in which the item is worded.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - A man who was on sick leave happened to get paid £7 in excess of that which he ought to have been paid, and when he died we could not get a refund, and thereforewe had to pass ar> entry for the amount.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - I desire to ask the Minister if the practice of paying in advance is limited?

Senator Playford:

– Perhaps I made a little slip. This was really an overpayment to an officer who afterwards died.

Senator MILLEN:

– It appears that a payment was made to which at the time the recipient was not legally entitled.

Senator Playford:

– There was an overpayment of£7 to the man. The AuditorGeneral queried the payment, but in the meantime the man had died.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is to be hoped that in the Public Service the principle of paying in advance is not carried out to any great extent, otherwise items of this kind will frequently appear in the Estimates.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - At Christmas time I believe that officers are paid a good many days before the end of the month. When the honorable senator gets his salary paid before the end of the month he does not make a bother about it; in fact we have all been paid our salaries in advance this month.

Schedules agreed to.

Postponed clauses 2 and 3, and title, agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages withoutdelay.

Bill read a third time.

page 7357

SUGAR BOUNTY BILL

Message received from the House of Representatives, stating that it had agreed to the Senate’s amendments in this Bill.

page 7357

ELECTORAL BILL

Message received from the House of Representatives, stating that it did not insist on its amendments to which the Senate had disagreed, and had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate on its amendments Nos. 40 and 42.

page 7357

EXCISE (SUGAR) TARIFF BILL

Message received from the House of Representatives, stating that it had made the amendment requested by the Senate, with a modification.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

The Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the message received from the House of Representatives.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, because, on the motion of the Minister of Defence, the Standing Orders were suspended yesterday, in order to enable the Bill to pass through its remaining stages without delay.

Senator Millen:

– Does the suspension of the Standing Orders on one day, sir, apply indefinitely for the rest of the session?

The PRESIDENT:

– If the Standing Orders are suspended to enable a Bill to pass through its remaining stages without delay, necessarily they are suspended until it has passed its final stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee (Consideration, of House of Representatives’ Message) :

Clause 2 -

In lieu of the Duty of Excise imposed on sugar by the Excise Tariff 1902, there shall, as from and including the first day of January One thousand nine hundred and seven, be imposed on sugar the following Duty of Excise : -

Sugar - per cwt. of manufactured sugar - Four shillings; which duty shall be charged, collected and paid to the use of the King for the purposes of the Commonwealth.

Senate’s Request. - After “ Commonwealth “ insert “ Until the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and thirteen.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - At the end of clause add : - “ Provided further that the Duty of Excise payable on sugar produced from cane delivered for manufacture in the years One thousand nine hundred and eleven and one thousand nine hundred and twelve shall bc respectively two-thirds and one-third of the aforesaid rates.” 1

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I informed the Senate this morning that it was my intention to move an amendment on the Excise Tariff Bill, which is now before us again, with a view to institute a sliding-scale in regard to the amount of Excise paid, on the same lines as the sliding-scale in the Bounty Bill. There was an expresson of dissent from some honorable members, and I then said. “ I will allow the House of Representatives, under the circumstances, to take it upon itself to say whether there shall be such an amendment or not. I will only now move the insertion of the words “ until the 1st day of January, 1913,” and another place will have an opportunity of considering whether a modification should be made by it on the lines of the amendment which we made in the Bounty Bill.” That was the understanding.

Senator Millen:

– That is the Minister’s version of it, but there may be an honest difference of opinion.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– I did not understand that.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I certainly told honorable senators that it was my intention to propose a sliding scale in this Bill. I was then met with some expression of dissent. Thereupon I said that I was not very strong upon the matter. My own opinion was that we had better leave the Bill as it stood. I stated that,,- so far as I was concerned, I would not propose a sliding-scale, but would move such an amendment as would enable another place to express -an opinion on the question.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– That is the part of the Minister’s statement as to which we have no recollection.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– A modification in favour of a sliding-scale has been moved in another place, and carried without dissention. We are now asked to concur. I think we can agree to the wishes of the other House, and I move -

That the modification made by the House of Representatives in the Senate’s request be agreed to.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend its modification of the Senate’s request by leaving out the words “ respectively twothirds and one-third,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ three-fourths.”

