Senate
4 June 1908

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- PRIVILEGE : SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE
VISIT OF AMERICAN FLEET
QUESTION
- DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF SHIPPING
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL ROLLS
QUESTION
- SURVEY OF TASMANIAN COAST
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS : SOUTH AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- PATENT AND TRADE MARKS CASES
QUESTION
- SHIPPING COMPANIES : REBATES
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS AND EXCISE RECEIPTS
QUESTION
- PERCUSSIVE CAPS
QUESTION
- SUPPLY OF COPPER WIRE
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION : TASMANIA
QUESTION
- MAIL SERVICE : COOKTOWN
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS: SOUTH AUSTRALIA
PAPERS
QUESTION
- PRIVILEGE : SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE
INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Order of Business

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

page 11982

QUESTION

PRIVILEGE : SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Progress report (No. 2), presented by Senator Chataway, and read by the Acting Clerk, as follows : -

The Joint Select Committee ‘ appointed to inquire and report on matters of privilege, have the honour to submita Second Progress Report.

Your Committee, having recommended that, the proposed new procedure should not be retrospective, have taken preliminary steps to inquire into some recent allegations published reflecting on Parliament. Their attention has been directed to a statement published by a Sydney newspaper containing charges of political corruption against unnamed members of Parliament. It would be dishonouring to Parliament if such charges were allowed to remain unproved, unwithdrawn, and the maligners unpunished. Your Committee regret to find that in the existing state of the law, they are unable to prosecute their inquiries in an effective and complete manner. There is no statutory law in- force authorising Select Committees to summon - and secure the attendance of witnesses before them, and above all -there is no law requiring, and if, ne- cessary, compelling, witnesses before Select Committees to be sworn and to answer questions relevant to the issues involved. It is true that the Standing Orders provide that Select Committees may summon witnesses, but they do not enable such Committees to take evidence on oath, nor do they provide any punitive measures in case of disobedience to the summons, or refusal to be sworn, or to give evidence.

Your Committee do not think it would be wise to proceed further with an investigation in which they would be powerless to deal with witnesses who may refuse either to prove or withdraw scandalous charges made by them against’ Parliament, or to give the names of their informants. If the Parliamentary Witnesses Bill at present before the House of Representatives be passed into law with some slight amendments, Select Committees would be armed with effective authority to take evidence on oath, and to recommend the prosecution of recalcitrant witnesses.

John Quick, Chairman.

Committee Room,

Melbourne, 4th June, 1908.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– Later on in the sitting I propose to move the adoption of this report in conjunction with the first progress report. Therefore, I move -

That the report, in conjunction with progress report No. r, be taken into consideration at a later hour of the sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 11983

VISIT OF AMERICAN FLEET

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

– I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, if any portion of the money appropriated by, I suppose, the Committee for the purpose of entertaining the American Squadron on its arrival in Sydney and Melbourne is to’ be devoted to entertaining the men of our own Squadron on the Australian coast.

Senator Best:

– I ask the honorable senator to give notice of the question.

Senator SAYERS:

– I give notice for tomorrow, but surely the Minister might an? swer it now?

Senator Best:

– I cannot answer it now.

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether the question of providing cheap transport between the States at the time of the reception of the American Fleet has yet been specifically referred to the Reception Committee, as the honorable senator promised ?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The matter has been referred to the Entertainment Committee, who, I believe, are in communication with the Premiers of the States on the subject.

page 11983

QUESTION

DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF SHIPPING

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether his attention has been directed to the correspondence passing between the Government of Victoria and the Government of New South Wales about alleged differential treatment meted out by the authorities of one port to the ships coming from the’ other port, and, if not, whether he will make an inquiry to see how ‘far the regulations, if any, infringe the trade and commerce provisions of the Constitution ?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– I am inclined to think that on the notice-paper for to-day there is a question relating to the same matter ; but if my honorable friend will give’ notice of his question I shall look into it.

Senator MILLEN:

– Perhaps, as the session is rapidly nearing its end, my honorable friend will allow me to hand to him the newspaper paragraph, and inquire into its subject-matter?

Senator BEST:

– I will.

Senator GUTHRIE drew attention to the fact that under the State law of Victoria differential treatment is meted out to ships registered in that State as against ships registered in other States of the Commonwealth, and asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Will the Government endeavour (if exemptions are to be granted) to see that such exemptions are only granted to ships in which Australian crews are carried?

Senator BEST:

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

The matter has been brought under the notice of the Government and inquiries are being made.

The Government may only take action in the direction of securing that no unconstitutional differentiation (if any exists) shall continue.

page 11983

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ROLLS

Senator TURLEY:
QUEENSLAND

– I beg to ask the Minister of Home Affairs if he is yet in possession of any information concerning the number of objections which were issued by the electoral registrars in two Federal electorates in Queensland?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– The exact information which the honorable senator seeks - that is, the number of persons whose names were removed from the rolls during the three months ending May last - is not to hand. But with regard to the general matters referred to by him and Senator

Findley, I .have obtained from the Chief Electoral Officer a report in these terms -

In lodging objections, the officers are merely carrying out the duty imposed upon them by the law. They obtain all their information from official sources, and the Divisional Returning Officer, in practice only, issues notifications of objection on the ground that the persons concerned have permanently left the division. All Divisional Returning Officers have been directed to enclose a form of claim when issuing a notification of determination of objection in order that the person concerned may re-enrol -without difficulty for the division to which he has removed. If by any mischance a person is improperly objected to - and this occurs very rarely - it is only necessary for him to inform the Divisional Returning Officer or Registrar of the fact in order to prevent the removal of his name from the roll.

It is fully recognised that large numbers of people disappear without leaving any information at their last-known address as to their whereabouts, and that when an election is approaching they re-enrol for other divisions instead of transferring their names as the law provides, that persons also re-enrol when they remove from place to place in the same Division, instead of applying merely to change their names from one polling place to another, and further, that many persons do not trouble to enrol until the approach of an election.

That paragraph will explain, I think, what 1- was putting before my honorable friends the other day - that in the proposed new form the three forms will be combined, so that there will be no difficulty whenever an elector makes an application. An original application for enrolment, an application to have a name transferred from one polling place to another, and an application to - register a transfer from one division to another, will be printed on one form for the purpose of simplification. The Chief Electoral Officer continues -

Everything that can be done in order to secure a satisfactory system of registration is being done as rapidly as circumstances will permit.

The whole of Australia has been subdivided into registration areas designed to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth and the States, and it is proposed that for each subdivision there shall be one competent registrar with definite responsibilities in relation to his sub-division whose work will be subject to periodic inspection.

It is proposed that there shall be an annual canvass of the electorates (in conjunction with the States as far as practicable) for the purpose of adjusting the rolls, i.e., adding to the existing rolls the names of all (unregistered) persons entitled to be enrolled for each subdivision at the date of canvass changing the names of electors from one subdivision in a division to another subdivision in the division, and removing the names of all persons who have ceased to be qualified for enrolment for the division.

At present we are in communication with the different States with a view to adopting in each State a system that will be most conducive to the securing of complete and accurate rolls.

It is proposed -to reprint the rolls annually, and, as far as practicable, from standing type, set up in such a form that it can be used for both Commonwealth and State purposes,; but in any case to so simplify the form of the Commonwealth rolls that the cost of reprinting from standing type will be reduced to a minimum.

The Chief Electoral Officer then makes reference to other proposals which are still under consideration, namely, in connexion with the next census to adopt a card’ system so that in respect of every elector “on the roll there will be an index upon the card system, and he can be traced from one electorate to another and placed in his proper division and on his proper roll, with, a minimum of inconvenience to the elector himself. So far as concerns the particular cases to which Senator Turley and Senator .Findley referred, T am obtaining from the divisional returning officers the exact numbers of persons objected to from the beginning of March this year, to the end of last month.-

Senator Findley:

– The number- of objections sent out ?

Senator KEATING:

– Yes, but in the meantime . every effort is being made by the Electoral Department, both on its own account and in co-operation with the States - and I am glad to say that that cooperation is being generally obtained - to have the most complete and accurate system of keeping the rolls in proper order.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The Minister says that- the officers in various constituencies have sent out a list of those whose names are objected to, and that in a number of instances those objected to have not given notification of their changed address. Would it be possible for the Minister, because of that admission, and the peculiar circumstance leading up to it, to ascertain approximately the number of notices of objection that have not reached the persons objected to, and that are perhaps lying at the dead-letter office? Apparently a lot of work is being done without- any result to the people or the Department.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator may ask the question, but he may not debate it.

Senator KEATING:

– I do not know whether it would be possible to obtain approximately the information the honorable senator asks for, but if the letters have been sent out, and are likely to be returned through the dead-letter office, that is abundant prima facie evidence that the addressees have ceased to reside at their usual address. The obvious inference is that they have moved from that locality. If they have not .taken steps to re-enrol, that is largely their own fault. What I did quote from the Chief Electoral Officer, although not in relation to the sending out of those particular notices, was as follows : -

It is fully recognised that large numbers of people disappear without leaving any information at their last known address as to their whereabouts, and that when an election is approaching they re-enrol for other Divisions, instead of transferring their names as the law .provides.

Senator Findley:

– Athough the officers make that admission, they send out a list of objections to the persons objected to.

Senator KEATING:

– It is obvious that in those cases the persons have left that particular locality. If the honorable senator were leaving his present address tomorrow, he would take care that the postal authorities knew his new address.

page 11985

QUESTION

SURVEY OF TASMANIAN COAST

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the’ Minister of Home Affairs state if there has been any expenditure by the Commonwealth Government in survey work on the Tasmanian coast, and any expenditure of a similar kind on behalf of any other State?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– I do not know of any expenditure in connexion with survey work by the Commonwealth Government on the Tasmanian coast. I think, speaking without making inquiry, that any hydrographical work that has been done so far has been done by the Admiralty at the cost of the Imperial Government.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Is it not a fact that the surveying of what is known as the Wakatipu Rock was carried out at the expense of the Commonwealth Government ?

Senator Guthrie:

– It was on the Estimates, at any rate.

Senator KEATING:

– That may be, but that rock is in the vicinity of Deal Island in Bass Strait and, probably, nearer to Victoria than to Tasmania. It was also considered to be in the fairway of all shipping passing through the strait, and I pressed upon the then Government the advisableness, in the interests not merely of Tasmania, but of that shipping, of having the rock located.” It was only discovered by a steamer passing from Eden to Launceston unexpectedly bumping upon it.

page 11985

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS : SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I wish to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, if he has any information as to the delay in the transmission of telegraphic news between Cape Borda and Adelaide?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– I have the information, but I have not got it on the table at present. I will furnish it to the honorable senator. I left it here on Monday, in anticipation of the question being asked.

page 11985

QUESTION

PATENT AND TRADE MARKS CASES

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice, referring to the reply, given by the Minister on 21st May, to a question asked by Senator Pulsford -

Is it not a fact that there have been cases in the Patent and Trade Marks Offices where two parties interested, one as applicant, the other as opponent, and one or other of those two has secured extension of time without the other party having been made aware of the application or afforded an- opportunity of objecting?
Will the Minister give instructions that in contentious cases before” the Patent and Trade Marks Offices, that no decision shall be arrived . at in favour of one party before the other has had an opportunity of being heard?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

Extensions of time within which to file evidence iri preliminary proceedings under the Trade Marks Act are ordinarily determined on ex -parte applications. The procedure is within the discretion of the Registrar, the Act providing the restriction that no adverse action shall be taken by the Registrar against an applicant for the registration of a trade mark without hearing such applicant. This provision has in no instance been disregarded.

No extensions of time have been given to any party in any case under the Patents Act without affording an opportunity to the other party to object.

page 11985

QUESTION

SHIPPING COMPANIES : REBATES

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What are the amounts received by the Government from the shipping companies in respect to rebates of freight from Great Britain to Australia, referred to in the memorandum issued with the Surplus Revenue Bill?
What are the respective amounts for the last four years?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

. From time to time shipping companies refund part of freight moneys paid on goods shipped -to Australia to the order of Commonwealth Departments.
Rebates on freight -

1906,£328.

Half-year, January to June, 1907, £111.

