Senate
28 July 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

QUESTION
- DEATH OF MR. SPEAKER HOLDER
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
QUESTION
- OLD-AGE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
QUESTION
- PAPUA: COFFEE
QUESTION
- EXCISE (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) ACT
QUESTION
- ADVERTISING AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, ADELAIDE
PAPERS
PATENTS BILL
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- The Labour Party : Pairs

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

page 1632

QUESTION

DEATH OF MR. SPEAKER HOLDER

Senator MILLEN (New South. WalesVice President of the Executive Council) [2.31) - Mr. President, with concurrence, I desire to submit a motion relative to the recent death of Sir Frederick Holder. In doing so I am fully conscious of the sense of personal loss which animates us all today. I beg to move -

That the Parliament records its high appreciation of the many and eminent services rendered to the Commonwealth by the late Sir Frederick Holder, particularly during his tenure of the arduous office of Speaker from its first assembling until his decease on Friday last. Inspired by a lofty conception of the duties of his office, he presided over the House of Representatives with conspicuous ability, firmness, and impartiality. An unsparing devotion to administrative duties was associated with a personal courtesy which endeared him to members and officers of the House. The founding of a National Library has been among the most important of his special interests. All citizens of Australia will concur in tendering their profound sympathy to the bereaved wife and- family of a most distinguished Australian, whose loss is deeply felt by the whole community.

I am conscious that no motion which we may adopt, no words which we may .use iti supporting it, will . do more than faintly express the feeling so universally aroused by the tragic death of Sir Frederick Holder. But weak though our effort may be, it is meet that we should pay our tribute to the memory of one who rendered signal service to his State,’ and whose personal attributes endeared him to all who, like ourselves, were privileged to claim his ac.quaintance. There are those present more familiar with, and, therefore, - better able than I am to speak as to the great and - loyal service rendered bv the deceased gentleman to his own State. But this we all know, that in rendering’ that service he displayed a full, many-sided, and well-balanced intellect, a strenuous if quiet determination, an unfailing courage, and, above all, a simple and unaffected devotion to duty. In the- days, sir, when he stood a foremost fighter in party conflict, he always remembered his own lofty ideals, keeping them before him as shin- ing beacons by which he directed both his political and personal conduct. In later years he rendered yeoman service as one of the framers of the Constitution, helping the Union into being, and working always as one who sought to do his duty, and who regarded the work as greater than the work-, men. Still later, when we assembled here for the first time as representatives of a united Australia, his high character and great ability indicated him as the first Speaker of the House of Representatives. On the occasion of his selection for that high office, he expressed, to use his own words, his “ deep sense of the obligation placed upon him, and his determination to maintain the high reputation which the office of Speaker had borne in all parts of the Empire.” With what great capacity he discharged that obligation, how closely he adhered to that determination, we in Parliament can bear testimony. The first Speaker called to direct and control members who had been trained under varying parliamentary conditions, his task was indeed difficult; he was called upon to explore an unknown region ; but he has left behind him a trail . blazed for the guidance and assistance of his successors. The measure of success he achieved in solving that difficulty, as well as the manner of it, added to his own reputation and conferred upon Parliament great and lasting service. Clear in vision, sound in judgment, firm, tactful, just, and courteous, he secured to the full the confidence of those over whose deliberations he presided, and amply justified the high resolve with which he assumed the duties of his office. But great as have been his public services, I think it is perhaps his personal qualities which will induce us to treasure his memory the most. A kindly, if undemonstrative, man, with a simple nature, but unfailing courage, a warm heart, and above all a lofty and serious conception of life and its duties, he had more friends than he knew of. Whether we regard him as serving his State or the Commonwealth, or in his association with educational, social, philanthropical or religious movements, we can see him always moving with earnestness and sincerity,’ giving the best that was in him. Regarding him, it may be said that “though dead he yet speaketh,” for his career stands as a guide, an inspiration, and an appeal to those who follow him. May I, sir, add one word concerning those whose grief is greater than our own? It is not possible for us to turn aside the shaft of a great bereavement, but we may hope that our resolution, and the respect and sympathy which will go with it, will carry some little measure of comfort tohearts which are bowed in sorrow, and toa home which is wrapped in grief.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– As one who had known the late Speaker tor many years, and watched his career, not merely in politics, but in public life in many directions, I rise with sincere feelings of emotion to second the motion. I sympathize with the people of South Australia at the loss of a representative who for many years had possessed the entire confidence of the State. And I also sympathize with the lady who has lost a faithful and loving husband, and the family who have lost the protection of a good’ father. When he entered Federal politics Sir Frederick Holder rose superior to those party principles and sectional ideas which may have possessed the minds of other men. His whole object in life seemed to be to carry out his duties in the best interests- of the people with whom he often came in contact. I am sure that there is not a senator here to-day but feels the deepest sympathy with the family of the late Speaker, and the deepest regret at the loss, not only to South Australia, but to the whole Commonwealth, of a statesman such as the late Sir Frederick Holder was. It is, sir, with very deep and sincere regret that I second the motion.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [2.40]. - The late Sir Frederick Holder was to me a friend of many years standing. With four other honorable gentlemen who are now members of the Senate, I was his colleague in the Australian! Federal Convention which framed the instrument of Australian Union. For these reasons, and as a senator from the State in which Sir Frederick Holder was born, and to which he rendered, as my honorable friends who have preceded me have indicated, devoted service, I should like to join in trying to express the honour we wish to do to his memory, the memory of a man whose name will live in the Federal story of Australia. But for these reasons I should not have said one word on this occasion, because we are all feeling deeply the grief which the sad event has occasioned to the whole of the community, and more particularly to the members of the Federal Parliament, whether in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. I should have hesitated to add one word after the excellent and eloquent words which have been spoken by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, followed by my honorable friend, Senator McGregor, on the other side; but there is one aspect to which I should like to call attention, and which I think ought not to be forgotten. The late Sir Frederick Holder was not born to wealth as the world reckons. Fortune did not come to him with a smiling face. He was an example of the - ….. divinely gifted man