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– The speeches I have heard from honorable senators opposite strengthen me in the belief that I should consent to agree to the modification of our amendment proposed by the House of Representatives. I have never argued that we should derive increased revenue from sugar, and when I hear honorable senators urging that we should reject the modification because It would involve a loss of revenue, that is to me a sufficient reason for accepting it. If we genuinely desire to raise less revenue from sugar, we are here given an opportunity to do so, because we shall undoubtedly have an opportunity to revise the Tariff before the term dealt with in these Bills comes to an end, and this proposal will supply a good argument for reducing the import duty on sugar. That will lessen the return to the States Treasurers, and will tend to bring about more quickly what Senator Stewart has indicated, namely, land taxation. I shall support the modification proposed by the House of Representatives in this instance, and when the Customs Tariff comes up for revision I shall be prepared to assist honorable senators opposite in decreasing the import duty on sugar correspondingly, so as to give the same amount of protection and at the same time decrease the taxation of the people upon this item of food which Senator Dobson will admit is not as legitimate a subject of taxation as is the unimproved value of land.

Senator Dobson:

– Land is taxed.

Senator PEARCE:

– Senator Dobson must’ know that land is not taxed, but this is not the time to discuss that question. The argument that this involves a loss of revenue to the States confirms me in the opinion that the right course for me to adopt is to support the modification proposed by the House of Representatives.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - Senator Pearce has raised once again the point dealt with by Senator Stewart. He imagines that in reducing revenue in this way we shall be ‘reducing the taxation of the people. I am prepared at any time to accept any proposal that will have the effect of reducing taxation, but there is no proposal to reduce taxation now before the Committee. The proposal before us keeps up the taxation, but hands the product of it to a greater extent to the industry itself. I am satisfied that that is not a policy which commends itself to the judgment of Senator Pearce, and therefore I cannot understand that he should be willing to accept the proposal now before the Committee.

Senator Pearce:

– Will Senator Pulsford support a reduction of the import duty ?

Senator PULSFORD:

– Of course I will.

– I thought that the honorable senator said we ought not to compromise on this issue?

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- There should not be a compromise on a matter of principle; but we could make an arrangement whereby the rights of the Senate would not be given away upon so important a matter. We ought to consider the position of the revenue. Some honorable senators argue that if the revenue is diminished it will force the country to land taxation. But I can assure them that land taxation is not going to be conceded to the extent that they desire. There will have to be a struggle throughout the length and breadth of this Commonwealth before anything of the kind is agreed to. If some honorable senators desire to deplete the revenue with the object of forcing forward Senator Stewart’s favourite idea of a land tax, they are doing that which is absolutely improper. If we are to have land taxation, let it he determined by a fair and straight-out vote. We should not take advantage of ihe impecuniosity of the Commonwealth in order to carry out a system which every one must recognise to be repugnant to five-sixths of the people of the country. I make as, strong a protest as I can against the action of the Government in this matter, and am astonished to find that there are honorable senators who are prepared to go back upon the ideas that they expressed” in the first instance, and to reverse everything that they declared to be advisable within the last twenty-four hours.

– We shall get it partly from such a Bill as that which certain hon-. orable senators are now trying to undermine. I shall lose no opportunity of emphasizing what appears to be the objective of the Labour Party, viz., to so adjust our fiscal system as to make the keystone, or the foundation, direct taxation forFederal purposes. I do not know that that is an object of which the party need be ashamed ; but it supplies the reason why I regard with considerable suspicion any attempt to minimise revenue duties such as those provided by the Bill. I suggest, as the more convenient way of testing the feeling of the Committee, that Senator Dobson move that after the words “ shall be “ the words “three-fourths” be inserted.

Amendment withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Dobson) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the modification made by it in the Senate’s request by inserting the words “ threefourths” after the words “shall be.”

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 13

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the modification made by the House of Representatives in the Senate’s request be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 8