No information is available in respect of the amount received prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth offices in London.

page 11986

QUESTION

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE RECEIPTS

Amount Returnable to States

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the VicePresisident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What are the receipts from Customs and Excise Revenue for the Commonwealth for the month of June for the years 1903-4-5-6-7 respectively ? 2: What was the amount of “ transferred “ ex penditure deducted from such revenue for the month of June in the years mentioned ?
What was the amount of “ other “ expenditure deducted from such revenue for the month of June in the years mentioned ?
What was the three-fourths amount returnable to the States for the month of June in those years ?
What surplus or deficit was there in the Commonwealth’s one-fourttt in the month of June for these years?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

page 11986

QUESTION

PERCUSSIVE CAPS

Senator PEARCE:

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

Are the percussive caps for use in rifle cartridges” manufactured in Australia?
Is there any reason why they should not be manufactured in Australia?
What steps docs the Minister intend to lake to secure their manufacture in the Commonwealth?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

No. 2 and 3. The process of manufacture is a very dangerous one, but with suitable plant and the employment of experts; there is no reason why they should not be made in the Commonwealth, and the Minister has now under consideration a proposal which he hopes may lead to that result.

page 11986

QUESTION

SUPPLY OF COPPER WIRE

Senator PEARCE:

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

Will the Postmaster-General cause an inquiry to be made as to whether the requirements of the Commonwealth in the supply of copper wire would warrant the establishment of rolling and drawing mills by the Commonwealth?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

The Postmaster-General has already had inquiries made into this matter and understands that the lowest output on which it is economical to start wire drawing mills is100 tons per week. The annual requirement of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department is about 357 tons per annum, and it is therefore considered that the establishment of rolling and drawing mills by the Commonwealth is not warranted at present.

page 11986

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION : TASMANIA

State Guarantee

Senator PEARCE:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

In the event of the Government deciding to establish wireless telegraph stations at King Island and other islands of Tasmania, or of cable communication with any of those islands, will the Government -stipulate that the State Government of Tasmania shall guarantee the Commonwealth to recoup any loss arising therefrom, in the same manner as the guarantee required from the State Government of Western Australia in the case of the Black Range telegraph line?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

The question of guarantee will be considered when tenders are received.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– May I ask the Minister of Home Affairs whether the Black Range telegraph line referred to in Senator Pearce’s question relates to an Inter-State service ?

Senator KEATING:

– I must confess my inability to answer the question. .

Senator PEARCE:

– The service is a local one. I also wish to ask the Minister whether the same principle was adopted in regard to the Black Range line; that is, did the Government wait until they received tenders before they required a guarantee?

Senator KEATING:

– I do not know anything of the circumstances.

page 11987

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE : COOKTOWN

Senator SAYERS:

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

Is it the intention of the Government to call leaders for the carriage of mails as heretofore by Southern mail boats as far as Cooktown ?
If not, will the Government give the reason for departing from a practice that has given satisfaction to the residents of Cooktown and district?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

The existing arrangement with regard to this service will not terminate until 29th November, 1909. The terms on which tenders will be called for a continuance of the service have not been considered.
See answer to No. 1.

page 11987

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS: SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Since I asked a question a few minutes ago, I believe that the Minister of Home Affairs has received the information which I required, in regard to telegraphic communication between Cape Borda and Adelaide.

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– As I intimated to the honorable senator, I communicated with the Postmaster-General, and I have received the following memorandum from the Department, dated 28th May -

With reference to the inquiry made in Parliament by Senator Guthrie as to why the telegraph station at Kingscote, South Australia, could not be communicated with by Cape Borda signal station between 1.20 p.m. and 3 p.m. on the 16th idem, vide Hansard of the 20th May, 1908, I beg to inform you inquiry has been made, and the following is copy of a report in regard to the matter received from the Deputy PostmasterGeneral, Adelaide : -

Re article in Adelaide Express of 19th May, headed, “Belated Telegram, Borda, officials not to blame.” This matter was previously referred to Kingscote, who reported that he heard no call from Cape Borda till 3 p.m., and when Cape Borda sent the memo, he said nothing about any previous call. We have been trying to get further report from both Kingscote and Cape Borda, but since your wire of 21st idem we have been unable speak Kingscote, except, for a few seconds occasionally, owing to cable becoming more defective, consequently have been unable to obtain further information.

To the last passage Mr. Scott, the Secretary of the Department, appends the following memorandum -

I may add that the cable referred, to as de,fective is that connecting Kangaroo Island with the mainland, which cable was laid in 1875, and its repair is now receiving attention.

page 11987

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers -

Comparative Table of Provisions of Commonwealth Old-age Pensions Bill and certain State Acts, together- with the recommendations of the Royal Commission relating to rate of pension, deductions, &c.

Defence Acts 1903-1904. - Regulations for the Commonwealth Military Cadet Corps - Cancelation of Regulation 3 of Section 1 and Regulation 13 of Section 2, and substitution of new Peculation in lieu thereof .-Statutory Rules 1508, No. 59.

page 11987

QUESTION

PRIVILEGE : SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I move -

That the Progress Reports from the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure, brought up on the 29th May and 4th June, 1908, respectively, be now adopted.

I have first of all to say that it is owing to the absence of Senator Neild in the North that it has fallen’ to me to take up the matter standing in his name on the business-paper. I ask honorable senators to consider first of all the reference indicating what it was that the Joint Committee had to consider and report upon. They will probably have observed that in many newspapers statements have appeared to the effect that an effort is being made by Parliament through this Joint Committee to confer upon members of this Parliament privileges or immunities which they have not possessed in the past. I take as a typical illustration of that form of criticism this statement which appeared in a leading article of the Argus, of 3rd April last-

Having recently noted’ a grossly improper accusation levelled against them, Federal members seek to take advantage of the occasion and frame rules which will have the effect of preventing the liberty of criticism which should belong to every newspaper and every citizen.

That is typical of the criticism levelled by a number of newspapers at the report which has been before honorable senators for some time past. As a matter of fact, the reference with which the report is headed shows that the Committee was asked to do two things. First of all, to report not as to what privileges we have, or whether we should have more or fewer privileges than we are entitled to” claim at the present time, but as to the procedure in dealing with, and the power to punish persons charged with any interference with the privileges of members of either House. Secondly, the Joint Committee were asked to report upon any recent allegations reflecting upon Parliament or any of the members thereof. It was clearly the duty of the Committee to ascertain the nature of the existing procedure in such cases. That could only be discovered by a reference to the procedure of the House of Commons, because, under the Constitution, until by Act of Parliament, we declare them ourselves, our powers and privileges at the present time are those of the House of Commons, as established mainly by precedent. We found that if a person is considered by either House of Parliament to have committed a breach of privilege, he can be summoned to the bar of the House concerned, and ordered to be imprisoned, but he cannot be imprisoned for any term extending beyond the close of the current session. In the circumstances, if, to-day, the Senate called an offender to the bar of this Chamber and ordered him to be imprisoned, no matter how heinous his offence, he would have to be released, probably, in the course of three or four days. A difficulty arises in the case of the Commonwealth Parliament which does not’ arise in the case of the House of Commons. The House of Commons can commit a prisoner to Newgate, or to one of the common gaols of the country, or it can order him to be confined in a room in Parliament House. The evidence of various legal experts who were examined by” the Joint’ Select Committee indicates that it is very doubtful whether we have any power under the Con- stitution to compel any State gaoler to take over, and hold in custody, a prisoner committed to a gaol by either House of this Parliament. On the other hand, it appears to be perfectly clear from the evidence submitted that if we passed a law making breaches of the privileges of Parliament an offence, State gaolers and police would, under the Constitution, be obliged to carry out that law. We are in a worse position in this matter than is the House of Commons, because, as a matter of fact, I believe that all we could do with an offender would be to shut him up in one of the rooms of the building in which we are assembled, and we could only keep him there while Parliament was sitting. Another point elicited by the evidence submitted to the Committee was that it was practically impossible to fine an offender. If we could do so, even without keeping him in custody, we might .have an effective mode of punishment. I believe that the last occasion on which the House of Commons inflicted a fine in such a case dates as far back as 1660. Generally, the opinion of the witnesses before the Committee was that we have at present no power to fine ; but that there is nothing to prevent our taking that power by passing an Act dealing with the matter. The evidence , showsthat, so far as the present procedure is concerned, this Parliament is practically powerless to deal with breaches of privilege. It was stated in one of the newspaper comments made in connexion with the matter, that the haling of an offender before the bar of either House amounts to little more than a farce, and that statement will be generally agreed to. It- was the business of the Committee to consider what procedure might be adopted to meet the difficulties of the case. It was strongly felt by the members of the Committee that the time had passed when any House of Parliament should continue to be judge and’ jury in its own’ case. It was felt that Parliament is no longer entitled to place itself in a position of so much authority as to claim to be able to hale an offender beforeit, and try, and sentence him for an offence against itself.

Senator de Largie:

– If it- could impose’ upon him a sufficiently severe sentence, it would be all right.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I cannot agree with the honorable senator; even if Parliament could chop an offender’s head off, I do not think it should do so for an offence against itself. The Committee con- sidered that if the dignity of Parliament, and its good name and reputation for fair play, were to be maintained, the best course to adopt would be to intrust the trial of such cases to a regular judicial tribunal. It was also felt that in the case of the Federal Parliament no better tribunal could be suggested than a judge of the Supreme tribunal of Australia, namely, the High Court. It will be found that the only action Parliament need take is to pass a resolution” in the form of an instruction to the AttorneyGeneral, who, acting upon the resolu tion, would prosecute ari offender before the High Court. It was felt that that would be a prompt, and, at the same time, a dignified way of dealing with breaches of the privileges of this Parliament, and I feel that, even though they should differ’ as to details, honorable senators will approve of the general principle underlying that recommendation. It may possibly be justifiable to make a slight reference again to the criticisms in some newspapers on the first report’/ The main criticism has been that by this new procedure Parliament is likely to take something which it did not have before, that is to take the power to protect, itself from criticism. The Committee is not asking Parliament to take anything which it did not have before, and what is more, bond fide criticism can no more be interfered with if these reports are adopted than’ if can be at the present time. There is a distinct difference between criticism and- libel or slander. Criticism is, an expression of opinion based on certain facts. One may or may not agree with a criticism, but to call a man a bigamist or a burglar is not to criticise him. It is a slander on him. unless it is true. On the other hand, a libel or a slander is a statement of matter of fact, and not - a statement of a person’s opinion. To say that’ a member of Parliament has been, bribed is a statement of fact. It is. not a criticism of a member, and consequently I hold that the Committee in putting forward a method of procedure to deal with persons who make statements or alleged statements of fact which are not true, but which are slanders, and are calculated to lower the dignity of Parliament, and to degrade it in the eyes of the country at large, .is not hampering criticism. It is a perfectly fair and legitimate proposal that persons who slander Parliament or commit other offences should be made responsible in exactly’ the same way as a person who slanders another person is responsible. It may also be noted that in criticising the first report of the Committee, the press have taken up rather a curious attitude. I am a newspaper man; in fact, I have been so engaged nearly all my life, and it seems to me a . curious thing that newspapers should give the advice to public men, “ Never mind what the newspapers say.” If they are going to preach the doctrine that public men are not to pay any attention to criticisms and statements in the press, then why do they make them? Why should newspapers criticise or attack members of Parliament?

Senator Trenwith:

– Criticism is all right, but their statements sometimes are damnable.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Why should newspapers attack the policy of members of Parliament if they do not expect them to take any notice? It is all very well for them to say that members of Parliament are thin-skinned. The Committee is proposing a feasible procedure by which each House can deal with what have been recognised as offences practically ever since parliamentary government came into existence. It may be said, indeed it is suggested, that the Committee is proposing something new. On that point it may be worth while to draw, attention to the evidence of Mr. Gavan Duffy, clerk of the other House. On page 10 of the report, he says -

So long as forty years ago, the Queensland Constitution Act set forth in detail the powers of the Parliament. It could punish summarily for certain contempts, and for disobedience to its order ; for not attending when summoned : and for assaulting and obstructing ils officers: and for this purpose the House could direct the Attorney-General to prosecute before the Supreme Court any person charged.

Is that provided .in the Queensland Constitution? - It is provided in the Constitution itself, and there are similar provisions’ in the Constitutions of Tasmania and Western Australia, but in the case of the larger States, of New South Wales ‘and Victoria, there is simply given the power to declare the rights and privileges. I am not sure that that power has been exercised in New South Wales, but it has been exercised in Victoria. In the case of Queensland, the offences are set out in detail, and constables and others are directed to assist in the execution of the orders of the House, and the gaoler to imprison offenders. I am giving these particulars in reply to the question whether it would bf possible for the Commonwealth Parliament to delegate its powers to Courts of Law.

Section 45 of the Queensland Constitution empowers either House to punish summarilv for certain contempts, including -

The assaulting, obstructing, or insulting any member in’ his coming to or going from the.

House or on account of his behaviourin Parliament, or endeavouring to compel any member by force, insult, or menace to declare himself in favour of or against any proposition or matter depending or expected to be brought before either House.

The sending to a member any threatening letter on account of his behaviour in Parliament.

The sending a challenge to fight a member.

The offering of a bribe to or attempting to bribe a member:

The creating or joining in any disturbance in the House or in the vicinity of the House while the same is sitting whereby the proceedings of such House may be interrupted.

Section 51 provides that -

The publishing of any false or scandalous libel of any member touching his conduct as a member by any person other than a member is hereby declared to be a misdemeanour.

And it shall be lawful for either House to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute -before the Supreme Court any such person committing any such misdemeanor.