Whose life in low estate began.

He owed nothing to high patronage. The road which he pursued was not made smooth and easy for him. He made bis own way, and carved out his own career, by the great qualities which he possessed. He made his merits known by his own capacity, and the elements of that capacity, to some of which my honorable friend the Vice-President of the Executive Council has so touchingly alluded, were known to all of us. He had industry and sagacity, and an alert intelligence beyond that which is commonly allotted to mankind. Hehad a clear and calm judgment. To singleness of purpose and extraordinary lucidity of expression he united a directness of mind and a simplicityof character which made him loved by everybody. No man was ever less of a partisan. No man was everless moved by heat and clamour. He entered the South Australian Parliamentis a member of the House of Assembly in the year 1887, the year in which I ceased to be a member of that Parliament. But our acquaintanceship then began and it ripened into a friendship which I ever valued, and into a confidence which, in common with every one else who met him, I continually reposed in him. He inspired confidence, and he returned the confidence felt in him bv giving the best of his counsel and advice. After a career of public service in South Australia, which is regarded as one of the precious possessions of that State, the late Sir Frederick Holder in 1897 entered the National Federal Convention. Honorable senators who were members of that Convention, and some of whom are here to-day, will bear me out when I say that he rendered conspicuous service there, and to his efforts in several directions the success of the work of that Convention was largely due. I can never forget the strong and steadfast position which he assumed in 1899 in the cause of Democracy in maintaining our right to the unamended Constitution. It was a great fight, and for him it involved a great strain. But the call of duty to which the VicePresident of the Executive Council hasalluded was sufficient to stimulateand strengthen him in that arduous contest. In 1901 he entered the Federal Parliament and became the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is impossible to add to what has been already said of the universal admiration which all inside and outside of Parliament felt for the noble, the impartial, and the absolute high quality of the manner in which he discharged his duties. It will be a pattern to his successors, I verily believe, for many years to come. My honorable friend, the VicePresident of the Executive Council, also referred with great emphasis to Sir Frederick Holder’s devotion to duty. On that pointI should like to say that duty is a path that all may tread, and at all times Sir Frederick Holder trod that path with a firm and unfaltering step. His even footstep could be heard right up to the tragic moment when the lamp of his life went out - until God’s finger touched him and he slept. As for him “ after life’s fitful fever, he sleeps well ; “ as for us his life remains a great pattern and a great example. He died not full of years, but full of the esteem, and the honour of all men.

