Senate
13 September 1907

3rd Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 3233

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES STATE ELECTION

Mr. Dooley

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire through you, sir, to ask Senator Lt. -Colonel John Cash Neild whether the telegram he referred to yesterday was a bogus telegram or whether the Premier of New South Wales was not stating a fact with respect to the election of Mr. Dooley ?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– He is now “Dooley” elected. Am I to answer the question, sir?

The PRESIDENT:

– I hardly think that there is any necessity for the honorable senator to reply.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– But a doubt is thrown upon the word of the Premier of New South Wales, and also upon my word.

The PRESIDENT:

– Then the honorable senator can reply.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– The statement that I made was in reply to an inquiry previously made by Senator McGregor as to whether I knew that Mr. Dooley had : been elected. Yesterday I said, in reply to that inquiry, that I had received a wire from the Premier of New South Wales to the effect that Mr. Dooley was not elected. I need not read the whole of the telegram.

Senator McGregor:

– Read it all.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– The part which has reference to this exceedingly historical character is in these words -

Hartley still in doubt.

Hartley is the electorate for which Mr. Dooley was a candidate. Clearly if the Hartley election was still in doubt, I was stating a fact when I informed Senator McGregor here that Mr. Dooley was not elected.

Senator McGREGOR:

– Seeing, sir, that Senator Lt. -Colonel John Cash Neild has quoted from a document, I ask that he shall lay it upon the table of the Senate.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– I am not a Lieutenant-Colonel.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think that the honorable senator need not comply with the request.

Senator McGREGOR:

– I insist, sir, that the telegram be laid upon the table of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order. I am afraid that I cannot insist upon that being done.

page 3233

QUESTION

LETTER CLEARERS: BRISBANE

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice-

  1. How many boys under twenty -one years of age are employed clearing pillar-boxes in Brisbane ?
  2. What hours are worked by those boys per day, and how many days a week?
  3. How much is each paid per week?
  4. Are the conveyances and horses used by these boys in the performance of their duties their own property, or the property of the Department ?
  5. If the property of the boys, what allowance is made them on that account?
  6. What is the reason for the Department not owning its own horses and vehicles?
Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

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

  1. None. The five clearers employed are all over twenty-one years of age.
  2. Two work seven days per week, and three six days, but duties are often interchanged. Day staff of three work six week days, and total forty-seven hours. Night staff of two work forty-nine hours per week, including Sunday, for which they are paid time and a half. A report has been called for regarding the Sunday work.
  3. An annual rate of £110 each is paid.
  4. The conveyances and horses are the property of the officials referred to.
  5. Hitherto they have each received an allowance at the rate of£42 per annum, but approval was recently given for such allowance to be increased to £50 per annum, and the necessary Executive authority is being obtained.
  6. Because the existing arrangement is considered more satisfactory, particularly as the Department has no stable accommodation at the General Post Office, Brisbane.

page 3233

STATES AND COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That a return be compiled and laid upon the table of the Senate showing -

The amount of expenditure by the State Governments out of loans for the six years preceding June, 1901, for works and buildings, including arms and ammunition for the Defence, Customs, and Post and Telegraph Departments, showing each State’s expenditure separately.

The same particulars as to expenditure out of revenue by the Commonwealth for the six years ending June, 1907.

page 3234

NAVIGATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

A glance at the navigation laws of the United Kingdom for the last century will rapidly reveal their very complex character. As the century proceeded, and some of those laws were made to apply to the oversea dominions in a more or less qualified way, their complexity became the more intensified, particularly when it was recognised that in the terms of certain laws the Legislatures of various Colonies had the power to enact laws on the same subject. It is still a matter of the utmost difficulty, even for a trained and skilled lawyer, to discover exactly what the law on the subject is. To some extent matters were simplified in 1894, when a vast num ber of British Acts were consolidated and put in a code form. But even simplified as the law is supposed to be, and providing, as it does, that in some respects the Colonial Legislatures shall have certain powers to apply parts of the Act, to repeal other parts, and to enact certain laws on their own, behalf, it. is a matter of grave difficulty to us to ascertain which parts apply to the United Kingdom alone and which parts apply to the self-governing Possessions.

Senator Macfarlane:

– The Merchant Shipping Act has been our guide hitherto.

Senator BEST:

– That is what I am endeavouring to explain. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, which has been amended on two occasions, contains 750 sections, with twenty-two schedules, and the number of regulations which have been made thereunder it is difficult to calculate. Part I. of the Act is of a national character and of Imperial application. It consists of 91 sections, and, according to section 91 -

This part of this Act shall apply to the whole of Her Majesty’s Dominions, and to all places where Her Majesty has jurisdiction.

Part I. deals with questions of qualification for the ownership of British ships, applications to register British ships, the Drocedure and machinery incidental thereto, transfers and transmissions, mortgages, names of ships, trusts and equitable rights, the national character and flag, and other matters of national interest. In this Bill we have not attempted to vary or alter that part of the Act.

Senator Guthrie:

– Yet we have had a King’s* Order in Council to alter it as regards a flag.

Senator BEST:

– Yes; there may be a slight alteration in that respect. In this Bill ‘we do not attempt Ito alter any portion of Part I. of the Act, except as indicated, so that if the Bill is passed the Commonwealth law will embrace its provisions. There are obvious reasons why we should not attempt to alter that portion of a law of so for-reaching a, character. Numerous text-books have been written on its terms and provisions; numerous decisions have been given by the Courts, and if we altered Part I. very likely we should be deprived to a large extent of the benefit of those authorities.

Senator Guthrie:

– It has been the means of large frauds being committed upon Colonial Legislatures.

Senator BEST:

– Other parts of the Act are made to apply in a qualified way to British Colonies. I do not intend to refer to those provisions at length, but merely to sections 261, 264, 265, 735, and 736. Section 735 empowers Colonial Legislatures io alter the provisions of the Act with certain exceptions, and section 736 enables Colonial Legislatures, subject to certain conditions, to regulate the coasting trade. As regards the coasting trade, I confess that were we relying simply upon that particular provision as our authority to legislate, we should be met with much more difficulty than we are under existing conditions. As honorable senators are aware, the Constitution is itself an Imperial measure, and it rescues us from former difficulties and extends the ambit of our powers in regard to legislation in this connexion. The principal sections to which I direct the attention of honorable senators are : first, section 51., which provides that -

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to -

Trade and commerce with other countries and among the States.

Far reaching as that provision is, it is very definitely extended by section 98, which provides that -

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

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Then why have we not taken over the coastal lights?

Senator BEST:

– I shall be able to tell my honorable friend later on that the Government have that matter under consideration. The only other provision to which I need refer honorable senators is section 5 of the covering sections of the Constitution Act, which provides -

This Act and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in’ the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose port of clearance, and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

Senator Macfarlane:

– That does not refer to foreign ships?

Senator BEST:

– I do not suggest in regard to this particular section anything of the kind, but in section 98, to which I have just referred, we are given most ample and complete powers. In section 5, which I have just quoted, we have granted to us what is called extraterritorial jurisdiction. The section provides practically that ships registered in the Commonwealth, wherever they go, carry with them the flag and the laws of the Commonwealth, and are, so to speak, a floating portion of the Commonwealth. I think it is only in that section and in paragraph I. of section 51, relating to commerce, that we are granted this extra-territorial jurisdictibn. The Bill I have now the honour to submit to the Senate has been the subject of much investigation and thoughtful consideration. The first draft of the measure was drawn by Dr. Wollaston, an acknowledged authority, who has given a great deal of attention to and has had very considerable experience in connexion with the subject of navigation, in 1903, under the able supervision of the Right Honorable C. C. Kingston. With certain exceptions, it attempted practically to codify the Merchant Shipping law, applicable to the Commonwealth, subject, of course, to such alterations and special provisions as were deemed necessary to suit our own conditions. The Bill was first introduced into the Senate in 1904, and was afterwards referred to a Royal Commission, known as the Navigation Commission. I have to express, on behalf of the Government, their great indebtedness for the splendid services rendered to this community by the Navigation Commission.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– The Government recognised those services very well by re-fusing to appoint the most prominent member of the Commission to attend the Navigation Conference in London.

Senator BEST:

– I wish my honorable friend would give me an opportunity to deal with matters relevant to the Bill.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Then the honorable senator should not introduce matters irrelevant to the Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Senator Neild not to interject.

Senator BEST:

– The Navigation Commission subjected the Bill to a careful and exhaustive investigation. Each of its main principles was carefully considered, and numerous amendments were suggested. In this connexion, also, I desire to acknowledge our indebtedness to Senator Guthrie, who, I may be forgiven for denominating “ the Australian Plimsoll.” His splendid services in connexion with navigation matters generally are well known to Australians. The thanks of the community are also due to Senators Macfarlane and de Largie, and the Senate is very fortunate indeed in having the able services of those gentlemen to assist in dealing with this highly technical and difficult subject.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Hear, hear.

Senator BEST:

– I take Senator Macfarlane’s interjection to be an intimation that he intends to give me all the help he can in passing this measure.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Hear, hear ; in the right way.

Senator BEST:

– The Government have also had the advantage of the assistance of two of my honorable colleagues, the Attorney-General. Mr. Groom, and the Postmaster-General, Mr. Mauger, who were also members of the Navigation Commission. Two valuable reports by the Commission, which was under the able presidency of the Honorable W. M. Hughes, have been laid on the table of the Senate. The final report, covering as it does the first or interim report, is a complete document, and may be read with very great advantage in dealing with the subject. The New Zealand Government prepared a measure somewhat on the lines of the Bill originally drafted in the Commonwealth, and after it had teen passed by the New Zealand Legislature, and whilst the investigation of the Navigation Commission was proceeding, it was submitted for the King’s assent.

The- Royal assent was reserved for a considerable time, and in the meanwhile the Imperial Government suggested that a Conference should be held in London of - representatives of the Imperial Government, the shipping trade of Great Britain, and representatives from New Zealand and the Commonwealth.

Senator Pearce:

– Which is the “ Imperial Government “ ? The Government of the United Kingdom?

Senator BEST:

– Yes.

Senator Pearce:

– That Government is not an “Imperial” Government.

Senator BEST:

– In view of the decision of the Imperial Government, it is somewhat remarkable that before the Navigation Conference met in London, the assent of the King was - given to the New Zealand measure, and thereby numerous questions which had previously been the subject of controversy were settled. The Conference was held in May last, and the valuable conclusions at which it arrived are contained in the report of the Conference which has been laid on the table of the Senate. We know that the holding of the Conference has been the means of establishing a tetter understanding between the Government of the United Kingdom, the shipping trade of Great Britain, and ourselves, but the net result of the Conference may, I think, be summarized by the statement that it acknowledged the principle that, in regard to ships registered in Australia or ships engaged in the coasting trade of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Parliament is practically entitled to impose such conditions as it thinks proper. So much may be gathered from resolution 9 of the Conference, which deals with vessels to which Colonial conditions are applicable. It says -

That the vessels to which the conditions imposed by the law of Australia or New Zealand are applicable should be (a) vessels registered in the colony while trading therein ; and (b) vessels wherever registered while trading on the coast of the colony. That for the purpose of this resolution a vessel shall be deemed to trade if she takes on board cargo or passengers at any port in the colony to be carried to and landed or delivered at any port in the colony.

That resolution was passed by the Merchant Shipping Legislation Conference, and was approved by the Navigation Commission, Messrs. Edwards, Thomson,, Knox and Macfarlane dissenting, subject to a certain exemption mentioned on page 53 of the report, and having reference to Western Australia. The Bill now submitted has been drafted with due regard to the resolutions passed at the Conference; and I think that it will be* found, on the whole, to harmonize with them. The measure also includes nearly the whole of the recommendations made bv the majority of the Navigation Commission. I make that statement subject to the qualification that some of those recommendations have been included, not in their entirety, but with some modification or variation. Speaking generally, most of the recommendations of the majority of the Commission have been included. Moreover, the Bill, subject to some departures with which I shall afterwards deal, has for its foundation the Imperial Merchant Shipping law, with such alterations as we have found necessary to make it completely suitable to our own conditions. These navigation laws are of such great historical interest that T make no apology for asking honorable senators to permit me to make reference to some of their more important historical aspects. I do so, first of ali, because the references I propose making are of substantial interest in dealing with a question of this kind, and further indicate the evolution of British shipping to the position of supremacy it has achieved. They are of interest, moreover, from the fact that they supply early authority for many of the provisions of the Bill which I am now submitting to the Senate. Without attempting to go so far back as to describe the splendid efforts towards the encouragement of sea trading by Alfred the Great, and some of his successors, I content myself with the first example of direct protection that I notice to English shipping. I purpose referring to several of t.he enactments which conclusively show the way in which British shipping has been founded. In the Act 6 Richard II., chapter 3, we have it enacted -

That for increasing the shipping of England, of late much diminished, none of the King’s subjects shall hereafter ship any kind of merchandise either outward or homeward but only in the ships of the King’s subjects, on forfeiture of ships and merchandise ; in which also the greater part of the crews shall be the King’s subjects.

The Act 6 Richard II., chap. 8, permitted the merchant, ‘where no English ships were to be had, to export or import in foreign ships. Then nine years later it was enacted that all English merchants were bound to freight only in English ships, al- ways provided “ that the freight was reasonable and moderate.”

Senator Lynch:

– That is good, sound protection.

Senator BEST:

– I shall show that British shipping was established from the beginning on sound protectionist lines. This system of protection for British ships and merchants inaugurated by Richard II. was continued until the time of Elizabeth, who determined on a new policy relieving shipping of certain restrictions.

Senator St Ledger:

– Wise woman !

Senator BEST:

– She was; but this was subject only to the necessity of their paying aliens’ duty if they used the ship of an alien, and most carefully was the coasting trade reserved to British ships. A little later on, a very substantially increased protection was brought about by the encroachments of the Dutch. The Dutch East India Company, as my honorable friends will recollect, assumed the “ sovereignty of the sea,” and our great East India Company was its rival. But to such an extent did the Dutch secure the “ sovereignty of the sea,” that the fishing grounds adjacent to the coast of Great Britain were, in 1618, occupied by 3,000 Dutch fishing vessels, and there were 50,000 men engaged in that business. Cromwell was not going to stand that, and carried through the Rump Parliament what is known as Scobele’s Act, which stoppedthe Dutch trade with England, and declared that their presence on the fishing grounds was illegal. These are the terms of the Act -

That no merchandise, either of Asia, Africa, or America, including also our own plantations, should be imported into Britain in any but English-built ships, or belonging to English or English plantation subjects, navigated also by an English commander and three-fourths of the sailors to be Englishmen ; excepting, however, such merchandise as should be imported directly from the original place of their growth or manufacture in Europe solely. Moreover, no fish could thenceforward be imported into England or Ireland, nor exported thence to foreign parts, nor even from one of our home ports to another but what shall be caught by our fishers only.

Senator McGregor:

– Wise man !