So that for forty years in Queensland there have been in force provisions similar to those which we recommend to this Parliament. Section 52 of the Queensland Constitution says -

It shall be lawful for either House to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute before the Supreme Court any such person guilty of any other contempt against the House which is punishable by law.

That, I think, will sufficiently dispose of any argument that’ we are endeavouring to introduce something new. I have not had time to look up the Constitution Acts of any other States, but we have it in evidence that they contain somewhat similar provisions. As regards the mode of procedure, I contend, first, that the Select Committee has shown that the present procedure is ineffective and useless ; secondly, that it has pioposed a mode of procedure which is consonant with the dignity. of the Parliament of Australia; and, thirdly, that it has not suggested anything new or radical in the method of dealing with such matters, but that those matters have all- been dealt with in a Colonial law, if I may use the expression, which has been in existence for a large number of years. As regards our second report, I have only to say that it points out that our present mode of procedure is worthless) and the Committee has found that without the power to compel witnesses to answer questions, it is impossible to proceed further with the second part of the inquiry.

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

– I think that the Senate, as well as the other House, is indebted to those who constitute the

Joint Committee for the close attention they have given to the matters remitted to them for consideration, and for the able and practical report which. they have presented. They were appointed

To inquire into and report as to the best procedure for the trial and punishment of persons charged with the interference with or breach of the powers privileges or immunities of either House of the Parliament or the members or Committees of each House.

It was not, as has been pointed out, their duty to create fresh offences, but to supply an acknowledged defect in the machinery for dealing with offenders against Parliament. That is all that they have applied themselves with diligence to do. No doubt . their recommendations are very valuable. I cannot say at present that the Government concurs in all of them, particularly in detail. Amongst other things, the Committee recommend -

That, in view of the fact that a new measure of punishment for breach of privilege and contempt of Parliament is hereby recommended, your Committee cannot advise that the proposed new law should be made retrospective.
That a law be passed defining the mode of proving by legal evidence what are the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons.
That a law be passed making provision for the summoning, attendance, and examination on oath or affirmation of witnesses before Select Committees of either House, and in cases of contempt before the High Court.

If the report is adopted, as I have no doubt it will be, a responsibility will be cast upon the Government to prepare the necessary measure for the consideration of Parliament.

Senator Turley:

– There may be two or three measures necessary.

Senator BEST:

– Yes ; assuming that the report is adopted, the Government will have no hesitation in complying with the wish of honorable senators in that respect, and duly submitting the necessary measure.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– The second reference to the Committee was, I understood, to inquire into certain charges which have been made against some members of Parliament, and the second Progress Report deals with that part of their duties. It contains this passage -

Your Committee regret to find that in the existing state of the law they are unable to prosecute their inquiries in an effective and complete manner. There is no statutory law in force authorizing Select Committees to summon and secure the attendance of witnesses before them, and above all, there is no law requiring, and, if necessary, compelling witnesses before Select Committees to be sworn and answer questions relevant to the issues involved. It is true that the Standing Orders provide that Select Committees may summon witnesses, but they do not enable such Committees to take evidence on oath, nor do they provide any punitive measures in case of disobedience to the summons or refusal to be sworn or to give evidence.

I am not going to pit my opinion against that of some members of the Select Committee, who are legal gentlemen, but it does seem to me that they have overlooked a very important point, and that is that our Constitution contains this provision -

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, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Constitution.

I take it that up to this time the Houses have not declared their powers, and that, therefore, we have the same powers as the British House of Commons. On page 430 of May nth edition, honorable senators will find a statement concerning the power of a Select Committee of the House of Commons to deal with a witness. After recounting the practice of ,past years, it says -

At length, in 1871, in pursuance of the recommendations of a Select Committee of 1869, Acf 34 and 35 Vict. c. 83 was passed, empowering the House of Commons and its committees to administer oaths to witnesses, and attaching to false evidence the penalties of perjury.

It goes on to say that -

By Standing Orders Nos. S6 and 87, oaths and affirmations, under the Oaths Act 1888, are administered to witnesses before the House or a Committee of the whole House, by a clerk at the table; and before a Select Committee, by the Chairman, or by the clerk’ attending the Committee. It is not usual, however, for Select Committees to examine witnesses upon oath, except upon inquiries of a judicial or other special character.

– If we condemned the pressman who said that, or ‘the journal that published it, the retort of the press would be: “Fancy a Parliament accused of corruption being the judge of whether it is corrupt or not !” The whole thing is absurd. Apart from that, it departs from what we always recognise as the underlying principle of British justice, that a man shall not be a Judge in his own case. That is why this Chamber has deemed it expedient to depute to a Committee the task of devising some machinery outside Parliament itself, which, when imputations of that kind are cast on Parliament as a whole, will hold the. scales of justice true “ and equal, and determine whether or not those critics are justified in what they have said, or whether a wrong ha.- been done to Parliament as a public institution. There is the further point that if any person in criticising Parliament exceeds the bounds of legitimate comment, and ventures into the arena of slander, he has an ample and better opportunity, before a trained Judge, of demonstrating his case, by going before a public court, than he would have if he were brought up here. Therefore, those who are merely acting in the public interest’, have no cause of complaint in this matter. There is no attempt to curtail public criticism, and if any such attempt were made, the first institution in the country to rise up and protest, would be this Parliament itself. There is no body that has more to gain from proper public criticism of its own proceedings, than Parliament itself. One of the complaints that we have to-day, is that not sufficient publicity is given to the proceedings of Parliament. It is not the fact that publicity is given to our proceedings of which we have to complain, but that some journals seem to regard Parliament as a body against which to make unwarranted statements. Just as no individual is called upon to submit to such attacks, so no Parliament is called upon to do so. It has been said that if Parliament consults its own dignity, it’ need not be troubled about such criticisms. The public journals that take that view have no reason to fear any legislation passed by any Australian Parliament, so long as they confine themselves to fair and honest criticism. The procedure recommended by this Committee would only operate in regard to those journals which devote themselves to libel, slander, and gross personalities, and which pander to the grosser tastes of portions of the community. I venture to say that, although the whole of the details of this report may not commend themselves to the Senate, it is one which, in substance, can be heartily supported ; and, I think, that in saying so, I am expressing the views of . the great .majority of honorable senators.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western .Australia

.. - In supporting the motion for the adoption of the report, I wish to refer briefly to .the concluding remarks of Senator Millen. He observed that, so far as the Select Committee is .concerned, its report is now complete, , and its . work finished. . That .is the position, the Committee having now submitted a supplementary report in addition to. its’ progress report, submitted at an earlier stage.

Senator Millen:

– I was not aware of that.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I wish to say, in reference to the statements made by Senator Pearce, that whilst, like him, I do not profess to be able to enter into the matter from a legal point of view, yet, having heard the whole of the evidence given before the Committee, I am convinced that the honorable .senator would not have expressed some of the views that he did had he been acquainted with the facts. He omitted to mention, probably through an oversight, that we are in no wise dealing with a matter that, in any sense, can be said to be paralleled in the. case of the

British House of Commons. The experts whom we had before us, very clearly pointed that out. On the particular point: upon which Senator Pearce dwelt, namely,, the power of a Committee of Parliament to do certain, things, we had the evidence of Mr. R. R. Garran. In reply to question 116, after it had been put to him whether the Committee had, or had not, the power to do certain tilings, he was asked whether he thought that the Committee had power to take the steps suggested in Senator Pearce’s argument. Of course, we had an idea that there was a method by which witnesses could be compelled to attend, and give evidence, but we were also strongly inclined to think that to do so would be like bringing a horse to water. When yow get him there, you cannot compel him to drink. Mr. Garran was asked whether we had power to summon witnesses. His reply was -

I think you can summon them and call upon them for an explanation.

Then in. question 117, his evidence went on -

How could we get them here? - If they did not obey the summons then I think, the Housemight, through the Speaker, issue his warrant for their arrest, and bring them before the Bar of the House.

Other witnesses gave evidence to the same effect. Every one of the witnesses examined by the Committee .. had evidently been particularly careful in getting up his case. The evidence which they placed before us bore upon it the impress of a good. deal of research, and of a very close an.d intelligent application to the questionssubmitted. Any one . who reads the evidence closely will see that the. witnesses were practically unanimous upon the point that there is nothing in existing law and usage as applied to this Parliament, to enable us to deal in a satisfactory manner with a man who chooses to say nasty or vile things about Parliament arid its members. All that we can .do is to bring the offender to the bar of the House. , In question 118, Mr. Garran’s evidence continued -

Has this Committee power to. summon them ? - Do you mean for purposes of punishment?

No ; for” examination ? - Yes, I am inclined to think that the Committee can summon witnesses, but that it cannot administer an oath. ‘

Suppose we were to issue a summons to the proprietors df the Bulletin, calling upon them to’ come and give evidence, and they refused tocome; which, could we do? - I am not sure what the law would be as to that. I did not come prepared . to answer that question. I recollect that Parliament is engaged in considering a Bill for the purpose of making its powers clear in that respect. There seems to bea considerable amount of doubt as to what those powers exactly are. I am not prepared to say offhand what the powers are.

It was made abundantly clear that without the intercession of some declaratory Act it was impossible for us to do anything except follow the old plan of bringing the offending individual to the bar of the House. Then, if we felt that he had not been sufficiently glorified, we could bring him back again on another occasion, and even go to the extreme of putting him for a few hours in one of the rooms in the basement of this building.

Senator Chataway:

– Where we might kill him by means of the draughts !

Senator HENDERSON:

– We might do that, but that is all we could do. The Committee consider that their report is fairly comprehensive. Whilst some of the newspapers have snarled rather bitterly about our recommendations, and have endeavoured to show that our object was simply to muzzle public criticism, I think that it will be obvious that those who have taken that line of argument have merely endeavoured to divert public attention from the real facts of the case. When the report is carefully read, it will be seen that it not only deals with matters of libel, but that it is sufficiently comprehensive to deal with all the most important offences relating to the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. Therefore, the attempt made by the Committee is much wider in its scope than some of the newspapers would lead the public to think. In paragraph 6 of their recommendations, the Committee say -

That in view of the fact that a new measure of punishment for breach of privilege and contempt of Parliament is hereby recommended, your Committee cannot advise that the proposed new law should be made retrospective.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why not?

Senator HENDERSON:

– Because to do so would be to make the new law apply to offences committed before it came into existence. It would not be in accord with British fair play and justice to pass an Act to-day, and under it to punish a man for something that he did six months before the law came into existence. That is the reason why we consider that it would be unjust to make the new law retrospective. I have much pleasure in supporting the adoption of the report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 11995

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being at once considered, and all consequent action taken.

Bill, read a first time.

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

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The question of old-age pensions has been a prominent one in politics in the Commonwealth ever since its establishment. Fortunately! in the two larger States, provision for the payment of old-age pensions has been in existence for some time. I venture to say that honorable senators will concur with honorable members elsewhere in esteeming it a privilege to be given the opportunity to take part in the enactment of so commendable a measure. As a matter of fact, I know of no measure introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament which has, or will receive, in a greater degree, the commendation, not only of members of this Parliament, but of the people of the Commonwealth. The desire and design of this Bill is to recognise the right of a section of our citizens to a contribution in old age, or earlier if they should have the misfortune to become invalids. Many of the persons whom it will benefit are amongst the worthiest of our old colonists, men who have grappled with the difficulties of early, settlement, and have led a strenuous life in the service of the country, which entitles them to the most generous consideration at our hands. It is not necessary, in the circumstances, that I should enlarge on the merits of this Bill. I desire at the outset to acknowledge the splendid services rendered in this matter by the Royal Commission appointed to consider and make representations in connexion with old-age pensions, in the very excellent report they have furnished. Fortunately, the Senate was represented on that Commission by my honorable friends, Senator Pearce, Senator Gray, and ex-Senator Styles. The various recommendations made by the Commission will, I am sure, be of value to honorable senators, in the consideration of this measure, which is largely, if not completely, founded upon those recommendations. It is true that the Commission had the great advantage of the legislation of the two larger States in considering the question, and doubtless the valuable experience of the operation of the States’ measures referred to greatly aided the Commission in their inquiry. The Bill before the Senate seeks to deal, not only with the payment of oldage pensions, but also with the payment of pensions to invalids under certain conditions which are set out. I need only refer to the fundamental features of the Bill, as many of the clauses are in the nature of machinery, to give it effect. The main provisions with respect to old-age pensions are set out in Part III. It is there provided - in clause 15 - that every person who has attained the age of sixty-five years, or who, being permanently incapacitated for work; has attained the age of sixty years, shall, whilst in Australia^ be qualified to receive an old-age pension. It is further provided in the same clause, that by proclamation it will be competent for the Governor-General, . so far as women are concerned, to declare that the age at which they shall be qualified to receive an old-age pension shall be sixty years, and from and after such proclamation, the preceding provision is to be read as regards women as if the word “ sixty “ were substituted for the words “sixty -five.” Then it is provided in clause 16 that certain persons shall be specially disqualified. These include aliens, naturalized subjects of the King who have not been naturalized for the period of three years next preceding the date of their pension claims, and also Asiatics, except those born in Australia-

Senator Pulsford:

– There are none.