He grave his honors to the world again ;

His blessed part to heaven, and slept in peace.

He can have no better epitaph than that he sought the good of his fellow men, and loved to do his duty.

The PRESIDENT:

– I should like to say one or two words before putting the motion to the Senate. I wish to express my deep feeling of regret at the death of ourlatefriend, Sir Frederick Holder. During the last few vears I had the opportunity of coming into intimate association with him, and I knew his character to be such as has been depicted here to-day and elsewhere by other persons. He was of upright, fearless, conscientious character ; a man whom it was an honour to have as a member of the Federal Parliament of Australia. His work was not confined solely to his labours in the House of Representatives during the past eight years, hut extended throughout the Commonwealth, to every phase of life in which he took an interest. As a personal friend, I learned that he was a man not only to be esteemed and respected, but to be loved ; a man upon whose word one could at all times rely, and upon whose friendship on all occasions of difficulty one might confidently depend. That such aman should pass away from us under the sad circumstances of the late Sir Frederick Holder’s death is a great loss. Whether we speak as members of this Parliament, or as personal friends of the deceased gentleman, we may well exclaim -

Thou hast swum too soon the sea of death ; for us

Too soon.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honorable senators standing in their places.

The PRESIDENT:

– It will be the duty of the Clerk to prepare a communication for transmission to Lady Holder, embodying the resolution, and intimating the respect with which it was received and agreed to.

page 1635

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Free Trade

– Perhaps I shall be expressing the wishes of a large number of honorable senators if I suggest that the sitting of the Senate be suspended for a short period, say, till 4 o’clock.

The PRESIDENT:

– I take it that as a mark of esteem and respect to the late Sir Frederick Holder, the Senate desires to suspend its sitting, and I shall therefore leave the chair until 4 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 2.53 to 4 p.m.

page 1635

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether it is a fact, as stated in the newspapers to-day, that 470 pensioners in Queensland have been deprived of their pensions pending the passing of the Old-age Pensions Bill? If so, will the Government provide for the passing of a Bill for the payment of back pensions to those persons?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– I am not aware as to the exact number, but a number of pensioners in Queensland are in the position indicated bv the honorable senator. But the Old-age Pensions Act Amendment Bill, now with the other branch of the Legislature, is retrospective to that extent, and provides for the payment of the back pensions referred to.

page 1635

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– I am not in a position to give the honorable senator any more information than that which has appeared in the newspapers during the. last few days. If the honorable senator will give notice of a question, I shall be in a position to obtain information.

page 1635

QUESTION

DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What is the aggregate amount of expenditure for telegrams, telephones, and postages, since the inauguration of the Commonwealth, te 30th June, 1909, for the whole of the Federal Departments, debited to each separate State?
Of such expenditure, what is the amount credited as telegraph and postal revenue to each State?
What is the difference - gain or loss - State by State - between the two sets of figures?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

Great labour would be entailed by the Departments in preparing a return of the expenditure before 1903-4 as the expenditure was not kept separate before that time.
It would be impracticable to state the amounts credited for Telegraph revenue to the various States, as the cost of each telegram would have to be separately apportioned amongst the States through which the telegram was sent.
It is thought that the honorable senator will not, under the circumstances, press the question.