Senator BEST:

– Attention was directed a little later on, in the reign of Charles II., to the necessity of the preservation of British trade between the mother country and the Colonies, and legislation was introduced, with the view to its improvement and further protection and encouragement. In 1662, a measure was passed providing that no foreign-built ship should have British privileges, although owned by Englishmen. Later on, further privileges and exemptions from duties were extended to British ships. These measures were so effective that they resulted in the complete destruction of Dutch commerce. An excellent authority of the time, Sir Joshua Child, writing on the subject in his Discourse on Trade, an important treatise, in 1766, said -

Without these Acts we had not now been owners of one-half of the shipping or the trade, nor should have employed one-half of our seamen.

Anderson, another authority, in his History of Commerce, in 1776, says -

So vast an alteration had these Acts brought about that in a few years we were at length become in a great measure what the Dutch once were, that is the great carriers of Europe, especially within the Mediterranean Sea.

James II. also had a hand in legislation for the preservation of British commerce, and imposed a duty of 5s. per ton on foreign vessels engaged in the English coasting trade. Again, in 1742, by the Act 15 George II., chapter 31, all Colonial and British ships were required to be registered as British, and the Act also provided against the inclusion of any foreign ships in the trade between Britain and America, or on their coasts. There was a general revision of all the Navigation Acts in 1825, when all the former Acts were repealed and summed up in a new Act, 6 George IV. , chapter 109. In this Act the restriction as to British crews was maintained, namely, that three-fourths of the crew should be British seamen ; but if one British seaman for every 20 tons was carried, the rest of the crew might be foreigners. In 1834 another Act was passed, reasserting and restricting the qualifications of a British shipmaster to the natural-born subjects of the Empire or to persons naturalized by process according to law.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– From what book is the honorable senator quoting?

Senator BEST:

– I may say in this connexion that I am very much indebted to a book, which I had the pleasure of reading, by Mr. Blackmore, on The British Mercantile Marine. Incidentally, it deals with many of the important features of maritime law. In 1836 a Royal Commission in connexion with the wreckage of British ships and the preference of British ships was appointed. The recommendations of that Commission go to show how, ultimately, some recommendations which received the most uncompromising opposition at the time, one by one found their place in British Statutes. The evils which had to be combated were admitted. The remediesproposed by the Commission as affecting the mariner were these - the formation of a mercantile board to regulate the affairs of the mercantile marine; the formation of a standard of acquirement for officers by the establishment of examinations; Savings Banks for seamen ; asylums for worn-out seamen; registry offices at which, seamen’s characters could be recorded and kept ; nautical schools; Courts of Inquiry into shipwrecks, with power- to censure and power to reward by money, medals, or otherwise; tribunals for speedy settlement of disputes ; discouragement of drinking on board ship. Lastly, attention was called to the vast superiority in officers, crews, and equipment, and consequent superior success and growth of American shipping. An effort was made by a Mr. Buckingham to carry out these ideas by an Act of Parliament, but he signally failed. It is singular” to read the history of the subject at about this time, and to discover the strong opposition which was made to the education of British seamen, and parti*cularly to the education of officers. The first recognition of the necessity of education for seamen was in 1845, when the Board of Trade made arrangements for the appointment of examiners, to whom masters and men might voluntarily present themselves for examination.

Senator Pearce:

– Can the honorable senator state in what year the extracoasting trade of Great Britain was thrown open to f foreigners ?

Senator BEST:

– In 1854. I will deal with that point in a few moments. To show how humorous was the opposition of the ship-owners to employing educated officers, Mr. Lindsey draws attention to this fact-

In my own time I remember .1 ship-owner saying to me that he never would have a “scholar” in command of any of his vessels, because education taught him how to make up false accounts and the art of cheating, while smother whom I knew only retained one “ educated “ master in his service because he was flattered by being invariably addressed as “ Mr. Joseph Perkins, Esquire.”

In 1853, yielding, of course, to the strong demand that was made by a section of the British community of a certain fiscal faith, a modification of the restrictions was decided upon. Amongst other things, Great

Britain repealed all the restrictions on British masters and seamen, permitting the employment of foreigners indiscriminately, and admitting them to equal rights with British seamen. Mr. Blackmore, in referring to this matter, says -

Thus were the interests of the British seaman, sacrificed to those of the shipowner; the evil effect of which has been clearly shown by the current events in the. subsequent years.

In 1854 the coasting trade of Great Britain was thrown open, and various provisions of Acts which created any restrictions were repealed, the argument being in connexion with this, as with regard to other matters, that this generous conduct on the part of Great Britain would, meet with recognitionon the part of other countries. But not so. The United States of America, although after considerable negotiations, content toadmit foreign ships into their foreign trade,- replied, as regards the coasting trade, by saying that that trade extended from the eastern coast of America right round Cape Horn to the western side of the continent. By that means, therefore, they shut out the valuable trade which had been hitherto enjoyed by Great Britain. I will only just mention, in a casual way, two or three other incidents. There was the Plimsoll agitation in the seventies, against what Mr. Plimsoll denounced as the mercenary and murderous greed of the ship-owners in sending overladen and rotten ships to sea, and thereby causing a criminal loss of life. In 187 1 a Bill was introduced by Mr. Plimsoll, the object of which was to insist on the proper survey of ships. It was rejected. A similar measure was introduced in 1874, with a like result. In 1875, Sir Charles Hatherley introduced a Bill, embodying the recommendations of certain Commissions which had been appointed. That Bill was deluged with something like 178 amendments, and was thereupon withdrawn. A stop-gap Act of 1875 provided for increasing the power of the Board of Trade as to surveyors, arid also for stopping ships on complaint by one-fourth of the crew as to defective conditions. In 1876 an Act was passed which made it a misdemeanour to send to sea unseaworthy ships. It also made stringent regulations as to surveys, provided Courts of” Appeal to ‘decide cases, dealt with loading, was applicable to foreign ships in all British Courts, and appointed a Wreck Commissioner. A further- Commission was appointed in 1884 as to loss of life and ships at sea, and it is of interest to find that in the course of their report they state that from1874 to 1883 no fewer than 699 vessels. were lost with 8,475 hands on board, from causes unknown, and that for nine years ending 30th June, 1883, no fewer than 96,494 lives were saved at sea by life-boats, rocket apparatus, ships’ boats, &c. However, there was no practical result.

Senator Guthrie:

– The load-line was a practical result.

Senator BEST:

– That was an exception. In 1894, there was a state of things in regard to merchant shipping that was very confusing, owing to the fact that from 1840 to 1894 no less than eighty-one separate Acts Of Parliament hadbeen passed relating to this subject. Consequently, it was exceedingly difficult for any person to know what the law really was. A code, known as 57 and 58 Victoria, chapter 60 - a single and undivided code - was then passed, and it is this code, to which I have shortly and incompletely led up, that forms the foundation of the Bill that I am now introducing. It will be discovered that many of the provisions ‘of this Bill are taken from that code, but, at the same time, there are many departures from it, to which it will subsequently be my duty to refer. Honorable senators will observe from the incomplete historical sketch which I have given, how Great Britain most strongly and firmly supported for very many years the principle of the enactments on which British supremacy in regard to shipping was built up. It will have been noticed how tenaciously, prior to 1853, Great Britain insisted upon the employment of Britishers on British ships.

Senator Guthrie:

– Has the honorable senator overlooked the Merchant Shipping Act of last year?

Senator BEST:

– In Committee, it will bemy duty to mention it with greater particularity. I was observing how tenaciously, prior to 1853, the Parliament of Great Britain insisted upon the employment of British seamen in British ships. But since that year one of the most serious and important problems, and a subject of the greatest concern to the Empire, is presented by the fact of the decrease of British seamen in the mercantile marine. This feature has been very exhaustively dealt with, under the heading of “ Decline of British Seamen,”by the Navigation Commission, who have established beyond doubt the fact that whilst the number of British seamen in the mercantile marine is decreasing the number of foreigners is in- creasing. I am aware that it has been denied that there is a decline in the total number of Britishers engaged in seafaring life, nor do I overlook the statement made by theP resident of the Board of Trade last session in the British House of Commons, to the effect that -

Whilst since 1870 the number of British merchant sailors had decreased from 200,000 to 176,000, during the same period the Admiralty has practically taken the cream of the men anxious to engage in a seafaring life ; and the number of seamen employed in the Royal Navy had increased from 70,000 to 129,000. Therefore in the 30 years there has been a total increase of 35,000 in the number ofBritish seamen employed in both services - an increase equal to 13 per cent. Since 1900 there has been an actual increase of 6,000 in the number of British merchant sailors.

Notwithstanding this statement, the fact remains that whilst in 1893 the number of British seamen employed upon British ships was 186,628, in the year 1905, the latest year for which figures are available, the number had decreased to 180,492.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– The latest figures show that the reverse is now the fact.

Senator BEST:

– I am giving the latest figures at my disposal. When it is remembered that the tonnage ofBritish shipping has increased in the same period by upwards of 2,000,000 tons,’ it is clear that the proportionate decrease is much greater. In the year 1893 the total British, tonnage was 8,541,388 tons, and the number of British seamen employed was 186,628; whilst in 1905, the tonnage being 10,597,761 tons, the British seamen numbered 180,492. Whilst it is no doubt correct to say that since 1900 the number of British seamen has increased by 6,000, yet the tonnage since that year has also largely increased, and the fact is still patent that as against 180,492 British persons employed in our mercantile marine in 1905, there were 83,194 of other nationalities employed, or, excluding Asiatics, 39,711 foreigners. Under proper conditions, there is no reason why British seamen should not be substituted for the 40,000 foreignersalready in the service.

Senator Guthrie:

– Where the conditions are better in the Navy,they increase.

Senator BEST:

– My honorable friend has anticipated what I was about to point out. With the better conditions obtaining in the Navy the number of British seamen in the Navy has increased. If better conditions are imposed by this Bill, which we hope to see carried in its present form, then we confidently, anticipate a substantial increase in the number of British seamen in our mercantile marine.

Senator Dobson:

– Is it not a factthat the percentage of seamen amongst Britishers is as great as the percentage of seamen amongst people of other nationalities?

Senator BEST:

– I have already pointed out that if the Navy is included it is so, but in the mercantile marine itself there has been a substantial decrease, and in the year 1905 nearly 40,000 foreigners were employed, many of whom are better treated than, and given far superior accommodation to, some of our own British seamen. It is our duty to endeavour to secure the employment of British seamen instead of foreigners, and to give every encouragement to men of our own race to enter the service of the mercantile marine, so as to build up on our coasts, not only a splendid and successful coasting trade, but also a naval reserve, in which Senator Dobson is so strongly interested. Those instances of the employment of foreigners in British ships are, of course, not confined to Great Britain, but are well known to ourselves by our daily knowledge and experience.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Does the honorable senator include natives of India under the heading of foreigners?

Senator BEST:

– No. A valuable report was presented by a Committee appointedby the British Board of Trade on “The Manning of British Merchant Ships.” I have only had an opportunity of glancing at the report, and propose to content myself with referring to two sections of it to illustrate this subject. Section 27 of the report says -

We are informed that, except with regard to certificates, which must be held by masters, officers, and engineers in certain cases, and which, moreover, may be obtained by men of any nationality, there is at present practically no bar to the employment of any person of any nationality in any capacity whatsoever on board any British ship. Having regard to the lower scales of wages and living amongst the foreigners with whom our seamen have thus been brought into competition in British ships, it is not surprising that there has been a disposition on ‘the part of British-born seamen to escape from such competition, and find employment ashore.

Section 36 is as follows -

The case of the Inchborva, which stranded near Cape Fontana, in March, 1894, affords . a good illustration of the way in which some crews are composed. The master, purser, and second engineer were Welsh, the second mate and third engineer were English, the first engineer was Scotch, the first mate was Danish, the boatswain and onefireman were German, two A.B.’s and three firemen were Turkish, three A.B.’s and one fireman were Greek, the carpenter and one fireman were Italian, the donkeyman was Swiss, and the cook, steward, and cabin boy were French. The Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Dundee reported that he “ found it impossible to communicate with them, except through an interpreter. With the exception of three, and they could not be made to understand what was said, the men had not been in an English ship before.”

There are two factors which must strike honorable senators at once as contributing to this unfortunate result. One is that under the existing law any man that a ship-master chooses to accept, or who is forced upon him by the ship-owner as a seaman, can go on board the vessel and be rated as an A.B. if the master chooses. That is to say, they may take on board as many men as they like who are utterly without experience or qualification.

Senator Guthrie:

– Or as few as they like.

Senator BEST:

– Yes.

Senator Pearce:

– Under the British Act?

Senator BEST:

– Yes. Such men can be taken from all parts of the world without a preliminary condition that they must understand English or the orders of the master, which may be issued to them, and, as a matter of fact, that obtains every day in actual practice. One object, amongst others which’ we have in this measure, is to make a sea-life more attractive. We have a vast island continent with something like 8,000 miles of coast-line. We have in our midst a sturdyyouth who, up to the present, have certainly not shown much preference for the sea, because the conditions on land are so superior to those at sea. If it is possible for us to equalize those conditions more and more, to make the accommodation and the general comforts at sea equal to or approaching those on land, there are great prospects off building up a substantial mercantile marine around our coasts. The Bill proposes, amongst other things, to . apply remedies for the present conditions by provisions for vastly improved accommodation and sanitary arrangements, and a higher standard of qualification for officers and seamen. Officers will have to submit to a qualification as prescribed in the Bill, and we propose to make provision for seamen being rated after a certain service on board. The natural corollary of this would, of course, be higher wages. We provide for scales of food and medicine, “and for the carefulin spection of these, under Government supervision. We also provide for the better treatment of seamen, and generally for their more extended comfort. Honorable senators will find that some valuable evidence in this connexion has been collected by the Navigation Commission. Substantially most of the recommendations of the Commission are dealt with in the Bill, but some, to which I propose to draw special attention, are not included. They are not very numerous. The 17th original recommendation of the Commission was, “ That seamen be not rated as A.B’s. unless they have had four years’ experience before the mast.” The Imperial Navigation Conference, by resolution number 7, decided that the term should he three years, and our Commission, on subsequent reconsideration, also determined that three years would be a reasonable qualification. The 18th recommendation of the Commission was, “ That seamen be not rated as ordinary seamen unless they have had one year’s experience before the mast.” We have not deemed it advisable to include that provision in the Bill, because we decided that it would work harshly, and result in a discouragement of the sea-faring life. It certainly would result in the creation of an additional class for yachtsmen and fishermen, and others who have some knowledge and experience of the sea, but have not spent twelve months before the mast. They would practically be precluded from entering under these circumstances without that qualification. The 19th recommendation of the Commission originally was, “ That a scheme of compulsory insurance for seamen is desirable.” That question was dealt with by the Imperial Navigation Conference in resolution 3’6, which is as follows r -

That the adoption of uniform legislation is desirable with a view to extend the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to seamen, as lias already been done in the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

That resolution was passed by the Conference, the representatives of the British ship-owners dissenting, and recording the view that some system of compulsory insurance for seamen should be adopted. Our Navigation Commission, dealing with that particular resolution of the Conference, have unanimously adopted it. It is not included in this measure, because we do not think it comes within its scope. The Government are in sympathy with it, and, no doubt, will find an opportunity at no distant date of dealing with it in a separate measure. The 21st recommendation of the Navigation Commission is, “ That the Sea Carriage of Goods Act remain as at present.” That, of course, is on the statute-book, and requires no action on our part. Recommendation 26 of the Commission is, “ That the cabins occupied by persons suffering from consumption and other infectious or contagious diseases be fumigated and scientifically cleansed.” That is a matter for quarantine,- and the Bill which has already been placed before the Senate provides for effective fumigation.