Senator BEST:

– There are many. Aboriginal natives of Australia, Africa, the islands of the Pacific, or New Zealand, are also disqualified, but no woman having married one of these persons is, in consequence only of such marriage, to be disqualified from receiving a pension. Then there are certain- necessary conditions set forth to qualify a person for an old-age pension. It is provided .that no person shall receive an old-age pension unless he is residing in Australia on the date when h=; makes his claim, and has, on that date, so resided continuously for at least twentyfive years, and is of good character. Clause 18 defines what continuous residence means, and provides for the emergency of occasional short absences from the Commonwealth. Then no person is to be entitled to a pension unless the net capital value of his accumulated property within or out of Australia does not exceed ^310.

Invalid pensions are dealt with in Part I W of the Bill, which is only to be brought into operation by proclamation. The conditions on which such pensions may be granted are set forth in clause 20, in which it is provided that every person above the age of sixteen years, who is permanently incapacitated from work by reason of an accident, or by reason of his being an invalid, and who is not receiving an old-age pension shall, whilst in Australia, be Qualified to receive an invalid pension. Certain persons are disqualified from receiving an invalid pension, and they are aliens, Asiatics, except those born in Australia, or aboriginal natives of Australia, Africa, the islands of the Pacific, or New Zealand, but no woman having married one of these disqualified persons is, in consequence only of such marriage, to be disqualified from receiving an invalid pension. Necessary conditions entitling a person to the receipt of an invalid pension are set forth in clause 22. The invalid must be residing in Australia when he makes his claim to the pension, and must have resided in Australia continuously, within the meaning of clause 18, for at least five years. . It is provided in clause 23 that the amount of an invalid pension shall in every case be determined annually by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, having regard to any income or property possessed by the applicant. I venture to say that both as regards oldage and invalid pensions, the provisions of this Bill are not only reasonable, but generous. Honorable senators have before them a comparative table of provisions of the Commonwealth Old-age Pensions Bill, and certain States Acts, together with the recommendations of the Royal Commission reTlating to rate of pensions, reductions, &c, and the only matters it contains to which I need specially refer are the provisions with respect to age or ill-health, and, later on, as to the limit of the pensions. The Royal Commission’s recommendation was the attainment of the age of sixty-five years, or sixty where the applicant was permanently incapacitated for work. The Commonwealth Bill provides for an old-age pension on the attainment of the age of sixty-five years, or sixty years where the applicant is permanently incapacitated for work, and as to women, the GovernorGeneral is empowered to reduce the qualifying age to sixty years. Under the New South .Wales Act, the age qualification is the attainment of the age of sixty-five years, or sixty years in cases of inability of claimant from physical unfitness to earn his own living. Under the Victorian Act, the qualification is the attainment of the age of sixty-five years, or permanent illhealth caused by having been engaged in mining or any prescribed dangerous or unhealthy occupation. Under the Queensland measure, which is to come into operation this year, the qualification is the attainment of sixty-five years, and, under the New Zealand Act, the qualification is also the attainment of sixty-five years. The provisions with respect to the limit of both invalid and old-age pensions are set forth in Part V. of the Bill. In clause 24, it is provided that the amount of a pension shall, in each case, be at such a rate as, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner, or Deputy Commissioner, who determines the pension claim, deems reasonable and sufficient, but shall not exceed the rate of £26 per annum in any event, nor is it to be at such a rate as would make the pensioner’s income, together with the pension, exceed £52 per annum. Where the pensioner has accumulated property, the amount of a pension is to be subject to certain deductions. Where the pensioner has accumulated property, the amount of a pension is to be subject to the following deductions-

One pound for every complete Ten pounds by which the net capital value of the property exceeds Fifty pounds, except where the property includes a home in which the pensioner permanently resides, and which produces no income;

Take the case of a man owning property worth £250. From that would be deducted £50.

Senator Millen:

– If he were living in that property, would anything be deducted ? The clause which the Minister has just read exempts his home.

Senator BEST:

– Take a case where a man owns property worth £250. This £50 is first taken off. and then £1 for every complete £10.

Senator Millen:

– Not if the £250 property is the one in which he is living?

Senator BEST:

– I have told the honorable senator that it is so. I am saying that where the man does not reside in the property there will be a deduction of £20. In the other case there will be a deduction of-

£1 for every complete £10 by which the net capital value of the property exceeds ; £100, where the property includes a home in which the pensioner permanently resides, and which produces no income.

In that case, the honorable senator will see there will be a deduction of £100, and then a deduction of £1 for every complete£10. In those circumstances, there will be a deduction of £15 from the

£26-

Provided that, where both husband and wife are pensioners, except where they are living apart pursuant to any decree, judgment, order or deed of separation, in making the deduction in the case of each of them - paragraph (a) shall be read with the substitution of Twenty-five pounds for Fifty pounds, and paragraph (b) shall be read with the substitution of Fifty pounds for One hundred pounds.

Senator Millen:

– If I read that provision aright, two deductions, will be made in the case of the property with the highest amount. Paragraphs. a and b are not alternatives.

Senator BEST:

– Yes they are; In the case of paragraph a, where he does not reside in the property, there is a deduction of £50. As regards the net value of accumulated property, there is a provision as to how it shall be assessed; but paragraph d provides that -

In the case of husband and wife, except where they are living apart pursuant to any decree, judgment, order, or deed of separation, the net capital value of the accumulated property of each shall be deemed to be half the total net capital value of the accumulated property of both.

In clause 26 provision is made for the computation of income. The Royal Commission recommended a pension of £26 per annum, and the Bill adopts that sum. In New South Wales £26 per annum is allowed where both husband and wife are entitled to pensions, but where they are living apart, pursuant to any decree or deed of separation, the allowance is fixed at £19 ios. each. In Victoria the pension is £26 per annum, in Queensland £26 per annum, and in New Zealand £18 per annum. As regards the various deductions that are to be made, that . is rather too elaborate ‘ a story, but those who are interested will find full particulars set forth in the table which has been presented. The administration of the measure is dealt with in Part II. The scheme is that there shall be a Commissioner of Pensions for the whole of the Commonwealth, and a Deputy Commissioner of -Pensions for each State. The Commonwealth will be divided into districts. To each district will be assigned a registrar, and, working in conjunction with the other officers to whom I have referred, there will be a magistrate assisting in the administration of the law. The term “ magistrate “ includes a police stipendiary or special magistrate of the Commonwealth or of a State. The procedure is set forth in clause 27 and following clauses. Clause 27 reads -

Every person claiming a pension shall, in the prescribed manner, deliver or send a pension claim therefor to the Registrar of the district in which he resides, or to a prescribed officer therein.

That is the first step which he has to take. The claim has to be indorsed by the claimant, with a declaration showing his qualifications, which the registrar will investigate. Clause 28 sets out -

Upon receipt of a pension claim “the Registrar shall cause to be made such investigations as appear to him desirable, or as are directed by the Deputy Commissioner, in order to ascertain the circumstances of the claimant and the truth of the statements in the claim.

The registrar is to be at liberty to call upon persons to furnish him with the necessary information to enable him to make his report. Upon the completion of the investigation, the onus is to be thrown upon the registrar of reporting fully to the magistrate. That is to say, he will receive the claim, investigate it fully, and make out a report, and that, together with the claim, will be forwarded to the magistrate, and the claimant notified that it will be considered on a particular day. Clause 29 provides that, where the magistrate is satisfied that, by reason of physical disability, or other sufficient cause, the claimant is unable to attend, he may dispense with his attendance. The magistrate’s duty is to continue further investigation, and, if he should deem the claim fair and equitable, he will have the power to recommend the claim, as made, or as modified by the result of his investigations, or if he should think fit, postpone the claim for further evidence, or recommend its rejection. It is provided in sub-clause 2 of clause 31 -

If it appears to the Magistrate that the claimant, although otherwise qualified for, is unfit to be intrusted with, a pension, He may recommend that the claimant, instead of being granted a pension, be sen( to a benevolent asylum or charitable institution ; and the Registrar shall at once notify the Deputy Commissioner, who may thereupon cause steps to be taken for the admission of the claimant into a Benevolent asylum or any prescribed public or private charitable institution.

Provision is made in clause 32 for an appeal in respect of matters found by the magistrate to be disproved. The claimant may, in the time and the manner prescribed, appeal to the Minister, who may cause an investigation to be made by the Commissioner, or Deputy Commissioner. In the following clause, it is provided that the recommendations of the magistrate as tr> the pension claim shall be indorsed on the claim, which shall thereupon be returned to the registrar. It will be forwarded’ by the registrar to the Deputy Commissioner, whose duty it will be, except in certain cases, to determine the application, and after he is duly satisfied, to issue a pension certificate, iri proper form, when the claimant will be entitled to his pension. There is provision for the re-hearing of a claim in certain circumstances, and ‘ also a provision that persons entitled to State pensions may be held to be qualified to come under this measure without much trouble. Clause 35 provides -

Any person who at the commencement of this Act is the holder of a valid certificate entitling him to an invalid or old-age pension under a State Act may, instead of sending in a pension claim, deliver up his State certificate to the Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner may, subject to the Regulations, if he is satisfied that the person is entitled to a pension under this Act, issue a pension certificate to him.

The payments,. I may explain, are to be made fortnightly, and, possibly, the Post Office, or other convenient Commonwealth, or, perhaps, State office, by arrangement, will be utilized for that purpose. As for the number of persons likely to be provided for, we derived considerable assistance from the experience of New South Wales and Victoria. In his valuable work, the Official Y ear-Book, Mr. Knibbs gives some data which will aid us in coming to a decision. On page 913, he deals with the number of persons in receipt of old-age pensions in New South Wales and Victoria. In 1901-2 there were 13,975 pensioners in New South Wales, and 14,570 in Victoria, making a total of 28,527. In 1906-7, there were 21,465 pensioners in New South Wales, and 10,832 in Victoria, making a total of 32,297. Approximately, it has been estimated that the number who will avail themselves of the old-age provision, will be about 67,000. From the same book, we learn that the number of persons, sixtyfiveyears of age and upwards, is about 168,000. And more than that, we are told’ that those who avail themselves of pensions, having regard to the experience of New South Wales, represent about 4 per cent, of the total population of the State, or, in this case, the Commonwealth. It is by that means -that we arrive, -roughly, at the estimate that the number of old-age pensioners, under this measure, will be about 67,000. In dealing with this matter, Mr. Knibbs says -

It will be seen that during the past three years the number of pensions has remained practically constant at about 32,000, the number in New South Wales having increased during that period by 560, while the number in Victoria decreased by 777. At the census of 31st March, 1901, the number of persons in New South Wales aged 65 years and upwards represented 3.44 per cent, of the total population of that State, while in Victoria the corresponding percentage was 5-52-

Assuming these percentages to hold good for 30th June, 1907, the number of persons in these two States aged sixty-five and upwards may be stated approximately as - New South Wales, 53,400 ; Victoria^ 68,300. On this basis the number of persons in receipt of old-age pensions in New South Wales on 30th June, 1907, represented 40 per cent, of the total number in the State on that date aged sixty-five years and upwards, while in Victoria the corresponding percentage was 16. It is probable that the numbers aged sixty-five and upwards given above are somewhat underestimated, especially in the case «f New South Wales, and that in consequence the percentage in receipt of pension is slightly overstated. The error involved is, however, probably not large.

Senator McGregor:

– What State is that?

Senator PULSFORD:

– I refer to Western Australia. I ask honorable senators to bear in mind that the adoption of old-age pensions throughout Australia has largely been in the absence of the Labour Party, as indicated by their presence here to-day ; of that there can be no doubt. That,’ I think, should put a bit of a stopper to the boastful remarks which have been made this afternoon. I desire to refer to the financial aspect of the measure. I have no occasion to say anything in support of the principle of old-age pensions. It had my support in New South Wales.; it has my support here. But, I submit that in the case of a measure which involves so great an expenditure, the financial aspect ought to have had a better and fuller elucidation, than it received to-day from the Minister. I venture to say that the expenditure thereunder will not be covered by , £2,000,000 per annum.

Senator Trenwith:

– It will be very extraordinary if it is not.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I have no doubt in my mind that when the measure is in full operation, it will mean an annual payment of between £2,000,000 and £2,500,000.

Senator Pearce:

– We shall have a progressive land tax.

Senator Henderson:

– If it takes three millions, what odds?