Senator PULSFORD:

– Arising out of the Minister’s answer,I desire to draw attention to the fact that the information in question was given a few years ago for the year then passed. It is only necessary to continue the figures for a later period. I suggest that there is really no difficulty in supplying the information.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator will, of course, understand that I have merely furnished him with an answer supplied to me by the Department. I have no personal knowledge of the working of the Department. If the honorable senator will so far oblige me as, later on, to give me a memorandum of the statement which he has just made, I will endeavour to obtain further information on the subject.

page 1636

QUESTION

PAPUA: COFFEE

Is it a fact that the value of the exports of coffee from British Papua to Australia has been as follows: - 1903-4,£500;1904-5,£120; 1905-6,£915;1906-7,£700;1907-8,£470?

Is it a fact that the area under coffee in

Queensland was as follows: - 1906-7, 256 acres; 1907-8, 304 acres?

Has the decreased production of coffee in

Papua and the increased cultivation of coffee in Queensland taken place since the passing of the bonus on Australian-grown coffee?

Is it not the policy of the Commonwealth to induce settlement and cultivation in Papua?
Have not British and Australian settlers been induced to embark in coffee cultivation in Papua ?
Will the Government consider the question of reducing or abolishing the duty (3d. per lb.) now imposed on Papuan-grown coffee in Australia ?

Yes, with exception of the year 1903-4, which should be£560.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

The question of reduction is now receiving consideration.

page 1636

QUESTION

EXCISE (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) ACT

page 1636

QUESTION

ADVERTISING AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
for Senator Findley

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

Whether the Senate will have an opportunity of discussing the terms, &c., of the contract proposed to be entered into by the Government with the proprietors of the London Daily Chronicle ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– This matter is under consideration, with other offers reSating to advertising. It would not be practicable to submit all such contracts for discussion.

page 1636

QUESTION

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, ADELAIDE

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

In view of the complaints which have been made as to the inadequacy of the ventilation and light in the new Telephone Exchange at Adelaide, will the Minister of Home Affairs obtain from the Medical Officer of Health of the City of Adelaide, or some other competent authority, a report in connexion with the matter ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

A report has already been furnished by the Health authorities and duly considered. A mechanical system of ventilation is being introduced as recommended by responsible departmental officers.

The lighting will be regulated to the requirements of the type switchboard adopted.

page 1636

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Report of Investigations into the question of shearing wet sheep.

Northern Territory - Copy of correspondence between the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments, dated 15th October,1906, to 16th July, 1909.

Public Service Act1902 - Amendment (Provisional) of Regulation 171. - Statutory Rules 1909, No. 89.

Federal Capital - Proposed Site at YassCanberra - Report by Chief Engineer for Harbors and Water Supply re flow of Cotter River, from 1st January to 7th July, 1909, as presented to the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales.

Extracts from report submitted to the Honorable the Minister for Defence by MajorGeneral J. C. Hoad, C.M.G., Inspector-General Military Forces of the Commonwealth, in connexion with tour of duty in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, 190S-9.

page 1636

PATENTS BILL

Motion (by Senator Sir Robert Best) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a Bil! for an Act to amend the Patents Act 1903.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 1636

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Second Reading

It is somewhat novel in these blatant days of outcries against capitalists and employers of labour, that an effort should be made by these very employers to shift their responsibilities and obligations on to a central authority. The nationalization of industries may be a good thing in theory from the socialistic point of view,’ but the willing manner in which men who have sunk their capital in the profitable production of sugar-cane are inclined to hand everything over to the Commonwealth Government shows that there are two sides to the question. In taking over a proposition of this magnitude there is the possible loss as well as the possible profit to be considered. The debit side of the balance-sheet is conveniently ignored by a certain unthinking section of the community. If the sugar-growers are not satisfied with the treatment received from the mill-owners and refineries, let them co-operate and erect mills and refineries for themselves. If they are sincere in the opinion that the State should control the manufacture and refining of sugar, then they should have shown their sincerity by proclaiming themselves Socialists, and “demanding the Government to take control of not only one industry, but all industries. Co-operation for a specific purpose is a doctrine preached by the energetic ; Socialism is preached by the “ failure “ and the sluggard. It is a pity that this fact was not recognised by the sugargrowers of Bundaberg yesterday.