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - Before the Bill is finally dealt with I wish once more to emphasize the fact that I look upon the change made in it as a very regrettable one.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I have not the slightest desire to delay the passage of the third reading of this Bill, but I certainly think that I am justified in taking advantage of this opportunity to say that I do not consider that the Government have kept the spirit of the compact entered into last night. After we had thrashed out a question for seven or eight hours, I was led last night to accept a compromise, in the belief that it would be accepted by the Government in another place. That assurance was given in connexion with the Sugar Bounty Bill, which, with this Bill, must be considered as part and parcel of the same legislation. I do not think that the radical alteration made in this Bill since it was introduced is in keeping with the spirit of the compact which the leader of the Government in the Senate offered last night. I have, however, this consolation in the matter : This Excise Tariff Bill and the Sugar Bounty Bill must be considered in conjunction with the Tariff, and the whole question must again comeup for reconsideration and review at no distant date. Possibly the Government have taken the action which they have taken in connexionwith this measure, because it is assumed that we are within a few hours of the close of the session. If it were not that I amabsolutely certain that the whole question must shortly be reviewed again. I should be inclined to putup something of a “stone-wall.” I am satisfied to letthe Bill pass now, because I know that there is a sufficient number of honorable senators of my way of thinking to insure a review of the Question next session.

Senator WALKER (New South Wales). - I cannot find language sufficiently strong to express my disappointment; but it is satisfactory to remember that four years must elapse before the sliding scale in regard to the Excise will come into operation, and between this andthen we shall have a general election. I shall be much mistaken if at that general election this very consideration of the tremendous loss of revenue to the States will not prove a strong point in favour of the party now sitting on the Opposition benches. Under the measure we passed last night, for the last two years of the period the bounty per ton will be reduced to £2 and£1 respectively ; but by this Bill a reduction in Excise for those years means a present of £2 13s. 4d. and£1 6s. 8d. per ton respectively to the sugar-growers, so that white growers will practically receive the equivalent of £4 13s. 4d. and £2 6s. 8d. per ton for the years alluded to.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales). - I cannot allow the Bill to pass without a word or two. Without claiming a moral victorv for honorable senators on this side, I claim an immoral victory for honorable senators opposite. Senator O’ Keefe stated that he would be inclined to “ stone-wall “ the third reading of this Bill, did he not believe that the question will have to be reviewed at a later date. I shouldbe happy to join the honorable senator in the “ stone-wall “ if I thought that it would do any good. This is another instance in which we discover the facility which the Senate possesses for reversing its opinion on all occasions. James Russell Lowell wrote : - A merciful Providence fashioned us holler,

A purpose that we might our principles swaller.

.- The honorable senator mav have my vote on all reasonable proposals, but not for a proposal whichwould make land taxation the taxation of this country. I am very glad that we have been informed so clearlv as to what the policy of Senator Pearce and his friends will be if they have the good fortune to be in power with a majority behind them. I shall not further delay the passing of the Bill, but I congratulate the Government and honorable senators on the facility with which they can jump Jim-

Crow and change their views.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 7368

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1903-4 AND 1904-5

Second Reading

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a very small Bill in which honorable senators have the right to insert amendments, because it deals with works and buildings. It appropriates the sum of £490, which was expended by the Watson Government on account of the financial year 1903-4 and a sum of £52,527 on account of the financial year 1904-5, which was expended by the Reid Government. A reference to the two schedules will show that with the exception of £44,050 for rifles, guns, and other equipment, the items are small. Sir George Turner informed the House of Representatives that he would use any saving on the ordinary Defence vote for the purpose of providing special equipment which, as honorable senators are aware, has been done for some time. A sum of £44,050 was saved on the general vote for Defence, and Sir George Turner allowed an advance of equal amount to be apportioned in a manner which is set forth on page 7 of the second schedule. It shows for what purposes the money was originally voted, and also what alteration was made in the expenditure. It was expended upon military equipment, which consisted of 5,000 magazine Lee-Enfield rifles of the new’ pattern, ammunition, accountrements, camp equipment, material for small arms ammunition to be paid into a trust fund, artillery ammunition for fixed defences, tools and other materials, guns, harness, waggons, machine guns, medical stores, &c.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 postponed.

Schedules.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I desire to refer to the item of £110 for machinery and plant for the Government Printing Office and works in connexion therewith. This is a small item, but it is one of several items which have figured of late in the public accounts. From what I can understand, we are paying for the purpose of having our work done in the State printing office. If we are going to find plant and machinery, and to pay the same rates as though the State Government had found the plant and machinery, or the work had been placed with private firms, it seems to me that we are gradually approaching a point at which it wouldbe much cheaper to have a Federal Printing Office. Am I right in assuming that this plant has been purchased by the Commonwealth and placed in the Government Printing Office here?