Senator PULSFORD:

– I am now commenting upon the remarks made by the Minister, who gave us to believe that the payments under the Bill would be in the neighbourhood of £1,500,000. I think thathe told us afterwards that the expenditure on invalid pensions would amount to probably £200,000, and that the reduction in the age of women would mean an additional expenditure of from £250,000 to £300,000. But from my calculations, I have, put down the expenditure at considerably over £300,000 - nearer £400,000. If we take the minimum of £1,500,000 for old-age pensions, as mentioned by the Minister, £300,000 on account of the reduction in the age of women, and £200,000 for invalid pensions, we have a total expenditure of £2,000,000. I wish to draw attention to the fact that census by census the percentage of persons of sixty-five years of age and upwards, has been risingvery materially. In 1861, it was 1 per cent. ; in 1871, 1.74 per cent.; in 1881, 2.44 per cent. ; in 1891, 2.90per cent., and in 1901, 4 per cent. In England the percentage of such persons is 4.67. And probably the next census, or that of 192 1,will disclose that in Australia, where better health conditions prevail, the percentage is at least 5 per cent. These figures, which look so small, mean a very large increase in the amount which has to be found by the Commonwealth. I think that it would have been right for the Minister to have referred somewhat to the amount which will be debited to the various States. I imagine that the Bill will entail an expenditure of between £66,000 and £75,000 on the little State of Tasmania.

Senator Mulcahy:

– £65,000 is the statistician’s estimate.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I have shown reasons for anticipating a higher expenditure than other gentlemen have done. Now, taking £65,000 as a minimum, that is a very heavy amount for Tasmania to find.

Senator Trenwith:

– It is a very serious thing for the poor people who ought to get a pension, but are not.

Senator PULSFORD:

– The honorable senator need not raise that point at all.

Senator Trenwith:

– But that is the important point.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I know all about that.

Senator Trenwith:

– The question is - hot have we the money, but do we owe it. If we owe the money, we must find it.

Senator PULSFORD:

– The more important it is that we should pay the money , the more important it is that we should know where to get it, and how much it will be. If we do not know anything about that, what is the use of gasconading about owing the money, the desirability, the humanity of making this provision, and all that sort of thing? Let us show a little common sense with all this talk. Let us ascertain what we have to pay, and find out ways and means of meeting the expenditure.

Senator Trenwith:

– The first thing which the honorable senator considers on receipt of an account is - does he owe the money. If he does, he looks to see how to find it.

Senator PULSFORD:

– When a man receives an account, there is no question about owing, if he is solvent. In Committee, I intend to move an amendment in paragraph c of clause 16, which reads -

The following persons shall not be qualified to receive an old-age pension, namely : -
1. Naturalized subjects of the King who have not Seen naturalized for the period of three years next preceding the date of their pension claims ;
2. Asiatics (except those born in Australia), or aboriginal natives of Australia, Africa, the Islands of the Pacific, or New Zealand.

I desire to have paragraph c wholly eliminated. Nearly every Asiatic in Australia at present is already covered by paragraph a, as an alien.

Senator Pearce:

– Large numbers of them are naturalized in every State, especially in Victoria.

Senator PULSFORD:

– There are not large numbers naturalized. Coghlan, for 1903-4, states -

Excluding Queensland, where the information was not ascertained, the number of naturalized foreigners in the Commonwealth at the census of 1901 was 10,910, distributed as follows : - New South Wales, 3,265 males, 354 females; Victoria, 3,304 males, 1,262 females; South Australia, 1,360 males, 545. females; Western Australia, 576 males, 101 females; Tasmania; 119 males, 24 females. In New Zealand the number of naturalized persons was 4.672. It is probable, however, that the above numbers are understated. Germans have availed themselves most largely of the privileges of naturalization, having taken out about one-half of the certificates granted.

Consequently, of a total of 10,000 aliens naturalized here in 1901, more than half were Germans, and all other nationalities are covered by the remaining 5,000. Under the Naturalization Act passed by this Parliament, naturalization was refused to Asiatics. In those circumstances it is undesirable to pass that paragraph, which will save the Commonwealth practically no money, while it will be another means of casting an insult on the people of Asia. I do not know quite what to say with regard to the aboriginals. I believe most of them are already caredfor in some way or other. If so, they might be excepted from this Bill, but I ask honorable senators to consider before we reach ‘the clause to which I have referred whether it would not be entirely fair and reasonable to omit the word “ Asiatics,” on the ground of its offensiveness to the great nations of Asia.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I desire to congratulate the Vice-President of the Executive Council on the sympathetic manner in which he introduced the Bill, and to express my agreement with him that members of this Parliament who are in a. position to vote for it ought to feel grateful for such a privilege. This moment is certainly the proudest in the short period during which I have been in public life in ‘Australia’, because I am in a position to-day, by my vote,to help to give effect to a promise, that has long been given to the old people of Australia, of some consideration at our hands. Senator Pulsford regards it as possible that the money proposed to be allocated for the payment of old-age pensions will not be sufficient. I do not believe that in a year or two from now £1,500,000 will be enough to pay old-age and invalid pensions. But if the contingency arises that we cannot pay all the claimants from the Consolidated Revenue with our present . means of taxation, I shall welcome it, because we shall then be in a position to insist upon another method of taxation - a method which is repulsive to Senator Pulsford and others who think withhim. Instead of paying old-age pensions or anything of that kind from money derived through Customs and Excise duties, we ought to provide for them by a direct system of taxation. If what Senator Pulsford predicts does happen, the time will be opportune to impose that most necessary of all taxes - a tax on the unimproved value of land. I welcome this Bill, and will support it generally, because it is certainly a step in advance when compared with similar measures now in force in New South Wales, Victoria, and New Zealand. I venture to say. that it is the most advanced piece of legislation in the world.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Oh !

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator laughs ironically, but’ when he stands upon his feet I hope he will attempt to disprove my statement.

Senator Pearce:

– He could not do it if he stood upon his head.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The VicePresident of the Executive Council when introducing the Bill referred honorable senators to a comparative statement issued under the authority of the Royal Commission on old-age pensions appointed by the Commonwealth Parliament. According to that statement, the maximum payment to oldage pensioners in New Zealand is £18 per annum. That is wrong. It was so under the original Act of 1898, but the maximum was raised to £26 per annum by an amending Act passed, I think, in 1905. Consequently that portion of the statement was misleading.

Senator Turley:

– That is the report of the Royal Commission as things existed then.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Quite so; but the statement should have been revised before it was placed in the hands of honorable senators.

Senator Trenwith:

– It should have been if there had been any doubt about passing the Bill.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator is anxious to get to a vote. So am I ; nor do I think” there is any doubt as to how the vote will go, although some honorable members, both here and in another place, .cast their votes against a measure the intention of which was to give a start to a Commonwealth system of old-age pensions.

The PRESIDENT:

– The - honorable senator is not in order in alluding to the debates in another place,, and to the reasons that actuated honorable members of another, place in giving their votes.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I have no intention to contravene the Standing Orders, or to reflect upon the votes of honorable members of either House. Whilst I support the Bill generally, I think we might go further. I believe in giving a pension to all citizens irrespective of their position in the community. Every man, if he has been a good citizen, has done something to make things better than he found them. That being so, under a really good old-age pensions system every citizen ought to be entitled to claim a pension. By that means the stigma of. pauperism or charity which to-day applies to - a claim for a pension would be removed. I am glad to know that this Bill will practically remove that sigma. Under the system that has obtained in the past, even in New South Wales and Victoria, a claimant for a pension has been considered somewhat in the light of a pauper. I am glad to know that when this Bill becomes law the citizen who claims a pension will no longer be looked upon as one who is seeking a charity dole, but will be regarded as one who makes a rightful claim to something which, by his own energy and industry, he has helped to earn. .

Senator Turley:

– The leader of the Opposition says it is an endowment of poverty.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not believe that it is, and if the leader of the Opposition in this Chamber made such a statement he did so in order to create some semblance of opposition to the measure.

Senator Chataway:

– What is worrying honorable members on that side is that we do not oppose.the Bill.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– There is not a member of the Commonwealth Parliament to-day who dare vote against it.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Honorable senators opposite would like to believe that we would vote against it if we dared.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not think that is correct. I am glad that the Bill has been received so favorably. I should like to see a universal system of old-age pensions, but I recognise that our first duty is to our indigent poor. There are thousands of poor people in Australia to-day who will welcome the Bill and be glad to know that a long-standing promise is at last to be fulfilled. As bearing out my statement that this is the most advanced piece of legislation in the world, I point to that portion of it which provides for invalid pensions. People over sixteen years of age who have resided in the Commonwealth for five years, and who through illness or accident are permanently incapacitated from following their employment, are to be . entitled to receive a pension. What does this mean to a number of homes throughout the Commonwealth? It means that many people who, in consequence of disease and misfortune have been unable to contribute to the support of their families, will be assisted, and those responsible for the maintenance and support of the aged will be better able to bear their burdens.’ I do not consider that, a pension of 10s. per week is ample. I should like to see it considerably increased. .Had this measure been introduced at an earlier stage of the session, I should have been prepared in Committee to move amendments. But I do’ not want to do anything to endanger the passage of the Bill at this stage. For one thing, I think that the age limit of sixty-five is too high, particularly when we consider the climatic conditions under which many of our people have to work in comparison with those in other parts of the world.

Senator McColl:

– Our climate is finer than that of any other country.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Those of our aged poor who have borne their share in opening up Australia have lived under very adverse conditions in respect of climate: Senator McColl knows that very well.

Senator McColl:

– I have been in many climates in my time, but have not experienced any better than the climate of Australia.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator has not worked under adverse climatic conditions as thousands of the people of this country have had to do.

Senator McColl:

– The honorable senator does not know. ‘ I do not want to traduce the Australian climate, at all events.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am not traducing it; but the honorable senator, by his words and votes in this Chamber, has tried to traduce, not only the. Australian climate, but Australia itself.

Senator McColl:

– The honorable senator should not talk bunkum.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The conditions under which many of our people have had to work have taken years from their lives. It is for that reason that I think that the age limit is placed too high.

Senator Turley:

– What the honorable senator says is recognised under the Victorian Act, which provides invalid pensions for miners.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The Victorian Act specifies a residential qualification of twenty years, and I should like to see the Bill before us amended so as to enable any person who has resided twenty years in Australia to receive a pension. There is one part of the Bill which is not favorable to the White Australia policy. It does not disqualify a woman who has married an Asiatic. The desire underlying the White Australia policy is to keep the white race inviolate ; and any white woman who marries, or lives with, a Chinaman, or an Afghan, or Japanese, ought not to share the benefits of this Bill. We must also remember that in this vast continent, there aTe great differences in the cost, of living. A sum of ros. per week may be sufficient in Melbourne, but would be equivalent to no more than 5s. per week in some parts of Western Australia and Queensland. In that respect, the Bill is faulty. Provision might have been made to ‘ allow for ‘ the vast difference in the cost of living in parts of some States. The Federal Government itself has set an example in granting an al.lowance to Federal officers in parts of Western Australia. I may point out that the number of people over sixty-five years of age in Western Australia is the lowest in any State. The highest number of people over that ape in any State are resident in Victoria. I have pointed out one or two features in respect to which the Bill might be amended. But while I have indicated these defects, I am by no means desirous of moving amendments which would have the effect qf blocking the passage of the Bill. Had it come before us at’ an earlier stage of the session, I might have been inclined to submit amendments. Under present circumstances, ‘I shall support the second reading, and shall endeavour to afford facilities for the rapid passage of the Bill through Committee. I cannot sit down without again expressing my sense of pleasure at having the privilege to be a member of .this Parliament, and of voting for a measure which will bring comfort and assistance to a large number of people who deserve well of Australia.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I intend to support this Bill. As I have indicated every time I have addressed myself to the question of old-age pensions, I have long been a supporter of such a policy, and I am glad to have an opportunity of voting for this measure.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator does not look like it.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I can disregard the snarling of Senator de Largie who, throughout this debate - which was initiated by an excellent speech from the VicePresident of the Executive Council, and followed by a speech worthy of the occasion by the leader of the Opposition - has sought to attribute want of sincerity to men. who have been desirous of supporting a measure of this kind long before Senator de Largie was ever heard of, and who will remain steadfast supporters of such a policy when he is no longer within the region ‘of Australian politics.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator cannot get people to believe what he says; that is all.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I have said that I intend to support this Bill, and I do so with the utmost sincerity. It ought’ not to be necessary to say so. It should be deemed offensive for a man to have to proclaim his sincerity in supporting such a piece of legislation. I recognise, however, that so far as my own State is concerned, I am assuming a serious responsibility. It was estimated some three years ago, when the Royal Commission upon this question took evidence in Tasmania, by the Statistician of that State, that the cost of an old-age pensions scheme to Tasmania would be something like £65,000 per annum. That is a serious amount for a State, which, as the result of Federation - and I am not speaking in disparagement of Federation - was placed in serious financial difficulties from the very- first year when we imposed a uniform Customs’ Tariff. In that year we had to endeavour to .finance .the State, in face of an ‘ actual loss of something like £170,000 from Customs and Excise, and of other losses making up a total of £[200,000 - practically one-fifth of which was revenue of which we were deprived ‘ ‘ in one act.” That system of loss has been going on in a lesser degree ever since. Lately, as the result of the imposition of the new Tariff, a larger amount of revenue has’ been received, and Tasmania had some reason to hope that the deficiency consequent upon. Federation was going to be wiped out. Although the Bill is going to cost Tasmania from £[65,000 to ,£70,000 a year-

Senator Stewart:

– She has other means of finding revenue.

Senator MULCAHY:

-Will honorable senators allow me to proceed.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask honorable senators not to interject. Senator Mulcahy objects to interjections, and the honorable senator in possession of the Chair, whoever he may be, is entitled -to be heard without interruption.

Senator Needham:

– Senator Mulcahy should set an example when other honorable senators are speaking.

Senator MULCAHY:

– As a rule I do not object to interjections ; but on this occasion the interjections have been of a spiteful nature, and have been made with the endeavour to establish the insincerity of honorable senators on this side who support the Bill. I strongly resent my character for sincerity being impugned, although it does not depend upon the opinion of men like Senator de Largie. I am aware that this Bill is going to cost Tasmania between ,£60,000 and .£70,000 per annum, but still I am also aware that it is not proposed to take that money away from Tasmania. It will be spent within the borders of tlie State. I am also glad to recognise that the institution of this system will be a recognition of the debt which we owe to the aged and infirm. There is, however, another aspect of the question. I know that, at any rate so far as certain goods are concerned, some of the Customs duties which we have imposed with the object of bringing about increased protection will have the result of levying heavy taxation upon poor people. I have given reasons for that view before. Consequently, this £[70,000, or a large proportion of it, will simply be a restitution to those people of the increased taxation which we have placed upon them this year. There is one other remark which I have to make about the Bill itself. That is that in voting for the second reading I throw upon the Government the responsibility - which would ordinarily be shared by every member of Parliament - for the scheme of the measure. The Bill was practically forced through one House of the Legislature yesterday, and apparently it is to be put- through the Senate to-day ; I hope so, at any rate.

Senator Needham:

– Yet the honorable senator cannot call this ,hasty legislation.

Senator MULCAHY:

– It really is, because I believe no honorable senator can master the details of such a Bill within the time that we have had at our disposal. It will be impossible for the most conscientious amongst us to make a real effort to perfect the measure. I must, therefore, throw the responsibility for the details upon the Government.

Senator Pearce:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the Government are justified in what they have done, inasmuch as we know that there are old-age pensions in actual operation in Australia? This Bill is therefore largely a copy.

Senator MULCAHY:

– We know that; and it would be very strange indeed if the experience gained by the States had not been utilized by the draftsman in preparing this Bill. But at the same time it goes without saying that honorable senators have not had., a fair opportunity of thinking out the details. It is a Bill in connexion with which extensive and expensive machinery will be necessary. I am glad to hear that it is proposed to make use of the ordinary services of the Commonwealth in carrying out the measure. There is another responsibility which belongs to the Government and to the party supporting them, who, as I said honestly and sincerely last night, are more deserving of credit for the introduction of this measure than are the Government. The responsibility I refer to is that of financing the proposed scheme. Senator Millen dealt with the matter very fully this afternoon. Whatever motives may be attributed to those who have felt called upon to point out the dangers of our financial position, the fact remains that in this measure we are really being asked to authorize an annual expenditure of from £[1,500,000 to £[2,000,000 without doing that which any business man would recognise as a solemn obligation1 in such a case, namely, making the necessary provision for the anticipated expenditure.

Senator Trenwith:

– We have made provision.

Senator MULCAHY:

– We are making provision for the first year’s payment, but are letting the future look after itself.

Senator Trenwith:

– We have a year in which to consider that.

Senator McGregor:

– “ Sufficient .unto the day is the evil thereof.”

Senator MULCAHY:

– That is just the kind of argument against which I protest. I have, at any rate, made my position clear. As I have always indicated, T shall support the Bill and throw upon the Government all responsibility for its details and the financial obligations it involves..

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I do not think that I should have risen to speak upon this Bill if it were not for the fact that I desire to put myself right with a number of my constituents. At the last Federal elections I expressed the opinion that the States Governments should retain control of the management of old-age pensions. I think that it is right to say why 1 have changed my mind and intend to support this measure. First of all, I wish to say that since my entry into Federal politics I have been more and more impressed with the view, and I have given expression to it more than once, that the contract entered into between the States and the Commonwealth is one that should be carried out in every detail. I believe that the Commonwealth should carry out the duties assigned to it under the Constitution at the earliest possible moment, whilst the States should continue to exercise the powers which were not handed over to the Commonwealth”. Although a couple of years ago I expressed the opinion that the States Governments were well fitted, because of their superior local knowledge, to look after the payment of old-age pensions, I must now admit that I have been compelled to alter my opinion, and, seeing that the establishment of old:age pensions is a duty cast upon the Commonwealth Parliament, I believe it should be carried out at the earliest possible moment. Coming to the measure itself, I must say, first of all, that I am not much exercised in mind on the question of financing the proposed scheme. Yesterday I objected to a certain measure, because I believed that for certain reasons it was not sound, quite irrespective of its association with old-ap;e pensions. I think 1 made that clear. Now that we are dealing with the question of old-age pensions, I consider that the financing of a scheme should not be a matter of serious difficulty if the Federal Government pro pose to continue for. any length of time to do what they have said they intend to do. I believe that sooner or later they will be forced to do what has been found to be inevitable by Governments in other countries, and if they go to the money market to borrow the money required for the construction of works of a permanent character, there is no reason why they should not be able out of the ordinary revenue of the Commonwealth to meet the expenditure required for old-age pensions, and for a great many other Commonwealth undertakings. I am aware that some honorable senators do not like the idea of constructing public works with borrowed money, but in my opinion the adoption of that course is inevitable if the Government intend to finance an effective old-age pensions scheme by relying upon the ordinary revenue.

Senator Needham:

– What about a land tax?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– The honorable senator has started again. The Bill before us deals with old-age pensions, and I propose to confine myself to that subject. I propose practically to repeat what I said on this .subject at a meeting which T addressed in Queensland. In my opinion, the whole scheme of old-age pensions proposed is crude, and is by no means worthy of a people so far advanced in civilization, at this stage in the world’s progress. Dealing with the question of assisting, .not the ordinary poor, but the aged poor, I would say that it is possible to go to almost any country in Europe, and find a very much better system than that which is proposed in this Bill. The reason for the payment of old-age pensions is not that a man has reached the age of sixty or sixtyfive years, and should, therefore, be given a pension of 10s. per week, but that those who have failed in the battle of life, and have reached a stage when they can no longer continue the fight with any reasonable prospect of success, shall be informed that they are pensioned off, just as those who are living in Chelsea Hospital and such institutions are pensioned off. But what do we do here? W.e turn to an old man or an old woman who has failed in the battle of life, not necessarily -through his or her own fault, but who has reached a stage when it is no longer possible to contend with the younger and, it may be, the brighter members of the community, and we say, “ Here is a pension of 10s. a week. Go, now, and try to make a living with people who may tse possessed of brighter intellects and have the advantage of youth on their side.”

Senator Needham:

– Is this . antiSocialism ?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– This subject is not new to me. It is one in which I havetaken a very great deal of interest, although I have hot spoken in public upon it in years past. It seems to me that, although it is certainly proposed in this Bill to do something, we are not going to do a very great deal. In Austria it is found possible to provide aged people with bright homes, that are practically their own, and with food, or the means to obtain food for themselves. They are also practically provided with servants to look after them. I speak now of the decent aged poor, and not of criminal loafers - of the poor who can claim as a right, and not as a charity, to obtain assistance from the State - and the total cost of the system in Austria is is. 5 1/2d. per head per day, which is practically the same as 10s. for a week of seven days.

Senator Lynch:

– Is that the cost for administration ?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– That includes everything, and 5d. of the amount goes to meet interest on the cost of the buildings which the aged people are permitted to occupy.

Senator Pearce:

– The cost of living in Austria, and the standard of living, is con,siderably lower than here.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I admit that the cost of living in Austria is less than in Australia, but honorable senators will agree that the Austrian system is one which is worth considering. I have read the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but have not studied their report, which may possible give very good reasons why some such system as I have described should not be adopted in the Commonwealth.

Senator Trenwith:

– Any barracks system is objectionable if it can be avoided.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I am not talking about a barracks system, but about a cottage-home system. I know something of the barracks system which is in operation at Dunwich, on Stradbrook Island, in Moreton Bay. There they have an asylum for the aged poor on- one island, a leper station opposite on another island not far away, and a gaol on a third island at no great distance from the other two, and to get to Dunwich the poor have to make a journey of a long distance by water.

Senator Findley:

– It is ‘ a monument to the anti-socialistic party.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– The honorable senator may try to make political capital of the griefs of poor people, but I am not prepared to do so. I am willing that he should make whatever political profit he can out of it.

Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator’s party- has shown a lot of sympathy for poor people in Queensland.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator CHATAWAY:

- Senator Findley seems to think that nobody in this world who is not a member of his own political party has any right to claim to be charitable, or to have any feelings of sympathy, but I venture to say that there are many who do not agree with the honorable senator politically, and myself among the number, who are just as genuine students of measures calculated to improve the conditions of the aged poor as the honorable senator or any member of the party to which he belongs. I have referred tq the conditions under - which the bai racks system is carried out in Queensland.

Senator Henderson:

– The further you get away from Dunwich the better.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– All I can say is that I addressed 700 or 800 old people at Dunwich, and I got a better hearing from them than I often get from some honorable senator’s opposite when I am trying to tell them what I honestly think. The effect of the system ‘ adopted in Queensland is that the aged poor are treated almost as pariahs of society in being made to feel that they are separated from the rest of the community.

Senator McGregor:

– That is the poof law all over the world.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– No, it is not. If the honorable senator studied1 the question more carefully he would know that in many places on the Continent cottage homes have been established where aged poor people can live in the midst of their fellow, citizens, and are troubled with very little official supervision. I am not, of course, prepared with a cut-and-dried scheme to deal with the matter, and though I am willing to accept this Bill as a step in the right direction, I say that if we wish to deal with the question satisfactorily we must do so scientifically, and with a greater regard to the real requirements of the old people than to” the adoption of a scheme which will be the least expensive to those who have no need of pensions. ;

Senator Pearce:

– It is to be said for the establishment of cottage homes that under that system less money finds its way into the pockets of landlords in the way of rent.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I admit anything of that kind that the honorable senator may be pleased to say. Although I cannot’ find it within the four corners of the Constitution, I feel that it is equally a national duty of the Commonwealth Par1liament to deal with the difficulties of infant life. I believe that in the case of people at the two extremes of human’ life, infancy and old age, the State should interfere. As we cannot have such a system as I think we ought to have, in view of our advance in civilization, we must take what is” offered, and I can only hope that this measure will notbe held to represent the Ultima Thule of our aspirations in the direction of making provision for the aged poor. That seems to me to be the danger that is before us. At present two of the States have old-age pension systems in operation, and in a third it is hoped that old-age pensions will be provided in a very short time. But none of these States appear to me to go to the root of the thing, and try to deal with the question on a scientific principle, realizing what the people themselves want.

Senator McGregor:

– That can only be done by adopting Socialism.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– The honorable senator is always trying to make party profit out of something of this sort. Can he not rise above party for a moment, even in a matter of this kind ? He reminds me of Wordsworth’s philosopher who “peeps and botanizes on his mother’s grave.” What we ought to consider is that the old people do not want merely bare money. One of the things which the old folks tottering to their graves require is companionship and sympathy. If we put them on a distant island, or in barracks in a place like a penal settlement, will they get all the sympathy or companionship they require?

Senator McGregor:

– What is the honorable senator creating that goblin for ?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– While I cannot support a barrack system as applied to oldage pensions, I believe that we could do very much better for the old folks if we adopted some system by which we could enable them to enjoy the same companionship as they previously had, and helped them - possibly at no extra cost - to a far greater extent and in a material f ashion by means of cottage homes than we shall do by simply paying out a little hard cash. Let us make them an allowance and supply them with a home, as in Austria, if you like, at a low rent. All I wish to say at this stage is that, while I support the measure, I hope that the people and statesmen of Australia will make it their business to go further into this question. Do not let us be content to follow upon the dead lines which have been followed in Englishspeaking countries, and in that respect I believe that English-speaking countries are far and away behind foreign countries. Let us not adhere to the old plan of thinking that as soon as we have chucked our half-sovereign to the poor old man or poor old woman we have done all that is required of us.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– I do not propose to occupy the time of the Senate for more than a few minutes. I felt when this Bill was introduced that it would be put through very quickly, for the reason that there was practically no opposition, at any rate to its principle. While I congratulate Senator Chataway upon the very humane and comprehensive view which he has expressed, I submit that the consideration of various schemes’ is neither before us at the present time nor is it desirable. Therefore, I urge that the principle should be affirmed at once so that we may get into Committee, and, unless there is some very grave reason for making an alteration, pass the Bill quickly and get done with our work.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I desire to compliment the Government upon having introduced a measure which has been anxiously awaited throughout Australia. I also compliment them upon the fact that they have at least a fair wind and a good passage ahead of them with the Bill. It is not often that honorable senators on both sides of the Chamber are found to be bosom friends on a measure. But that is so in this instance. The reason why I desire to speak is because while Senator Chataway was addressing the Senate I interjected that the system obtaining at Dunwich was practically similar to that which obtains under the poor laws in all parts of the world. He was expressing to us his sympathy with the aged and the poor, and stating how at Dunwich they separated the men from the women in their declining years, practically kennelling them like so many dogs in bits of reserves that are usually unfit for almost any kind of cattle, much less human beings. I only desired to Suggest to him that what he was describing in regard to Dunwich is obtaining in almost every, part of the ‘world which has poor laws on which old people, after having worn out their’ physical energy, have to depend. It is became of our close observation of that disgraceful system that we are anxious to erase it from the annals of Australian history. We want .to enable our aged people to spend the remainder of their days in something like comfort and happiness. I am just as anxious as is Senator Chataway that in the future we should even go so far - and I hope that we will - as to make comfortable homes for our old people and do something for them such as I have seen in other parts of the world. I admit that they are established under charitable conditions.