Senator Stewart:

– Is that quotation from the Courier?

Senator TURLEY:

– The name of the newspaper is not stated, but it was either the Courier or the Daily Mail.

Senator Macfarlane:

– What is the date of the newspaper?

Senator TURLEY:

– This extract was published in May, 1909. That was the comment of a daily newspaper on the demand of these people that they should be relieved in some way from the extortions of the monopoly. The article in which the quotation appeared comments : -

This is a fair example of the arguments used against the growing desire of the primary producers for a “ State-owned or State-aided central refinery.” To mention the debit side of the

S. R. Company’s balance-sheet, almost creates a smile, and the average cane-grower in the light of published facts, has great difficulty in -realizing that it has a debit side at all. For instance, this is what the company have done for their shareholders during the six years 1903 to 1908 inclusive -

The total value of the company’s shares is now about four million pounds sterling more than their actual paid-up value, and the annual dividend this year reaches the stupendous sum of ^285,000, to say nothing of the undisclosed profits.

Later it says : -

One can almost imagine Mr. Rockefeller and his Standard Oil Trust with its profits of over ^12,000,000 annually, asking the American people a similar question such as “ If you don’t like our doings, why don’t you go into business yourselves?” and the answer would be the same in both cases. There is one important difference^ however, between the two situations, and that is that while many of the American Trusts and monopolies have not only got beyond the reach of private competition, but have almost beaten the Government itself, those of Australia, including the sugar monopoly, are still within reach of Government control, and the sooner the matter is taken in hand the better it will be, not only for cane-growers, but for the community generally. As for the parrot cry of “ Socialism,” it is simply a piece of inconsistent absurdity, because if a central refinery is to be condemned as socialistic, the Queensland Central mill system must be socialistic too, and condemned accordingly. Few, however, would dare to say that (with one or two badly-situated exceptions) these mills have been anything but a pronounced success. They give to the grower all there is in his business so far as raw sugar values are concerned, and the refinery would carry the matter to its logical conclusion by giving him all there is in his business, right up to refined sugar values. If this is “ Socialism “ then there is nothing in a name, and it would be at least interesting if those who are so ready to condemn, would explain how it could in any way repress the individual enterprise or energy of the cane-grower, seeing that on him, as on most people, the hope of a higher reward should certainly not have that effect, but be decidedly stimulating. It also displays either lamentable ignorance or libellous animosity, to use the terms “ failure “ and “ sluggard “ in connexion with Australia’s cane-growers, and if the glib critic who did so, had first taken the trouble to inquire into the standing of the delegates responsible for the passage of the resolution, he would have discovered that such expressions were entirely inapplicable to any of them, or to the people who sent them to the Bundaberg Conference.

Although the monopoly controls the whole of this work, and is able to say to all the other sugar growers in Australia, and practically to the other refiners, that they will be able, perhaps, to get rid of their sugar at its price, yet it seems to me that under this legislation the Government will not be able to intervene. I feel quite satisfied that so far as this Bill is concerned, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company will beat the Government nearly every time. I believe that it is acting in the interests of its shareholders. But the cane growers think that they are placed at a very great disadvantage. They have published some tables in which they set out the value of their cane so far as it can be ascertained, and the amount received for it from the company. For instance, when sugar is £19 a ton, the amount offered by the company for a ton of cane is 15s. 6d., and I might add that only tons of cane are required to make a ton of sugar. The actual value of the sugar contents of the ton of cane is ^3 os. od. if all is extracted, £2. 14s. 8d. if 90 per cent, is extracted, and £2 8s. 7d. if only 80 per cent, is extracted. The canegrower realizes that in spite of everything which has been done on his behalf by the Government, so far as the work is. concerned, the monopoly is able to step in and take for itself an enormous portion of the value he produces every year. He contends that if it is fair for this Parliament to have a voice in fixing the wages which he has to pay j it is also fair for the Government to say that the monopoly shall npt be allowed to take a very large portion of the value which he produces.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Are the cane-growers complaining that they do not get a fair deal ?