Senator Pearce:

– In the past, the practice of the Quarantine Department has been to take no cognizance of a case of consumption on a ship.

Senator BEST:

– Yes; but my honorable friend will recollect that the Quarantine Bill, applicable as it is to the whole of Australia, is specially designed to deal with oversea traffic, and particularly with ships on our coasts.

Senator Pearce:

– To deal with cases of consumption ?

Senator BEST:

– The Quarantine Bill does not mention consumption directly j but it provides for efficient supervision and proper fumigation where any case of the kind exists. Recommendation 27 is -

That in cases of serious accident or sickness aboard, ships make for most easily reached port, where the necessary medical attention can be obtained.

We have made very full inquiry into that subject. We are advised that it would be a serious mistake to burden our own vessels with a liability of the kind, and consequently we do not feel justified in dealing with the matter in the Bill. After all, the suggestion is hardly practicable, because the matter must be left largely to the discretion of the captain. Honorable senators will recognise the serious inconvenience which might be occasioned if die recommendation were adopted. The suggestion is that the illness should be a serious one, but who would be the judge of its serious character? It must be taken for granted that captains of ships are not without bowels of compassion.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator does not know them. He should read the evidence which was given before the Commission.1

Senator BEST:

– It should be borne in mind that on a large percentage of the ships medical officers are carried.. There must be some person to determine when the circumstances are such that the course of, say, a mail steamer with passengers should be. varied and the order given to put about and make for another port, thereby altering not only the arrangements of the passengers, but also, for a time at least, the destination of the cargo. We consider that it would be unreasonable to impose such a liability on our own shipping, and consequently we cannot see our way to deal with that matter in this Bill. Recommendation 29 is -

That the Commonwealth take over the control of the quarantine system.

A Bill is now before the Senate for that purpose. Recommendation 30 is -

That all light-houses, beacons, and buoys (except those within the limits of ports) be taken over by the Commonwealth.

That is under the consideration of the Government. The Commission make other recommendations, but I only propose to refer to recommendations 34, 43, and 44. Recommendation 34 is -

That it be made illegal to give rebates of freight where such are conditional on exclusive shipping by a certain vessel or vessels.

The Government recognise . at once that if the effect of this legislation is to establish a monopoly on our own coast, we must be careful to see that advantage is not taken of that monopoly to the injury of the public. The prohibition of this system of rebates which has been suggested, is a matter which, white it commands the sympathy of the Government, does not come within the scope of this Bill, but within a limited time we hope to be able to deal with it in a separate measure. We recognise that it is necessary that, an effective measure of the kind should be passed, so as to avoid the dangers of combination with which we shall be threatened by reason of the protection afforded by this measure.

Senator McGregor:

– Then the AntiTrust Act is not effective?

Senator BEST:

– If it is not. it must be made effective.

Senator Guthrie:

-. - It is reported that the Peninsular and Oriental and the Orient Steam Navigation Companies will come into the coastal trade if the Bill be passed!.

Senator BEST:

– I am very glad to hear that.

Senator Pearce:

– They are not here yet.

Senator BEST:

– No, but there willbeno harm in providing, against the contingency of a combination. Recommendation. 43 is -

That an Australian Royal Naval Reserve beformed.

That, of course, is outside the scope of themeasure, and . will be dealt with at theproper time. Recommendation 44 is -

That arrangements be made with the State-

Governments to provide for Nautical School ships at various ports in the Commonwealth.

Senator Pearce:

– Will it not be competent to provide in the Bill that a certain proportion of the crew shallbe membersof the Naval Reserve?

Senator BEST:

– I dare say that it will be competent to do so, butwhat I feel isthat it is hardly the place in whichto make provision, and it is more desirable that it should be dealt with in a broad scheme of defence policy.

Senator McGregor:

– It can not be dealt with in a defence policy. When we are dealing with the manning of ships we must make provision as to the class of men who shall be employed.

Senator BEST:

– The. matter is certainly worthy of consideration, but the Government think that it hardly comes within the scope of this measure. I am aware that a very important minority report has been furnished by certain members of the NavigationCommission. So far as I could gather from its terms, the signatories were somewhat afraid of imperilling the Imperial relationship by reason of the coastal provisions of this measure. But the best answer to their fears and apprehensions has been furnished by the proceedings . of the Navigation Conference, at which an excellent understanding was established, and it was concededthat it will not be regarded as a matter of offence to the Imperial authorities for us to deal with our coasting shipping as we may think proper. A fear was also entertained in regard to the manning scale: It was contended that it would be unwise to enact a standard for the manning of ships, but Senator Macfarlane will see that the Bill provides for the appointment of a Committee, which will have the regulation of that important subject. Perhaps the feature of the Bill which is of most important interest is that which dealswith the coasting trade. That Question is also comprehensively dealt with by the Navigation Commission in division 7 of their report. Nearly every nation - excluding,of course, the United Kingdom - re- serves to itself its coasting trade, either directly or by treaty. In this Bill we have followed the valuable experience and example of foreign nations. At page 27 of their report the Commission say -

Your Commissioners’ attention was directed by several witnesses to the practice of foreign countries in this connexion. Those who opposed the principle pointed out that it was contrary to the policy of Great Britain. On the other hand, very few nations allow foreigners to participate in their coastal trade. According to a compilation of the Board of Trade, dated 17th June, 1902, the following countries reserve their coastal trade for native bottoms absolutely : Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Egypt, France, Guatemala, Italy, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela ; whilst almost all other nations having any mercantile marine worth speaking of open their coastal trade by treaty only.

It must be noted, too, that those countries which open their coastal trade to foreign shipping by treaty arrangement or law, in some cases are not exposed to competition of any serious kind. The coastal trade of Germany, Norway, and Denmark, for example, is almost entirely carried out on native bottoms. Where there are few inducements to foreign competitors the necessity for restriction does not arise.

Senator Lynch:

– Does the term “ native bottoms “ mean ships built, in those countries ?

Senator BEST:

– Not necessarily.

Senator Lynch:

– In the United States it does.

Senator BEST:

– Yes. In declaring their coasting trade, the United States say that it shall extend from, say, New York on the east coast, round Cape Horn, to San Francisco or other port on the west coast, and also from any western port to Honolulu. The coastal trade is confined to ships carrying the American’ flag and built in America.

Senator Pearce:

– It has been extended to the Philippines.

Senator BEST:

– Yes. In the case of Fiance, the trade between various ports and also between those ports and Algeria must be carried on native bottoms. If we take Russia with its vast extensive territory we find that only ships carrying the Russian flag are allowed to trade between their ports in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, and from any of their ports right away to Vladivostock on the east coast of Siberia. Honorable senators will see the comprehensive character of the coasting trade which has been reserved to their own shipping by various nations. In the caste of Great Britain the last vestige of protection was taken away in 1854; but, although she feels herself slavishly bound to her present free-trade policy, yet we find the most perfervid free-traders saying that the existing conditions relative to shipping competition on the coast are intolerable.

Senator Guthrie:

– To keep the western ocean trade she has to subsidize the Cunard Company.

Senator BEST:

– Yes. It will be seen, first, that British shipping is excluded from the coasting trade of various nations; and secondly, that in the case of her own coasting trade British ships are competing with heavily subsidized ships of foreign nations, who exclude British ships from their own coasting trade. From time to time a Select Committee has been appointed to deal with, the question, and to make recommendations. The last one was appointed in 1902, I think, to inquire into the subsidies to steamship companies and sailing ships under foreign Governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade. It reported at the end of 1902 or the beginning of 1903. From the report I propose to quote, in support of . the “coasting” provisions of this Bill, Sir Robert Giffen, an acknowledged British authority, and a strong free-trader, who has given very close consideration to this subject. Before he was examined evidence had been given to the effect that, whilst it was true that 90 or 91 per cent. of the trade on the British coast was monopolized by British tonnage, and that the foreign tonnage represented only 9 or 10 per cent., it was not wise, for the sake of the 9 or 10 per cent., to attempt to exclude foreigners from that trade. In his evidence Sir Robert Giffen repliedmost vigorously that the 9 or 10 per cent. represented a very valuable portion of the trade, and he went on to say that reprisals were out of the question, because the barriers were already raised against Great Britain by foreign nations. I propose calling him, so to speak, as a witness, because of the valuable suggestions he made, for the purpose of meeting the difficulty to which I have referred. He said -

Eitherforeign ships, and especially foreignsubsidized ships, should be excluded altogether from the coastal trade - in the widest sense - of the British Empire, that is, trade between the United Kingdom and Australia or between the United Kingdom and India, or between Australia and India, and so on ; or (2) that such ships should only be admitted to these trades on condition of their complying with the same rule as to construction, equipment, and inspection as English ships, and paying a fine for the privilege of coasting equal to and exceeding any subsidy (presumably trade - navigation or construction - subsidy) they receive. It should be explained, he says, that this second suggestion would not prevent foreign ships coming to our ports from abroad, or going to foreign ports from our shores, which is all the privilege most foreign countries give tq our ships in their waters. it would only prevent foreign ships doing coasting trade or inter-provincial trade within the British Empire itself, or would prevent them doing it except upon proper terms. The suggestion would require the assent and cooperation of our self-governing colonies, which there is reason to suppose will not be wanting, for if foreign ships trading between two British Imperial ports, that is, London to Sydney, are required to pay a fine or to take out a licence as far as possible equal to the various subsidies from which they benefit, the licence must clearly be demanded for inspection at both ends to prevent evasion. Your Committee desire especially to point out that as the coast-line of the British Empire is the greatest of any country in the world, Great Britain need have no fear of effective retaliation, even if most of them did not already do what is now suggested for Great Britain. Evidence has been repeatedly furnished that British trade is injured by foreign subsidies, and many witnesses stated that something should be done to counteract them. For instance, the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, after advocating the reservation of coasting trade, says that it has always been in favour of free-trade, and that it desires to keep the principle of free-trade steadily in view as the ideal to be realized. Nevertheless it thinks that it is matter for serious consideration whether measures should not from time to time be taken to counteract the proceedings of the other commercial nations of the world, who are hostile to free-trade, and who use the facilities given by the present policy of the British’ Empire to injure its commerce and forward their own policy of protection.

I say that these suggestions, made by this great authority, Sir Robert Giffen, support the leading principles of this Bill as regards our contention for the reservation of our coastal trade. As I have pointed out, we are seeking bv this Bill to make the conditions of the seafaring life on our coasts equal, if not superior, to the conditions required bv other nations trading with us.

Senator Macfarlane:

– But we propose to shut out British vessels registered in England from our coasting trade.

Senator BEST:

– We propose in regard to certain British vessels to make them trade under the conditions which we apply to our own ships engaged in the coasting trade. We invite British and” nonsubsidized foreign vessels to trade with us, but we say, “ You must trade on our coasts under the conditions which we apply to our own ships engaged in the same trade.” Therefore I say that in the encouragement of our coastal trade we wish to make the conditions of the seal anne life on our coast such as will be likely to attract a large number of our own people. We wish to make them at least equal to the best conditions offered by the seafaring life in other parts of the world. We wish in some respects to make them superior. Our contention is that the more we make the conditions as to comfort and accommodation on board ships trading on our coast equal tr> those which can be secured on shore, the greater will be the possibility of our making the seafaring life attractive to our people. In this connexion, to show how necessary it is that our coasting trade should be protected, I point out that as We have determined on the policy of a White Australia, it would be manifestly unfair to permit the owners of ships manned by miserably-paid black crews to compete for our trade with our own shipowners employing white seamen. We have in Australia established Arbitration Courts and Wages Boards, and have given other facilities for securing the payment of a substantial living wage. And, further, we are seeking in this Bill to establish a high standard of accommodation on our ships, and making ample sanitary and other provisions for the improvement of seafaring life on our coasts, and it would be manifestly unfair to permit others to come and take a part in our trade who would be under no obligation to observe such conditions. Honorable senators will see that when we invite British and foreign shinowners to come and trade with Australia under the improved conditions we hope, to establish, we are doing only justice to ourselves, and no injustice to them.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Are the Government not going to prevent British ships carrying cargo from port to port in Australia?

Senator BEST:

– Certainly not.

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Macfarlane was long enough on the Navigation Commission to know differently.

Senator BEST:

– We invite nonsubsidized foreign ships and all British ships to come and trade on our coast under the same conditions as we apow to ships registered in Australia. There’ is one other feature which I might mention in this connexion. In protecting our coastal trade we contend that we shall be laving the foundations for the building up of a Naval Reserve. The defence of our shores has been a matter in which many honorable senators have taken a lively interest. It is a matter which I hope will engage our special attention in a very short time. There ‘can be no doubt that we shall

__ ;_ have secured a valuable auxiliary to our naval defence if we can build up a Naval Reserve by encouraging a large coastal trade. In this connexion I may quote a passage from paragraph 19 of the report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade in 1902 - >It seems to us unlikely that, in the event of any great naval war, it would be practicable to draw men to any considerable, extent from the crews of the sea-going vessels of the Mercantile Marine. At present the great mass of Naval Reserve come from the fishermen and yachtmen class, and from seamen on coasting vessels, and in case of war it is upon these classes that reliance must be placed. Honorable senators will be aware that in regard to the coastal trade the Navigation Commission made the following direct recommendation - >That the coastal trade of the Commonwealth be reserved for ships on the Australian register of ships conforming to Australian conditions and licensed to trade on the Australian coast. Then the Imperial Navigation Conference, in dealing with the matter, passed resolution 9, which I havealready quoted, and also resolution 10, to the following effect A vessel engaged in the oversea trade shall not be deemed to engage in the coasting trade merely because it carries between two Australian or New Zealand ports- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Passengers holding through tickets to or from some oversea place ; 1. Merchandise consigned on through bill of lading to or from some oversea place. This was passed unanimously by the Conference, and it was unanimously approved by the Navigation Commission. I now propose to deal with various important provisions of the Bill." I direct the attention of honorable senators to clause 277. Part 6 of the Bill deals with the coasting trade, and clause 277 provides that - >This part of this Act shall, unless the contrary intention appears, apply to all ships (whether British or foreign). I ask honorable senators to mark that clause. Then it is provided that this part of the measure come into operation by proclamation. Clause 279 sets forth when a ship shall be deemed to engage in the coasting trade. It provides that - >A ship shall be deemed to engage in the coasting trade if she takes on board passengers or cargo at any port in Australia, or any territory tinder the authority of the Commonwealth, to be carried to and landed or delivered at any other port in Australia or in any such territory : > >Provided that the carrying of passengers who hold through tickets to or from a port beyond Australia', or of cargo consigned on a through bill of lading to or from a port beyond Australia, shall not be deemed engaged in the coasting trade. There honorable senators will see, first of all, that British and foreign ships are invited to trade on our coasts. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- No, they are invited to bring cargo for two ports, practically. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- British and foreign ships are invited to trade on our coast. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- No. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I say that without any qualification whatever. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- It is plain. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Trading on our coast means taking or delivering cargo at the various ports within the Commonwealth, or a Territory of the Commonwealth. Then there is a provision, inserted in deference to the resolution passed by the British Conference, that where through tickets are held by passengers on oversea ships, where, for instance, a passenger arrives by an oversea ship at Fremantle, stays there a few weeks, and then continues his voyage, perhaps by a vessel belonging) to the same line, to other ports in the Commonwealth, that is not to be taken as trading on our coasts. In the same way in regard to cargo, it is provided that the carriage of cargo consigned on a through bill of lading to or from a port beyond Australia is not to be deemed trading on our coasts. Two important exemptions are made, and I think both refer to Western Australia. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- One has reference to the whole of the north of Australia - from Fremantle to Cape York.' {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- They refer merely to Western Australia. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- There is as regards thecarriage of passengers to and from WesternAustralia and the eastern States the following further provision - >Provided further, that, until the railways of the State of Western Australia are connected with the railways of the State of South Australia, the carrying of passengers between a port in Western Australia and any other port in Australia by any British ship ordinarily carrying mails to or from the Commonwealth shall not be deemed engaging in the coasting trade. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- Are the Government satisfied of the. constitutionality of that provision ? It raises an important question. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- I should like to see our Western Australian friends get the benefit of it, but we in Tasmania should get the benefit of it also. If it is legal it is not just. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Honorable senators must concede that at present it is the misfortune of Western Australia to be cut off from the eastern States, and it would seem to be somewhat harsh to do anything which might curtail the means of linking that State with the eastern States. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- Does not that apply to other States as well as Western Australia ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- If it is possible to make a concession of the kind, we think it would be a reasonable thing to do until the accomplishment of a certain event, that is, until Western Australia is linked up with the eastern States by railway communication. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- And until we have a tunnel across Bass Strait to Tasmania. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It is true ..that the Navigation Commission suggested that this provision should apply only between South Australia and Western Australia, or between Fremantle and Adelaide. It would be an anomalous state of affairs if when a man had left Fremantle and arrived at Adelaide, he should be compelled to take the train or another ship or to complete his journey on a fresh vessel owned by the same line, if he desired to visit "another portion of Australia. If there is to be any exemption at all - and, of course, I am not oblivious to the fact that there is much to be said from many points of view - it is fair and reasonable to make one applicable between now and such time as there shall be railway communication with Western Australia. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- There is railway communication between Adelaide and Melbourne. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- But if we are to make an exemption we must do. it in a reasonable way, and not limit ourselves in the manner suggested. The other exemption is that if the Governor-General is satisfied that any 'British ship not registered in Australia trades or intends to trade between places on the west, north-west, and north coast of Australia, between Fremantle and Cape York, and if it is desirable for that ship so to trade, he may exempt it, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit to impose for any period not exceeding three years. Clause 281 is a very important one, dealing with the licensing of foreign ships to engage in the coasting trade. It provides that no foreign ship shall engage in the coasting trade unless she is licensed to do so. Licences may be granted for a period not exceeding three years, and every licence is to be issued subject to compliance with certain conditions. Those conditions are that the seamen must be paid wages in accordance with this part of the measure, that the ship must be provided with officers and seamen to the number that would be required if she were a British ship registered in Australia, and that no subsidy or bonus shall be payable to the owners other than by the Commonwealth or a State. That is to say, we conceive that it is unfair to our own people to compel them to compete with subsidized foreign vessels. Penalties for breaches of these provisions are provided. In clause 283 provision is made for the payment of Australian rates of wages - >Every seaman employed on a ship engaged in any part of the coasting trade shall, subject to any lawful deductions, be entitled to, and to be paid for the period during which the' ship is so engaged, wages at the current rates ruling in Australia for seamen employed in that part of the coasting trade, and may sue for and recover those wages. Moreover, clause 284 provides that an indorsement of the wages paid shall be made and signed on the agreement of any British ship before it engages in our coasting trade. The agreement so indorsed will form part and parcel of the terms as between the master and the seamen. There is provision as to what shall constitute evidence of the current rate of wage, and it is also provided that the wages are to be paid before the ship leaves Australia. . The master, owners, and agents are made responsible for compliance with the measure in these respects; and power is reserved to the Governor-General, if he thinks fit, to exempt ships sailing under the flag of any foreign country from the provisions requiring them to be licensed before engaging in the coasting trade, if he is satisfied that by law British ships mav engage in the coasting trade of that country without a licence, and as freely as ships registered in or sailing under the flag of that country. In directing the attention of honorable senators to other clauses, I deem it to be my duty to deal particularly with those which constitute a departure from the Imperial law, and those which are regarded as of importance in respect to the proper and efficient working of the Bill. I fully realize the difficulty of honorable senators' when dealing with a vast measure of this character, in picking out the more salient and important provisions of it. I shall draw attention in a succinct way to certain fundamental features. Clause 5 contains certain definitions to which I draw special attention. The following terms are used -"Foreign-going ship," "Australiantrade ship," " Limited Coast-Trade Ship," and "River and Bay Ship." These terms ace used throughout the Bill,, and therefore careful attention must be paid to them. A foreign-going ship includes every ship employed in trading or going between places in Australia and places, other than territories under the authority of the Commonwealth, beyond Australia. The term "Australian-trade ship" includes every ship, other than a limited' coast-trade ship, or river and bay ship, employed in trading or going between places in Australia, or between Australia and territories under the authority of the Commonwealth. The term " Limited Coast-Trade Ship " means a sea-going ship exclusively engaged in making short voyages from and to any port in Australia within limits determined for the port by the Governor-General. The term "River and Bay Ship" includes every ship which trades exclusively in some river, gulf, or bay within any State or States. There is an important definition of " Incompetent " and a definition of "Desertion " to which I direct attention. The "Superintendent" who is referred to throughout the measure is defined. It will be noted that the term " Port " under this Bill includes " place and harbor." Part II. refers to masters and seamen, and it embraces the clauses from 8 to 174 inclusive. These clauses have a very wide application. Clause 8 sets out that the provisions of this part relating to ships and their owners, masters, and crews shall, unless the subject-matter requires a different application, apply only to British ships, and to their owners, masters, and crews. ' It will be noted therefore that this broad power applies only to British ships. Clause 12 is very important. It relates to the manning of ships so far as officers are concerned - >No ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade shall go to sea unless she is provided with a duly certified master and officers according to the scale set out in schedule 1 or as prescribed. Clause 37 deals with the crew, and provides that every ship registered in Australia, and every 'other ship., British or for eign, engaged in the coasting trade, shall carry as crew the persons specified in the scale contained in schedule 2 or prescribed or specified for the ship. Honorable senators will realize that these particular features of the Bill have been subjected to very vigorous opposition, but I would paint out that there is no value in out attempting to equip our ships as regards machinery, and in our seeing to their soundness as regards their hulls and otherwise so as to insure their thorough seaworthiness, unless we are in a position to insist that they are also thoroughly equipped in relation to their officers and crew. The minority of the Navigation Commission, in their report, in dealing with this matter point out great difficulties so far as the engine and stoke-hold are concerned. They say that the labour to work engines varies according to the construction of the ship, and according to the engineering arrangements and the construction of her bunkers. It is quite true that in the construction of ships there have in this respect been great changes. It has even been suggested that contrivances will probably be introduced in the shape of mechanical stokers for the purpose of obviating the employment of so much labour. But 1 point out that while the terms of the Bill fix a certain standard in regard to the officers and crew, vet it is possible to alter that standard bv regulation. It is specifically provided by clause 416 that the Minister may appoint Committees to advise him in making or altering rules, regulations,' or scales for the purposes of the measure. That is a complete answer to the objection taken by the minority of the Commission. I especially draw attention to sub-clause 2 of this clause - >The Minister shall appoint a Committee for the purpose of advising him as to the alteration and application of the scale of the crews to be carried by different classes of ships, and as to the crews to be specified for particular ships by the Minister. That is to say, it is made compulsory for the Minister to appoint this Committee. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- He may appoint whatever Committee he thinks fit. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- No, because sub-clause 3 lays it down that the members of the Committee shall include persons representing the interests principally affected, or having special knowledge of the subjectmatter. So that, while it is advisable to have a general standard of manning for various classes of ships, still the provisions, of the Bill in this respect are not made cast-iron. A certain amount of elasticity is provided by reason of the fact that the requirements may be altered from time to time on proper representations being made to the Minister, and he will have the advantage of an expert Committee to advise him in his determiriation. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- This is, virtually what has been done on the Australian coast for some years past. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Practically so. I do not propose to make extended references to the schedules regarding this matter. . {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Is there anything in the Bill to limit the number of apprentices, either directly or indirectly? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- No, not to limit the number. Schedule1 provides the scale as regards officers. It requires that in every ship there shall be duly certified officers according to a scale set out. There is ascale for foreign-going ships and Australian-trade ships; sailing ships and steam-ships being dealt with separately. There is also a scale for limited coast-trade ships; and then provision is made with regard to the number of engineers to be carried, in proportion to the nominal horse-power of the engines, on steam-ships running under 200 miles, and on those running in rivers and bays. Steam-ships running greater distances are also dealt with. The scale of crew is set out in the second schedule. Provision is made as follows as to firemen and trimmers on steam-ships - >The number offiremen and trimmers required for steam-ships shall be in the proportion of at least one fireman or trimmer for every three and a half tons of coal consumed *per diem.* The amount of coal consumed *per diem* to be ascertained by such means as are prescribed. This scale has been fixed in the terms of the Navigation Commission's recommendation No. 15, after careful investigation. Much controversy raged around the question of the quantity of coal for each fireman. The determination of the Commission, after investigation, was " one fireman for every three and a half tons of coal consumed per diem." {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- How does this schedule compare with the English Act as to the number of men? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- There is no manning scale in the English legislation. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- A British ship can go to sea without any men at all. She hasonly to carry certificated officers. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- If a British ship does not carry passengers, then even if she is the biggest liner afloat she can go to sea without having a single 'qualified officer on board. The schedule as regards seamen is set forth on page 99 of the Bill. The number of seamen to be carried is fixed on a scale according to the tonnage of the vessel. It is provided that one able seaman extra shall be carried on steam-ships for every additional 500 tons or fraction of 500 tons above 2,000 tons. All steam-ships above 800 tons net register are to carry a carpenter in addition to the seamen provided for in the schedule. The schedule is not to apply to steam-ships plying in harbors, rivers, or inland waters. There is also a prescribed scale for sailing ships. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- What principle or practice has guided the Government in fixing the number of the crew ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- The expert evidence given before the Commission. All that is attempted is to fix what is regarded as a fair and reasonable standard. The Bill provides that the Minister may, if he think fit, and this would apply where structural alterations had been made, or new mechanical appliances introduced, appoint a Committee to advise him as to the alteration and application of the scale of crews to be carried by different classes of ships, and as to the crews to be specified for particular ships. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Will the GovernorGeneral in Council be bound to accept the Committee's ruling, or could he dissent from it ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- The Minister must accept it. He would be obliged to appoint a Committee to deal with this question under clause 416. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Where is the provision that the Minister must accept the Committee's decision ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- The clause says that " The Minister shall appoint a Committee for the purpose of advising him as to the alteration and application of the scale of the crews." If an expert Committee advised him, he would take a great responsibility if he failed' to act on their advice. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The honorable senator said that the Committee's decision was to be final. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I read the clause which provides that the Committee must be appointed for the purpose of advising the Minister. If the Minister did not carry out that advice he would take upon himself a grave and serious responsibility. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Have the ship-owners been consulted and given evidence as to the number of men that ought to be employed ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- The evidence was very conflicting. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That! was inevitable. Clause 15 provides that no person shall be admitted for examination for a certificate unless he is a British subject, and sneaks the English language fluently, and possesses the prescribed qualifications. In the Imperial Shipping Conference, by resolution No. 8, it was provided that - >No person shall be employed as an officer on board any British ship registered in Australia or in New Zealand or engaged in the coasting trade of those colonies who is not (a) a British subject, and (i) thoroughly conversant with the English language. On that resolution the delegates of the United Kingdom abstained from voting, but our Navigation Commission have approved of it. They go even further, and recommend the extension of the principle to all persons employed on ships registered in Australia. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- So that a Canadian who could. not speak English could not be registered. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Similar provisions appear in the 1906 Act. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- In the case of an ordinary 4,000-ton steamer- {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- On a point of order, I was called to order for asking a question this morning of the Minister in charge of the Bill, but I find now that **Senator Dobson** - and others - are very free of questions. , I submit that one honorable senator should not be allowed a liberty, that is denied to others. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- If a question is pertinent to the matter under discussion, and the Minister is willing to consider it, there can be no objection to its being asked. But if the Minister desires not to be interrupted or to have questions asked of him, it becomes the duty of the Chair to request honorable senators to accede to the Minister's wish, so that he may have an opportunity of explaining the merits of the Bill in his own manner. If the question is pertinent, and the Minister is willing to answer it, I see no objection to its being put. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- In the case of an ordinary steamer of 4,000 tons, would the manning scale mean increased expenditure ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It might or might not. The Navigation Commission, by a majority, after full investigation and hearing both sides, determined that this was a fair and reasonable scale to provide for the efficient working of ships. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- After hearing conflicting evidence. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That is the decision of the majority. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- The Union Company's boats are manned now under the manning scale of the New Zealand Act. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Is the New Zealand, scale about the same as the one proposed in this. Bill? {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Very nearly. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- If it is necessary to have officers and crews of the number and character prescribed by the Bill in order to secure the seaworthiness of vessels, the question of expense must be very subordinate. The most unfortunate disasters that have taken place have arisen through undermanning, or the incompetency of the crews. The object of the Bill is to secure the greatest amount of safety and insurance against the ordinary perils of the sea. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- That is all admitted. . We only want to know what it is going to cost as against the present arrangement. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- **Senator Guthrie** will be able to assure the honorable senator that the scale proposed in the Bill is in accord with the manning of many coastal vessels at the present time, and with the New Zealand, scale. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Would the Union Company think this a fair scale? {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Yes. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Clause 18 deals with the incapacity from ohysical unfitness of the holder of a certificate to perform his duties. It will be competent for the Minister in such a case to call in the certificate, which will then be submitted to the Court of Marine Inquiry for decision. Another important clause is 24, which provides that no person shall engage or go to sea as an officer in any ship registered in Australia, or engaged in the coasting trade, who is not " *(a)* a British subject, and *(b)* thoroughly conversant with the English language." That is in accordance with the resolution passed at the Navigation Conference, and also with the fifteenth recommendation of the Navigation Commission. Another important division of Part II. of the Bill is Division 4, which relates to the supplying of - seamen. The Commission dealt in very stringent terms with what they called the nefarious and criminal traffic in human beings which is being carried on both here and elsewhere, and the object of this division, which comprises clauses 26 to 28, is, as far as possible, to put down those practices. They are carried on under a system which is known as crimping. Clause 26 provides that no person other than a superintendent, or the owner, master, mate, or engineer of a ship, or a .person who is a *bond fide* servant in the constant and exclusive employ of the owner, shall engage or supply a seaman or apprentice. The second sub-clause enacts that no person shall employ for the purpose of engaging or supplying a seaman any other person than those I have already named. Heavy penalties follow on such a thing being done. In Division 6 of Part II. we provide for the rating of seamen. That division comprises clauses 34 to 36. The original recommendation of the Commission was that service for four years should qualify. That was subsequently altered both by the Conference and by the Commission, and provision is made here for a period of three years' service in order to qualify for the position of A.B. We provide in clause 41 that no seaman shall be permitted to sign any agreement who, in the opinion pf the superintendent, does not possess a knowledge of the English language sufficient to enable him to fully understand the necessary orders that may be given to him in the performance of his duties. It is also stipulated that no master or owner shall engage any seaman not possessing such knowledge. Clauses 64 and 65, and the subsequent clauses in Division 10 of this part, deal with advance and allotment notes. The practice has been to issue these notes, payable to the holder, for a month's wages three or four days before the vessel leaves. They have been a means whereby designing people have been able to rob the unfortunate seaman. They appear to be universally con,demned, and we purpose by clause 64 to abolish them. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- The unfortunate seaman often does a little bit of robbery in that way himself. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That may be so. Those notes have been abolished in the United States. Clause 72 makes a somewhat important alteration. In dealing with the period within which wages are to be paid, the Navigation Commission suggested that two-thirds should be recovered at any port at which the vessel might call. The practice has been not to pay the wages of the seamen until the conclusion of the voyage. Where seamen have received their money in a lump sum they have been made the victims of crimps and boardinghouserunners, thereby losing the benefit of their earnings. Perhaps one of the most serious and important aspects of the matter has been that unscrupulous masters, in collusion with boardinghouse-runners, have adopted the practice of inducing seamen to desert, with the result that they have thereby forfeited their wages, and the captain has benefited accordingly, perhaps, to some extent, sharing the money with those with whom he has been acting in collusion. Many cases of that kind were brought under the notice of the Navigation Commission, and in regard to their recommendation it is provided in clause 72 that - >The master or owner of every foreign going ship registered in Australia shall pay to every seaman, at the prescribed time, his wages or prescribed portions thereof - {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -To promote desertion. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- No; the object of the provision is to discourage desertion, if possible. We have not adopted a cast-iron proportion of two-thirds, as recommended by the Navigation Commission. We have preferred to leave that matter to regulation, so that it may be a little elastic, but the same object will be secured. The rights of seamen in respect of wages are dealt with' in clause 78 and following provisions. The mode of recovering wages is provided for in clause 87 and following provisions. Division 12 is an important one; dealing with discipline and, amongst other things, desertion. In clause 95 we deal with acts tending to endanger the ship or the life of a person. It says - >Any master, seaman, or apprentice who by wilful breach of duty or by neglect of duty, or by reason of drunkenness - *[a)* does any act tending to the immediate loss, destruction, or serious damage of the ship, or tending immediately to endanger the life or limb of a person belonging to or on board the ship ; or {: type="1" start="4"} 0. fails to do any lawful act proper and requisite to be done by him for preserving the ship from immediate loss, destruction, or serious damage, or for preserving any person belonging to or on board the ship from immediate danger to life or limb, shall be guilty of an indictable offence. In clause 96, a number of offences are set out in one column, and the punishments in another column. By this provision we purport to abolish imprisonment for desertion, and to substitute, as a punishment, the forfeiture of the accrued wages and emoluments and all effects which a man has left on board. According to the definition clause, " Desertion " means - The absence of a seaman or apprentice from his ship without leave for a period of fortyeight hours without lawful cause or excuse, or any unlawful departure from his ship with the intention of not returning thereto. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- That is far too long. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I think that under the present law if a man is absent from his ship in- certain circumstances for fortyeight hours, he is liable to the forfeiture of his wages, and also to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Ought he not to be made liable to imprisonment for deserting continually ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- If my honorable friend will look at the list of offences, he will see that it includes absence without leave from duty, quitting the ship without leave after arrival in port, insubordination or wilful disobedience, and continued wilful disobedience. The penalty provided for the last offenceis three months' imprisonment or the forfeiture of the whole of his accrued wages. Clause 101 is also an important provision. It says - Whenever a seaman or apprentice is charged before any Court with - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. failing without reasonable cause to join or to proceed to sea in his ship ; or 1. desertion or absence without leave from duty, or otherwise absenting himself without leave, the Court, if the master or owner or his agent so requires, may, upon proof of the offence, instead of enforcing the whole or any part of the penalties prescribed, cause him to be conveyed on board for the purpose of proceeding on the voyage. Clause 102 deals with the question of inciting to a breach of an agreement : clause 103 relates to secretionby a deserter. Clause 105 provides that after the departure of the ship the deserter shall be pro secuted by the superintendent, so that the former may not completely escape punishment for what he has done. Clause 107 provides for foreign-going seamen being returned to their ship. In Division 13 of Part II., clause 114, dealing with bad provisions or water, is an important one. It says - If three or more of the crew of a ship consider that their provisions or water are of bad quality . or deficient in quantity, they may complain thereof to a superintendent. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Why not one person ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- In this matter we are following, I think, the provision in the Merchant Shipping Act. If a complaint is made, the superintendent can require the master of the ship to provide provisions and water of good quality and in sufficient quantity. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Suppose that the crew consists of only two persons, how can they make a complaint ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It will not be a foreigngoing ship then. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- It is possible. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I think it is hardly possible. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- The ship may be going to Norfolk Island. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Clause 115 refers to a statutory scale of provisions. The master of every ship will have to furnish provisions in accordance with the scale set out in schedule 3. Clause 116 imposes certain penalties by way of compensation to the seamen, the money to be payable to him as an addition to his wages, where bad provisions or water have been supplied. Clause 118 has relation to the inspection of provisions, and according to sub-clause 4 - The owner of any ship, or his agent, or any other person, supplying or causing to be supplied provisions or water which are afterwards found deficient under this section shall be guilty of an offence. Clause 119 provides for certificated cooks. Division 14 of the Bill deals with the question of health. Clause 121 says - The Minister may appoint any person legally qualified as a medical practitioner in any State to be a Medical Inspector of Seamen. A scale of medicines is provided for in clause 122. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Will the medical man have to attend the men free? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- The honorable senator will see from a subsequent sub-clause that the medical inspector is to be appointed for the purpose of examining seamen applying for employment on a ship or already employed, when required to do so. Clause 124 will enable the Minister to nominate any duly qualified person to inspect the medicines' and medical stores, and, in certain circumstances, the owner is to be liable for medical attendance upon the crew. Clause 127 provides that the master of a ship shall not leave a seaman behind unless he has previously obtained, indorsed on the agreement, a certificate from the superintendent. Clause 130 provides that seamen lawfully left behind may be deemed discharged. The course to be followed in those circumstances both as regards ships registered in Australia and ships registered out of it is very clearly specified. According to clause 131 - >The owner or master of every foreign-going ship having one hundred persons or upwards on board shall cause to be carried, as part of her complement, a duly qualified medical practitioner. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Does that include the passengers, or is it limited to the crew ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It refers to a ship carrying 100 persons or upwards. It also provides for certain ships to carry a person qualified to render''first aid." Division 15, which refers to accommodation, is a very important one. Clause 133 relates to the accommodation for officers, while clause 134 deals with the accommodation for seamen. Following the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1906, the latter clause says that every space appropriated to that purpose shall - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. have for each seaman or apprentice a space of not less than one hundred and twenty cubic feet and of not less than sixteen superficial feet measured on the deck or floor of that place, and of not less than four feet measured between bunks clear of all encumbrances at the forward or narrow end ; I think that the Imperial Act provides for 15 superficial feet. In subsequent paragraphs, it is provided that this space shall- {: type="a" start="b"} 0. not be below the winter load-line of the ship ; 1. be kept free from allgoods and stores not being the personal property in use of the crew, and be so constructed as. to be wind and weather proof and adequately lighted and properly adapted for the preservation of the health and comfort of the seamen berthed therein ; 2. not have built in it, or' so near to it as to be in the opinion of a qualified medical inspector nominatedby the Ministerlikely to be prejudicial to the health of the occupants, any paint or chain locker, latrine, or similar erection ; 3. be so constructed as to insure that no bilge water or effluvium therefrom or any other cause shall be allowed to penetrate the space to such an extent or in such manner as would be detrimental to the health and comfort of the persons berthed therein ; 4. be ventilated in such manner as to insure a flow of not less than three thousand cubic feet of fresh air per hour for each seaman or apprentice evenly diffused by means approved of by a qualified medical inspector nominated bythe Minister, with an intake and outtake of such size and so arranged as to prevent such draught as would in the opinion of the medical inspector be likely to be prejudicial to the health of the seamen or apprentices; and 5. be fitted with bunks made of metal of the prescribed construction. Sub-clause 2 of clause 134 deals with the question of a separate mess-room. It goes on to say - >In cases where, in the opinion of the Minister, compliance with this requirement would involve such structural alterations of the ship as are not practicable, the owner shall provide equivalent accommodation in some other part of the ship not below the winter load-line, or, if in the opinion of the Minister this is not practicable, shall provide folding or sliding tables of sufficient size to enable the seamen or apprentices to take their meals in comfort in the forecastle. Sub-clause 3 provides - >The owner of every ship shall provide such sanitary, hospital, and lavatory accommodation, including bath-rooms, as in the opinion of a qualified medical inspector nominated by the Minister is sufficient for the requirement of the crew, and in the case of steam-ships that provision shall include an adequate supply of hot water for the use of all members of the crew employed in connexion with the engines of the ship. Sub-clause 4 reads - >If the requirements of the foregoing subsections of this section in regard to any space in the ship appropriated to the use of the seamen and apprentices are not complied with, the master or owner shall pay to each seaman and apprentice affected thereby the sum of Five shillings for each day during which, after complaint has been made to the master by two or more of the persons so affected, the cause of complaint is allowed to continue. . Clause135 is an exceedingly important provision, which has been prepared in deference to the sixth resolution of the Navigation Conference. It says - (1.) The foregoing provisions of this Division shall not apply to any ship built before the commencement of this Act. (2.) If, in the opinion of the Minister, the accommodation for officers or crew in any such ship is insanitary, the Minister may by notice- in writing require the owner of the ship to make such alterations in the ship as the Minister thinks necessary to remedy the defect, and the owner shall forthwith make such alterations. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Then the whole of this accommodation, other than sanitary, is to be provided in the sweet by-and-by ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Honorable senators will see that in regard to a large number of ships, it would involve most serious structural alterations to apply to them the terms of clause 134. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- No. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It is considered that it would. What is provided is that if the construction and accommodation of the ship are such as to render it insanitary, or in any way unhealthy, it will be competent for the Minister to insist that such alterations as may be necessary to remedy the defects shall be made. I point out in this connexion that the Navigation Conference, by Resolution 6, say that it - >Will require only such existing vessels as have accommodation which, in the opinion of the local authorities, is, in fact, insanitary or unhealthful, to amend the same so as to bring it into a sanitary and healthful condition to the satisfaction of the local authorities. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- There was strong dissent from that resolution of the Conference. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I thank the honorable senator for reminding me. I find that that resolution was passed by the Conference, the Honorable W. M. Hughes and **Mr. J.** Havelock Wilson dissenting; and that the Navigation Commission approved the resolution, Messrs. Hughes, Guthrie and de Largie dissenting. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Under this the sailor will still have to put up with 72 cubic feet - the size of a grave. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Under this provision the Minister is given power to insist that insanitary and unhealthful conditions shall be remedied. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- No, not unhealthful. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- If the conditions are not healthful they will be insanitary. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Considering that we are making them a present of the coastal trade, the owners of ships should be called upon to make some sacrifices. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I ask honorable senators now to turn to Part III., dealing with foreign seamen, and beginning with clause 175. I wish it to be observed that we do not pretend to interfere with foreign seamen so far as their wages are concerned, or except in the way set out here. That is a matter for the authorities of the country from which they come, and to which the ship on which they are engaged belongs. To attempt in any way to interfere with the wages of foreign seamen would involve the alteration of contracts between parties, the subjects of a foreign country. But we do propose, at the request of the Consul or other representative authority of the foreign country concerned, to assist the masters of ships whose seamen have been guilty of misconduct by desertion or otherwise. We propose, in such cases, to punish the offenders, and to secure the return to their ships of those who attempt to desert. The punishment provided for desertion, it will be seen in clause 177, is stated at twelve weeks' imprisonment for the first offence, and six months' for a second or subsequent desertion. In clause 176 we provide that - >If any seaman is absent from his duty without leave whilst his ship is within Australia, any Justice, upon complaint on oath, may, at the request of the Consul of the country to which the ship belongs, and on proof of the absence without leave, order the seaman to be conveyed on board the ship. Under clause 178 the Minister may also order any seaman sentenced under this part of the Bill to be put forcibly or otherwise on board of his ship. Clause 179 deals with the apprehension of deserters on warrant, and in clause 181 it is provided that - >No warrant shall be issued and no offence can be punished under this part of this Act unless - > >At the instance of the Consul of the country to which the ship belongs ; or > >The Governor-General has notified in the *Gazette* that the Government of that country has, in regard to seamen belonging to ships of that country, requested that this Part of this Act may be enforced. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- Might I ask if this is toapply to foreign-going ships? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It is intended to apply to foreign seamen on foreign-owned ships. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- To restricted immigrants whom we are going to keep by putting them in gaol. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I have dealt with the provisions referring to masters and seamen, British and foreign, and I come now to those dealing with ships and shipping, which are contained in Part IV. of the Bill. By clause 185 it is provided that this part shall apply to all ships, British or foreign. Clause 188 provides that any ship-owneraggrievedby a refusal to grant any certificate of survey or equipment may appeal to a Court of Marine Inquiry. Then, as regards steamships, it is provided that every steam-ship more than five years old, reckoning from the date of her registration, shall be surveyed once at least in every six months. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- I take it that that refers to her first registration, as a ship may be registered every week. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- No doubt that would be so. It is also provided that every other steam-ship shall be surveyed once at least in every twelve months by the prescribed surveyor. Then a report of the survey is to be made to the Minister, who can grant a certificateof survey in the prescribed form. No master is to be allowed to proceed to sea without a certificate of survey. There is power provided to cancel certificates obtained by fraud. There is also a provision setting out what is to take place if any steam-ship is absent from Australia when her certificate of survey expires. Clause 201 is included in deference to the first resolution of the Navigation Conference, which says - >That it should be a suggestion to the Board of Trade that they should provide for the issue of a survey certificate in the case of nonpassenger vessels, and that the standards as to hull, machinery, boilers, and life-saving appliances established by the Board of Trade and testified by current rates should be accepted for British ships in Australian and New Zealand waters. The Board of Trade certificates to be accepted as of the same effect as the local certificate. This resolution was passed unanimously by the Conference, and the Navigation Commission approved of it - **Senator Guthrie** only dissenting. Clause 201 provides that- >In cases where the Minister is satisfied in regard to any British steam-ship not registered in Australia or any foreign steam-ship that the requirements of this Act have been substantially complied with, he may - > >Dispense with any further survey of the steam-ship ; and > >Give a certificate which shall have the same effect as if given upon survey under this Act. But power is subsequently given to the Minister to suspend such a certificate, and order a further survey of the ship if certain things come under his notice. Clause 204 is the first of the provisions dealing . with unseaworthy ships, and in defining seaworthiness we practically accept the definition adopted by Baron Parke in the case *Hedley* v. *Pinkney S.S. Co.,* but which, if my memory serves me correctly, was laid down in a foreign case. Clause 204 is drawn in the terms of that judgment, and provides - >A ship shall not be deemed seaworthy under this Act unless she is in a fit state as to condition of hull and equipment, boilers, and machinery, stowage of ballast or cargo, number and qualifications of crew, including officers, and in every other respect, to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage then entered upon. The next clause deals with the sending to sea of unseaworthy ships, and provides that - . Every person who sends any ship to sea and any master who knowingly takes any ship tosea in an unseaworthy state, so that the life of any person is likely to be thereby endangered, shall, unless he proves that he used all reasonable means to insure the Seaworthiness of the ship, be guilty of an indictable offence. Clause 206 provides that unseaworthy ships may be detained, and the procedure to be followed on the detention of both British and foreign ships is set out. Division 4 of this part of the Act deals with life-saving appliances, and it is provided in clause 213 that the prescribed lifesaving appliances shall be carried by all ships, and shall be used and kept available for use as prescribed. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- There is.no provision made for exercise in the use of life-saving appliances. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- No, everything is to be "as prescribed." {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That would certainly be prescribed. Division 5 of the same part of the Bill deals with the important subject of deck and load lines, and clause 216 provides - >Every ship shall be permanently and conspicuously marked with lines in this Act called deck lines and load lines. But the provision is not to apply in certain cases which are set out in the clause. In clause 218 we practically adopt the provision in the Imperial Act in regard to load lines. Resolution 17 of the Navigation Conference is to this effect - >That the Commonwealth adopt the provisions of the New Zealand Act regarding load lines. This resolution was passed by the Conference, but the British delegates abstained from voting upon it, on the ground that, as the New Zealand Act gives no power to alter the Board of Trade mark imposed on any ship, the matter appeared to be one for the decision of the Commonwealth Government. The Navigation Commission approved of the resolution, but **Senator Guthrie** dissented. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- And, what do the Government propose to do in the Bill? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- We have adopted the British load line, and the means of ascertaining it. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- The Government have done more. They have provided for a winter North Atlantic mark. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Yes, it is provided that in the case of ships- laden with coal - >The position of the disc shall be at all seasons of the year not higher than that prescribe-d by the Board of Trade regulations for the winter Atlantic load line. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Why not, as well, for ships laden with ores, wheat, and other dead cargo? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That is a matter which we must discuss later *on'.* We have adopted practically the suggestion of the Navigation Conference, because the New Zealand legislation for ascertaining the load line is practically the same as the British. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- The last provision referred to is not to be found in the Merchan[ Shipping Act. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- No; I had marked that in order to mention the fact. Division 9 of this part of the Bill deals with anchors, chains, cables, and gear, and provision is made that they shall be tested before being used, and that it shall be a misdemeanour to sell anchors,, chains,, cables, and gear unless they are tested, and a licence may be issued for the purpose of testing them.. Division 10 embraces the clauses dealing with dangerous .goods. Division" n deals with lights, signals,, and sailing rules. Division 12 deals with private signals. . *Sitting suspended from 1 te 2 p.m.* {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I next .desire to draw attention: to Part V. of the Bill/ which relates to passengers. Those referred to are of course Australian passengers. Clause 265 gives power to make regulations in regard to ships engaged in our coasting trade, prescribing any matters necessary or convenient for regulating the carriage of passengers, particularly in regard to equipment, the conveyance- of stock, the number of passengers to be carried, their accommodation1 and so forth. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Will the provisions of Part V. apply to the passenger trade within a State?' {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- So far as navigation is concerned, we have the fullest powers,, whether in regard to ocean, bay and harbor or river trade, in any portion of the Commonwealth. Part VIII. contains clauses relating to pilots and pilotage. Clause 305 empowers the Governor-General to proclaim the ports at which the employment of a pilot shall be compulsory. At any such port the pilotage shall be performed by a pilot in the Public Service of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- What will the Hobson's Bay pilots say to that? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- They, with their plant and gear, will be ta'ken over by the Commonwealth. The principle that we are seeking to establish is that the pilots shall be public servant's, except as regards certain coastal pilots, subsequently mentioned. In- the event of any charge being levied against a pilot for unfitness or incapacity in the discharge of his duties, instead of being dealt with by a Board under the Public Service Act it is provided that the petition shall be referred to a Court of Marine Inquiry, which, will, perhaps, be a more suitable tribunal for dealing with such a matter. In clause 32 7 the licensing, of coastal pilots is dealt with. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- Is it proposed* to take over the Torres Straits pilots ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- This clause will affect them. There are pilots on our coasts - say those doing pilotage work from Brisbane to Thursday Island or in Torres Straits - as to whom it is provided that licences may be issued, and their qualifications may be determined by regulation. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- There is no provision, for the licensing of. pilots in ports that are not proclaimed. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- No. Certain ports will be proclaimed. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- For instance, the Port Augusta and Port Pirie pilots are licensed, but they are not Government servants. What is to be done with them?' There is no provision for them in this Bill. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- No doubt those portswill -be proclaimed. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- It would not pay toproclaim some ports. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I shall be happy toconsider the honorable senator's point when the Bill gets into Committee. We shall" proclaim certain ports within which pilotage will be compulsory. It will be theduty of the pilots, who will be public servants, to attend to the pilotage of those- ports, and, in other cases, it is provided that coastal pilots may be appointed whose qualifications will be the subject of regulation. There are clauses in Part VIII. prescribing the dues that shall be charged for pilotage. Clause 334 exempts from pilotage dues British ships the masters of which hold valid pilotage exemption certificates, and mission ships. Under clause 335 certificates having the effect of exempting ships from compulsory pilotage may be issued. The certificates are to be called "pilotage exemption certificates," are to be granted to British subjects, and are to have" effect only in regard to ships registered in Australia, and such other British ships as are prescribed. Any British subject holding a master's certificate may, subject to the regulations, obtain a pilotage exemption certificate, notwithstanding that he has not the command of a ship at the time he applies. There is power to suspend or cancel the certificates. Clause 344 is an important provision, that is the subject of a special recommendation by the Navigation Commission, to the effect that no pilot shall be personally liable, beyond the extent of £100, for any damage or loss occasioned by his neglect or want of skill. The Commonwealth also is not to be- liable for any damage or loss occasioned by a pilot. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Does the honorable senator know of any other public servant who is liable up to ^100 for damage occasioned by neglect or want of skill ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- This is not an unusual provision. I think it is part of the New South Wales law, and I know that it was recommended by the Navigation Commission. Under clause 345 the owner or master of a ship is not to be answerable to any person for loss occasioned by the fault of a pilot where the employment of a pilot is compulsory. I pass on to Part IX. of the Bill; which deals with Courts of Marine Inquiry. The GovernorGeneral is empowered to constitute these Courts, which are to have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals, charges, complaints, inquiries, and references, under the measure. Clause 350 provides for the appointment of officers of the Court, and the next clause deals with the constitution of Courts of Marine Inquiry. Such a Court is to be constituted by one or more District or County Court Judges, or Police or Stipendiary, or Special Magistrates of the Commonwealth, or of the States, or by one or more Judges or Magistrates specially authorized by the Governor-General., The Court is to be. assisted by assessors appointed for the purpose, and who are to be persons of nautical, engineering, or special skill. Clause 357 defines the powers of the Court. This practically concludes my rapid exposition of this Bill. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Why are not provisions dealing with workmen's compensation included in this measure? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Because we thought it better to deal with the subject separately. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- We have no power to pass a separate measure. The Constitution will not allow it. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- If we have power to provide for the matter in this Bill, we have power to deal with it in a separate measure, and we thought it more convenient to adopt the latter course. I think there is no doubt that we have the power. I have not pretended to make full explanations of all the clauses, but, as there are so many departures from the Imperial legislation, and so many fresh provisions of importance in this Bill, and as the measure itself is so voluminous, my anxiety has been to direct attention to the more important provisions, in order that honorable senators might be assisted to obtain a grasp of its fundamental features. I do not suppose that any more comprehensive or far-reaching measure has ever been introduced into the Federal Legislature. Our object is to build up a coasting trade, and to have associated with it an Australian Mercantile Marine. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Will the honorable senator inform us whether there are any provisions in the Bill relating to restrictions against carrying certain cargo?. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Yes; there are certain restrictions in connexion with dangerous cargoes. It is very valuable for the Senate to have before it the report of the Imperial Navigation Conference in . connexion with this subject, and to know that the British Government, as well as the ship-owners of Great Britain, are prepared to accede to the general principle that we should be free to develop our own coasting trade in the manner we think fit. We are permitted to work out as we please our own salvation regarding this great industry. It is a matter for sincere congratulation that the general principles of this Bill have received consideration at the hands o>f' the Conference, and that we have before us its opinions in assisting us to a determination in regard to a Bill which we hope will be of value, not only to Australia, but, I trust, to the Empire, and which will reflect credit upon the Federal Parliament. Debate (on motion by **Senator Colonel** Neild) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 3257 {:#debate-4} ### BOUNTIES BILL *In Committee* (Consideration resumed from 12th September, *vide* page 3171): First Schedule - >Fibres -Jute : (period)5 years; (rate of bounty) 20 per cent. on market value ; (maximum payable in any one year)£9,000. {: #debate-4-s0 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- I should like to reply to the statements made by the Minister in charge of the Bill on this item. He urged that in due course machinery would doubtless be invented to supersede the present crude method of treating jute. According to the experts' report, it is not their intention, or the intention of the Government, to propose bounties upon some things which may, if some thing else happens afterwards, turn out successful. An instance of that is the treatment by the experts of ramie. The very reason they did not recommend a bounty on ramie, which is an exceedingly valuable fibre, is that there is no machinery for decorticating it, and so enabling people to take up the industry under anything like reasonable Australian conditions. But the experts do not deal at all with the question of machinery for treating jute in their report. According to the description of jute retting in the *Dictionary of the Economic Products of India,* in some districts the bundles of jute stems are submerged in rivers, but the common practice is to use tanks or roadside stagnant pools. The period of retting depends on the nature of the water, the kind of fibre, and the condition of the atmosphere, and varies from two to twenty-five days. When the proper stage has been reached the retting is rapidly completed. The cultivator, standing up to the waist in the foetid water, proceeds to remove the bark. It is not reasonable to advocate the establishment of an industry in Australia unless there is some likelihood of carrying it on under conditions suitable to our people. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- How long do men have to stand up to their waists in water removing the bark? {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY: -- It probably takes a considerable time, because after the outside portions of the stems are stripped off, they will have to be soaked again until the next layer can be removed, and so on. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Is the bark separated from the fibre whilst the substance is still wet ? {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY: -- Yes, that is the main difference between this and some of the other fibres. It has been stated that jute would grow in many parts of Queensland, and the Minister stated that it can be produced on any land that will grow rice. It will be difficult to find in Queensland any land which will successfully grow rice, except by an elaborate process of irrigation, which can only be undertaken by men of means. Although **Senator Trenwith** says that the land between Brisbane and Gympie is suitable for rice cultivation, I differ from him on that point. Certainly on areas in the Northern Territory, along the Adelaide River, wild rice is growing now, and Chinese residents have informed me that rice can be grown there. It might be said that that land will be suitable for the growth of jute, but even there it is admitted that a considerable system of irrigation will have to be undertaken to give any return from the cultivation of these kinds of crop. That, again, would mean a big man's job, requiring a large amount of labour to carry on the industry, according to the knowledge we possess of it at the present time. I would not oppose the item if I believed the industry could he established under conditions suitable for Australian labour in the tropics. The Minister urged- that the same thing used to be said about sugar. I remember the time when it was said, in the early eighties, in connexion with the manufacture of sugar. At that time the processes in the mills which eventually superseded the necessity of labourers standing up to their middles in molasses in the treatment of low-grade sugar, had hot been invented. The invention of a certain class of centrifugal machine, which was able to treat the low-grade sugars, came not from Australia, or from places where there was a large supply of cheap labour available, but from the engineering shops of the old country. Machines of that kind were first used in Europe amongst white populations, where a big industry was already in existence. Consequently whatwas subsequently adopted in the cheap labour countries was first discovered in a place where the resources of science were at the disposal of the people. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- That confirms my statement of yesterday that there is no incentive to invent machines in places where human labour is so cheap. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY: -- The jute industry is not established in any country where a, white population is engaged. If it is established in Australia, with our white population, there are no appliances to carry it on under any other system than the primitive one obtaining in India. Although (he products are excellent in this case and that of ramie, the industries cannot be carried on except under primitive . methods, so far as our scientific knowledge enables us to judge at present. {: #debate-4-s1 .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria -- **Senator Chataway's** extreme solicitude for the health of the labourers to be engaged in this work, if the industry succeeds, is somewhat unnecessary. The process of jute retting, as described by the honorable senator, is not more disagreeable or arduous than quite a number of occupations in which white people are engaged with profit, and apparently with no great physical disadvantage. Fishermen are often up to their necks in water for hours together, and in some processes in fellmongery men are continually wet during the whole day. It is quite possible, by the use of rubber overalls, which are not costly, and are easily obtained;, to stand up to the middle in water without getting wet at aH. The only evil in this industry, according to the honorable senator, is that the water is sometimes stagnant. It is highly improbable that it would be necessal, to use stagnant pools in Australia. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- The extracts I read showed that better work was done with running water. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- The work would probably be done with running water. In hot countries such as jute will be grown in, to stand in water for lengthened periods is no hardship at all. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- If the honorable senator is satisfied, I am. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I appreciate and applaud **Senator** Chataway's desire that Australian workmen should not be subjected to inhuman, cruel, or unnecessarily irksome conditions. But, according to his own statement, the probable conditions are not such as should make us refrain from establishing the industry, if we can. The demand for jute is very great. The experience of Australia shows that there is a demand for more than is being produced. Australia uses a large quantity 'of jute goods, and finds them to be more costly now than they were a few years ago. There is, therefore, every reason for assuming that the industry can be established in Australia on an economically sound basis. The market is not a falling but a rising one, and the demand is daily and hourly increasing. {: #debate-4-s2 .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland -- The conditions of jute retting would render such employment an inevitable degradation for Australian labour, and one wonders why pronounced protectionists like **Senator Trenwith** are pressing the item after what has been said. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- We will press it and carry it, too. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- Then, of course, the responsibility rests with them. The success which has, to some extent, resulted in Queensland., from an economic point of view, from the sugar bounty, is being incessantly quoted. It is a temptation to us, who represent Queensland, to join with honorable senators opposite in carrying this item, but it is evident that the protectionists in Victoria absolutely fail to understand the conditions of tropical or semi-tropical agriculture when, in order to force forward a mere protectionist theory, they desire to induce the people of Queensland, and possibly of the Northern Territory, to enter into an industry which must result in the degradation of what would probably be young, as well as adult, labour. Notwithstanding that we are pointing out this danger, and, are opposing the item, which we would not do if there was any possible benefit to be derived by Queensland from it, the protectionists opposite are insisting upon carrying it for the sake of a theory. It has been pointed out that the conditions for rice and jute growing are very much the same. There is probably not a more, competent authority in this Parliament on tropical or semi-tropical production than **Senator Chataway.** He has explained distinctly the conditions with regard to jute growing. Acting upon the reports of some experts, a young school-mate of mine who had been very successful in life invested .£5,000 or ^6,000 in rice-growing in Northern Queensland. He secured a plantation outside Cairns, which was recommended as being favorable for the growth of rice and jute. Of course he had the advantage of coloured labour, but the result of the experiment was that he was ruined. In view of that example, surely we are entitled to receive from the Government sounder economical information concerning this item of jute before we are asked to vote the bounty. Tn answer to our objections to the item, the Minister has quoted extracts from the *Bulletin of the Imperial Institute,* but he has not given the name of the writer. I remind the honorable senator that very many men who have had no practical acquaintance with these industries, if only supplied with a few encyclopaedias, a quiet room, a box of cigars, and a decanter, will produce reports which *on* the surface will appear to be, in their wisdom, on a level with the maxims of Solomon. I demand the name of the writer of the extracts quoted by the Minister. As a matter of fact, the arguments which **Senator Trenwith** has used in favour of this bounty have been addressed .to almost every 'country except India. The experiment has been tried in England and almost every country in Europe, and has failed. Even in Southern Europe, where there is a superfluity of what might be regarded as inferior labour, the experiment has failed. In the face of expert information which has been furnished from this side the Government persist in asking the Committee to vote a. bounty upon the production of jute, even although it has been proved that its growth is likely to degrade labour. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- The honorable senator is questioning the evidence which has been tendered by the experts. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- In my opinion their evidence is not worth the paper on which it is printed. I shall read again the extract on which I base that rather uncomplimentary conclusion. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- **Senator Chataway** has not said that jute will not grow. He has merely said that, in his opinion, it cannot be grown except under certain conditions. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- No one is denying that jute can be grown in Australia. As a matter of fact, it is possible to extract gold from sea-water, nitrogen from atmosphere, and diamonds from carbon. In my speech on the second reading of the Bill I quoted this passage 'from the report - >In the absence of any -specific information, it is not possible to go into details with regard to such matters as soil, climate, rainfall, transportation, and labour supply. They did riot go into those points, and therefore every conclusion which they drew is more or less, defective. **Senator** Findley. With what subject are they dealing in that paragraph? {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- It is one of the introductory paragraphs which I quoted in my second-reading speech in order to point out how utterly unreliable were recommendations framed on that hypothesis. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- The honorable senator is doing a great injustice to States servants who are considered to be experts by their Governments. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- If public officers choose to write themselves down in that way no one is entitled to complain. They admitted that they knew nothing about the soil and the climate, and did not take those points into consideration. Time and again it has been pointed out from this side that from a labour stand-point the manufacture of jute must, for some time, degrade the persons who engage in the industry. And time after time the Minister, when he has been driven into a corner, has confessed that the only hope for the jute industry is the invention of a machine which will relieve labour from those degrading conditions. Not even **Senator Trenwith,** with all his prohibitionist proclivities, can do more than indulge in that hope. Surely in those circumstances the Committee ought to hesitate before it agrees to the item. Even suppose ' that jute were grown with the assistance of the bounty, how could it be manufactured ? I have not yet heard one tittle of information on that point. Apparently the Government are determined to offer a- bounty of ^40,000 or ,£50,000 for the mere growing of jute. We cannot expect to manufacture jute in competition with other countries. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- Why should we not compete successfully with India in jutegrowing, as well as in wheat-growing ?, {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- I refuse to argue bv analogy, and if I did I think I could upset the honorable senator's contention over and over again. We have no hope of being able to manufacture jute unless, as the Minister said, in a short time a machine is invented. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- What hope had we of competing against Java and China in sugar-growing and refining? {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- I decline to be . led off the track. What hope is there that a machine will be invented which will get over the degrading conditions in regard to labour? Even if a machine were invented to deal with the fibre, how could it be manufactured in competition with outsiders ? Apart from India the experiment has been tried in nearly every country, and has failed. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- The town of Dundee, in Scotland, is maintained very largely by jute manufacturing. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- Of course it is, because the raw product is obtained from outside 1 countries. Does the honorable senator think for a moment that if we did grow jute it could be manufactured in competition with Dundee? How could that be done without the assistance of a protective duty ? The honorable senator knows quite well that it is idle to attempt to grow nite and to hope to export it to Dundee. If, however, he can show that there is a hope that it could be successfully exported to Dundee I should reconsider my position. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Why should we not manufacture jute as Russia does ? {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- The trade of Dundee has largely gone to India- {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- The jute trade is fast passing away from Dundee. Owing to the increase in the number of manufactures from raw materials, a demand for jute - which was not discovered to be a splendid fibre until a few years ago - has sprung up, and it is likely to ~continue to expand. The growth and manufacture of jute are being concentrated in the southern part of China and in Bengal. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Nonsense. How much is carried from Riga, in Russia, to Dundee each year? The largest quantity sent from any part of the world. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- I have very little hesitation in declaring that the growth and preparation of the fibre has nearly become a monopoly in Bengal. If there is a population which is labouring under degrading conditions it is that of Bengal. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- The honorable senator had better look up the subject again. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- I have looked no the subject and considered carefully the views which have emanated from the Minister and also from this side. The conclusion I have come to is that this industry can only be carried on successfully in a country with an enormous population, which is accustomed to what we consider degrading conditions. I protest against the grant of this bounty when there are so many agricultural industries which have a far stronger claim upon our consideration. Dealing with the value of fibres generally in London, it is pointed out - ' The fibre is better stripped and decorticated by hand than ever it can be done by a machine. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- That is the opinion of the expert. The honorable senator is now paying great attention to expert opinion. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- Certainly it is the opinion of the Queensland expert, and I can give reasons why I attach some weight to it. Honorable senators opposite are welcome to make what use they can of the suggestion that because I quote the opinion of the Queensland expert I am acting provincially. I am quoting that opinion on a point which the Minister raised, and on which **Senator Trenwith** is basing all his hopes in regard to this industry. But because my honorable colleague has supplied me with what I consider a very effective reply to honorable senators opposite, the only answer they make is to suggest that I am mean enough, as a senator representing Queensland, to misrepresent the position. There is a distinction to be drawn between the report of the Queensland expert and that of the Conference of Experts from the other States. On the subject of the cotton industry, which may be said to be of supreme importance to Queensland and to the Northern Territory, the Queensland expert alone discussed the question of the probable economic success of the industry. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- The honorable senator was previously against the bounty on cotton, because he voted against the second reading of the Bill. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- I admit that I am open to that charge, and my reply is to invite honorable senators to use it for all it is worth.. I opposed the Bill generally on principle ; but now that honorable senators opposite are getting their own way in the adoption of the principle of the measure, I have a right to expect that they will hear me on these matters of detail. **Senator Turley** is at liberty, on any political platform, to obtain any advantage he can from the imputation that I spoke against the second reading of the Bill, but he need not expect that in Committee I shall be diverted from what I believe to be my duty - to protect the interests of the Commonwealth generally, despite the fact that the expenditure of some of this money might be of some slight advantage to Queensland. I sa.y that in connexion with the family dispute which appears to have arisen between **Senator Turley** and myself. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- I hope the honorable senator does not belong to the same family as I do. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- I return that compliment with all my heart. The honor- able senator was looking for it, and now he has got it. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- Why does the honorable senator display so much heat? {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- It is only the heat of political contention. I have no doubt that **Senator Turley** is as sincere in his desire to promote the interests of Queensland as I am myself, only we differ very much as to the means which should be adopted to that end.I wish to have regard for the financial position, of the Commonwealth, and, believing that there is reason to hope for the success of some of these industries - and especially of the cotton industry - I wish to prevent the expenditure of money in the shape of a bounty on the industry now under consideration. My reason for mentioning the report of the Queensland expert is that it is the only one in which there is detailed information given as to the prospects, from the economic point of view, of the industries referred to. That is the reason why - while I can join in the condemnation of the reports from the Conference of Experts, at which the Queensland representative was not present - I do not hesitate in this case to submit arguments based on the report of the Queensland expert. I. have been content to support the proposed bounty on cotton at this stage of the Bill since the opinion of the Queensland expert is so favorable as to the prospects of that industry ; but we have no desire expressedby the Queensland expert for the establishment of the jute industry, and in view of the conditions associated with the industry, and the degradation which for some years must attach to the labour engaged in it, I contend that it is unworthy of the grant of a bounty. {: #debate-4-s3 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria .On this Bill, the honorable senator who has just resumed his seat is consistent only in his inconsistency. In the first place, he strongly opposed the Bill and voted against the second reading. Then, when we reached the Committee stage, the honorable senator became intensely enthusiastic in his advocacy of the bounty proposed for the cotton industry. I ask honorable senators to bear in mind that the arguments as to labour which Rave been referred to in connexion with the jute industry apply with equal force to the cotton industry. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- People do not have to stand up to their necks in water to pick cotton. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- It is honorable senators opposite who contend that people will have to stand up to their necks in water in carrying on the jute industry. In arguing against the retention of jute, **Senator St.** Ledger has referred to a paragraph to be found on page 6 of the report of the Conference of State Officers, in which they say - >In the absence of any specific information, it is not possible to go into details with regard to such matters as soil, climate, rainfall, transportation, and labour supply. These conditions necessarily vary in different parts of the Commonwealth. It has been assumed throughout that only white labour would be employed in the production of the various articles recommended for the bounty. Under these circumstances the possibility of labour not being available did not enter into the calculations of the Conference. The honorable senator used that paragraph as an argument against the retention of this item. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- No, no. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- The honorable senator must pardon me. He quoted the paragraph I have just read as a reason why jute should not be retained in the schedule. But he has failed to see that it is of gene- ral application to all the items in the schedule. If it is right to use it as an argument against the retention of jute, it should have equal force against the retention of cotton. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- I never said anything of the kind. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- The *Hansard,* report will show which of us is correct. In any case, the new-born solicitude and extreme consideration for Australian white workmen which has been professed by the honorable senator has come as a surprise to me. {: .speaker-KSH} ##### Senator Macfarlane: -- It is mutual. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- No; because I have always been consistent in my advocacy of legislation for the betterment of white workmen. **Senator St.** Ledger has lived in a State which has a somewhat remarkable history in connexion with the White Australia policy. **Senator Chataway** told us that in Queensland, prior to the introduction of a labour-displacing machine, men were for years working amongst highly . offensive vegetable matter. I point out that the honorable senators who have to-day professed to be so much concerned about the degradation of the white man were residents of the State in which that took place. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- It was twentyseven years ago, and I certainly was not in politics then. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- It occurred long since that time, but I have never read of any public speeches delivered by either of those honorable senators, or of any agitation commenced by them for the abolition of the degrading conditions of labour to which they have referred. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- That only shows the honorable senator's defective reading of history. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- I am afraid that I should have been mentally affected ifI had perused any arguments of the honorable senator on the question of White Australia. The honorable senator has argued that we should not pass this item, because of the economic aspect of the question ; but has the honorable senator considered the economic aspect in connexion with the sugar industry of Queensland? I remind him that in Java the coloured man works for long hours and low wages, and it is probable that Java could supply the whole of Australia with sugar at a much lower price than Australian people have now to pay for it. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- Java could supply our requirements twice over. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- If that be so, what becomes of the economic reasons which have been urged for the rejection of this item? {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- The honorable senator will excuse me. I did not urge the economic conditions. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- I did. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: **- Senator St.** Ledger would urge anything, and he does not know where he is when he sits down after making a speech. I say that the economic argument has no force, because it can be applied to the sugar industry, and we know that that industry in Queensland would not be in the position in which it is to-day were it not a highly protected industry. Those engaged in it are protected against outside growers, and there is also the further protection afforded, mainly through the efforts of **Senator Pearce,** in the last Parliament. Those honorable senators who are seemingly extremely anxious for the Australian workmen, who they consider may be degraded, need not have any fear on that score, because the labour representatives in this Parliament will be ever active to see, in connexion with this or any other industry, that no conditions such as those depicted "with reference to the growth of ' jute in the East are tolerated here for twenty-four hours. I have no doubt that if due encouragement is given to the growth of jute, the industry will be established within the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- If a machine is invented. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- I observed yesterday that if there is no mechanical appliance in use in connexion with the retting of jute in those countries where it is principally grown, the reason probably is that the human machine is cheaper than any mechanical device would be. But that is no reason for hesitation about passing this item. I have no doubt that in the course of time a machine will be invented. **Senator Chataway** mentioned thatan engineering firm in Great Britain had patented machines to obviate the conditions that used to prevail in the refining of sugar. I have not the slightest doubt that if jute is grown by white men inventive genius will be stimulated and a suitable machine produced. The unanimity of the experts with regard to jute ought to have some weight with the Committee.I very much regret the severe and unjust criticisms that have been levelled by various honorable senators against the qualifications of the experts who have advised us with regard to these items. Many of those criticisms were most unfair in regard to men, some of whom have been in the employment of the States for long periods, and have won their spurs in reference to the various products with which they are concerned. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- No one has criticised them personally. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Their opinions have been characterized as worthless, and yet the opponents of this item have nothesitated to quote them in favour of their own contention. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- They are not practical men ; that is my trouble. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- If they were, the honorable senator would immediately tell us that he did not want the opinions of practical men, but of theoretical scientists. He is constantly shifting his ground. Whatever opinion were quoted, the honorable senator would tell us that he wanted something else. He has a very easy way of attempting to get out of any difficulty in which he is placed. But I rose principal ly to say that the eleventh-hour friends of the working man need not have any fear. They would make it appear that the labour representatives will have noconsideration for those who may be employed in the jute industry. The interests of the employes may be safely left to those members of this Parliament who make it their special duty to look after the interests of our workers. {: #debate-4-s4 .