Senator Needham:

– That is the trouble.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Yes ; they are. established by means of the generous outpourings of men who . sympathize with their fellow men.

Senator Needham:

– And so relieve the State of its responsibilities.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Yes ; in certain countries the old folks have comfortable little homes and gardens wherein they employ themselves and spend their latter days very comfortably indeed. Of course, these cases are few and far between- a mere handful in the midst of teeming millions. I am quite prepared at any future time to assist any project with that object in. view. The barrack’ system is repulsive. Indeed, the very phrase makes ‘me feel very wroth. I have observed its operation, and, therefore. I hail with pleasure this Bill, which I think, ought to be allowed to pass as it stands. Whatever may be our opinions as to future, developments and as to future .necessities, in the name of humanity and the interests of. the people of Australia . let us pass the Bill as it stands, and then we shall have laid, down, the foundation of .a system such as has yet not been equalled in any part of the world.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania.

– The members of the Government and Senator Trenwith are. pressing us to take this Bill without deliberation.

Senator Henderson:

-Absolutely..

Senator MACFARLANE:

– One of the mottos on the floor of the vestibule is “ Where no counsel is, the people fall.” We are asked to pass the Bill without discussion ; but I think that we . ought to take counsel on the subject. It cannot be said that I am opposed to old-age pensions, be.cause I advocated them here four and ar half years ago, but coupled with the condition that the wage-earner should contribute to his own support. A little time ago I took exception to the observation that this Bill is the most advanced in the world. If it is the most advanced Bill certainly it is not the most perfect. I contend that to give an allowance of 10s. a week to old people, and to leave them to starve in the street is not proper charity. The reason why I question the perfectness of the Bill is that in Belgium I have seen in very good situations in towns large numbers of cottages where the aged ‘ poor are living with a small allowance from the municipality and the Government, and often from their own old employers. They live rent free, and have the companionship of their ‘ fellows, and the women are able to sit at the cottage doors and make lace or do something else towards their support, even though they may be over sixty-five years of age. I should like to see a system of that sort established in Australia, It is too late this year to take any step in that direction; but at some future time we ought to effect some improvement in this legislation. The principle of the German Imperial law of 1891 ought to be adopted. It is called the “ Stick “ law, and is very easily carried out. The worker who contributes a farthing or 1 1/2d. per week, according to his1 wage, presents his card at a Post Office and is given a stamp which he affixes to. it. As. soon as the card contains a sufficient number, of payments he is given another- card, and so on.

Senator Turley:

– Has not that law been altered?.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– Not to my knowledge. In the first five years of its operation, they had £[5,000,000, and now they have over £[20,000,000. There are 12,000,000 working men and women. Half the premium, is paid by the workman, and generally the other half by the employer, while the Government add a proportion equal to half or one-third.

Senator Pearce:

– The proportion is onethird each.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– That is not so in Germany in regard to this law, which is a little different from the other laws there. A good many of them have been passed to help the poor. The result is that when people become .indigent by old age, or through accident, they often have a large sum to fall back upon for their own sustenance. When a person contributes towards his pension, it is very different from a system under which money is given simply as a charity. If you make the worker contribute you encourage thrift, but if a pension is given at a certain age you encourage no thrift, and that, to my mind, is one of the greatest blots on the Bill. It is a good Bill in many ways ; its object is good, but I do not think that it is the best measure of the kind in the world. It may be said that the worker in Germany can live very much cheaper than he can here, but it must not be forgotten that meat and bread are much dearer there than here, and there is more room for economy here than there is in Germany or Belgium.

Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 7.45 p.m.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

That this party, while holding strongly to the principle of universal old-age pensions without other restrictions or qualifications than age and residence, is prepared to support the Government measure on the second reading and in such details in Committee as affect the scope of the measure, because it represents a substantial advance upon existing legislation.

Senator Millen:

– I will sign that myself.

Senator TURLEY:

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I can prove it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I have already asked the honorable senator not to continue these interjections, which are utterly irrelevant and have a tendency to prolong the debate.

Senator VARDON:

– Interjections of the kind are not only irregular, but they are unfair. Any one can make an interjection which it is exceedingly difficult on the spur of the moment to disprove. We should discuss a measure of this kind on its own merits. We are responsible to the country for what we do. I support this. Bill because I believe it is right to do so, and not because any institution or association has asked me to support it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Senator VARDON (South Australia] shall come into operation on 1st July, 1909, “ or on such earlier day as is fixed by proclamation.” Are we to understand that it may possibly be brought into operation at an earlier date?

Senator Best:

– 1st July, 1909, is the earliest date at which the Bill can come into operation.

Senator VARDON:

– Do the Government contemplate being able to bring it into operation earlier?

Senator Best:

– If we have the money, the honorable senator can be sure that we shall do so.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 -

The Governor-General may by proclamation declare that the age at which women shall’ be qualified to receive an old-age pension shall’ be sixty years, and from and after such proclamation the last preceding sub-section shall as regards women be read as if the word “sixty”’ were substituted for the word “ sixty-five.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– This clause leaves it within the power of the Governor- General - whichmeans the Ministry - to declare by proclamation at any time that the age at which women shall be qualified to receive old-age pensions shall be sixty instead of sixty-five. I think that that is a power that ought to be retained in the hands of Parliament. The matter is one which has come up in relation to other measures quite foreign to old-age pensions, and it involves a distinct principle in itself. On so important a matter Parliament itself should determine. I move -

That before the word “ The,” line 1, the following words be inserted : - “ Upon the passing of a Joint Address by both Houses of Parliament.”

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

– - I do not think that the amendment is necessary.: Did the finances of the Commonwealth justify us, we should not have inserted this qualification of age in the case of women, but should have fixed it at sixty years. I submit that it is not desirable that we should have to seek the ratification of Parliament as to whether we can at any time afford to make the intended concession. That is a matter for the responsible Government of the day. If any Government chose to take the responsibility of saying that it is desirable that the concession should be made, they could only do so with the full knowledge of being able to provide the necessary funds. When the proclamation was issued the change would be permanent. The Government is responsible to Parliament. No Government would be so unmindful of its responsibilities as to launch a concession of the kind unless it was prepared to take the responsibility financially. I must apologize for the insertion of a modification of the kind in the present Bill, but I do not want to make the rectification of that modification more difficult by requiring a vote of both Houses of Parliament.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– As the clause is worded it tends to limit the power of Parliament. We do not know what might take place before a proclamation was issued under the clause. We do not know what object Ministers might have in issuing the proclamation at a particular time. It might be issued a few days after Parliament was prorogued, and when we should be powerless to express an opinion. The Minister estimates that to make the pension payable to women ofsixty years of age would involve an extra expenditure of from £250,000 to £300,000. For my own part I think that from . £300,000 to £400,000 would be required. I see no objection to retaining the power in the hands of Parliament, but I can see very great objection to leaving it in the hands of. the Government.

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

AYES: 8

NOES: 18

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I should like to have some explanation, of sub-clause 3. It provides that no old-age pensions shall be paid to any person who is under the age of sixty-five years, unless and until his claim is certified by a registrar. Under sub-clause 1, it is provided that every person who has attained the age of sixty-five years, or who being permanently incapacitated for work has attained the age of sixty years, shall be qualified to receive a pension. I should like to know whether it is intended, under sub-clause 3, that in certain circumstances persons under the age of sixty years shall be qualified to receive a pension?

Senator Best:

– No. If a man is incapacitated for work, he may be qualified to receive a pension at the age of sixty years. Sub-clause 3 provides only for machinery, by which persons of sixty-five and sixty years of age are enabled to have their claims certified.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 -

The following persons shall not be qualified to receive an old-age pension, namely : -
1. Naturalized subjects of the King who have not been naturalized for the period of three years next preceding the date of their pension claims;
2. Asiatics (except those born in Australia), or aboriginal natives of Australia, Africa, the Islands of the Pacific, or New Zealand.
No woman having married one of the persons disqualified by this section shall, in consequence only of such marriage, be or become disqualified to receive a pension.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the words “ Asiatics (except those born in Australia), or,” in paragraph c, be left out.

– It will encourage the Japanese to come here.

Senator Lt Colonel GOULD:

.- Our law is of such a character that we cannot naturalize an Asiatic. He is not entitled to apply for letters of naturalization. In section 5 of the Naturalization Act it is provided that -

A person resident in the Commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific, excepting New Zealand, who intends to settle in the Commonwealth, and who -

has resided in Australia continuously for two years immediately preceding the application ; or

has obtained in the United Kingdom a certificateofnaturalization or letters of naturalization, may apply to the Governor-General for a certificate of naturalization.

Section 6 provides -

An applicant under paragraph (a) of the preceding section shall produce in support of his application -
1. his own statutory declaration stating his name, age, birth-place, occupation, and residence, the length of his residence in Australia, and that he intends to settle in the Commonwealth; and
2. a certificate signed by a Justice of the Peace, a postmaster, a teacher of a State School, or an officer of police, that the applicant is known to him, and is a person of good repute.
An applicant under paragraph (4) of the preceding section shall produce in support of his application -
1. his certificate or letters of naturalization ; and
2. his own statutory declaration that he is the person named in the certificate or letters, that he obtained the certificate or letters without any fraud or intentional false statement, that the signature and the seal (if any) thereto are, to the best of his knowledge and belief, genuine, and that he intends to settle in the Commonwealth.

Then under section 7 -

The Governor-General in Council, if satisfied with the evidence adduced, shall consider the application, and may, with or without assigning any reason, in his discretion grant or withhold a certificate of naturalization, as he thinks most conducive to the public good.

Provided that in the case of an applicant who has not obtained in the United Kingdom a certificate of naturalization or letters of naturalization, the Governor-General shall not issue the certificate until he has received from the applicant the certificate of a Justice of the High Court, or a Judge of a Court of a State, or a Police, Stipendiary, or Special Magistrate, that the applicant has before him taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form in the Schedule to the Constitution.

– We shall commit a breach of faith if we do not give all naturalized subjects the full benefits of our citizenship. Under the Naturalization Act of 1903 we recognised certificates of letters of naturalization given by the States. Now we are asked lo say that those persons shall not be deemed to be entirely naturalized, and to withhold from them the benefits that we give to our own people. That seems a very selfish policy. There are only a few persons concerned ; but there is a good principle involved, and I hope we shall uphold it.

Senator SAYERS (Queensland) [9;43J- I have never believed in the principle of naturalizing Asiatic aliens. We are nowmaking a new departure by giving old-age pensions to- our ‘own people, and I do not see that we are bound by what was done in the past to include them. We are not taking anything away from them at all. We are simply refusing to give them something which they had no right to expect at the time they were naturalized. Since then we have refused to naturalize any more of them. We have adopted a White Australia policy which it took years to bring into force. A naturalized Chinaman is not allowed on a mining field, so that this proposal is not a new departure.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 (Part IV., Invalid Pensions) -

This Part shall not come into operation on the commencement of this Act, but shall come into operation on a subsequent day to be fixed by Proclamation.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– - I had intended to move on this clause an amendment similar to that which the Committee have already defeated, in order to make this portion of the Bill come into operation, not upon a proclamation issued at the instance of the Government, but upon a Joint Address by both Houses. Whilst I still hold that that should be done, 1 am not oblivious to the fact that the Committee were strongly against me on the previous amendment, and bearing in mind that_ we are approaching the end of the session, whilst I place on record my view that the principle of the clause is wrong, I do not propose to occupy time by taking another division.’

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 -

The following persons shall not be qualified to receive an invalid pension, namely : -
1. Aliens.
2. Asiatics (except those born in Australia), or aboriginal natives of Australia, Africa, the Islands of the Pacific, or New Zealand.
No woman having married one of the persons disqualified by this section shall, in consequence only of such marriage, be or become disqualified to receive a pension.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- Clause 16 includes, amongst those who are not to be qualified to receive an old-age pension, the following -

Naturalized subjects of the King who have not been naturalized for the period of three years next preceding the date of their pension claims.