Senator CROFT:
Western Australia

– In view of the large sum of public money which has been expended on the purchase of printing material and plant, I would suggest to the Minister of Defence that the timehas arrived when the Commonwealth might well establish a printing office of its own. It has purchased the most modern machinery, which has been installed in the Government Printing Office in Melbourne, and which is being used for State as well as Commonwealth purposes.

Senator Millen:

– For whichwe gel nothing.

Senator Playford:

– They give us the use of the whole of the building rent free and allow us to use a certain number of machines.

Senator Millen:

– But they charge us for the work which they do for us.

Senator CROFT:

– If it is held that the fact that the Victorian Government allow the Commonwealth to have the use of a tin shed, entitles them to the continuous use of our printing plant-

Senator Playford:

– They lend us the whole of their big office.

Senator CROFT:

– I have visited the printing works, and hold that the Victorian Government are pretty well suited with our up-to-date machinery. They get’ along very well indeed with their work, and it is done in an improved manner, simply by reason of the fact that they have practically the free use of the latest printing machinery. I do not know that we are not justified in complaining of the present position. A few yearsago the Premier of this State, Mr. Bent, was growling at public functions about our using their Parliament House, and using offices belonging to, or rented by the State. If I had only to considermy own comfort, I would not thank the State Government for the use of this building. On page 6, in the second schedule, there is an item of £1,160 for machinery and plant for the Government Printing Office and works in connexion therewith. The fact that we are continually renewing this machinery, and that we have a very good plant established in the State printing-office, leads me to think that it would be far cheaper and better if the Commonwealth were to at once establish a printing works of its own in Melbourne.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– Of course, this question has occupied the attention of the

– The Government does nothing but take responsibility. What I complain of is that Ministers resent any criticism. Even now the Minister does not tell us why this change was made. It concerns his own Department, and he ought to know in what directions money is spent upon public buildings. I have no doubt that the people of Guildford are wondering when the drillhall will be erected. When I go to Western Australia, I shall be asked on all hands when the work is to be commenced. I can give a case in point. Only a little while ago, there was a sum of money on the Estimates for the building of a post-office at Gwalia in Western Australia. Months have passed; but by a recent mail I received a letter from residents, asking when the work is to be commenced. Here is a similar case. I quite expect that when I go to Guildford I shall have people swarming round me inquiring why the drill-hall has not been built. Fortunately,I am taking the Minister of Defence to Western Australia with me, and shall refer the deputations to him. He will have the peculiar felicity of defending the policy of his predecessor. It is a farce to vote money in: specific directions, when it is not spent as voted. We might as well vote a lump sum.

Schedules agreed to.

Postponed clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 7371

ADJOURNMENT

Colonel Hoad’s Report

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– Earlier in the evening I asked the Minister when the report of Colonel Hoad, Military Attache of the Commonwealth with the Japanese Army, would be presented, and he informed me that it was laid on the table some time ago.

Senator Playford:

– I understood that it was laid on the table last session.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Minister has been misinformed. The report has never been presented to Parliament. Can it not be made available for honorable senators?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– Yes; I will look into it. It is possible that there may he things in the report which will have to be kept secret. But those points which’ can with advantage be made public, I will have published.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 December 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1905/19051219_senate_2_30/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate19 December 1905

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA: CASE OF MR. RICHMOND

Senator HIGGS:QUEENSLAND

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator Higgs:

Senator PLAYFORD:

TOBACCO MONOPOLY

QUESTION

CONVENING OF PARLIAMENT

Senator O’KEEFE:TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator PLAYFORD:

QUESTION

ENGLISH MAIL CONTRACT

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator MILLEN:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Millen:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Millen:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Millen:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Millen:

Senator KEATING:

QUESTION

SUGAR MONOPOLY

Senator GIVENS:QUEENSLAND

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator WALKER:NEW SOUTH WALES

The PRESIDENT:

Senator WALKER:

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

COPYRIGHT BILL

PAPERS

QUESTION

STATEMENTS BY MR. CARRUTHERS

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator Pulsford:

Senator PLAYFORD:

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE INCREMENTS

Senator MULCAHY:TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator STEWART:QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

EXCISE (SUGAR) TARIFF BILL

Second Reading

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Millen:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Millen:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Millen:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator Keating:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Keating:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Playford:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Millen:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator McGregor:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator Dobson:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator Playford:

Senate
19 December 1905

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator KEATING:
Honor- ; ary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales