Senate
19 September 1907

3rd Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 3462

QUESTION

CUSTOMS REVENUE: TASMANIA

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the Treasurer, without notice, whether his attention has been drawn to the following three paragraphs in to-day’s Age under the head of Tasmania, and with the sub-heading of “ A Demand for Justice “ -

During the debate on the financial statement in the Assembly, Mr. McCall claimed that the Premier was only asking for a fair amount from the. Federal Government for customs leakages. If justice were not done, what did the State Government propose to do?

The Premier replied that they were looking into it to see if there was an appeal to the High Court, but they were trying gentle persuasion first.

Mr. McCall said the only way to beat Victoria was by the Tasmanian people importing direct from outside the Commonwealth. If that were done, Victorians . would support justice then being done toTasmania. and if so, willbe explain what is meant by the term “ Customs leakages “ by the parliamentarian who desired information from the Premier of Tasmania, and state the amount which the Tasmanian Government is claiming from the Federal Government for alleged Customs leakages? Also, can he state what Victoria has done to Tasmania to call forth such language and what is meant by the threat that unless they get justice they will retaliate upon Victoria by getting their goods from other parts of the world ?

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

– I suggest to my honorable friend that he should give notice of the questions.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Surely the Minister can tell me whether the Government of Tasmania has made any demand upon the Federal Government in regard to Customs leakages, and if so, what is the amount involved ?

Senator BEST:

– If my honorable friend only desires general information on the subject I can supply it. I am aware that for a little time negotiations havebeen going on in consequence of certain claims made by the Premier of Tasmania upon the Commonwealth in consequence of its being alleged that certain Customs leak ages had been caused by reason of the purchases made by the people of that State - and other States of course - in Victoria and New South Wales.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Not merely alleged but acknowledged.

Senator BEST:

– And to some extent acknowledged. It is quite impossible to gather the extent of the alleged leakages . I think it is a matter for negotiation. The Government is distinctly sympathetic in regard to the claims which have been made, but before any definite figures can be arrived at it is necessary to consult the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria, because those are the States which are chiefly interested. The negotiations are “proceeding, and, in the circumstances, I hope that the most generous consideration will be accorded to Tasmania in respect of its claims.

Senator Lynch:

– What about WesternAustralia ?

Senator BEST:

– I believe that certainclaims have been made by Western Australia and Queensland. The claims of the States in this connexion are entitled to consideration. It is a matter, I think, for reasonable negotiation between the authorities and for settlement on a fair and reasonable basis. But anything further than a general statement of that kind I am not. prepared to give.

page 3462

QUESTION

COMPENSATION TO INJURED SEAMEN

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to call the attention of the Vice-President’ of the Executive Council to a statement made by. him when he was introducing the Naviga- . rion Bill, to the effect that the Government thought it better to deal with the question of compensation for injuries to seamen in a separate Bill, and to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce such a Bill; so that it may bediscussed concurrently with the Navigation Bill?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– It is the intention of the Government to’ introduce a measure of the kind. I can hold out no promise that it will be dealt with concurrently with the Navigation Bill ; as a matter of fact that could not toe done.

Senator Needham:

– Why not?

Senator BEST:

– Certainly it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill within a limited time for the consideration of honorable senators.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Is the Vice-President of the Executive Council prepared to give any reason to the Senate now why the provisions as to compensation for injuries to seamen should not be included in the Navigation Bill ?

Senator BEST:

– The main reason is that we do not consider that the matter is immediately within the scope of the Navigation Bill.

Senator Guthrie:

– It is within the scops of the Merchant Shipping Act.

Senator BEST:

– We do not deem it to he within the scope of the Navigation Bill. °At the same time, we feel that it should be dealt with in a separate measure. It is our intention -to expeditiously deal with the subject in a separate measure.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– If it is not within the scope of the Navigation Bill, on what principle will the Commonwealth Parliament be entitled to deal with the subject? May I put it to my honorable friend for his consideration whether it would not be a matter then for the States to deal with? Would it not be only by virtue of its being within the scope of the Navigation Bill that the Federal Parliament would have any control over it?

Senator BEST:

– We have full power to deal with the subject of navigation. Whether we deal with this particular subject in the Navigation Bill or in a separate measure is purely a matter for the discretion of Parliament.

page 3463

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY

Senator LYNCH:

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether the Parliament of South Australia has been requested to pass the necessary measure giving its assent to <he survey of a route for the proposed Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway; if so, what is the nature* of the reply, and, if not, why?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– I believe that the Department of Home Affairs has requested the Prime Minister to communicate’ with the Premier of South Australia on the subject. I am hardly in a position to give further details, but if my honorable friend will give notice of the question I shall give him a definite reply.

page 3463

QUESTION

DEFECTIVE AMMUNITION

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister of Defence to the following para graph appearing in the Melbourne Argus of 16th September, 1907 -

Sydney, Sunday. - Some, time since the Military Department was furnished by the Council of the National Rifle Association of New South Wales with a report in regard to the defective ammunition supplied to cadets. No steps have apparently been taken to investigate the matter. The council made arrangements to submit the ammunition to an exhaustive trial at Randwick yesterday. Three cadets fired ten shots each at 200 yards, with the result that with the ammunition as previously supplied to the cadets, they made 46, 44, and 40 respectively, but with the colonial ammunition, as now served out, they could do no better than 10, 10, and 5 ; and to ask the Minister, upon notice -

If the Department is aware of the practice of issuing defective ammunition to cadets as stated in the paragraph?

If this practice is recognised by the Department, will he state on what grounds such defective ammunition is issued to cadets?

If the Department is not aware of the practice, will he suggest to his colleague the advisability of inquiring into the truth of the statements made ?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– Instructions have been given for a thorough report on the circumstances referred to. I hope that it will come to hand in the course of a few da,s when I shall be prepared to state the results of the inquiries. Perhaps my honorable friend will please repeat the question at a later date.

page 3463

QUESTION

CUSTOMS ACT : BREACHES

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

  1. Is it not the usual practice for the Crown to proceed against any person who contravenes any section of the Customs Act 1901 in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for which a penalty of less than £500 is provided ?
  2. Are not penalties in such cases recoverable in a Court of -Summary Jurisdiction?
  3. Has the Government adopted this course in relation to certain breaches of the Customs Act 1901, recently committed in Sydney when a quantity of goods were illegally removed from Customs control, in contravention of sections 30 and 33’ of the said Act?
  4. If not, why has exception been made in the case referred to ?
  5. Is it the intention of the Government to take proceedings, per medium of the High Court, to recover penalties in any future cases that may arise?
Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as foi-‘ low -

  1. No practice has been established ; the facts, circumstances, and importance of each case have to be considered. 3464 Public Servants : Tariff. [SENATE.] Bounties Bill:
  2. Penalties for breaches of the Customs Act are recoverable as laid down by section 245 of the Customs Act, which is as follows : - “ 245. Customs prosecutions may be instituted in the name of the Minister by action, information, or other appropriate proceeding -

    1. In the High Court of Australia ; or
    2. In the Supreme Court of any State; and when the prosecution is for a pecuniary penalty not exceeding Five hundred pounds or the excess is abandoned the Customs prosecution may be instituted in the name of the Collector in
    3. Any County Court, District Court, Local Court, or Court of Summary Jurisdiction.”
  3. No.
  4. No exceptionhas been made. The penalties recoverable exceed the amount of £500.
  5. The action of the Government as to future cases will be determined in connexion with the circumstances of each case.

page 3464

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVANTS: TARIFF

Senator GRAY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to advise that an increase of salaries and wages be given to the Civil Servants in consequence of the increased cost of living caused by the Tariff?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

If increased cost of living is possible under the new Tariff, the Public Servants will be more than compensated by sharing in the assured increased prosperity.

page 3464

QUESTION

CADETS: WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Has the State Government of Western Australia protested against any extension of the Cadet Force in that State on the score” of expense ?
  2. Has any answer been given to their representations on the subject, and if so, what is the purport of it?
Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

  1. In reply to a letter addressed to the Education Department of Western Australia, forwarding copies of the proposed revised regulations dealing with Cadets, the Premier of Western Australia, on the 4th April, 1907, stated that his Government was, at that time, unable to approve of any additional expenditure in the direction referred to.
  2. A formal acknowledgment only was sent to the Premier of Western Australia. It is the intention of the Department to provide for Cadets in Western Australia on a population basis on the same scale as in other States.
Senator PEARCE:

– Can the Minister say whether in view of the attitude adopted by the State Premier it will be possible for the Department to carry out the cadet scheme so far as Western Australia is concerned ?

Senator KEATING:

-. - I am not in a position to give a reply off hand, but if the honorable senator will ask the question at a later date I shall have the information ready for him.

page 3464

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Henderson) agreed to -

That the report of the Printing Committee(presented 12th September, *vide* page 3148) be adopted.

page 3464

BOUNTIES BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 1 8th September, vide page 3405):

First Schedule -

Items “ Cotton seed “ and “ Linseed (flax seed)” agreed to.

Rice uncleaned; (period) 5 years; (rate of bounty) 20s. per ton; (maximum amount payable in any one year)£1,000.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I think we ought to have furtherinformation from the Minister in regard to this item. The question of rice cultivation has already been discussed in connexion with previous items, when we were told that rice can be grown successfully in Australia. I expressed the opinion that so far as Queensland is concerned there is not much, if any, land available for rice growing. I believe that in the Northern Territory, by a system of irrigation, rice can be cultivated along the. big flats on each side of the Adelaide River. I was talking some time ago to a Chinaman who had been growing rice there. He said that it would grow readily enough, but the objection to its cultivation was that the growers could get only one crop per annun off the land, whereas in Canton and other places two and sometimes three crops are obtained.

Senator Findley:

– What is the explanation ?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I take it that the rains are not sufficiently widespread.

Senator Findley:

– The lands in Cantor are irrigated just as they may be in Australia.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Before I con sent to the item, I shall require an explanation showing the reasonable probability of rice being successfully cultivated in Australia. Further, I point out that although rice may be grown in the Northern Terri-

*Bounties Bill.* [19 September, 1907.] *Bounties Bill.* 3465 tory by means of irrigation, nevertheless, under those conditions it will be a big man's industry.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– And a very costly industry.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I take it that it would be costly. Several thousand acres would have to be put under rice by one individual who would control the irrigation business. If that be so, the amount of the bounty does not seem to be sufficient to make it worth while for a man to enter upon rice cultivation under such conditions. What facts are there to make it appear that the bounty is sufficient to enable the industry to be conducted on a large scale, and in what part of the country is the product likely to be cultivated?

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

.- If we were confined to the methods of rice cultivation that prevailed until about ten years ago, there might be reason to doubt whether it would be advisable to offer a bounty for the promotion of rice-growing in this country. But the developments in this branch of agriculture during that period have been absolutely (phenomenal. In the United States, until about ten years ago, it was considered to be absolutely hopeless to think of growing rice by their labour in competition with rice grown in the East. But it has been found from experience that it can be successfully cultivated. I understand that there are now in the United States vast areas of land which are devoted to the cultivation of rice. They are able to grow rice in accordance with American ideas and methods in regard to the employment of labour, and have been able to outstrip foreign competition completely, and to put upon the market a ‘ very much superior article to that which they previously consumed. I hold in my hand a book issued in 1906, called The New Agriculture : A Popular Outline of the Methods which are revolutionising Farming and Farm Life, by T. Byard Collins. It contains illustrations, both in the form of letter-press and pictures, of the new methods which have been adopted in relation to various branches of farming in the United States; and a perusal of the chapter regarding rice production opens one’s eyes to the possibilities of the application of new methods in this regard. I have some doubt, with Senator Dobson sitting opposite to me, as to whether I ought to quote from any authority, but I cannot speak personally with regard to rice cultivation’, nor do I suppose that any other honorable senator can. Very few of us know much from personal experience as to these products.

Senator Findley:

– If the Minister could speak personally, Senator Dobson would at once say that he wanted authorities to be quoted.

Senator KEATING:

– I am afraid that he would. In this book there is a chapter devoted to what are called new interests, and it informs the reader that -

The growing of rice has been practised along the southern seaboard since early Colonial times ; but less than ten years ago, owing to the occupation of new lands, the introduction of new varieties, and the application of new methods, this industry presented a turn of opportunity the like of which has hardly been surpassed at any time through the history of American agriculture.

After explaining the methods that have been adopted, and the success that has attended them, the writer goes on to say that the boom in the taking up of land for rice production parallels the enormous interest that a generation ago . was shown with regard to the wheat lands.

The inception of the new movement dates from the day when a few enterprising men drove modern machinery into the country and undertook the cultivation of rice by the methods modified to suit circumstances which were bringing forth such incredible quantities of com and wheat from the prairie States, 1,000 miles to the north of them. They were immediately and immensely successful, and the magnet of their success began to draw immigration from near and far.

Senator Millen:

– The American States thought that they had made that discovery, but after some years had to abandon it as a failure.

Senator KEATING:

– I am speaking of what has been done in regard to the rice lands, and showing the parallel with it which occurred in the United States and Canada. The application) of new methods has proved that not only can rice be produced in America under these new conditions, but that the growers there are producing a better quality of rice than they were ever able to obtain before.

Though the negro labour employed by our southern planters was cheap, the coolie labour of the orientalist was cheaper, and so American growers were constantly and hopelessly beaten in competition with the eastern supply. Add to this that in our mechanical threshing and other manipulation of the cereal, the grains were invariably so badly broken as greatly to reduce the market demand for the home-grown article, and there was nearly a free field for the foreign product.

Senator Millen:

– Does the author express any opinion on the principle of paying bounties?

Senator KEATING:

– I am not sure whether he does or not. I am simply giving an illustration of what has been done with regard to rice production in America. Ten years ago the outlook for the rice-grower was absolutely hopeless. Every circumstance surrounding its production was adverse, lt could hardly be believed that rice could be grown in competition with the cheap labour of Orientals. But to-day the condition of things has been absolutely reversed. The writer goes on to say -

Then came, about eight years ago, the introduction of a new variety of grain, the Kushu. The Honduras sort, the kind that had previously been grown, had three defects.

He enumerates those defects, and proceeds -

The use of the new variety has so reduced the supply of the broken or brewers’ rice as the inferior kind is called that in South-Western Louisiana, the demand cannot he met by the local supply.

Again he says -

Farmers felt the influence in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan. They felt it in the eastern States ‘ and in New York. And thus, from widely separated and distant localities, the tide is at this moment flowing in.

He also says -

New rice farms are being settled so rapidly that the rice growing region is repeating the scenes of the wheat growing regions of the middle north a generation ago.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Where is the rice-growing region of America?

Senator KEATING:

– The author mentions Louisiana and some of the other southern States, where an immense area is utilized for this crop. He goes on to say -

An immense aggregate number of acres will this year be planted with rice, but the new interest is at present only well under way. The belt especially adapted to this industry varies from twenty, to fifty miles in width, and extends from the banks of the Mississippi to and beyond the Brazos River, a distance of more than 400 miles. Moreover, in many sections of Florida a little capital judiciously expended would bring profitable returns. In Southern Mississippi also there are large tracts of land suitable for rice culture which may still be had at merely nominal prices.

Senator Millen:

– Is there any reference to the labour with which the rice is cultivated in the southern States?

Senator Dobson:

– Negroes.

Senator KEATING:

– No, there is not,, further than that previously, though thenegro labour employed on the southern, plantations was cheap, the coolie labour of the Oriental was cheaper, and thereforeAmerican growers were constantly beatenin competition with the Eastern supply.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Even with, the negro labour of- the south they werebeaten.

Senator KEATING:

– In’ times past;, but all that has been revolutionized.

Senator Millen:

– Still we may take it for granted that negro labour is employed! in the Southern States.

Senator KEATING:

– I cannot say that. This article simply goes to showthat with all the factors against them inthe production of rice in competition with other countries, the order of things hasbeen completely reversed within the lastten years by the introduction of new methods, the use of new lands, and the adoption of new machinery in its cultivation.

Senator Gray:

– Enabling the rice fieldsto be cultivated with black labour.

Senator KEATING:

– The honorablesenator can accept that position if he likes ;. I do not.

Senator Lynch:

– Is Michigan mentioned as a rice-producing State? If so, it is important, because that is essentially a white State.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Michiganis not a rice growing State. What the Minister quoted was to the effect that the influence of the boom in rice-growing in the southern: States, such as Louisiana and Florida, had affected the labour in theStates mentioned, one of which was Michigan.

Senator KEATING:

– Louisiana has been a rice-growing State for some time. It was unsuccessfully competing with the cheaper labour of other countries prior to the introduction of new methods. In any case, what I wish specially to draw attention tois the fact that the whole process of cultivation and preparation for market of rice has undergone a complete revolution during the past ten years. If we have anything like reasonable grounds for believing that any part of the land of the Commonwealth can be turned to profitable account in theproduction of rice, it is our clear duty in providing bounties to offer an inducement to some of our people to turn their attention to the industry. Seeing what has happened in the last ten years, it is quite possible that a still greater revolution may take place within the next ten or twenty years. Those of our people who may be induced to give attention to the cultivation of rice will no doubt give the fullest and most careful consideration to the possibility of even improving upon the methods already adopted in the .United States.

Senator Gray:

– Can the honorable senator mention any country where white la- : bour is used in the cultivation of rice?

Senator KEATING:

– I do not know that I now can. I am not now going into that question. The view the Government take in ‘ regard to this and all other items is that we have established, and are committed to, a White Australia policy, to which Australia will, I believe, always show unswerving loyalty. ^Relieving that that is the established policy of the Commonwealth for all time, we have to consider’ how many industries the white people of Australia can carry on under our natural conditions of soil and climate. The more industries we can induce them to give their attention to, with the hope of permanently establishing them, the better, because thereby we shall be providing greater opportunities, for employment, and giving the. Commonwealth a chance to get that population which is essential to its maintenance and defence as a white country. The fact that certain articles had not been produced by white labour in any part of the world before, confronted many people in entering upon various industries in Australia in the past. But it did not deter them from going forward, nor should it have that effect in the future. Are we, in this new country, with only a century’s history, and/, indeed, a far shorter period of history so far as its industrial development is concerned, to accept the existing condition of things in the world to-day as final and irrevocable? Are we to say that Australia must be for ever governed by present conditions? Have we reached finality ? I venture to say that we have not, and that it will yet be found that the white man is quite capable of doing economically many things that some people have, for seemingly good reasons in the past, thought must be necessarily done by coloured labour.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The white man is not so black as he is painted.

Senator KEATING:

– That is exactly the position. All we do in this item is to offer to people some encouragement to give serious consideration to the possibility of growing rice in Australia under the conditions laid down in the Bill. Honorable senators will be well advised to keep that fact in mind. We are not recklessly and extravagantly committing ourselves to an absolute expenditure. We simply hold out to people a monetary inducement to give serious consideration to the possibilities of. this industry. It is a matter of serious moment to Australia that we should have a large, contented, and thriving population. The more industries we can bring into being in the Commonwealth, the more likely we shall be to achieve that desirable result.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [3.7]. - The Minister in charge of the Bill has entertained but not greatly instructed the’ Committee with a series of perorations on the subject of a white Australia, and the great proposition that we have not yet reached finality in the productions of this great continent. But he has not answered the points, put very briefly and with great moderation, bv Senator Chataway. Firstly, Senator Chataway wished for information as to the possibilities of ricegrowing under the only possible conditions, either of swampy land or by means of irrigation.

Senator Stewart:

– There is rice grown in dry country.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Not much of that sort is grown. Senator Chataway’s second question was whether we were really playing at giving bounties or offering them seriously with a view to encourage production. He said it would be impossible to grow rice successfully except in a large way. We must feel, looking at this particular line in the schedule, that we are really amusing ourselves, and that there is nothing serious about it. It is ridiculous to offer a bounty of only £1,000 a year. Assuming that we are to give bounties at all, is this two-penny-halfpenny proposal likely to encourage the enormous production of rice which the large language of the Minister has pictured?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If there is any doubt, should we not be careful?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Of course, we are careful, but what is the good of putting a line on the Estimates of a note for the encouragement of rice-growing? A proposal to give ^1,000 a year for five years is just as ridiculous as the offer of a note. Who is going to invest capital in the Northern Territory or the northern parts of Queensland to establish great rice-growing areas on such an inducement? It is a mere paper bounty.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why not move an amendment?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– .We have been told that we cannot increase the amounts. The Government in submitting this proposal is simply trifling with the subject. We. all agree with the Minister that it is desirable . to encourage as far as we can new productions throughout this great country, but the two parallels which he alluded to are entirely inapplicable. He told us, truly enough, that wheat has been grown in the north-west of Canada, where people predicted that it could not be grown, but I can’ give him a much nearer parallel. Not many years ago it was predicted that wheat would be grown successfully away in the far north of South Australia. Areas were opened up which produced, not wheat, but the ruin of every man who went there, and the country had to be abandoned.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Only a portion of it. What about Georgetown?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am not speaking of that part of the country. It is a notorious fact that an enormous tract of the northern ‘ country to which I refer had to be’ abandoned, and the unfortunate people who went there had to come away penniless and starving. In the north-west of Canada there was a great production of wheat, but in some parts it was impossible to grow it. It was all a matter of experiment. That was not a very good example for the Minister to set before us to induce us to encourage the growth of another product. That is no reason, of course, why we should not try to encourage rice-growing or tempt people - I was going to say to their destruction, but I will say - to ma’ke experiments. There is no doubt that there is land capable of growing rice in this country. It is grown in northern Italy, but that is because-the land there is highly capable of irrigation. Those facilities we do not possess. Irrigation is a costly process in this country. That is the reason why Senator Chataway pointed out that it could only be undertaken by people possessed of large capital. If ‘those are the persons we are going to invite to . undertake this industry, which we all agree should be encouraged if it can be, we must offer a better inducement than a bounty of £1,000 a- year for five years. With respect to the other parallel which my honorable friend sought to draw, it is not too much to expect that- in Louisiana, Florida, and other southern States of the United . States, where .the climate is subtropical, if not tropical, and where cottoncan be produced, given the conditions of water’ supply and facilities for irrigation, rice can also be grown. I point, out that rice-growing in those States has affected wheat-growing in Michigan and: other States where wheat-growing had been profitably pursued. I direct attention, also, to the extraordinary effect which the expansion of the wheat-growing industry in .Canada has had upon such States as Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio. The people previously engaged in wheat-growing irc those States have been pouring into Canada, and now form the largest proportion of the people settled in the north-west of Canada. . It may be that the wheat lands in the American States have become exhausted, or are not producing the same quality of wheat ; but there can be no doubt that last year 50,000 or 80,000 of the people engaged in the cultivation of wheat in those States went to the Canadian north-west country, where there is virgin soil, and they can produce the magnificent hard grain which is claimed to be the best wheat in the world - though I deny the claim, and say that Australianwheat is just as hard as Canadian wheat. It seems to me that in what Senator Chataway has said there is matter for the consideration of the Minister, arid it is a. question whether this item should appear in the schedule at all. Another point I make is that wheat-growing in the northwest of Canada, and rice-growing in thesouthern States of the United States, have not been brought about by the payment of bounties. To give assistance of this kind for the establishment of an industry where the soil is suitable and capital is available, is simply to throw away money. Sofar as I am aware, no bounties were ever given for the production of wool in thiscountry, and certainly none were ever given for the production of wheat. We should1 seriously consider first of all whether any reason has been shown for the inclusion of this item, and secondly whether the fact that the bounty proposed - ^1,000 a vear for five years - is not, on the face of it, its own condemnation. If we are to give. a bounty for the production of this article, let us ask ourselves what evidence we have before us to justify the granting of a bounty. Then I come to my bible on this subject - the report of the Conference of States Experts. When I want guidance or illumination, I fall back upon that report. What do I find in connexion with this item? The experts tell us that rice has been grown largely in the swamps of the southern States of the United States, and in Carolina in particular, and that the industry is partially worked with white labour. We all know very well that the whole of the agricultural labour of the southern States of America is black labour.

Senator Lynch:

– That is not correct. The United States census statistics speak otherwise as to the cotton industry.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I speak of rice cultivation, and I say that substantially the whole of the agricultural labour in the southern States of the United States is black labour. However, the experts tell us that this industry in that part of the world is partially worked with black labour: and after saying all these things about it, this is their final conclusion -

It is open to doubt that it can be successfully exploited under Australian conditions.

Are we to depart from the word of truth - from this report supplied to us by these experts? Are we going to pass a. vote of £5,000 to be spent in bounties on testimony like that? Would it not be better that we should omit the item, at least on this occasion, and reconsider it when some further evidence is put before us, and some more confident opinion can be expressed by the experts as to the probabilities of the success of the industry ? Senator W. RUSSELL (South Australia) [3.23]. - I rise with much pleasure to support the item. I desire particularly to reply to some of the damaging statements made by Senator Symon concerning the northern districts of South Australia. It ls admitted, that in South Australia we have land that can grow anything.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– We could not grow rice at Oodnadatta.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No, but we could pick our land as we do our representatives; though I admit that sometimes we might make mistakes. This item appeals to me, because my wife told me before the Tariff was introduced that the price of rice had gone up considerably. If we can cultivate rice here to advantage, can in that way fmd employment for white men, and cheapen the article to the people, we should do so. Senator Symon and some of his followers on the other side, in dealing with these proposed bounties, say, “ The amount- proposed is £1,000 a year for five years, or .£5,006, and that is only a trifle - the amount ought to be £20,000,” and yet at the same time if £20,000 were proposed they would say that we were going to throw the money into the sea. Yesterday afternoon I made some references to the land in the north of South Australia, which Senator Symon has condemned wholesale. It is a land that is practically flowing with milk and honey.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Where?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– At Georgetown and Crystal Brook.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– That is not the land I was referring to. I admit that Georgetown is a perfect Garden of Eden.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That proves what I have said to be correct, and what the honorable senator has just now said to be misleading.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I was not speaking of Georgetown at all.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We have land in South Australia divided by what is called Goyder’s line of rainfall! It is a very reliable division of the country. I have cultivated land inside the line, and also outside of it. In country outside the line we have sometimes produced splendid crops, but when years, of drought came disaster followed to the farmers. The country inside Goyder’s line of rainfall, which Senator Symon has condemned, comprises some of the best land in South Australia, and is to-day carrying a large population. I do not like to hear these things said. I have entered the Senate pledged to support the primary-producing interests of South Australia. Another thing I have to say is that the Northern Territory is a wonderful country, and as a representative of South Australia, I cannot afford to indulge in the conservatism involved in the statement that the land in that Territory is useful only for the purpose to which it is devoted at the present time. I believe that by assistance in the shape of bounties we can secure the cultivation of land in the Northern Territory for rice and many other products. Perhaps it would be 3470 Bounties Bill. [SENATE.] Bounties Bill. better if honorable senators opposite were to move the Chairman out of the chair. Their object would then be clear.

Senator Gray:

– What is their object?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Their object is to defeat the Bill, and it is better that they should say so at once than that they should make misleading statements. They wish to make us play into the hands of land monopolists.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator to discuss the item of rice?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I point out that the argument has been used that the amounts proposed for these bounties are so small that monopolists will come in and scoop the whole of the money. I do not think that honorable senators opposite would care very much if they did. In my opinion they are here to protect the interests of such men.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Is an imputation, that honorable senators are here to protect the interests of monopolists, in order ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– If any honorable senator thinks the remark offensive, it must be withdrawn.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If I am capable of reading the history of conservatism, those who follow such political doctrines always take the same stand. We advocate the policy of assisting the primary producers by means of bounties, thereby resorting to the method which was adopted in the case of the butter industry.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator to connect his remarks with the item.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– My object is to encourage the primary producers who are on the land, and to assist others to get there. Surely Senator Dobson will not object to that policy. If we can assist the primary producers to find outside markets for their products, and at the same time prevent them from being “ got at “ by the middleman, as it was proved they were by the Butter Commission, let us do so.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator to address himself to the question before the Committee.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I should like to see the rice industry established in South Australia, or even in the Northern Territory. The representatives of the State should be diplomatic enough not to cry “ stinking fish “ in reference to the possibilities of the Northern Territory. I have every reason to believe that it will grow rice profit ably. If the industry is established there, it will find work for white men, and give the women and children cheaper rice to eat.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [3.33]. - I am sure that Senator Russell misunderstood my statement. I was not referring to the land round Georgetown, where, I believe, he has a property,- and which may be described as the Garden of Eden of South Australia.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Through the. medium of a book which has been lent to me by the Minister of Home Affairs, I desire to state a few facts about the rice industry in order to rebut the contention of honorable senators opposite that it cannot be carried on in Australia without the aid of black, or cheap, labour. .

Senator Millen:

– That is by no means the only contention.

Senator LYNCH:

– It has been urged by honorable senators who rose to speak against the item that the success of the rice industry in the southern States of America is due to the cheap labour employed.

Senator Trenwith:

– That was stated by every speaker.

Senator LYNCH:

– Any person who was listening to the debate would be forced to the conclusion that the only contention raised against the item was that rice could not be grown in Australia because of the absence of cheap labour, white or black.

Senator Dobson:

– What about the land and the want of rain?

Senator LYNCH:

– The book which Senator Keating has placed at my disposal contains a picture which clearly shows that white men are employed in the process of threshing the rice. It portrays three or four men round a pile of bags which they are engaged in sewing up. If that is not conclusive proof as to the employment of white labour in the industry, I fail to understand what further proof my stiffnecked friends opposite want.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator knows that in a photograph things which are black come out white, and vice versa.

Senator LYNCH:

– At any rate the. persons who are portrayed in this picture are as white as any one in this Chamber. It shows the application of science to the prosecution of the rice industry, and how profitable it can be made by that method in America. The large machine which is exhibited in the picture would certainly go to compensate for the cheapness of labour in

Ceylon and China. Here is a machine at work piling up stuff in the process, of threshing. I believe that by the application of science, the production of rice can be carried on profitably. The article alludes to another factor which should not be lost sight of. It contains a reference to the effect which the growing of rice has had upon the value of land in the southern States of America. We know that one unalterable test of the profitableness of an industry has been the value of land, whether it be high or low. In Australia when the pastoral industry was at a low ebb, the value of stations, both per acre and in the aggregate, went down. As the products increased and the industry became profitable the value increased in a corresponding ratio. The same thing applies to every other industry. I feel that I am safe in asserting that as an industry becomes profitable the value of the land on which it is carried on increases in a corresponding ratio. From this book, which is called ‘The New Agriculture, let me quote this passage -

When it is remembered that lands devoted to new purposes have frequently shown multiplied valuation within a comparatively few years - wheat lands that were bought for $r.25 per acre and others that were obtained merely for settling upon them have, wi.thin a generation, risen to $100 an acre, and other lands, obtained at the same terms, and planted as orchards, now selling at $1,000 an acre-it seems safe to say that the man who is adapted to the occupation of rice raising will hardly make a mistake in the acquisition of these new lands.

It is plainly set forth there that in the United States the introduction of ricegrowing has had an effect upon the value of the land. No honorable senator who is opposed to the item will contend that wheat-growing is not a white man’s occupation. According to that extract we see that, owing to the expansion of the rice industry in that portion of the United States, the value of land has risen from $1¼ to $1,000 per acre.

Senator Millen:

– $1,000 per acre for fruit land?

Senator LYNCH:

– No, land which was originally taken up for growing fruit or wheat is now selling for $1,000 per acre.

Senator McColl:

– That is for irrigated land.

Senator LYNCH:

– The thing is as plain as the noonday sun.

Senator Millen:

– It is quite plain that orchard land in the country is worth. $1,000 per acre.

Senator LYNCH:

– When the land was taken up for fruit-growing its value was $1¼ per acre, but owing to the expansion of rice cultivation its value has risen to $1,000 per acre. It is not disputed that wheat-growing is a white man’s occupation. My point is that rice production is a highly profitable occupation as compared with wheat raising. It clearly demolishes thecontention of the Opposition that rice is not produced in the United States without the assistance wholly or partially of cheap and coloured labour. This book demonstrates the very salutary effect which rice production has had on the value of land. If the value of our lands which are suitable for rice production should increase in a similar way, it would be a very welcome thing to Australia. If, for instance, in the Northern Territory or North Queensland, areas which are sometimes submerged in the wet season could be profitably devoted to the cultivation of rice, the people in every part . of Australia would benefit in a. proportionate degree. I think I have proved from the pages of this book that in the United States rice-growing is more profitable than wheat cultivation, and can be conducted profitably with white labour.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

.- It appears to me that the Minister and his colleague could scarcely have read the report of the experts on this item. At any rate, if they did read the report carefully, they did not allow it to influence their minds. If there was one item more than another which on its very face ought to have been discarded, it was’ this item. Can it be wondered that I criticise the experts in every speech I make when in regard to each item I find a substantial inconsistency between their advice and the evidence? How, for instance, can we accept this evidence? -

It is open to doubt if it can be successfully exploited under Australian conditions. The industry, however, is sufficiently important to deserve encouragement, and the Conference recommends a bonus on uncleaned rice at the rate of 20s. per ton, for a term of five years.

The Minister read something new to-day, but he failed to prove the application of what he read to the conditions prevailing here. What I objected to before was that, in answer to a thirst for practical information, he kept reading page after page of this report, which we have all read. I may say that last year I read the report once or twice, and this year three times.

Senator Millen:

– What surprised me was that the Minister had the courage to read the report.

Senator DOBSON:

– That surprised me too, but the Minister went on reading so long that I gave him a hint. What we’ want to know is this - what are the facts which go to. show that the passages which the Minister has quoted have any relation whatever to any land that we have in Australia or in the Northern Territory? In the last paragraph which my honorable friend read, it was stated that wheat landsare obtained in America for a dollar and a-half. That shows how utterly unlike the American conditions are to ours. Did my honorable friend ever hear of wheat lands in Australia being worth only 5s. per acre ? In Tasmania it is impossible to get a decent wheat farm for less than £5> ££> or £7 Per acre> an’d ^ y°u want a good one you have to pay £20. What is the use of bringing before us the conditions of another hemisphere which are totally different from ours?

Senator Lynch:

– Wheat lands are being given away in Western Australia.

Senator DOBSON:

– My honorable friend should not try to thrust such nonsense down our throats.

Senator Millen:

– If Senator Lynch ‘s statement is true, why all the complaints we hear about monopoly and the impossibility of obtaining land for settlement?

Senator DOBSON:

– Nearly all Western Australia is sand, and there is no land fit to grow wheat there.

Senator Lynch:

– That statement only shows the honorable senator’s ignorance. In Western Australia we have a higher average yield than any State in the Commonwealth.

Senator DOBSON:

– What some of us mean by wheat land is land worth about £10 per acre, but what some of my honorable friends opposite mean is land worth about 2s. 6d. per acre. What I want Senator Keating to do is to give us information that is applicable to the conditions prevailing in this continent. If he cannot, give us the facts which we want, it is of no use for him to give facts which we do not want. Where are the swamps with rich soil on which rice can be crown in Australia? Where is the land that can be irrigated for this purpose?

Senator Lynch. Is that absolutely indispensable to the growth of rice?

Senator DOBSON:

– It is possible to grow upland or full rice, but will Senator

Keating give us some statistics on that subject? I should like to know of any part of the Northern Territory where there is land on which rice can be grown successfully. Would any one put a shilling into any such “ spec “ as this ? From what I have read I should say that the only land in Australia that is fit for growing rice i« that on the banks of the Adelaide River, but there it would require £1,000 at least to keep the water off the crop in certain seasons and to turn it on again at other seasons. Does not the book which the Minister has quoted deal with rice cultivation, where two crops a year are obtained ? Will he point out how we can possibly obtain two crops a year in the Northern Territory, where the whole of the rainfall occurs between January and April, and where during the rest of the year there is no rain at all ?

Senator Keating:

– This_ book says nothing about two crops a year.

Senator DOBSON:

– In most instances I think rice cultivators expect two crops per annum. Does not the book take it for granted that two crops will be obtained ?

Senator Keating:

– Not that I know of.

Senator DOBSON:

– I ask my honorable friend to _ satisfy himself on this point, and as to whether we can under any circumstances make rice a payable crop in Australia with the labour that is available, unless we do get two crops per annum. Surely that is an important point. Senator Chataway, who was the first to take exception to the smallness pf the proposed bounty, believes that £1,000 per annum would scarcely pay the interest charge incurred by one man for irrigating his land, getting it into working order, and obtaining the necessary machinery with which to treat the rice. If those are facts which cannot be contradicted, what is the use of leaving this item in the Bill? The evidence is absolutely against it. Furthermore, is it not worth while for us to reduce the amount of £412,000 a little, in order to keep some of the money for the development of the Northern Territory later on ? The experts tell us that the cultivation of rice opens up an entirely new field. Is not this one of those items to which Senator McColl’s admirable criticism exactly applies? He argued that before we go into the “growing of rice we ought to make experiments, determine whether we have suitable land, whether our rainfall is adequate, and whether we can produce two crops a year. We are all in favour of the taking over of the Northern Territory. Why not conserve some money for the purpose of developing it later on? I have from the first advocated that we should do so.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

– I find myself partly in agreement with those who are opposed to this item, and partly with those who intend to vote for it. 1 believe that rice- is one of the best items in the schedule. It is a product that we ought to do our best to have cultivated in Australia, It is a highly profitable crop. Rice is a splendid article of food. It is well known that half the people in the world to-day are almost entirely dependent for their food on the growth of rice. But the way in which the matter is put before us is supremely ridiculous, because of the small amount of the bounty proposed to be paid. If it is a commodity that is worth cultivating, our people should be encouraged to enter upon its production in a proper way. We propose to spend .£5,000 a vear on items which are not nearly so important, whilst only £1,000 is to be paid on account of rice. I think we ought vo ask the Government to be good enough to reconsider the matter; or the Senate should adopt a request that a fresh Governor-General’s message should be brought down, recommending the increase of the amount from jQi.,000 to £5,000 per annum. The growth of rice in the United States has undergone remarkable changes. Before the great Civil War it was grown largely in the Carolinas, and I think in one or two other States also. There they had an orderly system of cultivation with trained labour, which had been accustomed to the growth, of the product. It was slave labour certainly, but the rice was cultivated at great profit to the growers. ButAfter the war was over, when the owners went back to their estates, they found their machinery destroyed, their plantations in ruins, and their labour absolutely gone. In many instances the cultivation of rice was given up. There have been other causes affecting the production of rice in the United States. In many places the streams that formerly came down to the sea have been used for irrigation purposes. The water has been stored, and has not come down ; and consequently the sea has encroached on much of the land where rice was grown. In consequence of the incursion of the salt water the soil has been made absolutely unprofitable for the growth of rice. Under those conditions, experiments were made to ascertain where rice could be cultivated under different conditions in other States; and as we have been told to-day, some of those experiments have been found to be very successful. Rice has been grown in Louisiana, and in Texas, on land which, as We have been told, is of poor quality. Instead of cultivating the crop in natural swamps, the growers have made artificial swamps. They have taken land near to rivers, have banked it along with a levee, have put in pumps, and have brought the soil into such a condition as to be favorable to the production of rice. There is a double advantage ‘attending the adoption of that method. The growers have not been dependent, as they were when- they utilized the swamps, on the water drawing off when that was required,” but have had it absolutely at their command. Rice is a peculiar product to cultivate. It has to d2 grown in water at the commencement, and when the crop has advanced a little that water requires Vo be taken off. At a later stage the water has to be put on again, and drawn off once more, and then the crop has to be grown in :i.o or 12 inches of water. In order that rice may be cultivated profitably, the water has to be under control. I have here several Bulletins, containing information relating to the cultivation of rice, and reproducing a number of photographs showing the process in all its stages. In Texas it is grown with white labour, and the cultivators use ordinary harvesters, just as they do in the wheat fields. Of course, cultivation under those conditions is not very costly, -but the plants must be fairly high before the pumps are put on. because they have to get the water on very quickly when once thev start to do it. They must also have channels leading from the rice fields in order to get the -water off as quickly as it is put on. Rice is being grown in several of the American States - in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The total cultivation is 662,006 acres. The average yield per acre is 31 bushels. The total .production in 1904 was 21,096,038 bushels. The average farm price was 65 cents per bushel, and the average value per acre was $20 98c, or something over £4 5s. per acre.

Senator Millen:

– Only £4. per acre, after the’ tremendous expense that the honorable senator has spoken ofl

Senator McCOLL:

– That is the average. I. consider that if we are to attempt to grow rice at all we ought to do it in a proper way, and to offer such encouragement as would induce people to go into the. enterprise effectively. It is a very costly thing to do. As I said in my secondreading speech on this Bill, I should very much prefer to see a number of these items treated differently. The Government might proceed b.y experimental scientific work to ascertain how the products could be grown in this country. If the Government did that on a small scale and were successful other people would soon be prepared to enter into these industries more largely. If I cannot get what I desire, I am prepared to go as hear to it as I can. But to ask our people, for the sake of a bounty of £1,000 a year, to enter into this costly industry is simply to make a screaming farce of the whole business. We ought to show our sincerity and our belief in the prospects of rice cultivation more thoroughly than this. I. quite agree that we should try and bring about” the cultivation of these products. We cannot protect out farmers very much, but we can encourage them to enter into the cultivation of fresh products, and so find employment for our people. Therefore, I think that this item ought to be increased, and intend to test the feeling of the Committee upon the matter. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to increase the amount of the bounty payable in any one year to £5,000.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

.- I should like honorable senators to understand the position before that question is put. This is a request that the House of Representatives should increase the amount proposed to be appropriated for a bounty for a particular item. I understand that in another place, it has been already ruled, and is an accepted practice, that when a measure of this character comes before them, it is not possible for them to increase an- item. If that be so. then our request would be perfectly futile, and the honorable senator’s object would be absolutely defeated. However willing another place might be to fall in with the views of the Senate, they would find themselves unable to increase the amount. Apart from the question as. to whether it would be competent for this. Chamber to deal with a motion of this kind, it is hopeless for the honorable senator to attempt to achieve what he has in view, by the course he has taken. I was very glad to hear him say that there is good warrant for the Government’s offering a bounty for the production of rice in the Commonwealth. I was pleased also to bear his testimony, born of experience and observation at close range, that rice is an article to the production- of which the Commonwealth might well turn its attention. If the honorable senator has any fault to find with the amount proposed by the Government, he ought to be prepared to accept it now as a small instalment, and lay himself out to Induce action to be taken hereafter to supplement it.

Senator McColl:

– Why not now?

Senator KEATING:

– I have already pointed out that the course proposed by the honorable senator might lead to the destruction of the item altogether.

Senator Best:

– And the destruction of the Bill.

Senator KEATING:

– That result might also follow.

Senator McColl:

– I do not agree with the honorable senator.

Senator KEATING:

– That fact does not alter the situation. If the honorable senator desired to put “ rice “ out of the schedule altogether, or absolutely to wreck the Bill, he could hardly take a more direct and certain course. In the circumstances, I’ ask him to withdraw the amendment, apart altogether from the question of the competency of the Committee to deal with it.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

– I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether my motion is in order or not. The Minister of Home Affairs gives his opinion that it is not competent for me to submit it.

Senator Mulcahy:

– According to the practice of another place.

Senator McCOLL:

– If we consider a certain course of procedure desirable here, it is our duty to take the necessary steps to give effect to it. We cannot control another place. If they do not see fit to agree with us, we cannot help it.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– This question has arisen before. It. appears to be the wish of the Committee generally that one or two of the items should be struck out, and the bounties for others increased. The Minister in charge of the Bill has stated more than once that that cannot be done. But is he not really taking away some of. the financial powers given to the Senate by the Constitution? We have nothing to do with the practice of another place, or the position they have taken up, but if their attitude curtails the constitutional powers of this Chamber, we have a great deal to do with it. The Minister, in giving way to another place, is really assisting them to deprive us of some of our powers. When . a sum of over £400,000 is to be appropriated for seventeen items, it is almost certain that the Senate will not agree with another place as to the exact sum to be applied to each item. It is almost inevitable that we should desire to strike out an item here and there, and increase the bounties on others. If we have not the powers which we claim now, then we have not the powers which we have hitherto thought that the Constitution conferred upon us.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I hope that honorable senators will be very wary about receiving a motion of this kind. It is all very well to raise the question of the constitutional rights of the Senate. In the terms of section 53 of the Constitution it is not competent for this Chamber to increase “ any proposed charge or burden on the people.” The Bill was introduced in another place in the usual way. Subject to the exceptions set out as regards the origination of financial measures, and increasing the burdens on the people, the same section provides that “ the Senate shall have equal powers with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.” What are the powers of the House of Representatives in this connexion ? They have, first of all, to receive a message from the Governor-General. That message is referred to a certain Committee in accordance with the terms of section 56 of the Constitution. In this case, the GovernorGeneral recommended that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounties on the production of certain goods.

Senator Gray:

– Cannot we transfer money from one item to another without increasing the amount?

Senator BEST:

– No. Upon that message the Bill was brought in, appropriating a sum of £412,500 in a particular way pursuant to the message.

Senator Dobson:

– Cannot there be a new message altering the appropriation?

Senator BEST:

– Certainly not, unless we have a new Bill founded on it. In the terms of the existing message whereon this Bill was founded, the amount of £412,500 was appropriated.

Senator Dobson:

– The Government ought to have brought down a message for the one sum.

Senator BEST:

– There is a clear and well-defined practice in tills connexion. The message is brought down for a certain sum of money. In the terms of that message a Bill is introduced. That Bill, in this case the Bounties Bill, appropriates the money in the way set forth in the schedule. I may say that the question raised by this proposed request has been dealt with in another place. An attempt was there made to strike out one item and substitute another.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question of the alteration of the destination of an item has not been raised.. The point before the Committee is whether we can request the House of Representatives to increase the amount of an item.

Senator BEST:

– Then the issue is comparatively simple. Evidently Senator McColl has not had an opportunity of studying the practice of the Senate. According to section 53 of the Constitution we have no right or power’ to amend certain Bills.

Senator McColl:

– We can make a request on those measures.

Senator BEST:

– There is one class of money Bills that we have power to amend, and there are two classes of money Bills in regard to which we have only power to make requests. But this Bill is. not one of those on which we can make requests. It is one of the class of Bills which we have a right to amend. The section says -

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws ‘ appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

Therefore, we have no right to amend Bills’ imposing taxation or appropriating 3476 Bounties Bill. [SENATE.] Bounties Bill. revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government. And further -

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

Such Bills as are there referred to we have no right to amend, but we can make requests in regard to them. The section further provides that -

The Senate may, at any stage, return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting by message the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

This Bounties Bill therefore not being a taxation Bill, and not being a Bill appropriating money for the ordinary annual services, is one that we can amend, and as such, it is not a Bill in connexion with which we can make requests.

Senator Needham:

– Can we amend this Bill?

Senator BEST:

– Yes, we can amend the Bill, but we cannot amend it in the direction of increasing the appropriation.

Senator McColl:

– We have already made amendments decreasing the annual appropriation by £7,000.

Senator BEST:

– We can amend the Bill in that direction, but under section 53 we cannot amend it in such a way as to increase the amount of the appropriation. I hope that is perfectly clear to honorable senators.

Senator Major O’Loghlin:

– In connexion with this Bill we have equal powers with those possessed by the House of Representatives.

Senator BEST:

– I was going to discuss the class of Bills in connexion with which we have equal powers with the House of Representatives, but the Chairman objected that that matter was not immediately before the Committee. I hope I have made the matter clear to honorable senators.

Senator McColl:

– The honorable senator has made his opinion perfectly clear, but I asked for the Chairman’s ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am prepared to give my ruling on the question. If it be dissented from, thewhole question will have to be re-argued, and perhaps it would therefore be just as well that I should give my ruling now. I rule that this is a motion which can be received by the Committee as a request to the House of

Representatives. I do so for reasons which I propose to give. I wish to say that, although several honorable senators directed their remarks, at different times in the course of the proceedings on this Bill, to the question of the power of the Committee to alter the destination of votes in the schedule, that question has not yet been formally raised, and it is not raised by the request now proposed. It, therefore, has not been decided so fan as this Committee is concerned. The point raised at this juncture is : Can we make a request in connexion with a Bill which we can amend? Senator Best has pointed out that there are two classes of Bills dealt with under section 53 of the Constitution. These are the ordinary annual Appropriation and Taxation Bills which we cannot amend, and there is another class which we may not amend so as to increase any charge or burden on the people. But there is a third class of Bills which includes both these features. There is a class of Bills which we can amend, in the direction in which we have already amended this Bill, by decreasing the. amount of the appropriation - by striking out items - but we may not so amend them as to increase any proposed; charge or burden on the people However ,. I point out to honorable senators that it is perfectly competent for the Senate to exercise its power of request in connexion with Bills of” this class. According to the Constitution, we can in connexion with the same Bill move an amendment striking out an item so as to decrease the amount of the appropriation, and if in the opinion of the Committee it is desirable that a. proposed vote should be increased, thus increasing the charge or burden on the people, we can request the House of Representatives to do what we cannot do directly. I feel on safe ground in rulingin this way, because I have had occasion to look the matter up, and I find that my ruling is supported by a ruling given by no less an authority than the Vice-President of the Executive Council, Senator Best, himself, when Chairman of Committees. In the first session of the Federal Parliament, this question was raised for the first time in connexion with the Audit Bill. Some honorable senators present will probably remember the occasion. The Acting Chairman of Committees at the time. Senator Dobson, ruled that section 53 of the Constitution did not permit the Committee to amend the Audit Bill so as to- increase the salary proposed for the Auditor-General; but_ such amendment could be requested. That ruling -will be found at page 3238 of Hansard., for the first session of the Federal Parliament. Later on, another Bill came before the Senate, dealing with the sugar bonus, as it was then called. The Senate made an amendment in that Bill in Committee, extending the term of the bonus, and thereby increasing the charge or- burden on the people. That amendment came before another place, and was there rejected on the ground that the Senate had not the constitutional power to make an amendment in that Bill, so as to increase the proposed charge or burden on the people. That reference will be found at pages 2013-4 of Hansard for 14th July, 1903. The Prime Minister of the day. Sir Edmund Barton, speaking on the alterations proposed by the Senate in the Bill referred to, accepted some, and objected to the amendment extending the area of the bonus, contending that it should have been submitted to the House of Representatives by request. I direct the special attention of honorable senators- to that. Sir Edmund Barton spoke as follows-

If then this is a law imposing a charge or burden upon the people by means of an appropriation, it is a proposed law which may be amended by the Senate -

Sir Edmund Barton was very clear on that point. He went on to say - inasmuch as it is not an annual Appropriation Bill ; but it is also a law which they may not amend so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

Now I come to Senator Best’s ruling as Chairman of Committees of the Senate. At page 1695 of Hansard, for 2nd July, 1093, it will be found that Senator Best, as Chairman of Committees, contended that the alteration extending the area of the bonus should be made the subject of a request. That was after we had made amendments in the body of the Bill in Committee. At pages 1696-7 it will be found that he contended _ that on this class of Bills requests could be made involving an increased charge on the people, and further that requests could be made as to one part, and amendments as. to another part of the same Bill. So that my ruling is in accordance with what has been the practice of the Senate, as laid down bv Senator Best, whose ruling was not challenged. The matter never came before the President. In the circumstances, I rule that Senator McColl. is in order in moving that the House of Representatives be requested to increase the maximums amount of bounty payable annually for uncleaned rice to £5.000.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I have, so far, voted for every item but one in the schedule. It cannot be said that I have in any way harassed or obstructed the Government in. the passage of this measure. On the contrary, I have assisted them . as far as I’ possibly could. I am in favour of the bounty principle, as I said on the second reading of the Bill. But I also said1 that I would reserve to myself the right to criticise certain items in Committee. So far as this item of rice is concerned, after due deliberation, I thought that I should” have to oppose it, because I think £1,000 a vear is a ridiculous sum to offer for the encouragement of such an industry in Australia. But in view of the request submitted by Senator McColl, I think, there may be an opportunity afforded to encourage the industry in a practical manner. I am very glad that the request has. been moved.’ My reason for speaking in this strain is that during the recess, in company with other members of the Federal Parliament, I visited the Northern Territory. I do not -believe that it is possible to grow rice successfully in any other part pf this vast island continent.

Senator Findley:

– It is being grown -in Victoria now.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– To a very small extent. We must recognise that in the Northern Territory there is a big field for the establishment of the rice growing industry. But if we are to establish this industry in that part of the Commonwealth, we must be prepared to spend a large amount of money there on irrigation. I’ went along the Adelaide River, and I saw there a great tract of country which, although it is at certain seasons of the year well watered by the natural overflow of theriver, would not be suitable for the growth of rice, without a large expenditure on irrigation. If we are- to encourage the industry at all, we should vote a reasonable sum, and ,£1,000 per annum “ is, in mv opinion, a ridiculous bounty to offer for this purpose. It may be said that if the industry is not started, the money will not be spent. But if we pass this item, £1,000 of our revenue. 3478 Bounties Bill. [SENATE.] Bounties Bill. will be annually ear-marked for this purpose, and can be used for no other purpose. It may be, that during the five years over which the bounty is proposed to be paid, it would be possible to spend the money to advantage for the assistance of some other industry dealt with in the schedule, under items to which we have already agreed. But this money, being locked up, could not be used for the purpose. No honorable senator can contend that a bounty of £1,000 a year would be of any practical use in developing the rice industry. I have the report of the Conference of Experts before me, and I find that they say -

Upland of hill rice which, as its name implies, grows on dry lands, is, perhaps, more within the scope of Australian producers. So far as climate and soil is concerned, there is no reason why it should not beextensively cultivated in Australia. but they add “ under Australian conditions.” It also mentions the fact that it can be grown on irrigable land. If we hope to establish the industry in the Northern Territory, we must allow a considerable increase on £1,000 a year for the purposes of irrigation. That is the reason why, if the request had not been moved, I should have voted against the item. It would be worse than useless to attempt to encourage the establishment of the industry with the paltry sum of £1,000 a year. If we can induce the other House to agree to the request to increase the amount to £5,000 a year for five years, I believe that even then

Ave shall be within the mark. From my observations, I feel confident that, in the northern portions of the continent, any tropical industry can be established and worked by white labour. I returned from my visit confirmed in my adherence to the policy of a White Australia ; but I recognise that, in order to put that ideal into practical operation, a certain expenditure is necessary.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- Whilst there may be much force in the arguments which have been urged in favour of the request, I do not intend to support it ; because, in my opinion, the other House will take the view that it is not competent for the Senate to make a request in connexion with theBill.

Senator McColl:

– Is that a reason why we should not do our duty?

Senator Turley:

– We shall lose nothing if we make the request.

Senator Trenwith:

– We shall lose the Bill.

Senator FINDLEY:

– If we have not the power to make a request, we shall be informed of that fact by the other House.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator not to discuss that point.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Surely, sir, I shall not be out of order in making an incidental reference to the point. It will be remembered that when we went into Committee on the Bill, I asked whether it would be permissible for an honorable senator to move that an item should be deleted, and that the amount set apart for that item should be transferred to another item, and I was told that it would not be in order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator did not address that question to the Chair, but to a member of the Government.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I put the question to the leader of the Government, who gave me a satisfactory reply.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator must always take a Ministerial statement with a measure of caution.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I said, that, in view of that assurance from the Minister, I would support every item in the schedule. Those who are anxious for the Bill to pass should hesitate very seriously about supporting the request. It is better to have the Bill with slight imperfections than to have no Bill.

Senator Needham:

– This request cannot endanger the Bill.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It will.

Senator McColl:

– Nonsense.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator is too old a parliamentarian-

Senator Millen:

– To be frightened by that statement.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I believe that the honorable senator will stand by the position which he takes up ; but he is aware that in all probability the other House will stand by its rights..

Senator McColl:

– I think that it will support the request.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It may, if we are entitled to make the request. However, the Chairman has ruled that the request is in order, and it is too late now to debate that point. I realize that the amendment will be supported by those who want to see the Bill knocked out.

Senator McColl:

– That is absolutely unfair.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is not unfair.

Senator Needham:

– Does the honorable senator mean to infer that I desire to see the Bill knocked out?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not wish to name’ any one, but it is well known that certain honorable senators sitting on the other side have condemned the Bill “ lock, stock, and barrel.” .Some of them have said that to sanction bounties for the encouragement of industries in Australia is like throwing money into the gutter, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that they will resort to any proceeding in order- to secure the defeat of the Bill. Whilst I think that a. larger sum for this item, in fact, for many items, would be justifiable, still, believing as I do that it would eventually mean disaster to the Bill, I do not feel that I would be justified in supporting the request. I am very certain of what will happen if it is carried. It cannot do any possible good from the point of view of the Bill. On the contrary, it will probably mean, unless some honorable senators alter their votes when the Bill is returned, that it will be lost. In those circumstances, I have decided to support the item as it stands.

Senator Best:

– I am very anxious that we should come to an understanding on this very important point* I understand, sir, that you were asked for an expression of your view. I am not aware that a point of order was raised.

Senator McColl:

– -I asked for a ruling.

Senator Best:

– In order that the point may be settled by the President one way or the other - and I shall be quite satisfied with his ruling - I propose to ask you, sir, whether you have given a decision on a point of order. If you have given a decision I must abide bv it. But if no formal point of order has been raised-

Senator Millen:

– It is not necessary for a point of order to be raised before the Chairman can give a decision.

Senator Best:

– The matter is vitally serious so far as the prospects of the Bill are concerned. If you, sir, have decided a point of order-

Senator Millen:

– It is not necessary to have a point of order decided. The question is whether the Chairman has given a ruling.

Senator Best:

– I now raise the point of order, sir, whether the request of Senator McColl can be put from the Chair. According to your decision I shall be guided in my action.

Senator Millen:

– I submit, sir, that it is too late for Senator Best to raise this point of order. You have given a “ruling. It may be quite true that you did not give the ruling on a specific point of order, but that, to my mind, is immaterial. The point which was brought under your notice involved the interpretation of a section of the Constitution, and you gave a formal ruling that Senator McColl was in order in submitting the request. The Standing Orders provide, clearly and beyond controversy, that if the decision of the Chairman is to be brought into question notice must be immediately given. No such notice was given. Other business has intervened. Senators Needham and Findley have spoken, and it is only at the eleventh hour that the Minister desires to bring your decision under review. I submit, sir; that it is too late for him to take that course.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am anxious to get the opinion of the President, if that is thought necessary by the Committee. No point of order was raised on the proposition of Senator McColl. He asked me, as Chairman, whether it was in order.

Senator McColl:

– I asked you, sir, to give a ruling.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Exception was taken to the proposition by the Minister of Home Affairs.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The usual practice when a proposition is submitted is for those who think that it is out of order to appeal to the Chair. In this case that step was not taken, but I intimated to Senator McColl that in my opinion his request was in order. I think that since a point of order was not raised at the time it is competent for any honorable senator now to ask whether the request is in order. I shall allow a point of order to be raised, and give a ruling in accordance with the opinion I expressed previously - that the request is in order.

Senator Best:

– I have the greatest respect, sir, for the ruling which you have given, but in the interests of the Senate, and for the guidance of honorable senators, I dissent from it, and I will put my dissent in writing.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Practically, sir, you said just now that you had not given” a ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have just given a ruling that the motion of Senator McColl is in order.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Do you say, sir, that you have just given a ruling?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes, on the point of order.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Virtually the point of order was raised bv Senator McColl.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot allow any discussion to take place.

Senator Millen:

– Is it competent, sir, for the Minister to challenge your ruling on this point?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes.

Senator Mulcahy:

– I only want to point out to you, sir,-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator cannot discuss the matter. The proceedings of the Committee are suspended when notice of dissent from a ruling is given.

In the Senate:

The Chairman of Committees. - I have to report that in the Committee on the Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounties on the production of certain goods, when we were dealing with the first Schedule, Senator McColl submitted a proposal for a request to the House of Representatives to increase the maximum amount that may be paid in any one year for the production of rice from £1,000 to £5,000. On a point of order raised by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, I ruled that the proposed request could be received, and dealt with by the Committee as a request. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has dissented from my ruling in the following terms -

The Chairman has ruled that Senator McColl’s request can be received. I dissent from the ruling, on the ground that it is against section 53 of the Constitution.

I desire to say that, in giving the ruling I did, I consider that I was following the practice that has been established in the” Senate, and which, has been acquiesced in bv the other branch of the Legislature.

Senator Millen:

– It was suggested, indeed, by the other branch of the Legislature.

The Chairman of Committees. - It was not regarded as an invasion of the powers of the other House or as an exaltation of the powers of the Senate. I draw attention to the fact that in the first session of the first Parliament, when the Senate was dealing with the Audit Bill, which contained a number of machinery clauses, and also a clause providing for the salary of the AuditorGeneral, various amendments were made. When we were dealing with the clause relating to the Auditor-General a proposal was submitted to increase the salary. The Acting Chairman of Committees at that time, Senator Dobson, thereupon ruled that the amendment could not be received, and that the proposal should take the form of a request. That decision was not challenged. Therefore, what I have described became the practice of the Senate. In the year 1903 the Senate had before it the Sugar Bounties Bill. Certain amendments were made in. it affecting the machinery of the measure. One amendment was made which had the effect of extending the time over which the bounty should be paid. When that Bill came before another place it was contended that the latter amendment could not be constitutionally made, and that the wish of the Senate ought to be signified by way of request. But the other place showed no disinclination to accept the other two amendments which the Senate made in the Bill. It sent back a message to the Senate expressing the opinion that the third proposition increasing the area of the bounties increased the proposed burden on the people, and therefore should have been sent down in the form of a request. The Senate agreed to that course. 1 have before me the ruling given by the then Chairman of Committees, Senator Best. It is reported in , Hansard for 1903, pages 1694 to 1697. He said that the alteration extending the area of the bounty should be made by request. He also said, on page 1696, that on this class of Bills requests could be made involving an increased charge on the people ; and, further, that requests could be made as to one part and amendments as to- another part of the same Bill.

Senator Millen:

– The other House took ‘ . no exception to our request.

The Chairman of Committees. - No. Our practice has consequently been clearly established : that we can in one Bill make both amendments and requests. I understand that the argument will be used that in consequence of the procedure of another place we should limit our powers in this respect. But I submit to you, Mr. President, as the ultimate guardian and custodian of the rights of the Senate, that we should not allow the procedure of another place to affect our course of action, which should be based upon our own constitutional powers.

Senator Best:

– The procedure of another place is not involved in. the question at issue.

The Chairman of Committees. - I think that that point will be raised, inasmuch as it was raised in ‘Committee. Our powers are clearly set forth in section 53 of the Constitution. We may not amend a Bill so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people, but we may make requests to the other House in regard to Bills which w may not amend ; and in regard to Bills like that now under consideration we may make both requests and amendments.

Senator Best:

– Of course, we are all desirous of establishing a reasonable and satisfactory practice with regard to what I admit to be a most troublesome and complicated matter. I am sorry that the Chairman of Committees has raised a point which has not been immediately submitted to you, namely, as to whether we should have regard to the practice of the other Chamber and regulate our practice accordingly. That question is not before us, although it may be considered as a matter of expediency. My colleague tells me that he dissociated that point from the point of order. The sole question now submitted to you is this - whether on a Bill which is not a Bill imposing taxation, and which is not a Bill appropriating the ordinary annual services of the Government, we have a right both to amend and make requests? Section 53 of the Constitution must be our guide in this matter. That section provides that -

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys or imposing taxation shall not originate in the Senate.

Then it says that -

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

That means that the ‘Bills which we may not amend are taxation Bills, and Bills appropriating the ordinary annual services of the year. There is a further restriction that - ‘

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

It is therefore clear that we cannot make an amendment increasing a burden or charge on the people. Then it is provided that -

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting by message the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments with or without modifications.

The last paragraph of the section reads -

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

It appears quite clear, from that section, that there are two classes of money Bills, with regard to one of which we can make requests, whilst the other class we have a right to amend. The Bounties Bill, which is now under consideration, is a measure that we have a right to amend. Of course, we have no right under it to increase a burden upon the people, but, nevertheless, we have a right to amend the measure ; and I submit that, it being a class of Bill that we have a right to amend, we have not, at the same time, the right to make a request in regard to it. Our Standing Orders indicate the extraordinary difficulties in which we should be placed under those circumstances. Standing order 225 says -

When any such Bill shall have been passed - that refers to Bills received from the House of Representatives for the first time - by the Senate, with or without amendment, it shall be returned to the House of Representatives by message, with the Clerk’s certificate, that “ This Bill has been agreed to by the Senate without amendment,” or “ With the amendments indicated by the annexed schedule,” as the case may require ; and the concurrence of the House of Representatives shall be desired to such amendments.

With regard to the other class of Bills, standing order 243 provides -

If a message is returned ‘ from the House of Representatives completely complying wilh the requests of the Senate, as. originally made or as modified, the Bill as altered may be read a third time and passed.

That is the procedure which subsequently follows. I submit that the effect of the request in question would be to increase the proposed charge or burden on the people, but I do not, at this stage, press that feature so much as I urge the point that under section 53 of the Constitution empowers in this connexion are limited, so far as concerns this Bill, to the making of amendments, and that it is not a< Bil! in regard to which we have any right to make requests.

The PRESIDENT:

– The proposal submitted in Committee was that the House of Representatives be requested to increase the amount of bounty payable in any one year in respect of rice from £1,000 to £5,000. The Chairman ruled that that request could be received. The VicePresident of the Executive Council dissents from that ruling, on the ground that it is contrary to section 53 of the Constitution. The question is one that is, in some respects, novel. If it were not for the peculiar wording of section 53 of the Constitution in regard to the powers of the Senate to request amendments, there would not be much difficulty. I take it that the real question raised is whether, in one Bill, the Senate can make both requests and amendments. The Minister’s contention is perfectly clear, that “ the Senate may, at any stage, return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend,” it toeing provided earlier in section 53 of the Constitution that “the Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.” There is no question as to the meaning of that provision. It applies to taxation measures, and also to measures’ dealing with the annual appropriation. But all Bills beyond those two classes of Bill we undoubtedly have the right, under the Constitution, to amend. The question then arises whether that right is lessened by the further provision that -

The Senate may .not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

And if the power of amendment in that direction is taken away, is this Chamber powerless to deal with the matter by way of increasing any proposed grant, either by suggestion or otherwise? The VicePresident of the Executive Council rather took exception to some remarks made by the Chairman of Committees, with reference to the Sugar Bonus Bill that was before this Chamber in 1903.

Senator Best:

– Oh, no.

The PRESIDENT:

– I thought the honorable senator did so, but I may have been mistaken. The question was raised prt that Bill, in 1903, of whether a certain amendment proposed by ex-Senator Glassey would have the effect of increasing the burdens upon the people, and, if so, whether it should be submitted by way of amendment or by way of request. Clause 2 of the Bill then under consideration provided that -

There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated accordingly, to every grower of sugar-cane or beet within the Commonwealth, in the production of which sugar-cane or beet white labour only has been employed after the 28th day of February, 1903, a bonus at the rates provided by this Act. . . .

Ex- Senator Glassey proposed to amend that clause by omitting the words “ after the 28th day of February, 1903,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words, “ For a period of twelve months immediately preceding the delivery thereof for manufacture.” It was clearly shown then. that the effect of the amendment would be to increase the number of persons entitled to the receipt of the proposed bonus, and so require the payment of a greater amount of money by the Treasury than that contemplated by the Bill, thus increasing the charge or burden or tax on the people. It, therefore, became clearly a proposal in direct derogation of the provision that “ the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.” ‘After a long debate, it was ultimately determined to submit the proposal to the other Chamber in the form of an amendment. -When it came before another place, Mr. Speaker said -

I think that my position requires me to point out to the House that this message covers an’ amendment made by the Senate in the Bill, which amendment is of such a nature that it would, if passed, “ increase “ a “ proposed charge or burden on the people,” and that it is in direct contravention of sub-section 3 of section 53 of the Constitution that such an amendment should be made by the Senate.

Speaking as the custodian of the rights of the other Chamber, he continue.d -

The alteration, if sought, should have been by request and not by amendment.

The message was subsequently taken into consideration, and the Bill was returned to this Chamber with a message pointing out that the amendment was an attempt to increase a proposed charge or burden on the people, and, therefore, not an amendment which the Senate could make.

Senator Pearce:

– And accepting our other amendments.

The PRESIDENT:

– The other amendments w.ere accepted, but they were not of great consequence. The Senate then had a long discussion upon the question. Some fine-drawn distinctions, which are not pertinent to the question now before us, were attempted to be made between a tax or charge or burden upon the people. The Senate, acting upon a message from another place, ultimately determined to submit their proposal by way of request; so laying down a practice, so far as they. could, that such Bills could be dealt with by amendment in certain respects, and by request in others.

Senator Millen:

– And- both in the one Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– In the one Bill. It was returned to the other place with such request for amendment, and the then Prime Minister, Sir .Edmund Barton, referring to the request, said -

We have given close consideration to that ‘ question, and we have come to this conclusion : that where the Senate can amend, it ordinarily is not able to suggest ; but where its amendment cannot be by way of increase, it is intended by the Constitution that it should retain the power of suggestion, as in other cases. Where the Senate admittedly could not make an amendment to increase the burdens of the people, it can, as in other cases, make a suggestion which, if adopted by us and carried into effect, would increase- the burdens upon -the people.

It was decided, after very keen discussion in both Houses, that the true “construction of the provision of the Constitution was that a proposed law might be of such a character that in one direction it could be amended, and in another direction, where the power of amendment did not exist, a suggestion could be made, and that this class of Bill became practically a composite class, in dealing with which two powers could be exercised by the Senate. The question now arises whether any distinction can be drawn between the Sugar Bonus Bill of 1903 and this Bill. .1 have searched the records to ascertain the procedure followed in both cases in another place, where these Bills have to be initiated, for we cannot initiate them. The procedure appears to have been the same in both cases. In. the case of the Sugar Bonus Bill a message was received from the Governor-General “ recommending to the House of Representatives that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a Bill for an Act to provide for a bonus to growers of sugar-cane and beet.” In the case of the Bill now before the Senate, the message from the GovernorGeneral recommended to the House of Representatives “ that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounties on the production of certain goods.” The message, therefore, was the same in both cases. In the case of the Sugar Bonus Bill, the message was ordered to be taken into consideration on the fol lowing day. On the following day ‘ it is recorded that -

The Order of the Day for the consideration in Committee- of the Whole House of His Excellency the Governor-General’s message, No. 2, having been read, Mr. Speaker left the Chair, and the House, resolved itself into a Committee” of the Whole. Mr. Speaker resumed- the Chair ; Mr. Chanter1 reported that the Committee had agreed to a certain resolution. Ordered - That the report be considered at once. And thereupon the said resolution was read, and is as follows : - Resolved - That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a Bill for an Act to provide for a bonus to growers of sugar-cane and beet. And the said resolution was adopted by the House. Ordered - That Sir George Turner do prepare and bring in a Bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

In the case of the Bill now under consideration, it is recorded that -

The Order of the Day having been read for the consideration in Committee of the Whole House of His Excellency the Governor-General’s message, No. 5, Mr. Speaker left the Chair and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair ; Mr. McDonald reported that the Committee had agreed to a certain resolution. Ordered - That the report be considered at once. And thereupon the said resolution was read, and is as follows : - Resolved - That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounties on the production of certain goods. And the said- resolution was adopted by the House. Ordered - That Mr. Groom and Sir William Lyne do prepare and bring in a Bill to carry out the foregoing resolution. Mr. Groom then brought up a Bill intituled “ A Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounties on the production of certain goods,” and moved “ that it be now read a first time’.” Question - put and resolved inthe affirmative - Bill read a first time.

This Bill, therefore, was introduced under precisely the same circumstances, and dealt with in precisely the same way as was the Sugar Bonus Bill in 1903. We have reached a position very similar to that arrived at with regard to that Bill. The question is whether we can amend this Bill, and also make requests concerning mattersthat it is not within our power to amend. In view of the decision arrived at by this Chamber, and ‘accepted by the other. I consider that the ruling given by the Chairman of Committees upon this point should be adopted by the Senate.

In Committee :

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I wish to refer to the extraordinary, although not ‘unusual, argument addressed to the Committee by Senator Findley. He invited honorable senators to stay their hands, to refrain even from considering Senator McColl ‘s motion upon its merits, to dismiss the merits altogether, and merely to consider what effect it would have, if adopted, upon the minds of honorable members elsewhere. Honorable senators opposite must toe in extremis to resort to appeals of that kind. The last thing this Chamber ought to consider, at any rate at the preliminary stages of a Bill, is the attitude likely to be adopted elsewhere. The obligation is thrown upon us, both individually and as a Committee, to determine every proposal on its merits. The responsibility of accepting or rejecting a proposal submitted to them by this Chamber rests with the other branch of the Legislature. But to saythat there is a possibility, if we adopt an amendment, of our action being resented elsewhere, and that, therefore, we ought to refrain from even considering it, amounts to an invitation to this Chamber to forsake its responsibilities and obligations, and even the distinct powers which the Constitution confers upon it.

Senator Lynch:

– Is there a possibility of this Bill being dropped if it is sent back ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I will show directly that there is no such possibility. Supposing there were, if this is a right, proper, reasonable, and wise amendment, it is the duty of this Chamber to say so, whatever its fate may be elsewhere.

Senator Findley:

– Is the honorable -senator in favour of the item in any circumstances, or of the amendment?

Senator MILLEN:

– My answer, is that no bounty is too absurd to secure the honorable senator’s support.

Senator Findley:

– Therefore, the honorable senator is going to vote for the increased amount.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator does not know how I am going to vote. In this particular- instance I am not going to vote for the increased amount. In reply to Senator Lynch, I say that there is no prospect of this Bill being jeopardized, whatever decision the Committee arrives at upon Senator McColl’s motion. Is the relationship between the two branches of the Legislature so strained that this Chamber dares not put forward its views on a Bill sent to it for its. consideration ?

Senator Findley:

– If we have the power, let us exercise it to the full, but if there is any doubt about it, let us hesitate.

Senator MILLEN:

– It has .been determined that we have the power, but Senator Lynch, by interjection, and Senator Findley, in previously addressing the Committee, have said that we should jeopardize the Bill if we accepted this request. 1 wish to show that that is perfectly ridiculous:

Senator Findley:

– We have had a ruling of the President since then.

Senator MILLEN:

– That might determine the’ course adopted by honorable senators, but it would not in the slightest degree affect the -future history of the Bill. In dealing with the statement that to accept the request would be to jeopardize the Bill, I would say that it is- absurd to suppose that the relationship between the Senate. and the House of Representatives has become so strained that honorable senators should refrain from expressing their views.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Has the honorable senator no hope that it will become strained ?

Senator MILLEN:

– No, I certainly do not wish to see any struggle between the two Houses, because if carried sufficiently far - it would mean a double dissolution. On this point, Senator Russell will accept my assurance that I have no desire to see a deadlock between the two Houses. Apart from the mere constitutional right of the Senate to take the course proposed, there is an obligation upon honorable senators to determine every proposal upon its merits. There is not the slightest reason for assuming that in this or in any other matter in connexion with which we make a proposal or a request, ‘the other House will resent our action. If honorable members in another place do not approve of what we do, it will be open to them to return the measure to us, and when their views are before us we can decide whether we should press our request or retrace our steps. If there be” any force in the si <»- ment used b’y Senators Lynch and Findley, I would say that it has been advance^ rather too late in the day, in view of the fact that we have already made more important alterations in the Bill. We have absolutely struck out two of the items which appeared in the schedule.

*Bounties Bill.* [19 September, 1907. ] *Bounties Bill.* 3485 {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- We have the power to do that. {: #debate-8-s15 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- I am not dealing with the constitutional question, which has been settled, but with the view put forward by Senators Lynch and Findley, that the proposed request might, if agreed to, jeopardize the Hill, because honorable members in another place would resent our alteration. There is always a stage in the relationship between the two branches of a bi-cameral Legislature, at which one House is called upon to consider how far it should decide to press its own views and how far it would be reasonable to give way to the views of the other branch of the Legislature. In this matter we have not yet reached such a stage. We are at a stage when, irrespective of the view which honorable members in another place may take, we should impress on this Bill the judgment of the Senate. Later on, if honorable members in another place are not prepared to give way to what we propose, it will be time enough, for us to consider whether we shall stand by the request we have made or withdraw it. {: #debate-8-s16 .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist -- Of course, it is very satisfactory indeed to have our practice definitely laid down. . {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- To know that the honorable senator's previous views have been confirmed. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That is a little unkind. I am innocent enough to be anxious to secure the passage of this Bill, and to invite honorable senators *not to* legislate in a blindfold manner. It has been pointed out that there is a reasonable prospect of achieving the end at which we are aiming by the proposals made in the Bill. It is all very well for some of our honorable friends in a light and airy way to introduce questions affecting the constitutional rights of the Senate, with the object, if possible, of working up some conflict between the two Chambers, as a result of which there would be a very fair prospect that the Bill would not pass this session at all. But that is not exactly what I desire, nor is it what those who are sincerely supporting the measure would like to see occur. Certain proposals have been submitted in the Bill, and it is considered that by an expenditure of £1,000 a year for five years' we shall have a prospect of insuring the cultivation of this particular product. If it is to be the great success suggested by **Senator McColl,** who is now taking such a deep interest in this particular item, honorable senators may be perfectly satisfied that if any further encouragement be required the Government will be prepared to ask Parliament to grant it. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- If the industry is a great success, it will not need further aid. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- If it should not be successful, the amount involved will be small, and no money will be spent unless it is earned in the terms of the Bill. I do ask the supporters of the measure not to be led away by the specious devices of those who are now coming to our rescue, and seeking to bless us with mercies beyond our greatest expectations. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Gifts from the Greeks. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Just so; when gifts are brought by the Greeks we should beware. As a bounty for the encouragement of the growth of rice, the amount submitted in the schedule is reasonable. I ask honorable members who support this measure to remember that it is not to be passed by promoting a constitutional conflict. Our rights are laid down by the Constitution, and honorable senators may be assured that we shall uphold them on all occasions. At the same time, we should not provoke a fight, and if we can secure the passage of the measure without a conflict with another place, it is not likely that we are going to invite such a conflict. In the circumstances, I urge that the request should be rejected, and that the item as it appears in the schedule should be accepted. {: #debate-8-s17 .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania -- I am going to vote against the request ; but if anything would induce me to vote for it it is the speech just delivered by the leader of the Senate. Whilst we desire to protect the rights and privileges of the Senate, we have no desire to provoke anything in the shape of a constitutional conflict between the two Houses. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- It is ridiculous to suppose that such a conflict could arise over this item. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator MULCAHY: -- I am going to vote against the request that the annual vote should be increased to £5,000, because I do not believe that the expenditure of even £1,000 in connexion with this item would be justifiable. I cannot see any prospect that rice-growing will become an Australian industry worth the trouble and time we are wasting upon this item this afternoon. It is like an industry with which we dealt yesterday, that elsewhere is largely carried on with cheap labour, and we cannot in any circumstances hope to establish it as a paying industry in Australia, unless we are prepared to bolster it up for all time. Therefore, whether the proposal is for an annual bounty of £1,000, £5,000, or £50,000, I am strongly against it. I am not entirely against the principle of the Bounties Bill, although - 1 paired against the second reading on financial grounds, but I point out that honorable senators who have voted against certain items have, by doing so, saved the Government an aggregate expenditure of £95,000, for which, according to my view, they should be very thankful. **Senator Colonel NEILD** (New South Wales) [5.27]. - Like the previous speaker, 1 rise to say that I do not intend to vote for the request, but I wish to add a word or two to what **Senator Mulcahy** has already aptly said with reference to what must be regarded as the very unfortunate attitude assumed by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. It is absolutelydeplorable that speeches should be made here, in advance of any possible difficulty, which have the effect of deprecating the discharge by the Senate of its duties under the Constitution, and the claiming of the rights granted to it by the Constitution. I consider that I should be recreant to my position as a member of the Senate if I were to adopt the attitude suggested by the VicePresident of the Executive Council. The honorable senator pleaded that the Senate should abrogate its functions, pull down its flag, and pitifully crawl at the behest of another place. I am not built that way, and I do not think that the majority of the members of this Committee are built that way.' I should be the last to go out of my way to look for a fight, but I am not going to run away when one comes along. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Best: -- That is just what we say. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel NEILD: -- I am not going to suppose that there is any necessity for a retreat until the enemy is at least as near as the horizon. In this case, he has not appeared on the horizon, and is somewhere in the Never-Never of parliamentary possibilities. I do not see that there is any suspicion of a difficulty with the other Chamber over this matter. As has been pointed out by the President, all that is sought to. be done is to follow the course of procedure which honorable members of another place themselves suggested. How, therefore, can it be wise to talk about the possibilities of conflict and of double dissolution? We should require halfadozenof these Bounties Bills to induce some people I wot of to go electioneering at the present juncture. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Is not that an admission of a want of bravery? {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel NEILD: -- I am not speaking of myself. The question is -one which does not worry me, as I happen to have secured a little majority of about 83,000 votes. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Then the honorable senator should let other people speak for themselves. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel NEILD: -- I did not refer to **Senator Lynch.** > I was referring, to the possibilities as they might affect other people than those who are members of the Senate. I rose simply to add a word of protest against the proposition that the Senate should hesitate to exercise its fullest constitutional powers merely because there is a risk that some one elsewhere might be displeased. I shall vote against the request, but I am very glad that the matter has been under discussion, if it is only for the purpose of maintaining and consolidating the privileges of the States Chamber. {: #debate-8-s18 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- - I have not spoken previously on the Bill, and I desire to say a few words now because I intend to vote against a principle in which I believe, when it is applied under different conditions. I sympathize with the object of the request, but the chief consideration with me to-day is whether we are to have the Bill or not. I believe that the bounties system is the best method of establishing an industry in a country. It has been attended with success in the past, and I believe it will be equally successful in the future. But there are other questions which we have to consider, apart from the " constitutional crawl " as it has been designated by **Senator Neild.** If the Bill is returned to the other House with a number of debatable amendments or requests, I believe that the Government will feel very much inclined to drop it, and small blame to them if they do. I have an idea that in the other House fifteen or sixteen honorable members would be prepared to delay more important measures to the extent of six months by debating our amendments or requests on this Bill. I do not think that this request can be supported by *Bounties Bill.* [19 September, 1907.] *Bounties Bill.* 3487 any protectionist, or any person who believes in commercial matters being finally settled. If it were submitted under ordinary conditions I have no doubt that a majority of those who believe in the bounties system would feel inclined to agree to it, thereby increasing the amount of bounty payable. The Government have now before the other House perhaps the most important measure with which it has ever been asked to deal. The Bounties Bill, if it is returned to that House with a number of debatable amendments or requests, will be seized upon for the purpose of delaying the consideration of that most important measure. That will leave the Government with only one alternative - to withdraw the Bounties Bill. If I thought that there was a reasonable prospect of carrying the request through both Houses without delay or without delaying more important matters, I would willingly support it. I, therefore, rose to explain that I have no desire to vote against a bounty of £5,000 upon the production of rice, and should not do so except in the circumstances I have stated. {: #debate-8-s19 .speaker-KQ4} ##### Senator McCOLL:
Victoria -- The Vice-President of the Executive Council has insinuated that this request has been submitted from an ulterior motive, and that it is a specious device to wreck the Bill. I absolutely repudiate his. statements. I have expressed my views in regard to the Bill. I have said that whilst I am in favour ofbounties I think that something else ought to precede them. I adhere to that opinion. So far I have not offered any opposition to the items in the schedule. I was absent last week when some items were passed. Out of ten items eight have been passed, and two rejected, and the cry is now raised that if the Bill is returned to the other House with this request probably it will be lost, or the delay will be so great as to seriously hamper the Government in carrying out the legislation of the country.. Surely if what I propose is desirable it may be regarded by the other House in the same way as we regard it. Any delay which might be caused would not be unwelcome to the Government, because it is not showing, in another place, a great desire to push on with its business. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Is not that a suggestion of ulterior motives? {: .speaker-KQ4} ##### Senator McCOLL: -- I am dealing with the point which the honorable senator raised. I moved the request because I' believe that the bounty as submitted would be of no use. I agree with **Senator Needham** that it would be a perfect farce to pass the item as it stands. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- Is it not a fact that in Victoria, persons are experimenting alongside the Murray without a bounty. {: .speaker-KQ4} ##### Senator McCOLL: -- Not long ago, there was a little talk of some Japanese, whom **Senator Findley** loves so well, making an experiment, but I am not aware that anything has been done. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- Yes. A **Mr. Foster** is experimenting. {: .speaker-KQ4} ##### Senator McCOLL: -- The Vice-President of the Executive Council has seen fit to go back upon his former decision given as Chairman of Committees. I amglad that the ruling of the President has been obtained, because it has very clearly defined the position which the Senate occupies in regard to this class of Bill. I do not think that the time which has been spent in discussing the constitutional point has been wasted ; but the insinuation that we on this side desire to delay the Bill is unworthy of its authors. I believe that if the request be made, there will be a fair chance of getting an experiment made; otherwise the bounty will be utterly valueless. Question - That the request . (Mr. McColl) be agreed to- put. The Committee divided. AYES: 5 NOES: 19 Majority ... ... 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Request negatived. {: #debate-8-s20 .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania .A few moments ago **Senator Findley** asked whether some experiments in rice production were not being conducted in some parts 3488 *Bounties Bill* [SENATE.] *Bounties Bill.* of the Commonwealth. According to the report of the experts the cultivation of rice opens up an entirely new field. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- The honorable senator does believe in the experts when they make that remark? {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- Is the Committee going to declare that education and practical experiments ought not to precede the grant of the bounty ? I contend most emphatically that the Government are pursuing the wrong course. We are virtually asked to declare that we, as a Senate, ignore the means by which every practical farmer makes his way in life. This is the one item to which we ought to apply the principle laid down in **Senator McColl** 's amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. There ought to be more experiments, more education, more analyses of soil, and more reports on the land before we think of passing a bounty and entering upon an entirely new experience. {: #debate-8-s21 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- No one has yet answered the point which I raised at the beginning of the dehate, and that is that there is no reason to believe, and no evidence to lead us to suppose, that in any part of Australia with which we are acquainted, there are places where rice growing will become a small man's industry. If, on the other hand, it is to be a big man's industry - and that is obviously the only alternative - the bounty is quite worthless as a means of establishing a big man's industry, even for the time being. 'Suppose, for instance, that rice growing is to be established on the Adelaide River, in the Northern Territory, and by means of irrigation. Speaking with a little knowledge of irrigation and those districts in Queensland where it has been established, I assert that the proposed bounty of £1,000 a year would not pay the interest on the capital which would have to be sunk in the irrigation plant to carry out the industry on a large scale. {: #debate-8-s22 .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria -- I desire to point out that in several States irrigation entails no outlay on the part of the producer. The initial work has been done by the States, and, therefore, the argument of **Senator Chataway** does not hold good. In irrigation areas, of which there are a number in the Commonwealth {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -" Bust up " ones. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- There are a number of irrigation areas which are not "bust up," and which are doing very well indeed for the people. In irrigation areas all that a settler has to pay is the interest on the cost of construction anda fair charge for the use of the water. {: #debate-8-s23 .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland -- Now that the Committee has decided by an overwhelming majority not to agree to a bounty of £5,000 a year upon the production of rice, it follows, I think, almost inevitably, and certainly to some extent logically, that to grant a bounty of £1,000 a year would be, to use the words of an honorable senator, practically to throw the money into the gutter. It has been pointed out that unless a larger sum is voted for the bounty there can be no prospect of success. The Committee has shown itself unwilling to increase the grant. I take it that the reason is that on the evidence submitted it was considered that not even £5,000 a year would be sufficient. But if £5,000 a year would not be sufficient to make the rice industry a success, it is fairly reasonable to assume that £1,000 would be utterly inadequate. The Government might as well, therefore, consent to the omission of the item. This is not the way to deal with public money. C know one young man who, having £5,000 or £6,000 to invest, went into rice cultivation in North Queensland under favorable climatic conditions. But he came out with almost nothing left', and had to begin life over again. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Plenty of people have had similar experience with sheep. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- I am giving reasons why the industry is not likely to be successful. I submit that under the circumstances the only conclusion which can be reasonably drawn is that the money will' be wasted. Honorable senators wouldbe wise to delete the item and devote the money to increasing the bounties on products which are more likely to be successfully cultivated. {: #debate-8-s24 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- Arguments like" that of **Senator' St.** Ledger are continually being advanced by those who are entirely opposed to the principle of bounties. It does not seem to me to come very well from such honorable senators to say that because the Committeeis opposed to increasing the bounty for rice, it cannot regard the proposed vote *Bounties Bill.* [19 September, 1907.] *Bounties Bill.* 3489 of £1,000 a year as being sufficient. That is an absolute misrepresentation of the views of honorable senators. Some of those who are opposed to bounties altogether voted in favour of **Senator McColl's** request in the hope of killing the Bill. **Senator St.** Ledger, for instance, is absolutely opposed to any assistance being given by way of bounty to agricultural industries. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- Many of those who voted for the request have not opposed the whole of the items. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- But **Senator Walker,** at the second-reading stage, voted to kill the Bill absolutely, and he only voted for **Senator McColl's** request because he thought that another method of killing it. **Senator St.** Ledger,, although he comes from Queensland, has spoken in absolute ignorance of the conditions prevailing in that State, and of our experience in regard to rice cultivation. The history of the industry since 1888 is sufficient to prove that rice can be successfully cultivated in that State. After 1888, when the Queensland Tariff was amended, "and the duty on rice was raised, a considerable quantity was grown, and the cultivation continued for a number of years. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- Grown by white labour ? {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- It was grown both by white and by coloured labour. It was cultivated from the southern border of Queensland, as far north as the Mosman River. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- It was grown by Chinamen near Cooktown. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- That was because there was a duty on rice, which protected the Chinaman as well as the white farmer. But in 1893, when the Queensland Government advanced £100,000 to encourage the people to engage in the sugar industry, many of the rice growers considered that there was more money to be made out of sugar than out of rice. The result was that a considerable quantity of the land which had previously been tilled for rice was put under sugar. Wherever public money is devoted to the assistance of a particular industry, the tendency is naturally for people to enter intothat industry to the neglect of others. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- The Queensland report shows that the rice industry makes no -headway in that State. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY: -- I am giving reasons why it not only did not make headway, but was practically wiped out. The area was reduced from a few hundred acres, producing thousands of bushels of rice, practically to nothing, because the Queensland Government gave such assistance to the sugar industry. Another reason was that the Federal Tariff reduced the duty on rice below the rate at which it previously stood in Queensland. This took away the protection which the rice growers had enjoyed. But it is a fact that a considerable quantity was grown in Queensland prior to 1896-7. They were growing rice on the Mosman, on a number of other rivers, and as far south as Pimpama Island. I voted to increase the amount of the bounty to £5,000 a year because it appears to me that people ought to be enoouraged to enter into an industry in connection with which a certain measure of success was undoubtedly obtained in Queensland a few years ago. The new Tariff increases the duty on rice. People will therefore have a better opportunity of growing it, and there is a good prospect of the industry becoming a success. Question - That the item " Rice uncleaned " be agreed to - put. The Committe divided. Ayes ... ... ... 14 Noes ... ... ... 10 Majority ... ... 4 Question so resolved in the affirmative. Item agreed to. Rubber; (period) 15 years; (rate of bounty) 10 per cent. on market value ; (maximum payable in any one year)£2,000. {: #debate-8-s25 .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland -- I oppose this item on the same grounds as I opposed that of copra. Whenever I have thought that there were .reasonable prospects of establishing industries in any part of Australia under this Bill, I have voted for bounties for them. Thanks to ex-Senator Staniforth Smith and others, great efforts are now being made to establish the rubber industry in New Guinea. It is an industry natural' to the islands. Raw rubber is now imported free into the Commonwealth from those places. The only part of Australia where it can probably be grown with a reasonable amount of success is along the north-eastern coast, of Queensland, where there is a reasonable amount of settlement, and where complete settlement can be secured by the extension of the sugar industry, and cotton and sisal hemp-growing. It is advisable that we should leave to New "Guinea and the South Sea Islands some industries to develop; otherwise we shall find them before very long developing the very industries that we have already established in Australia. In view of the present shortage of rubber, constant endeavours are being made by chemists to find a synthetic substitute for it. That may at any moment be discovered, and knock .out the industry in precisely the same way as those of indigo and cinchona were knocked out. Attention is also being directed, now to a large number of other rubber-producing plants, some of which are growing absolutely wild in other parts of the world. There are something like a thousand different classes of rubber plants. Within the last eighteen months or two j-ears, there has been discovered in northern Mexico and Arizona, a plant growing at an altitude of 4,000 to 5,000 feet. It is now being harvested in very large quantities. Six or seven large factories have been established to treat it, and are now producing the very best rubber, from it. In view of the efforts being made by chemists, and the steps being taken by people all over the world to utilize other plants for' the production of rubber, it is quite reasonable to suppose that within the next few years, long before any rubber plantations which we can create reach a state of com,.mercial usefulness, the demand for rubber will be supplied. In the last available issue of *Chambers'- Journal,* a .very useful publication, which is generally recognised as giving accurate information, there anpears amongst the monthly notes the following - >We are dependent, in these days of modern progress, so much upon rubber, which is now used to a very large extent indeed in the arts, that any diminution in the supply of it would be viewed with serious concern. It is of very great interest, therefore, to find from a report which has been received from southern Mexico that the discovery of a new rubber-producing ' plant has been recently made in that country. This plant, which is known by the name of *guayale,* is low and bushy, and grows very extensively at altitudes of five thousand feet in northern Mexico and Arizona. It is gathered, roots included, dried, and packed in bundles weighing about one hundred pounds each. Each bundle is worth about thirteen pounds at the factory. About 15 per cent, of the dried plant is rubber. Six large factories for treating the plant have been erected in the vicinity of San Luis PotosiSaltillo, &c. The first operation in the process of extracting the rubber is to cut the plants into very fine pieces. Solvents are then applied to the mass to extract the rubber. The solvents which are employed are highly volatile, and after, the solution is filtered away the remaining solvent is evaporated and recovered by condensation. In one of the factories, however, the rubber is separated from the dried plants by mechanical means, the process consisting of ' the agglutination of the particles of rubber between revolving metal discs through which the finely cut plants are fed. Then follows a 'statement which may be some consolation to honorable senators opposite, and I quote, it to show that I do not endeavour to mutilate any information which 1 use - >One of the drawbacks of the industry, according to well-informed authorities, is that it will probably have but a short life, as the *guayale* is of very slow growth, as are most desert plants. I take the last sentence to mean that as the plants have to be pulled up by the roots, it will be necessary, after the first few. years, to wait some time before the young plants grow up to ..a stage at which they become usable. I quote this information to show that the present shortage of rubber does not. justify a demand that we should suddenly establish the industry in Australia, seeing what is being done by chemists and botanists the world over. In view of these- facts, and the inevitable competition ""from New Guinea and the South Sea Islands, with raw rubber admitted free into the Commonwealth, the money we propose to spend on this item will probably never be claimed. But, as **Senator Needham** properly remarked on a previous item, the money will be ear-marked and tied up. Then, if some much more important industry, with great possibilities, such as the cotton industry, is found to need a greater amount of bounty, we shall be met by the reply - probably as much from this as from the other side of " the . chamber - that so *Bounties Bill.* [19 September, 1907.] *Bounties Bill.* 3491 much money is tied up for rubber, rice, and other products, which have not been successfully cultivated in the Commonwealth, that no more is available for much more deserving objects. That is why I desin e to select for. encouragement industries which, from the knowledge I have gained of tropical agriculture, I believe will be successful, and can be developed on a large scale. I am afraid that the factors I have described, as obtaining throughout the world, will render any efforts that we make to give a bounty on rubber production in Australia nugatory, and result in tying up a considerable sum of money which might be used to much better advantage in other ways. {: #debate-8-s26 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist -- I can hardly follow the honorable senator who, in connexion with this item, as well as in connexion with a former item in the schedule, has taken up the attitude that inasmuch as it is likely that Papua and other islands in the Pacific may be capable of producing a particular article, we should take.no steps to encourage its production in Australia. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The experts report that Papua is better adapted than is Australia for the production of this article. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- It may be that Papua is eminently adapted for the production of rubber, but are we, because of that fact, to impose a self-denying ordinance on the Commonwealth, and say that no steps shall be taken to cultivate the article here? That is the logical conclusion from the proposition submitted by **Senator Chataway.** Apparently it is contended that inasmuch as other places that may at some time be associated with the Commonwealth can produce this article, and are eminently adapted for its production, we should not adopt any course which would bring our people into competition with those who take up these industries in the places referred to. I hold the contrary view. I say, " Good luck to Papua, and all other parts of the British Empire that can produce rubber," but we wish to take a hand with them in supplying the world's demand for this particular article. **Senator Dobson** has referred to the fact that the experts have reported that Papua is preeminently adapted for the cultivation of the rubber tree. But there are other circumstances associated with Papua which should not be overlooked. To a large extent native labour would have to be relied upon there, and the experience of the past has shown that native labour is a rather slender reed on which to rest. Notwithstanding the great and constant efforts put forth by **Sir WilliamMacGregor** to induce the native's of Papua to work, it was found almost impossible to getthem to apply themselves continuously to any class of labour. That has been one of the difficulties which in the past have prevented a more rapid development of the Territory. It is easy to understand that the natives who have been able to obtain sustenance without doing very much work should be disinclined to apply themselves to work for others, especially when they realize that the benefit and profit derivedfrom their work would not go to themselves, but to others. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The Government propose to help the natives of Papua by withholding a bounty from them, whilst they proposeto give a bounty to white men engaged in the industry in the Commonwealth . {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: **- Senator Dobson** is putting the position from his own point of view. The position we take up is that we should give a bounty for the production of rubber in the Commonwealth by white labour, and under the conditions set out in this Bill. Let people take up the industry in Papua if they please. Those who embark in the industry in the Commonwealth will do so with their eyes open. They will be as fully seized as are Senators Chataway and Dobson of the actual state of affairs. They will know that the production of this article may be undertaken in Papua, and they will know the nature of the competition they will have to face in supplying the world's demand for the article. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- On the labour question I pointed out that where native labour has been removed from one part of Papua to another it has been found to be useful for agricultural purposes, and the natives work well. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- The honorable senator makes a reference to the transfer of natives from one part of Papua to another, but what has been the result of the adoption of that plan? It was confidently hoped that by transferring natives from one part of Papua to another, and thus removing them from the environment to which they had been accustomed, the difficultye xperienced in getting them to continuously apply themselves to work would be overcome. That plan may be to some extent successful, but so far it is only an experiment, and it has been found that as soon as the transferred natives become accustomed to their new environment the habits which characterized them in their old environment are resumed. Are we to impose upon ourselves a prohibition, and say that we will not go in for the cultivation of this article because it can be produced in Papua ? I should like to direct the attention of the Committee to some information which has appeared in print in recent issues of journals with which we are very much more familiar than we are with some of those from which quotations have been made. I can refer honorable senators to two articles upon this subject which appeared quite recently in the two Melbourne morning newspapers. It is not often that they are found in agreement on any matter of Commonwealth policy of this character. A very interesting article was contributed to the *Argus* <Mn August last by "L.T.C.," who took the following news item for his text: - >A Banana grower of Geraldton, North Queensland, has just completed the planting out of a thousand rubber trees. > >Commenting upon that the writer of the article proceeds to point out what the world's demand for rubber is, what, the supply is, how the demand has so far been met, to what extent it is likely to increase, and what are the prospects of the world's supply equalling the demand under existing conditions. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Was not the article referred to written at a time when efforts were being made to float a company for the cultivation of rubber? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I do not know. Perhaps **Senator Dobson** is possessed of some knowledge of the inner workings of the persons who wished to float the company, and can enlighten the Committee on the subject. I accept the article, from which I propose to quote, as one which appeared in a widely read journal, and which, so far as I know, has not been questioned in the columns of the same newspaper by any persons .interested in information concerning this industry. I do not propose to deal with all 'the statements contained, in the article, but those I shall omit will be omitted merely for the sake of brevity. The writer says - Queensland possesses amongst her indigenous trees and climbing .plants many which yield the milky juice from which caoutchouc is obtained, whilst in that State also small rubber plantations have been established since April, 1899. Then, speaking of the time as being too short to admit of exhaustive tests, the writer goes on to say - Sufficient is already known to warrant favorable opinions being expressed as to adaptability of soil and climate, coupled with financial profitableness, the three all-important factors in successfully establishing an industry of this kind. The writer proceeds to show how the demand for rubber has grown, and he says - From 23 tons in 1830 England's imports leaped to 350 tons in the decade; to 8,000 tons by 1880; 18,000. in 1900, and to no less than 21,269 tons last year. Then he deals with the varieties of rubber to which **Senator Chataway** has referred, and makes a reference to the fact that there is a distinction between " wild " rubber and " plantation " rubber, and says that, to a very large extent, the world is at present dependent upon " wild " rubber for its supply of the article, as it is only recently that "plantation" rubber has become a factor in the market. He then says - That rubber plantations have now passed the stage of initial experiment may be gauged by the fact that there were at the end of 1906 no fewer than 137 companies with ^9,000,000 of paid-up capital, possessing estate^ in Ceylon, Mexico, Nicaragua, Java, Travancore, Brazil, and the Malay States, which are being in most cases primarily cultivated for the production of rubber. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Granting all that, we wish to know something about Australia. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I have said that the writer of this article makes a reference to the adaptability of the soil and climate of Queensland for the prosecution of this industry. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The experts do not bear that out in their report. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: **- Senator Dobson** says that he wishes to know something about Australia, and the moment I proceed to Comply with his request the honorable senator says, " Oh, do not dwell upon that." It is most difficult to satisfy the honorable senator, who is against the Bill bone and sinew, and no matter what I say he will not be satisfied. I have said that the writer of this article states that the world's demand is now mainly dependent upon the " wild " rubber, as it is only recently that plantations have been laid out for the cultivation of the rubber trees, and these plantations are on the increase. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Of course, in suitable countries. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I dare not quote the report of the experts, because **Senator Dobson** objects to that, but it is pointed out' in their report, as well as in this article and in other articles to which I could refer, that in Queensland and other portions of Australia, and notably in the Northern Territory, there is land which might well be turned to profitable account in carrying on this industry. I direct attention to this statement, which bears upon the quality of the opposition we have encountered in regard to this and other items - >These figures may appear to be unduly optimistic, but we are told by those who know that " Pioneers of the movement who, when they first began planting Para rubber in the Middle East, a comparatively few years ago, were regarded as cranks or laughed at as visionaries, are being rewarded for their enterprise and foresight with profits which might well make many a successful gold miner envious." As we are approaching the hour at which" it is usual to suspend the sitting, it would perhaps be as well how to report progress. Progress reported. *Sitting suspended, from 6.30 to 7-45 p.m.* {: .page-start } page 3493 {:#debate-9} ### CRIMINAL APPEALS BILL {:#subdebate-9-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 29th August *(vide* page 2561), on motion by **Senator Colonel Neild** - >That this Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-9-0-s0 .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist -- - Since **Senator Neild** delivered his secondreading speech I have had full opportunity of looking closely into the provisions of the Bill, with a view to advising the Senate on this important matter. I desire to pay a tribute to the honorable senator for the extraordinary amount of research and diligence which he has brought to bear upon the subject, and the ability with which he introduced the measure. Whatever may foe his motive - and I know that it is an exalted one - and whatever may be the desirability or otherwise of providing for criminal appeals, the fact remains that we, as a Commonwealth Parliament, are not possessed of certain legislative powers which we might desire to have. It will be observed that the object of the Bill is - - >To amend the law respecting appeals in criminal cases, to constitute a Court of Criminal Appeal, and for other purposes connected therewith. I believe that the Bill is practically a reprint of the English Bill, which has become law within the last few weeks, and which has not yet arrived in the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Certainly. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- We have the assurance, of my honorable friend that the Bill is practically a reprint of the English Bill except in regard to five provisions which he referred to, and which do not materially affect its object. What I desire to impress upon honorable senators is that the Bill is unsuitable to Federal conditions. The legislative power of the mother country is practically unlimited.. It may legislate according to its own sweet will. I think it was Lord Holt who observed that the British Parliament was competent to make Malta in Europe, and a woman a mayor or a justice of the peace, but not to make a man into a woman, or a woman into a man, by legislation. The Commonwealth, however, is strictly bound and circumscribed by the limits of the Constitution. Another important feature is that in the United Kingdom they have a uniform criminal law which forms part of their system of .justice, and in connexion with which they may make advances from time to time as they think proper. But so, far as the Commonwealth is concerned, the administration of criminal justice belongs *to* the States. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Does not the honorable senator recognise that there already exist very large powers of appeal in criminal matters to the High Court, and that they are continually being exercised? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- If my honorable friend will allow me I shall deal with the position from a Commonwealth stand-point. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- The honorable senator cannot get away from the facts, {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- The point I am making is that the administration of the criminal law essentially belongs to the States, and superadded to the powers of the States we have, of course, the power which is conferred by the Constitution Act. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- I think that the Minister said that the criminal law is exactly the same throughout Great Britain. It is not the same in Scotland as in England. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- In some respects there is a difference. The legislative powers of this Parliament are contained in section 73 of the Constitution, which says - >The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes, to hear and determine appeals from all judgments, decrees, orders, and sentences - > >Of any Justice or Justices exercising the original jurisdiction of the High Court : (ii.) Of any other federal court, or court exercising federal jurisdiction ; or of the Supreme Court of any State; or of any other court of any State from which at the establishment of the Commonwealth an appeal lies to the Queen in Council. and the judgment of the High Court in all such cases shall be final and conclusive. It goes on. to further limit our powers of exception and regulation. It says that the High Court's judgment shall be final and conclusive j but even that is subject to qualification, because section 74 provides- - >Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which such leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the GovernorGeneral for Her Majesty's pleasure. Although it is provided in section 73 that the High Court's judgment shall be final, yet that is subject to the qualification which I have. quoted. It will be observed, therefore, that all that the -High Court is authorized to do is to hear and determine appeals, from sentences amongst other things. In the Judiciary Act we have attempted to exercise some powers of regulation. But it must be borne in mind, as practically a fundamental principle in connexion with our legislation, that the only jurisdiction which we have is derived from the Constitution, and we have no power to confer additional jurisdiction. The power vested in the High Court to hear appeals from sentences does not mean that it has the right to review the facts,- because, according to the State law, in criminal cases the verdict of the jury is first given, and upon that verdict is based the judgment or sentence of the Court. It is from that judgment or sentence that there is given a right of appeal to the High Court. There is no power in the High Court to re-try a case,, or by any means to bring about a re-hearing of it, but simply power to deal with the sentence of the Court. It has no power to alter the verdict of the jury. That is one of the first principles which honorable senators must bear in mind. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- -Then why doesthe High Court do these things? The Minister knows that a number of prisoners have been discharged by order of the High. Court. ' {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Undoubtedly, but that has been done on an appeal from the sentence or the judgment of the State Court. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- That is air that is proposed in the Bill. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That is not correct. What I am pointing out is that the High Court has no power to alter a verdict or inany way to re-hear the facts. We arefortunate in having for our guidance in this matter a decision by the High Court. In the case of *Musgrave v. McDonald,.* which is reported in the CommonwealthLaw Reports, it was held that - >An appeal does not lie to the High Court of Australia from a verdict of a jury, or from a judgment of the Supreme Court of a State founded upon a general verdict of a jury, except by way of appeal from a decision of theSupreme Court in an application for a new trial. It was also held that - >An application for a new trial after verdict, upon whatever ground, does not fall within the words of the Constitution, section 73 - "appealsfrom all judgments, decrees, orders, and sentences " of Federal Courts or State Courts. In laying down that general principle, the High Court is acting on the well-known? and recognised fundamental principles of the Privy Council. In his judgment Chief Justice Griffith says - >We think that the fair result of all these cases is, that it was the settled rule of the Judicial Committee that an appeal did not lie to the Sovereign-in-Council from a verdict of a jury, or from a judgment of the Court founded upon it, unless there had been a previous application to the Supreme Court for a new trial. What the High Court says is this: "We cannot re-hear the case, but if you, on any grounds you think proper, choose to apply for a new trial to the State Court, and the application is refused, then you can come to us on an appeal as to whether or not there should be a new trial." {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- But the Minister knows that, under the law of any State, there is a right of re-trial in any State Court. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- My honorable friend is. quite mistaken. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- I think there is no such right in criminal- matters. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- No. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I am not referring to criminal matters for the moment'. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- What is the use of talking of other matters? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Because the principle is precisely the same. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- The principle may be the same, but the facts are not the same. {: #subdebate-9-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I do not know why my honorable friend is introducing this heat when I am simply laying before the Senate the exact position, so far as I have had an opportunity of coming to a! judgment after a careful consideration of the Bill, and witH a great deal of sympathy with its general object. I want to show my honorable friend exactly how the matter stands, and the responsibility is cast upon me, as leader of the Senate, of advising honorable senators as to the law on the subject. My honorable friend, when he says that there is no such thing as a new trial in criminal cases, is utterly wrong. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Nonsense. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- The fact is- and it has occurred time after time in the Courts - that where a verdict has been returned by a jury, but evidence has been admitted wrongly, or there has been a misdirection on the part of the Judge, an appeal is always permitted to the Full Court of the State. Take as an illustration of what occurs in the State of Victoria. On a case going to the Full Court, the Judges may say " The verdict may be' all right in itself, but the Judge at the trial admitted certain evidence which he ought not to have admitted." The Full Court thereupon quashes the conviction, and the situation is as though the trial had never taken place. A new trial is ordered. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Oh, no. The Minister cannot mention a case. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I can. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- That is to say, it is competent for the Crown Law authorities to institute fresh proceedings if they like? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It is: competent for the Full Court to order a new trial. That practice is founded on British legislation and precedent. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- I think the law is slightly different in Queensland. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It is a matter that is essentially within the province of the States, and each State has its own criminal legislation in that regard. In Victoria if the Full Court is satisfied that there has been abundant evidence to convict a pri soner, but a mistake has been made on the part of the Judge in the course of the trial, they quash the conviction, and .order a new trial. This procedure is followed, if I remember rightly, under section 482 of the Victorian Crimes Act, which is founded upon the Criminal Law and Practice Statute of Great Britain, passed in 1864. Chief Justice Griffith, in his judgment, proceeds - >And we think that the provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, conferring appellate jurisdiction upon the High Court, should be read in the light of this rule, and that, if they are so read, an application for a new trial after verdict, upon whatever ground, does not fall within the words " appeals from all judgments, decrees, orders, and sentences " of Federal Courts or Supreme Courts. Later on he says' - >It follows that, according to the practice of Courts of common law, which, in the case of South Australia, is emphasized by the provisions of section 15 of the Act of 1878, the only way of taking exception to a verdict of a jury was by application for a new trial, and that a party who did not adopt that method was not in a position to dispute the facts as found by the jury. The verdict in the present case, which was a general verdict for the defendants, must be read as if the specific facts which established their freedom from liability had . been found by the jury. By those findings, this Court is bound, and, as upon them the judgment is right, the appeal fails. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Will the honorable senator kindly say what the nature of that case was? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It was a case of breach of contract, tried in South Australia. **Mr. Justice** Gordon directed the jury, which brought in a certain finding. The appeal was from his judgment. ' {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- That was a civil suit. What has it to do with this Bill? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- The principle is precisely the same, for the very aim' and object of this Bill, as the honorable senator has told us time after time, is to give appellate rights in regard to criminal jurisdiction similar to the rights possessed in regard to civil cases. Throughout this Bill that principle is enunciated, as clause 10, for instance, directs the ' High Court, on an appeal against conviction, to allow the appeal if it thinks that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on any ground on which a verdict of a jury may be set aside in an appeal to the High Court in civil proceedings. 3496 *Criminal* [SENATE.] *Appeals Bill.* {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Does not the Minister see that the principle may be the same, although the facts are essentially different ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- No, they are not different. The appellate jurisdiction cannot involve in any way an alteration of the verdict of the jury. What I am arguing is that first of all this Bill is unsuitable to Federal conditions, and secondly that it is inapplicable by reason of the provisions which it contains. For instance, clause 3 of theBill provides that - >In addition to the powers conferred by the Judiciary Act 1903, the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals under this Act. That is either futile or *ultra vires,* for the reason that there is no power for this Parliament to confer additional jurisdiction upon the High Court. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Has the honorable senator given any consideration to section 35 of the Judiciary Act? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I have. The effect of that section is simply to regulate appeals. It provides that - >The appelate jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to judgments of the Supreme Court of a State or of any other Court of a State from which at the establishment of the Commonwealth an appeal lay to the Queen in Council shall extendto the following judgments whether given or pronounced in the exercise of Federal jurisdiction or otherwise and to no Others. It setsout classes of judgments as to which appeals may be heard, and paragraph *b* says - >Any judgment whether final or interlocutory and whether in a civil or criminal matter with respect to which the High Court thinks fit to give special leave to appeal. This section therefore purports to regulate the manner in which appeals shall take place. The next clause of the Bill to which I direct attention is No. 6, which says- >The determination by the High Court of any appeal or other matter under this Act which it haspower to determine shall be final. As a matter of fact we have no power constitutionally to declare that the determination shall be final. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- The honorable senator has read it from the Constitution, section 73. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- My honorable friend will see that by this Bill he seeks to provide that the appeal to the High Court shall be final. The clause is either *ultra vires* or futile. Then I come to one of the most important clauses. Clause 9 provides that - >A person convicted on indictment before the High Court or a court of a State may appeal under this Act to the High Court, First of all against his conviction on any ground of appeal which involves a question of law alone. That is mere surplusage, because that right is already conferred by the States themselves. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Is there not surplusage in every Act of Parliament? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I am dealing only with my honorable friend's Bill as I find it. What this clause provides for has already been provided for in the Judiciary Act, and the States themselves have already made similar provision. The State of New South Wales is probably the most advanced State in this respect. New South Wales has a system whereby a prisoner can have any point of law reserved for consideration by the Full Court, and the Full Court has power conferred upon it by Statute to increase or reduce the sentence. The State law even goes further than that, and provides certain machinery whereby, in certain circumstances, further evidence can be admitted on oath at the appeal. In Victoria also the Crimes Act of 1890, section 481, provides - >If on the trial of any person convicted of any indictable offence in or before any Court of criminal jurisdiction any question of difficulty in point of law shall have arisen, it shall be lawful for such Court, in its discretion, to reserve such question of law for the consideration and determination of the Judges of the Supreme Court ; and in any such case to respite the execution of the judgment on such conviction or postpone the judgment until such question of law shall have been considered and determined ; and in either case the Court, in its discretion, shall commit the person convicted to prison ; or shall take a recognisance of bail with one or more sufficient suretyor sureties, and in such sum as the Court shall think fit, conditioned to appear at such time or times and place as the Court shall direct and receive judgment or to render himself in execution, as the case may. be. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Where is the new trial section though? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Section 482 of the same Act is founded on section 390 of 11 and 12 Vic, Chap. 78, section 2. It provides - >The Court by which such question of law may have been so reserved shall thereupon state a case setting forth the question or questions of law which shall have been so reserved with the special circumstances upon which the same shall have arisen; and the > >Judge or other person presiding in such Court shall sign and transmit the same within a reasonable time to the Judges of the said Supreme Court; and the said Judges shall have power to hear and finally determine the said question or questions, and thereupon to affirm, amend, or reverse any judgment which shall have been given on the information on the trial whereof such question or questions have arisen ; or to avoid such judgment and to order an entry to be made on the record that in the judgment of the said Judges the party convicted ought not to have been convicted, or to order judgment to be given thereon at some other session of gaol' delivery or general sessions of the peace if no judgment shall have been before then given, or to direct a *venire de novo* or new trial to be had or to make such other order as justice may require. That is a practice frequently followed. The evidence may have been conclusive as to the guilt of the prisoner, and it would be a most unreasonable state of affairs that simply because of a mistake on the part of counsel or on the part of the Judge, the prisoner should not be made to suffer for his crime. Therefore this section, which is founded on British legislation, provides for a newtrial in those circumstances. Other States, as my honorable friend himself mentioned, have equally excellent legislation on the same subject. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Not equally excellent. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I think the Queensland law goes even further than does that of Victoria. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Yes. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- In Western Australia, if I remember rightly, there is a similar law. But the point which I am making is that the States have in their criminal legislation endeavored to meet all the essential contingencies in regard to these matters. So far as my judgment goes, the reputation of the States in the administration of their criminal law is of a very high order. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Does not the honorable senator see that his present argument makes for preferring State law to Federal law? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- The honorable senator is evidently unable to distinguish the limited character of the power of appeal which exists. Paragraph *b* of clause 9 of the Bill begins - >With the leave of the High Court against his conviction on any ground of appeal which involves a question of fact alone, or a question of mixed law and fact, I do not profess to be able, at this moment, to realize exactly what is meant by " mixed law and fact." I assume that the words are used in the section in the English Act. Every crime has its own elements and in gradients. Evidence is called with the object of establishing that particular crime. The Judge reviews the evidence, and says, " Such and such facts have been proved, and if you, the jury,, believe that evidence to be true, you will find that that particular crime has been committed." But there is a great differentiation between this and the condition of affairs in civil cases, where mixed questions of law and fact are frequently met with. In criminal cases, as a rule, the facts stand by themselves, and the law part of the case stands equally by itself. If the Judge has gone wrong in his law, by misdirection or by the wrongful admission or rejection of evidence, that, of course, is a proper ground for appeal. In a civil case, such, for instance, as a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, the question arises as to reasonable and probable cause, and that involves mixed questions of law and fact. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- The clause is exactly the same as it stands in the Criminal Appeal Bill of England, as amended by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Paragraph *b* continues - or on any ground which appears to the High Court to be a sufficient ground of appeal ; These words are extremely vague, and will prove very embarrassing. Even if we had power to confer such jurisdiction on the High Court, I am sure that they would find very great difficulty in ascertaining what was actually meant. They know where there has been a misdirection, and can ascertain whether there has been wrongful admission or rejection of evidence, and give judgment accordingly. In clause 12, it is provided that a verdict of acquittal may be given in certain circumstances, as follows - >Subject to the provisions of this Act, the High Court shall, if it allow an appeal against conviction, quash the conviction and direct a judg. ment and verdict of acquittal to be entered. Quash the conviction by all means, if you like, in the event of there being anything wrong in law, but we have no power to direct, as this clause does, that there shall be a verdict of acquittal. That is the function of the jury. In the majorityof cases in Victoria, instead of directing. an acquittal, and so perhaps doing a gross and serious injustice, what the Court does is to direct a new trial. Clause 15 is hopelessly unconstitutional - >Where an appellant has been convicted of an offence and the jury could on the indictment have found him guilty -of some other offence, and on the finding of the jury it appears to the High Court that the jury must have been satisfied of facts which proved him guilty of that other offence, the High Court may, instead of dismissing the appeal, substitute for the verdict found by the jury, a verdict of guilty of that other offence, and pass such sentence in substitution for the sentence passed at the trial as it may think proper. This clause is designed to give complete and original jurisdiction to the High Court itself. It practically provides, to reduce it to its most absurd effect, that if the evidence goes to establish murder, and the jury have brought in a verdict of murder, the High Court may say, " The jury were wrong, and should have brought in a verdict pf burglary." The clause substitutes the High Court for the jury, and that, under the Constitution, we have no right or power to do. Clause 17 refers to the case of an appellant being insane when the offence was committed. That, again, is outside our constitutional power. We have no control over the lunacy jurisdiction. The words of. the clause are - >If on any appeal it appears to the High Court that, although the appellant was guilty of the offence charged against him, he was insane at the time the offence was committed, the High Court may quash the sentence given at the trial, and order the appellant to be kept in custody as a .criminal lunatic, under 'the law of the State in which the offence was committed. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- The jury may find him sane, and the High Court may decide that he was insane. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Undoubtedly. In any case where the defence of insanity is raised, great care is always "taken by the Crown Prosecutor to secure the best evidence as to whether the man was sane or 'not. The Judge himself is also most careful. After hearing all the evidence the jury may bring in a verdict of guilty, so deciding that the man was sane. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- In the case of a murderous lunatic, if there was a difference of opinion between the jury and the High Court, -an easy way to determine trie question would be to allow the man his liberty and see what happened. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- There' are other means of solving ' this and other equally difficult problems.- " If my contention, that theclauses with which- ! have dealt are uncon stitutional, is well founded, then Part IV. - Procedure - necessarily goes. That brings me to clause 20 - >Where a convicted person desires to appeal under this Act, or to obtain the leave of theHigh Court to appeal, he shall give notice of appeal or notice of his application for leaveto appeal in such manner as may be directed by Rules of Court, within fourteen days of th'edate of his conviction. **Senator Neild** emphasized very strongly the alarming hardship it is to a prisoner when new facts are revealed after the trial. I have already referred to what is done in New South Wales in that case. All the States have their own procedures. No doubt one of the chief causes for theintroduction of the Bill in England was the outcry which took place with regard to appeals to the Home Secretary to review decisions of the Courts, and variousincidents which have from time to time occurred in the Home Office. **Senator Neild** complained that when subsequent facts came to light, there was no power, once the trial was completed, to give relief to the prisoner, except by' the exercise of the Sovereign prerogative. But in the case of *Regina* v. *Brown,* reported in 24 Q.B.D., a man was charged with a heinous offence ; he pleaded guilty, and Lord Coleridge recorded sentence against: him. Lord Coleridge left the Assize Court, and was going home after the whole trial had been completed. Some one reminded'' him during the journey of a certain unreported case. He looked it up, and saw. that the law was laid down in strong terms by a learned authority. He, there-, fore, stated a case for the Court of Criminal Appeals, and it was heard. The judgment in the unreported case was reviewed, with the ultimate result that thefirst conviction of the man by Lord Coleridge was re-affirmed. **Senator Neild'** said, " Look at the hardship it is to a prisoner if ,' during a trial, some important point escapes the attention of counsel or of the Judge himself, but when once the man is convicted he is done for." .My object in mentioning that instance was to show that **Senator Neild's** argument is not strictly correct, because, even apart from the. exercise of the Royal prerogative, there is the power to review. I have already mentioned the power of review that exists in New South Wales. In Victoria that power" rests with the Attorney-General. These matters are attended in many cases with much danger, for in the majority of instances a number of unscrupulous men, having heard the full disclosure of the evidence given on the trial, and so gained a knowledge of what might be suggested in answer, fake up by fraud and wrongdoing all sorts of evidence, contradicting that given upon the trial, and seek a retrial upon that fraudulent basis. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- Dean's case was. nearly on all-fours with that the Minister mentioned. It was faked up afterwards. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Undoubtedly. The experience of many criminal lawyers is that in a vast majority of cases where retrials have been sought, the whole thing has been completely faked up by fraudulent wrong-doing. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Then the judgment of the High Court, which the honorable senator quoted at the beginning of his remarks, shows absolutely that this Bill is waste paper, so far as it deals with questions of appeals on fact. . {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It must necessarily be so. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- Not on questions of law. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Of course not. Clause 23 provides that the Judge, that is a Judge of a State Court, shall furnish certain reports, but we have no power to compel him to do so. From what I have said before, it will be admitted that clause 24 is hopelessly unconstitutional. It refers to certain supplementary powers under which the High Court might, if it thought it necessary or expedient in' the in'terests of justice, order the production of documents, and so on, and in paragraph *b* the clause provides that the High Court may - >If it thinks fit, order any witnesses, who would have been compellable witnesses at ' the trial, to attend and be examined before the High Court, whether they were or were not called at the trial, or order the examination of any such witnesses to be conducted in manner provided by Rules of Court before any Justice of the High Court, or before any officer of the High Court or magistrate or other person appointed by the High Court for the purpose, and allow the admission of any depositions so taken as evidence before the High Court. Honorable senators must see that there is no possible constitutional justification for that provision, which would confer an absolutely new and original jurisdiction on the High Court for the re-trial of a case, not only by the Court, but before a commissioner, who might be appointed for the purpose. Even if it were constitutional to enact such a provision, I am by no means satisfied that it would be wise to permit the investigation of a criminal matter to take place before a commissioner. Honorable senators must be aware that the demeanour of a witness is of the gravest moment, and particularly in a criminal trial. If I remember rightly we have in the Insolvency Act of Victoria a provision under which it is competent for a Judge, if he so desires, to delegate the important duties of an investigation in insolvency to a commissioner. I am aware that there are many Judges in the State who deem that such a provision is fundamentally wrong, and refuse to exercise their powers under it. Paragraph *d* of clause 24 is also be- ' yond the powers of this Parliament under the Constitution. Clause 25 enables; the High Court to assign legal assistance of counsel and solicitor to a prisoner. That is a power which, the High Court already possesses. Then in clause 26 we have a provision entitling the appellant to be present on the hearing of his appeal if a question of fact, and not a question of law alone, is involved. Let us apply that provision to our own conditions in Australia, which is described as a place of magnificent distances. We have but one High Court, consisting of five Judges. Under this provision, it would be possible for the prisoner to have " a high old time." {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- He might have some good pleasure trips. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That is so.' For instance, a man convicted in Western Australia would, of 'Course, and at once, decide to appeal to the High .Court. The Court can visit Western Australia perhaps only twice in a year, and as .a consequence the prisoner's sentence would be delayed until the High Court should visit the 'State, or else the prisoner would have to be brought round to Sydney or Melbourne, where the High Court was sitting. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- That is the strongest argument I have yet heard for the Western Australian railway. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It is a good argument in that connexion. Honorable senators must see how totally impracticable such a provision is. Where the appeal is on a question of law, it is provided that it is not necessary that the prisoner should be present . at the hearing of the appeal. Clause 28 provides that - >It shall be the duty of the Crown Solicitor of the Commonwealth to appear for the Crown on every appeal under this Act, and provision 3500 *Criminal* [SENATE.] *Appeals Bill .* shall be made by Rules of Court for the transmission to him of all such documents, exhibits, and other things connected with the proceedings as he may require for the purpose of his duties under this section. We have no power to compel anything of the kind to be done. The latter portion of clause 30 contains a proviso against which it is possible some of the States' authorities would strongly protest. This is the provision - >Provided that, in cases where the appellant was convicted of an offence against the laws of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth, the expenses allowed under this section shall be charged against the State or Territory in which the appellant was convicted. I suppose that under section 73 or 74 of the Constitution we have power to enact such a provision, but it is very likely that any attempt to exercise it would meet with a strong protest. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- How does the High Court now, in criminal appeals, become possessed of the documents necessary for the hearing of those appeals? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- They are brought to the Court undoubtedly. On questions of law the High Court has the most complete jurisdiction. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- A case is usually stated. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Undoubtedly. In clause 42 it is provided that - >Nothing in this Act shall affect the prerogative of mercy, but the Minister on the consideration of any petition for the exercise of His Majesty's mercy, having reference to the conviction of a person on indictment or to the sentence passed on a person so convicted, may, if he thinks fit, at any time - do certain things. This is a matter with which we have nothing to do. The prerogative of mercy would, of course, be exercised on petition to the State authority and the Federal Minister would have no control over that. But the Bill provides that where such a thing does happen the Federal Minister may - > >Refer the whole case to the High Court, and the case shall then be heard and determined by the High Court as in the case of an appeal by a person convicted ; or > >If he desires the assistance of the High Court on any point arising in the case with a view to the determination of the petition, refer that point to the High Court for its opinion thereon, and the High Court shall consider the point so referred and furnish the Minister with its opinion thereon accordingly. This is quite unconstitutional. We have no power to do anything of the kind. In clause 43 provision is made that the Bill shall apply in the case of convictions on criminal informations and coroners' inquisitions, and so far as this applies to the States, the provision is again beyond our jurisdiction. I have drawn the attention of honorable senators to various features of the Bill, and I repeat what I stated in opening, that, much as we might desire to achieve what **Senator Neild** has in view, our circumstances do not lend themselves to anything of the kind. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- That is with respect to appeals on questions of fact. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- Yes, on questions of law we have most ample and complete appellate powers vested in the High Court by the Constitution, and regulated, as I have already pointed out, by the JudiciaryAct. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Section 73 of the Constitution gives the High Court power to hear and determine appeals from all " judgments, decrees, orders, and sentences." Does the honorable senator think that the word " sentences " was used in the section intentionally, instead of the word "verdict"? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- There is no room for any doubt on the point. **Senator Dobson** must know as well as I do, that the course of procedure is that a prisoner is found guilty or otherwise by the verdict of the jury, and following upon the return of the verdict the Judge passes his judgment or sentence. Even on the merits of this proposal there are very great difficulties in the way: In the United States of America, where a right of appeal, such as is proposed in this Bill, exists, some of the most glaring cases of the wrongful and unreasonable exercise of the power thus provided have occurred. The effect in the United States of such a provision has frequently been to indefinitely postpone theexecution of sentences, and unfortunately it is in many cases recorded that the man with the longest purse is able to delay the execution of sentence by processes of this kind for an indefinite time. This goes to show that the question is essentially one to be dealt with by the States authorities. They can be trusted to see that justice is done, and that the most complete code is enacted that is demanded by the circumstances of each State. It may fairly be said that in Australia the inclination and desire of juries is to acquit. I think that **Senator** *Criminal* [19 September, 1907.] *Appeals Bill.* 3501 Neild, in his introductory speech, stated that 85 per cent. of the prisoners presented for trial in Great Britain, were convicted. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- No, it was I who referred to that. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That is a most extraordinary percentage, as compared with what usually takes place in Australia. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- What is the percentage of convictions here ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I cannot say definitely, but so far as I have been able to inquire, I think I am justified in stating that of the prisoners presented for trial in Australia the number convicted does not exceed 25 per cent. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Another proof of the superiority of Australia as a place to live in. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- I think it is the experience of criminal lawyers in Australia that if an Australian jury can get an opportunity to acquit a man they will do so. Their natural tendency in every case is to give the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, but they will stretch that rule to an extraordinary and inordinate extent if they can. {: .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- **Senator Symon** has lost only two cases during the whole of the time he has been practising. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- That bears out what I am saying. In conclusion, I point out this feature of the measure, that it is merely a one-sided matter, because if the prisoner were presented on an indictment and were finally acquitted- {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- He would be re-tried in Victoria, according to the honorable senator. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- **Senator Neild** will pardon me; I never suggested anything of the kind. I suggested that where, on a point of law, a prisoner gets the benefit of the doubt, and that may involve injustice, a re-trial may take place.. The point I was making is that no man has a right to be tried twice for the same offence if he has once been acquitted, but if in such a case as that to which I have already referred a case is reserved on a mere point of law, and the Judges find there is any doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner, apart from the technicality, a re-trial would, of course, take place. **Senator Neild** will, I am sure, accept my assurance that my anxiety is not to in any way discourage the consummation of what he' desires. I have spoken only in the performance of what I conceive to be a duty, to show exactly ' what our powers are, and that, however desirable the enactment of such a law may be in Great Britain, we should find it impossible to apply it to our Federal conditions in Australia, which are totally different from those existing in Great Britain. In the circumstances with much regret, and while commending in every way my honorable friend's efforts in this connexion, I have to say that I cannot see my way to support the Bill. Debate (on motion by **Senator Millen)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 3501 {:#debate-10} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-10-0} #### ENTRIES IN PAIR BOOK **Senator Colonel NEILD** (New South Wales) [8.47]. - I ask leave to amend my motion by the insertion of the words "entry or" after the word "unauthorized," because that suggestion was made at the time when I gave notice of it. We have had several difficulties in connexion with the pair book, and on each occasion that these unfortunate differences have arisen, it has led to acrimonious debate. There has been also the difficulty as to whether the Senate can take any cognizance of pairs. {: #subdebate-10-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Perhaps it will be better for the honorable senator first to get leave to alter the motion. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel NEILD: -- Very well, sir. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The question is that the honorable senator have leave to amend his motion by the insertion of the words "entry or" after the word "unauthorized." Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel NEILD: -- I move_ That any unauthorized entry or alteration made in the book provided for the recording of pairs is an interference with the privileges of this Senate. I very seldom pair, but my own experience has been that I have twice been, shall I say, the victim of mistakes or alterations. I do not wish to put it in an unfriendly way, but there is a difficulty in putting oneself straight, because **Mr. President** properly rules, though there is no standing order on the subject, that pairs are not recognised. , We recognise pairs more than, perhaps, is customary in other Legislatures. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- Very much more. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel NEILD: -- The pairing system is almost a necessity in a Parliament whose members come from great distances, especially in the States' House, where there is equal representation, and if, through illness or the pressure of business, or the break-down) of a train or a steamer, a senator cannot be in his place, his State suffers materially, much more 'than is the case in a Chamber with a larger number of members and proportionate representation. It is a parliamentary custom that anything which lies upon the table of a House is its property. A special book, prepared at the public expense, lies upon our table, an'd is used by *Hansard* as well as by the press. If *Hansard* is not strictly a publication of the Senate, it is, to all intents and purposes, a public record. If it is not the *Journal* of the Senate, it contains the particulars without which, according to our modern views, parliamentary institutions would be almost impossible. We have this book, provided at the public expense, lying upon our table as a public document, and it is used for .public .purposes, and for the *Hansard* record. While I do not want to facilitate discussions about entries of pairs, I think that* where a difficulty arises under the circumstances I have named it ought to' be a matter with which the Senate' can deal. If this motion were passed, and it became a recognised principle of the Chamber that the parties to an entry were under certain obligations, there would be, perhaps, a little more care and forethought displayed in making original entries, and certainly a good deal more care in making alterations. I think it would be an advantage that the pair book should be regarded as an official document/ **Senator Trenwith** expresses his dissent by a movement of the head. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- As a quasi-official document. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel NEILD: -- It should be regarded not, perhaps, as an official record but as a record which might be referred to in a reasonable manner when misunderstandings arose. I think that the carrying of the motion would have the effect of limiting misunderstandings and mistakes. I submit the motion with a view to utility. I will not mention any individual cases. I suppose that we have all had some misunderstandings, or have been the subjects of misapprehensions at one time or other. ' I do not wish to go into any matter of the kind. I hope that the motion will commend itself to the support of honorable senators. {: #subdebate-10-0-s1 .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland -- - **Senator Neild** invites the Senate to declare a certain act on the part of a senator a breach of its privileges. Suppose that we make the declaration, and that afterwards it is infringed, I presume that it will be a contempt of the Senate, and that possibly the offending senator will be placed in the position of receiving censure, or being punished by fine or imprisonment. Suppose, however, that an alteration were made in the pair book accidentally, what would be the position of the senator concerned? Would **Senator Neild** insist upon the offender being subjected to all the pains and penalties in that behalf provided? Would the offending senator be turned out of the chamber, and then brought to the bar, or what would be done ? The offence, if committed knowingly, is such a gross breach of good manners that the offender would be regarded as unfit for social intercourse with his fellow-senators in respect of any matter relating to the business of the Senate. We have very many privileges, both individually and collectively, but I think it is unnecessary to declare them. I do not believe that the alteration of a pair can be declared to be a breach of the privileges of the Senate, or that we can look upon the pair book as an official record. It would be far better not to be always declaring our privileges in regard to what a,re comparatively speaking petty matters. We have among ourselves the most effective way of dealing with a member of the Senate who would intentionally do such a discreditable act as to alter a pair. He would be sent to a place to which he would richly 'deserve to be sent, and that is Coventry. I suggest to **Senator Neild** that it is not wise to press the motion, because if it were passed we might involve ourselves in ludicrous actions and results. I hope that he has not sufficient grounds to go so far as to press it. *Entries in* [19 September, 1907.] *Pair Book.* 3503 {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- I have. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator ST LEDGER: -- I think that the honorable senator's purpose will be achieved by the discussion. We all join with him in our distaste of the proceeding at which the motion is aimed, but I doubt if it can be construed as a breach of the privileges of the Senate, or its rules. {: #subdebate-10-0-s2 .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER:
New South Wales -- I trust that **Senator Neild** will be induced to withdraw his motion, and to have the subject handed over for consideration by the Standing Orders Committee. Honorable senators are probably aware that in England one of the most interesting columns in the *Times,* and other newspapers, is that in which the votes of members of the House of Commons are recorded together with pairs. It is very interesting to the public to see how members are divided upon important questions. But of course it is manifest that the pair book must be honestly kept. The pair book is not an official record, but it is a very useful one. Personally I have never refused a pair to an honorable senator opposite who has been unable through illness or some other cause to be present at a division. I have been treated very generously by honorable senators opposite when I have been unable to be present. It is purely a matter of kindly feeling to give a pair to a fellow senator. Whether the pair book is officially recognised or not, it is a very convenient institution for senators who may be ill or who may be kept away by urgent business. {: #subdebate-10-0-s3 .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist -- I join in the request that has been made to my honorable friend **Senator Neild** to withdraw the motion. I do not for a moment blame him for giving expression to his views. But, speaking generally, I must say that the pair book has answered all its purposes. Its use is, of course, dependent upon the good sense, good taste, and honour of honorable senators. If pairs have on occasions not been properly respected it can only have been because of some unfortunate misunderstanding or mistake. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- I have twice had my name scored out and other names written in. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator BEST: -- It is not competent for the President to take official notice of the pair book, which is placed upon the table for the purpose of recording private arrangements" made by honorable senators. We are supposed to be here to exercise our votes. But in many cases it is impracticable for some senators to be present when divisions take place, and, as my honorable friend **Senator Walker** has said, generous consideration has always been extended to an honorable senator when untoward circumstances have prevented the fulfilment of public duty in person. But if we made the pair book an official record, ft would have to be placed under the control of the Clerk or some other official, upon whom an important responsibility would-be cast in regard to it. While, at times, through misunderstanding, there may have been irritation on account of pairs, I nevertheless think that my honorable friend will act wisely in withdrawing his motion. {: #subdebate-10-0-s4 .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania .- I do not like the motion for the reason that it brings under the cognisance of the. Senate in an indirect and roundabout way a matter of which the Senate in its official capacity takes no notice. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Is *Hansard* an official record ? {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator MULCAHY: -- It is, and I do not know why it is that pairs are included in *Hansard,* unless it is for the purpose of publishing for the information of the constituents of honorable senators the fact that although sometimes compelled to be absent when certain divisions take place, they take sufficient interest in the questions at issue to secure the absence of senators who would otherwise have voted on the opposite side. If it is desired that pairs shall be officially recognised, let us appoint some responsible officer to see that the pair book is properly kept, and let us insure that no pair is transferred without the knowledge of the officer responsible for the record. I know that mistakes have occurred which have caused a great deal of ill feeling, but, speaking from personal knowledge, I am sure that they have been pure mistakes, made with no absence of honest intention in any case. As a matter of fact, a pair is simply a matter of convenience between two senators. A senator foresees that there is a possibility of his not being able to be present when a certain division is taken. He therefore arranges with another senator to pair with him on the question. The arrangement is made entirely between themselves, and the Senate ought to take no cognisance of it. If, however, it is considered desirable that the Senate shall take cognisance of pairs, let us instruct the Standing Orders. Committee to preparea 3504 *Entries in* [SENATE.] *Pair Book.* standing order dealing with the subject, and let. the pair book be placed under the control of a responsible official. {: #subdebate-10-0-s5 .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I join with other honorable senators in requesting **Senator Neild** to withdraw his motion. In the first place, I consider that it is a reflection on the dignity and honesty of every member of the Senate. If any senator were to be found resorting to such a practice as the manipulation of pairs, he would be recognised by all parties as a man unworthy to be trusted. The motion is really more than an expression of opinion regarding pairs. It is, I repeat, a reflection uponthe honesty of honorable senators. If **Senator Neild** does not consent to withdraw it, and it goes to a division, he may be quite sure that it will not be carried. {: #subdebate-10-0-s6 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria .- If **Senator Neild** is not disposed to withdraw the motion, I shall vote against it. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- I have not had a chance of saying what I shall do. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- If the honorable senator intends to withdraw it, I shall resume my seat at once. The pair book is kept purely for the convenience of honorable senators. The names recorded in it are not reckoned as official votes on any question upon which a division is taken. That being so, the President has no control over the book. If he has no control over it, will the passing of this motion give him authority to supervise pairs? If so, suppose that an honorable senator unconsciously makes an error in recording a pair. What will happen ? {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- My motion is merely declaratory. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Then it will have no effect. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel Neild: -- It will have no effect until something else is done by the Standing Orders Committee. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- What does the honorable senator desire to have done? What is the use of declaring that it is an infringement of the rights of the Senate for a pair to be altered unless he follows up the motion by an instruction to the Standing Orders Committee as to what is to be done? If the honorable senator has nothing better to submit than a mere declaratory motion, I am not disposed to vote with him. **Senator NEEDHAM** (Western Australia) I ask myself two questions with reference to **Senator Neild's** motion: Does he propose that pairs shall be officially recognised, or does he not? So far as my experience has gone, if has been that Houses of Parliament do not officially recognise pairs. A pair is simply an honorable arrangement between individual members of Parliament to suit their own convenience. If **Senator Neild** desires to bring about a practical result, the motion ought to go further. It ought to provide that the Senate shall in future recognise pairs. If the motion had been couched in that form I should have supported it. Since I have had the honour of being a member of the Senate I have had reason to feel a certain amount of irritation on account of the non-observance of. pairs. Perhaps if I were to pursue that theme it might lead to renewed irritation. If **Senator Neild,** at a future date, feels inclined to move a motion which will be the means of securing the official recognition of pairs, and of insuring that a senator who breaks such an arrangement shall submit himself to the will of the Senate, I shall support him. But if we carry the motion now before us it will make no difference in the matter ofthe arrangement of pairs, according to the practice that has been in existence since the establishment of the Senate. Therefore, ft would be well for the honorable senator to withdraw his motion with a view to submitting another at a future date, with the object of arriving at a determination which would be binding upon the honorable senators . who consent to make pairs. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Before calling upon **Senator Neild** to reply, I wish to say a few words. It will be within the knowledge of the Senate that a desire was expressed by **Senator Neild** a few days ago to allude to the fact that some misunderstanding had occurred with regard to pairs. He desired to take action as a matter of privilege. I pointed out, however, that he could not take that course, because the Senate has no official cognizance of pairs ; and because the pair book is simply provided for the convenience of honorable senators who are unable to be present when a division takes place. They are afforded an opportunity of having their names recorded in the pair book, so as to indicate unofficially the way in which they would have voted had they been present. But the Senate as a Senate knows nothing about pairs. So clear is that rule, that if two honorable senators chose to enter their names in the book as having paired, and ohe of them nevertheless saw fit to vote, the Senate Could not interfere with his determination. No House of Parliament of which I have any knowledge recognises pairs as. official records. In May's *Parliamentary Practice* it is stated as to pairs - >There can be no parliamentary recognition of this practice, although it has never been expressly condemned; and it is therefore conducted privately by individual members, or arranged by the gentlemen known as " the Whips," who are entrusted by their political parties with the office of collecting their respective forces on a division. That puts very clearly and succinctly the position with regard to pairs in Parliament. **Senator Neild's** proposal is that we should place on record our opinion that any unauthorized entry or alteration in .the pair book should be regarded as a breach of privilege. In the first place, the proposition, cannot be recognised by Parliament, as matters stand at present. The pair book is not in the custody of the officers of the Senate. If we did- regard this question as having the importance which the honorable senator desires to attach to it, it would become necessary to place the pair book absolutely under the control* and disposition of **Mr. President** and the officers of the Senate. Honorable senators would then only have access to it by approaching the Clerk in the first instance. It has been suggested that the question be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration. There are very strong reasons why we should take no such action. The effect of the raising of a question of privilege in this Chamber is shown by standing order 112 - >Whenever a matter or question directly concerning the privileges of the Senate, or of any Committee or member thereof, has arisen since the last sitting of the Senate, a motion calling upon the Senate to take action thereon may be moved, without notice, and shall, until decided, unless the debate be adjourned, suspend the consideration of other motions as well as Orders of the Day. Consequently, the raising of a question of privilege is regarded as a matter of serious import, and one that may lead to lengthy debate. I ask honorable senators to go a step further. Neither this Senate nor the Standing Orders Committee can make a matter a question of privilege. Under the Constitution, our privileges are defined. Section 49 of the Constitution provides - >The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the Committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, That means by legislation passed by both Houses - and until declared shall be those of the Commons Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and. Committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. Our privileges having been clearly laid dawn, we cannot extend them until Parliament sees fit to legislate in that direction. *May* gives a general view of the privileges of Parliament, the privileges of each House collectively, breaches of privilege, punishments, and privileges attaching to members of both Houses, and others. All these privileges are of serious moment and concern, because they are claimed by the Parliament in order to enable it to legislate without let or hindrance, and to prevent members of Parliament from being arrested or interfered with in any way while they are called upon to exercise and are attempting to exercise their duties. To invite Parliament to legislate in such a way as to make this a question of privilege appears to me unnecessary and undesirable. There is a power now, which the honorable senator exercised the other day, and which other honorable senators can exercise, of making a personal explanation, if they think that there is any necessity for it, with regard to any mistake or error that has occurred in connexion with the pair book. They are at liberty to make such an explanation so long as it is within the bounds provided by the Standing Orders, and by the practice of Parliament. I therefore suggest to the honorable senator that he will be well advised to withdraw the motion after haying had this discussion. I should have spoken earlier in the debate, but I desired to give an opportunity to honorable senators to express their views on _ the proposal of the honorable senator, who, of course, had no other object in view than to see that the interests of honorable senators were, properly protected and cared for in connexion with the pair book. He has now achieved his object. If he insists upon the motion being put, it will become my duty to put it. But what would happen afterwards, if an attempt were made to discuss the subject of the motion as a question of privilege, would be a matter for the consideration of the President when it arose. {: #subdebate-10-0-s7 .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania .- The last sentence you uttered, **Mr. President,** may place us hereafter in a very peculiar position. You have clearly laid it down, as did your predecessor on numerous occasions, that the Senate takes, no official notice of pairs. Under that dictum, we are acting quite irregularly in considering the motion at all. You stated that you felt bound to put it, but did not know what consequences would follow its passage. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I did not say that I did not know what consequences would follow. I have no doubt in my mind on that subject. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- We ought not to be considering the motion. I am sure **Senator Neild** does not want to do an injustice to those who are absent, and two honorable senators concerned in this little dispute are both absent. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- That question has not been raised to-night. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- We know that the motion refers to a certain incident, and it is liable to give the impression that the pair book has been improperly altered by some honorable senator. The true facts of the case, as we know from **Senator Story-** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I ask the honorable senator not to pursue that subject. The question submitted .to the Senate is that an unauthorized entry or alteration in the pair book is an interference with the privileges of the Senate. It will not be in order to discuss another matter that arose previously, even although we may know that the motion has reference to that matter. It is not referred to in the motion, and is not, therefore, pertinent to it. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- I rise to a point of order. You, **Mr. President,** expressed your opinions as **Senator Gould.** You have made it clear to my mind that if the motion is carried it cannot be made operative. You showed distinctly and clearly what are the privileges of honorable senators, and stated that pairs were not officially recognised. If so, can you put a motion that has for its Object the making of those pairs official? I submit that the motion is out of. order, because it is contrary to the Constitution. You read' to us what our privileges are under section 49 of the Constitution, and with that sectionthis motion is in conflict.- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I stated at the time that it was my intention to submit the motion, if it were not withdrawn, in orderthat honorable senators might have an opportunity of recording their votes upon it. So far; I thought it was not my duty to refuse to put it, although I clearly indicated that I, did not consider that we had any power, except by means of legislation, to add to our privileges. **Senator Neild** may desire to secure, on this motion, an expression of opinion, on which legislation* may subsequently be founded. That being the case, the honorable senator may havethe motion put if he so desires. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator DOBSON: -- I do not ask **Senator Neild** to withdraw the motion, but my opinion is that he ought to withdraw it as a matter of duty, because I am sure that he does not wish to do any honorable senator an injustice. What we have to do is to see that pairs are correctly entered in the pair book. Speaking; from my six years' experience, I think we may congratulate ourselves that the pair book has been admirably managed. During that time 'no honorable senator has ever been found guilty of a desire to do anything wrong or improper. The motion would give the impression that honorable senators have wilfully and deliberately made unauthorized alterations in the pair book. **Senator Neild** knows that that is not the case.. ' How such an idea entered into his mind I do not know. The motion is a reflection upon honorable senators. It dealswith a matter of which the Senate takes no cognizance, yet we are discussing it. For reasons of justice it should be withdrawn at once. **Senator Colonel NEILD** (New South Wales) [9.27]. - I understood your deliverance, **Mr. President,** to be made in your capacity as a senator rather than as President,, and, therefore I conclude that I am entitled' to comment on the view you expressed that without actual legislation by both Chambers no such matter as the. Question of pairs can be dealt with by the Standing Orders Committee. You gave as your reasonsthat the pair book was not recognised bv the British House of Commons, and that the powers, privileges, and immunities of this Chamber were limited by the Constitution to those possessed by the British House of Commons at the establishment of the Commonwealth. But we have standing -orders *Entries in* [19 September, 1907.] *PairBook.* 3507 utterly unlike and beyond anything possessed by the House of Commons - in direct opposition, in fact, to the Jaw in England. I refer particularly to standing orders . 38 and 312, dealing with the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications. There is no such Committee in the House of Commons. There alldisputes in con- , nexion with elections go to the Law Courts. There is no legislation toconfer upon us those powers. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- If the honorable . senator will refer to section 47 of the Constitution, he will see that the. Senate has the right to deal with questions of disputed elections until the Parliament otherwise provides. By section 50 of the Constitution power is given to each House to make rules and standing orders. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel NEILD: -- If we have power to make Standing Orders as we have done in one case, I submit with great respect that we have power to makethem in another. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- By paragraph i of section 50 of the Constitution, the Senate may make rules and orders with respect to " The mode in which its powers, privileges, and immunities may be exercised and upheld." Under our Standing Orders we make provision as to the method in which our powers, privileges, and immunities may be exercised. But that section does not give us power to confer upon ourselves other powers, privileges, and immunities. In thatregard we are otherwise restricted by a previous section. {: .speaker-JXT} ##### Senator Colonel NEILD: -- Of course it is not possible for me to maintain an argument with the Chair. Because of your dual position, to do so would necessarily be awkward for you, sir, and very much more awkward for any honorable senator who proposed to argue' with you. I certainly do not intend to obey the ukase of **Senator Dobson,** because I do not think the honorable senator had any right to address the as he did in the matter, or to make the reference he sought to make, seeing that, in the most emphatic manner in which a man could speak, I had repudiated the suggestion that the action I had taken to-night was intended to reflect upon any member of the Senate, or to have any application to any particular matter, case, or person. Therefore, **Senator Dobson's** demands, sa far as I am concerned, have been wafted out through the door with the honorable senator's coat-tails. But I do recognise a very general desire on the part of honorable senators that I should adopt a. certain course. I should not be a reasonable man, and should not be qualified to give good public service here, if I were to lightly disregard an expression of opinion coming from all parts of the chamber. I think that, notwithstanding the possible constitutional difficulty to which you, sir, have referred, some more simple method of dealing with this matter, if it is to be dealt with, might be discovered than anything so cumbrous as legislation. In view of the way in which some honorable senators have expressed themselves to me, I am prepared to live in hope that pairs may yet find a place in the journals and records of the Senate, as they now do in *Hansard.* I believe . that, as the result of some betterconsidered form of motion, the Standing Orders Committee may have an opportunity to conside this matter at a future time. In view of an engagement between the VicePresident of the Executive Council and myself, that as I had the whole of the private business on the paper in hand I should! surrender to the Government so much of my time as would equal the time which the Government very courteously gave up for the purpose of permitting me to submit a motion relating to our first President at the beginning of yesterday's sitting. I wish now to bring the present debate to a close. For that and other reasons which I have given, I ask the leave of the Senate to withdraw my motion, still hoping that some more satisfactory way may be found for dealing in the future with this somewhat vexed question. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Senate adjourned at 9.35 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 September 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1907/19070919_senate_3_39/>.