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON:
Western Aus tralia -- Having carefully read the report of the experts in respect of jute, I have to say that if anything could strengthen my opinion that I ought to vote against the item- it is that report itself. It convinces me absolutely that :t is our bounden duty to , reject the item. The experts have certainly arrived at the conclusion that the growth of certain fibres ought to be encouraged, but for the life of me I cannot find a line of tangible evidence within the report that shows the barest knowledge of the fibre with which we are dealing. If the experts had given us any evidence in favour of the encouragement of the growth of jute, I might have been inclined to' vote for it. But they have imprinted upon their report the opinion that there is every probability of the industry being far more suitable for India for all time than it will be for Australia at any time. I should not feel that I was conserving the best interests of labour were I .to give the slightest assistance in passing the item. I am quite prepared to vote for bounties for the production of anything likely to be of substantial value to Australia, or for the encouragement of an industry of a clean character. But this is a dirty industry - an infamous industry - that Ought never to be promoted in Australia. It is not worthy of the slightest encouragement. I admit that I have no practical knowledge of it, but I have read **Mr. Clarke's** book upon the industries of India, and have come to the conclusion that the jute industry is unfit for white men. or indeed for men of any kind. {: .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator Story: -- Are not flax and hemp treated in the same way ? {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- No, they are not treated like jute, in the preparation of which men have to wade up* to the neck in water, and to carry wet bundles of stuff upon their backs from morning till night. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- That was done with flax some time ago. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- I think not. I have seen quite enough of slavish indus tries in my time, and there are sufficient of them in Australia already to warn me against voting for this. I am quite positive from my study of the question that jute production will never be ' anything more than a slavish industry. I am surprised that some honorable senators should desire to promote an industry that has slavery written upon it from beginning to finish. I shall not vote for a bounty for such an industry, even to provide the raw material with which the manufacturers of Dundee may supply the world's market with jute goods. {: #debate-4-s5 .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland -- I should not have referred to the subject again had not **Senator Findley** introduced one or two points as to which he either misunderstood me, or wished to score off me. {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- It is very difficult . to understand the honorable senator. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- I am not responsible for the honorable senator's intelligence. **Senator Findley** said that I quoted from the report of the experts as a reason for not supporting the bounty on jute. I call attention to the fact that I quoted a paragraph from the report as a reason for not relying upon the information of the experts. . I did not put it as a reason for throwing out this item, and I regret that I have had to get on my feet a second time to explain the fact. When experts who are giving us information continually confess that they have not taken into consideration conditions of soil, climate, and transportation, any inferences which they draw are more or less unreliable. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- And therefore the honorable senator is prepared to strike out the bounty for jute. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- I am not prepared to rely on their information with regard to jute. I am at liberty to obtain information afterwards from other sources to determine whether I shall or shall not vote for the item. T read the quotation to show that, whichever way ray vote might go, i was not justified in relying on the report. That distinction should not have been misunderstood, even by **Senator. Findley.** The honorable senator said that this was a question of tropical labour. Certainly it is. He taunted me in particular, and honorable senators on this side in general, with a new-born solicitude for a White Australia, and insinuated that it was new-born for the purposes of our arguments on this item. My retort is to ask him if he knows anything about Queensland history ? {: .speaker-KTF} ##### Senator McGregor: -- If he read it he would find that the honorable senator had been almost everything. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- Again I am not responsible for his intelligence. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- On the honorable senator's return from the Northern Territory he stated, in an interview, that he regretted that the Chinese population was decreasing there. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- That question is not on the board now. When I am driving the honorable senator into a corner, all he can do is to speak to the gallery in an attempt to discover something which he may afterwards use to disparage the efforts which I and other honorable senators with me have always put forth to make Australia white, and keep it white. The honorable senator has charged me with hypocrisy - I suppose he means unintentional hypocrisy - in expressing solicitude for a White Australia. He alleges that I do so for political purposes. I ask him to find out the history of Queensland, not from me or from my colleagues, but from the records. Few men in Queensland have spoken more often on this great question than I have, and few who have taken a prominent part in regard to it have spoken so strongly or at such, length in favour of preserving this continent for white men. My answer to the taunt that I am a sort of political hypocrite, using the question to make political capital out of it, is that I, and many others who were associated with me in the campaign which brought me here, have devoted the best of our time and talents, and have never- wavered in our attempts from the national and economic point of view, to keep Australia for the best class of white men that we can get in the world. We are taunted, as we come from Queensland, by those who know nothing of what we have done, to develop the tropical and sub-tropical agriculture of that State, with the degrading conditions which have accompanied agricultural industries there in the past. Now that this has been mentioned, especially by a Victorian, senator, I wish to point out, on behalf of my State and tho.se associated with me, that for many years the best-paid agricultural labour in the whole of the world was to be found in Queensland, and the best wages paid in tropical industries throughout the whole world were paid to the white workers in Queensland, as a result, not only of public sentiment, but of wise legislation by the State Parliament. We are being taunted now by Victorians with a moral dereliction of -our public duty to our fellow-men. When they talk about the degrading conditions of labour in Queensland, I reply that in our tropical and semi-tropical agriculture excellent wages have been paid, and the conditions of any agricultural industry which has been fostered by our State will compare more than favorably with some of the degrading conditions which prevail in the cherished protectionist or prohibitive factories in the starch and other industries of Victoria. {: #debate-4-s6 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- **Senator St.** Ledger intimated just now that there were limitations even to his intelligence 'and knowledge. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- That was a mistake. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- I fancy it was. It is the first time that we have ever discovered anything of the sort since the honorable senator has been in this Chamber. We have always been, led to assume that he had an encyclopedic knowledge on every subject under the sun., whether it was connected with Queensland, labour, seamanship, or the legal fraternity. Every one in this Chamber has been led to believe from the honorable senator's actions that there were no limitations to his knowledge. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- I frequently said that I spoke subject to my limitations. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- The honorable senator's actions on this Bill will not redound either to the credit or the profit of the people engaged in agricultural industries in Queensland, the State which he represents. We have not heard from the honorable senator one solitary word in support of a Bill which will benefit Queensland and the Northern Territory more than any other portions of the continent. The honorable senator has given us a lengthy explanation of his action on the second reading, but had his action then met with the approval of the Senate no assistance would have been given to any industry mentioned in this schedule, which includes quite a number of commodities that can be produced as well in the northern parts of Australia as in any part of the world. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- Did the honorable senator hear my speech ? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- I have been listening to nothing else for hours. {: #debate-4-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I ask the honorable senator to confine himself to the question of jute. I allowed **Senator St.** Ledger to reply to **Senator Findley's** remarks, which were directed to the item before the Committee. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- The honorable senator, taking the opinion, as he says, of the Queensland expert upon this question, has decided that it is an industry which cannot -be carried on in Queensland with advantage either to the men employed in it or to the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- No. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- The honorable senator makes a number of statements. If an honorable senator on this side takes down his words and says, " The honor- able senator said so-and-so," he is immediately met with the reply, " I did not say, or at least I did not mean, anything of the sort." Then the honorable senator rises to make a long explanation of what he actually did mean. We have as much chance to make a success of this industry in Australia as we have of any other industry of a similar character. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- Not a possible chance. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- **Senator Henderson** thinks that, because he has read of the conditions under which jute is grown and prepared in India, there is no other method by which it can be prepared. The same argument would apply to all other fibres. Years ago, before machinery was available, practically the same methods were employed in producing flax. It was a wet, > dirty industry. Only when intelligence was applied to it were machines produced. They are now used, and, although they do not make it a particularly clean industry, it is one at which white men can do fairly well and earn fairly good money. The same applies to. many -existing Australian industries. Fellmongery, before the present machinery was obtained, was one of the dirtiest occupations possible, but now a man can put in his day's work at it and come out comparatively clean, without having had to do half the amount of work. The Queensland expert says on the subject of jute - >This crop has never yet got beyond the experimental stage in Queensland. The experiments made, however, indicate that, so far as soil and climate are concerned, Queensland is well adapted to the cultivation of the fibre. No one can take exception to that opinion given by a man who is accepted as an expert even by **Senator St.** Ledger, although the honorable senator condemns the opinions of all experts, while admitting that he has no definite knowledge upon the subject. The other experts in their report have indicated that this industry should receive some assistance, because they believe it is possible to establish it profitably in Australia. The Minister in charge of the Bill and **Senator Trenwith** pointed out last night the rise in the price' of jute goods in Australia. Every person engaged in agricultural, and even in mineral production, finds that he has to pay increased prices all along the line for the bagging necessary to get his products to market It has been argued by honorable senators on the other side that this is an industry in which white men should not be asked to engage. Exactly the same argument has been advanced against other items in the schedule - for instance, against coffee and rubber. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- Does the honorable senator say that any honorable senator has contended that white men should not grow coffee ? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- The honorable senator is against the bounty for coffee just as he is against the bounty for jute. That is the position which he adopted when he voted against the second reading of the Bill. He is as much opposed to giving a bounty for coffee as he is to giving a bounty for anything else. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- I oppose the proposal on financial grounds. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- The honorable senator opposed it on all grounds. He is opposing this item on economical grounds, and I take it that he opposed other items on exactly the same grounds. . {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- Then the honorable senator is wron?. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- I suppose we shall get another explanation from the honorable senator, who is always explaining what he did not mean to say or - what he did not say. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- I have not qualified a word of what I have said. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- The honorable senator asked' whether if jute were produced it could be manufactured. Exactly the same argument applies to the production of cotton. We import an enormous quantity of cotton goods. We intend to give a bounty upon the production of cotton. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- The cases are not parallel. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- In what way? {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- There is no similarity. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- The item is only opposed because of the conditions under which the article will be made available to the manufacturer. For years that argument was used in connexion with cotton and also other articles. We are offering a bounty upon the growth of cotton and imposing a very heavy duty upon the importation of all cotton goods. If from the financial stand-point jute can be produced successfully, there is no more harm in asking that it should be manufactured here than there is in asking that in similar circumstances cotton or other commodities should be manufactured. If we want a fibre to be grown in Australia, which, according to the report of the experts, offers every facility for its growth, I do not see why an experiment should not be tried. We are not asked to vote money to persons for making experiments, but to give a bounty to persons who have succeeded in establishing the industry. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- It is only a weed. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- I. should have been glad . if the Committee had included bastard jute in the schedule the other day as **Senator Chataway** desired. Every one knows that it is practically aweed. It grows in a large number of places in Queensland just like a weed. I understand that to a very great extentmearly all fibre plants are weeds. Why should we single out jute and say that it is different from other fibre plants? In their own habitats they are weeds. Because it is thought that certain plants can be cultivated with more success in particular places, it is proposed to offer a bounty upon their production. I believe it will be found that a number of persons, realizing the kind of soil which they have and the climate, which is wet in a good portion of northern Australia, will make an effort to provide the raw material out of which our requirements can be manufactured. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- How long is it wet in the northern part of Australia?, {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- In North Queensland there is a very large area which enjoys the largest rainfall to be found in Australia. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- And it is all obtained within 24 hours. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- No. In thatpart of Australia the average rainfall is 200 inches. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- It is distributed over 24 hours. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- If the honorable senator has ever seen 200 inches of rain fall within 24 hours, then I should like to know the name of that country. In North Queensland we get a rainfallwhich is spread over months and ranges from150 up to 300 inches. It possesses a climate in which I think jute can be grown. At any rate, when we are holding out inducements to persons all over Australia to grow fibres for certain purposes, there is no reason why we should not afford an opportunity to persons who are living in that damp,moist climate which is essential to the production of this commodity to demonstrate that it is economically possible to grow jute. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- Where is this damp, moist climate to be found ? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- It is to be found on the Johnstone River. There is a coast line of about 70 or 80 miles which gets the largest rainfall in Australia. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- It falls on the sands, then. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- I do not think that the honorable senator knows a great deal about that particular strip of country. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- I have been in North Queensland. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- Yes, but a number of persons who have been in North Queensland have not been in the particular part where those heavy rains fall. **Senator Lynch** has lived in North Queensland for years, but I doubt whether he has an intimate knowledge of the strip along the coast where that heavy rainfall is experienced. It should be remembered that if no person engages in jute growing no money will be spent upon the bounty. In my opinion, those persons who are settled on the land know very accurately what they can do from the agricultural point of view. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- Why have they not shown what they can do? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- Because in Queensland no assistance has yet been offered to them. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- In 1869 Tasmania offered a bounty upon the production of this material. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- I was not aware of that fact, and probably Tasmania did not possess a climate like that which obtains in North Queensland. At any rate, I am prepared to support an item which may induce persons to test the question of whether, from the commercial stand-point, jute can be grown successfully. Question - That the item "Jute" be agreed to- put. The Committee divided. AYES: 10 NOES: 9 Majority ... ... 1 AYES NOES Question so resolved- in the affirmative. Item agreed to. Fibres - Sisal. Hemp; (period)., 10 years; (rate of bounty), 10 per cent, on market value; (maximum payable in any one year), £3,000. {: #debate-4-s8 .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania .- In my opinion the Committee has done quite, enough mischief during the last hour without proceeding to do any more. I have already pointed out that the schedule includes four descriptions of fibre. If the Government had had the slightest respect for the taxpayers they would have agreed to the suggestion I made a long while ago, and that was to retain two of the four items and to drop the others. But they have a majority owing, I regret to say, to some of our honorable friends not being here. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- The honorable senator is awarethat different kinds of fibre are used for entirely different purposes. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- Exactly. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- It is hardly fair for the honorable senator to say that he was defeated because his honorable friends were not present. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- In the last division we were defeated by one vote, and I regret to say that several honorable senators who sit on this side are not here. They ought to be here, and they are not entitled to draw their salary of£600 a year unless they are here. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- They are paired. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- They should be here prepared to argue these matters. I should like the Minister to answer a question I put to him on a previous occasion. **Mr. Holtze,** on behalf of the South Austratralian Government, has planted some 40 acres, in the Northern Territory, with sisal hemp, and I should like to know whether the product of - that plantation would be eligible for the bounty? {: #debate-4-s9 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist -- I do not know what the position is with regard to the particular plantation to which **Senator Dobson** refers. Had I heard his question I should have obtained information on the subject. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The point is that it belongs to the Government of South Australia. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I see nothing in the Bill to prevent the bounty being granted in such a case. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- To the State? {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- The Commonwealth pays sugar bounty on sugar manufactured from cane grown at the Queensland Government's experimental stations. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- Speaking offhand, I should say there is nothing to prevent bounty being grantedinresepct of goods produced under those conditions. Item agreed to. Mohair; (period)10 years; (rate of bounty) 10 per cent. on market value ; (maximum payable in any one year) £2,000. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- Might I suggest that we have reached an hour at which the Minister might be prepared to adjourn. Progress reported. Senate adjourned at 3.50 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 September 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1907/19070913_senate_3_39/>.