Why is there no similar provision disqualifying those persons from receiving invalid pensions?

Senator Millen:

– For the obvious reason that if such a person is an invalid somebody has to keep him.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The only qualification necessary in this case is that the naturalized subject shall have resided continuously in Australia for at least five years.

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

– The question of youth is involved in the case of invalid pensions.

Senator Trenwith:

– Can a minor apply for naturalization papers?

Senator BEST:

– No, I think the ap.plicant must be twentyone years of age.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– Senator Findley has raised an important point. Under this clause a naturalized subject of the King who has not’ been naturalized for three years will be able to claim an invalid pension. This clause and clause 16 should be in conformity, because the cases are on all-fours. Otherwise, we shall run the risk of having people who have been naturalized for only one or two years thrown upon our hands to keep. There is no reason why we should give such a person if he becomes sick an invalid pension under better conditions than if he is over the age of sixty-five, If Senator Findley moves an amendment to bring the two clauses into line I shall feel inclined to support him.

Senator FINDLEY (Victoria) [9-Sil– The question of youth raised by the VicePresident of the Executive Council does not answer my contention, because persons over twenty-one can be naturalized, and the clause may apply to any one between the ages of twenty-one and sixty-five.

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

– There is a difference between the . two clauses. If a man has been resident in the Commonwealth for twenty-five years, it is reasonable to provide that he should have been naturalized for at least three years before he can draw a pension. But in the case of invalid pensions the applicant must be above the age of sixteen and permanently incapacitated for work by accident, or by reason of being an invalid, and must not be receiving an old-age pension. There is a further provision that the accident which has* incapacitated him must have happened in Australia. A person must be resident at least two years iri Australia to enable him to get naturalization papers. There is also the question of youth to which I previously referred. I do not think, therefore, that the same conditions should be made applicable in this case as in the previous one.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

: - Does this clause mean that a person born in Australia who at the age of, say, twenty-five goes in search of work to an unhealthy part of Australia, and becomes incapacitated for three years, is for the rest of his life to be a pensioner upon the country?

Senator Best:

– Yes, if he is permailently incapacitated.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– - It is very undesirable that women who marry men who are disqualified under the Bill should be able to get old-age and invalid pensions.

Senator Chataway:

– Does the honorable senator mean that if an Australian woman marries a German who lands in Australia, and that German does not become naturalized, the woman should be debarred from getting a pension?

Senator STEWART:

– I am not referring particularly to women who. marry Germans, although it is exceedingly desirable that any German who comes to this country, should be naturalized, so that his wife may, retain the privileges of Australian citizenship. But I am referring particularly to women who marry Chinamen, Japanese, or other Asiatics. I object to their being placed in a position to claim pensions under this Bill. I will tell the Corn.mittee why. It would encourage Asiatics to induce white women to marry them. That’ is contrary to the spirit of the White Australia policy. Our policy is to discourage Asiatics in every way. By inserting this clause we “shall further postpone the day when we shall have a complete White Australia. The object that I have in view might be met by making sub-clause 2 read -

A woman having married one of the persons disqualified by this section shall in consequence of such marriage be or become disqualified to receive a pension.

I have no desire to interfere with women who marry white aliens. But the Government should try to devise a clause to differentiate between women who marry white aliens and those Who marry Asiatics.

Senator Givens:

– The honorable senator’s suggested amendment would have an effect that he does not desire.

Senator STEWART:

– I move-

That the word “ No,” line 1 of sub-clause 2, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ A,” and that the words “ this section “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ paragraph * of sub-section 1.”

Senator Mulcahy:

– The result would be that if a woman did not marry, but simply lived with a Chinaman, she would not be disqualified.

Senator STEWART:

– She might be his servant or his housekeeper. It would be impossible to tell whether there was anything immoral in their relations. In any case, I would not encourage white women to marry Asiatics. We cannot, by means of this Bill, prevent white women from living with Asiatics, but we can at least penalize them for marrying such men.

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

– I ask Senator Stewart not to persist in his amendment. The law is that a woman who marries an alien thereby becomes an alien also. We are following the legislation of the States in this respect. What probably would happen if Senator Stewart’s amendment were agreed to would be that, in some cases at all events, the formality of marriage would be dispensed with. But, apart from that, we should err on the side of generosity. A woman who marries an Asiatic is, after all, a British subject, and if she has chosen to permit her affections to wander, she will probably find that she has made a mistake. It is not desirable that we should penalize her under this Bill.

Senator Vardon:

– Would it not be better to insert after the word “ No,” the words “man or”? Why penalize a woman and not a man ?

Senator BEST:

– There is a legal reason for that.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

. -I pointed out in my secondreading speech that it is undesirable to give a pension to a woman who marries an Asiatic. We offer a distinct encouragement to such marriages if we provide old-age and invalid pensions for women who enter into them. We ought to draw the line somewhere, and this provision is entirely opposed to our White Australia policy. I presume that we have to tolerate those Asiatics who are in the country, but we ought not to encourage white women to marry or live with them.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

. -I am sorry that Senator Stewart has thought fit to move his amendment. The probability is that in a few days there may be a meeting of ladies somewhere in Collins-street, and that they will bring up the amendment as another evidence of the inclination of the Socialist party to destroy the marriage tie. The amendment certainly would give no encouragement to marriage. It would impose a disability upon a woman marrying an Asiatic, although she could enter into another kind of relation with him. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to

Clause 22 (Necessary conditions).

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– Paragraph e of this clause provides that a person shall not receive an invalid pension unless - .

He has no claim against any employer, company, or other person or body compellable under private contract or public enactment to adequately maintain or compensate him on account of accident or invalid state of health.

Will the administrator of the measure see that if a person has a claim against a company or employer it is enforced ? Otherwise it might pay a person to forego a claim so as to get an invalid pension.

Senator Best:

– He would have to satisfy the Deputy Commissioner.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 -

Where the pensioner has accumulated pro perty, the amount of a pension shall be subject to the following deductions : -
1. One pound for every complete Ten pounds by which the net capital value of the property exceeds Fifty pounds, except where the property includes a home in which the pensioner permanently resides, and which produces no income; and
2. One pound for every complete Ten pounds by which the net capital value of the properly exceeds One hundred pounds, where the properly includes a home in which the pensioner permanently resides, and which produces no income.

Senator de Largie:

– According to the honorable senator’s argument, the man who has a home worth £[1,000 should be given more than the man owning a house of less value.

Senator STEWART:

– I say that the man who owns a home worth £[1,000 does not need a pension.

Senator de Largie. Then the thrift argument has not a leg to stand on.

Senator STEWART:

– The honorable senator forgets that 10s. a week without some place in which to live, is not enough for any one. I suppose that a man could not rent the barest hovel for less than 4s. a week, and that would leave him only 6s. a week to live on. Let me say again that we should encourage rather than discourage people to provide homes for themselves.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has repeated that statement a number of times, and he is aware that there is a rule against tedious repetition.

Senator STEWART:

– I have heard tedious repetition very often in this Chamber without any fault being found with it ; but if honorable senators, or the Chairman, are tired of listening to me, I will give it up. Apparently, honorable senators’ skulls are so dense and so hard that the hammer of argument in such feeble hands as mine cannot penetrate them. I gather from the interjections which have been made that I should probably not get any support for the amendment I have suggested, and, therefore, I shall abandon it.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 -

The Registrar may require any person, whom he believes to be in a position to do so, to furnish to him, for submission to the Magistrate, a confidential report as to the circumstances or the financial transactions of any claimant or pensioner or of any relatives of a claimant or pensioner ; and any person who, on being required to do so by the Registrar, fails to furnish a report within a reasonable time, or furnishes a report containing any statement which is untrue in any particular, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty : One hundred pounds, or six months’ imprisonment.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I fancy that a word has slipped into this clause inadvertently. Honorable senators will notice that sub-clause 2 provides that the registrar may bring persons before him and submit questions to them to enable him to present a report to the magistrate as to the circumstances or financial transactions of any claimant or pensioner “ or of any relatives of a claimant or pensioner.” It appears to me that as the Bill throws no obligation upon relatives this clause has possibly been taken from an Act which did. It is not at all desirable that we should empower the registrar to call upon the relatives of a pensioner or a claimant for a pension, seeing that we in no way put a claim upon them. They are quite outside the transaction ; the Bill does not recognise them, and I do not see what we have to do with the transactions of the relatives of a claimant. If the relatives were called upon to answer questions it would be different, but this clause empowers the registrar to inquire into transactions with the relatives of a claimant. I ask the Minister to agree to the omission of the words.

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

– I think that it would be a great mistake to strike out a provision of this kind. The registrar has to secure the best information which he can obtain.

Senator Millen:

– For what purpose does he want to report on the circumstances of a relative of a claimant?

Senator BEST:

– Under clause 4 “ relatives “ means -

The husband, wife, or children of a claimant or pensioner, as the case may be.

– It takes two parties to be privy to a transaction, and in this case it would be the applicant and a relative. Only in the case of shady transactions will this power b given to the magistrate. I think the danger has been unduly magnified.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 46 agreed to.

Clause 47 -

If a successful claimant of a pension is an inmate of a benevolent asylum or other charitable institution, the pension shall become payable as from a date not more than twenty-eight days prior to the pensioner being discharged from or leaving the asylum or institution, but no payment on account of pension shall be made to him so long as he is an inmate of the asylum or institution.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There is an anomaly in this clause. Isee no reason why this kind of deduction should be made from the pension.

Senator Best:

– It is not a deduction. It is something in the man’s pocket to go on with when he leaves the institution.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– An improvement could be made on the lines of the New Zealand Act of 1905, by which the pension is paid to the governing body of the institution, the cost of maintenance is deducted from the pension, and the surplus given to the pensioner when he leaves. Even an allowance of a pension for twentyeight days may not be equivalent to the surplus which would be due to the pensioner under the New Zealand system.

Senator Best:

– That is another scheme altogether.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– It is obvious that Senator Needham has not grasped the meaning of the clause. The Bill provides that no inmate of an asylum shall be entitled to a pension, but it presupposes that he may desire to get out and go on the pension list. It, therefore, says to him, “ If you are qualified by reason of age whilst still an inmate of the asylum, put in your application. It will be dealt with, and if it is approved of you will be entitled to your pension when you leave the institution, but we willnot give it to you while you are there for fear the asylum authorities might take it from you. The moment you leave, however, we will give you a month’s pension to start’ with in your new life.” That is a piece of special generosity; If we were to adopt the New Zealand system the unfortunate man when leaving the asylum would have hardly anything to begin with. Under this Bill he is assured of £2 - one month’s pension - to start his newhome on.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 48 to 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 (Forfeiture of instalments or cancellation of pension certificate for certain offences).

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- By this clause a poor old man is to be penalized for the rest of his life if he gets drunk. It may be his first offence.

Senator Best:

– In the case of a conviction for drunkenness the provision is that the Deputy Commissioner “ may “ forfeit any one or more of the instalments.

Senator FINDLEY:

– If may be a trivial offence, because sometimes one glass will upset an old man. I understand that there isno hope of an amendment being accepted.

Senator Best:

– Not the slightest.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 52 to 56 and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 12038

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business

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

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn..

The first businessto be proceeded with tomorrow will be two formal Bills in connexion ‘ with Customs and Excise, and possibly the Parliamentary Papers Bill, but I am hopeful that we may receive from another place some important Bill’s with which we will proceed in the order of their importance.

Senator Guthrie:

– Will the Government ask the House to sit on Saturday rather than meet next week?

Senator BEST:

– We shall try to wind up the business to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.54p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 June 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080604_senate_3_46/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 4 June 1908

QUESTION

PRIVILEGE : SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Senator CHATAWAY:Queensland

VISIT OF AMERICAN FLEET

Senator SAYERS:QUEENSLAND

Senator Best:

Senator SAYERS:

Senator Best:

Senator MULCAHY:TASMANIA

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF SHIPPING

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:

Senator BEST:

Senator BEST:

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ROLLS

Senator TURLEY:QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator FINDLEY:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

QUESTION

SURVEY OF TASMANIAN COAST

Senator DE LARGIE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator KEATING:

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS : SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

PATENT AND TRADE MARKS CASES

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

SHIPPING COMPANIES : REBATES

Senator MACFARLANE:TASMANIA

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE RECEIPTS

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

PERCUSSIVE CAPS

Senator PEARCE:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

SUPPLY OF COPPER WIRE

Senator PEARCE:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION : TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

Senator MACFARLANE:

Senator KEATING:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator KEATING:

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE : COOKTOWN

Senator SAYERS:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS: SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

PAPERS

QUESTION

PRIVILEGE : SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Senator CHATAWAY:Queensland

Senate
4 June 1908

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator TURLEY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

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

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator HENDERSON:
Western .Australia

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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