Senator TURLEY. They are complaining that they do not get a fair deal at all.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Are they doing very badly just now ?

Senator TURLEY:

– I do not know that they are doing badly. At any rate, whether they are doing badly or not, they do not see why there should be in existence a monopoly which is able to take from them a great deal of the value of that which they produce.

Senator Mulcahy:

– 1 hear that some of them take trips to Europe.

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Macfarlane:

– As much and a little more?

Senator TURLEY:

– It has not done so yet. I know cases where the company has been paying, with a bonus, up 10 17s. and 17s. 6d., when the men who supplied the central mills received with a bonus added over £1 a ton. The company buys that raw sugar afterwards. The Millaquin people do not take a great deal of that sugar ; they mostly get sugar which is made in their own district, at the back of Bundaberg, the Isis, and other districts. I do not think that from a business stand-point any one could find fault with the system of the Colonial Sugar Refining CompanyIt pays to good men very good wages for their services. But the business is organized in such a way that it knows exactly the requirements of every man who deals with them. It knows the quantity of sugar which he is able to handle, and it supplies him with that quantity and no more until he is able to prove that his business has grown and needs a larger supply. I do not think that the Bill or the method proposed by the Government will touch that sort of business. It seems to me that although we may render to the Government every assistance to make this legislation as strong as possible it will be ineffective. The Minister of Trade and Customs, in introducing the Bill, said that if, when passed, it were found to be ineffective, the case of those who advocate the nationalization of industries would be far stronger than it is now. But, during the time all this experience is being gained, we shall be doing nothing to relieve those who are, at present, suffering from the effects of monopolies such as I have outlined. I have no wish to labour the question. I point out that, so far as I can see, perhaps the biggest monopoly so far in existence in Australia, which is able to control one branch of industry so effectively that no one dealing in the same commodity has a show, will not bc touched by this legislation. We on this side will do all we can to make this legislation effective, but I am afraid that the Government will not be prepared to go far enough to render any practical service to those who are suffering from the monopoly to which I have referred, and from other monopolies at present existing in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read ti second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -

After section seven of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - “ 7a. - (.1) Any person who, in relation to trade or commerce with other countries or among the States, either as principal or agent, in respect of dealings in any goods or services, which are the subject of competition, gives offers or promises to any other person any rebate, refund, discount, concession or reward, for the reason, or upon the condition express or implied, that the latter person -

deals, or has dealt, or will deal,or intends to deal, exclusively with any person, either in relation to any particular goods or services or generally ; or

deals, or has dealt, or will deal, or intends to deal, exclusively with members of a Commercial Trust, either in relation to any particular goods or services or generally; or

does not deal, or has not dealt, or will not deal, or does not intend to deal, with certain persons, either in relation to any particular goods or services or generally ; or

is or becomes a member of a Commercial Trust, is guilty of an offence.

Penalty : Five hundred pounds. (2.) Every contract made or entered into in contravention of this section shall be absolutely illegal and void.”

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– So far as monopolies are concerned, and that is the phase of the subject to which Senator Turley particularly referred, they are dealt with under section 7 of the principal Act, which provides -

Any person who monopolizes or attempts tomonopolize, or combines, or conspires with any other person to monopolize, any part of the trade or commerce with other countries or amongst the States, with intent to control, to the detriment of the public, the supply or price of any service, merchandise, or commodity, is guilty of an offence.

Penalty : Five hundred pounds.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– It seems to me that these words, if they have any meaning at all, must limit the scope of the proposed section. That can be clearly seen if it is read without them -

Any person who, in relation to trade or commerce with other countries or amongst the

States, either as principal or agent,….. gives, offers, or promises to any other person any rebate, refund, discount, concession, or reward - and so on. Surely that would include all trade and commerce we desire to protect under this clause. I shall give the Minister one case where it seems to me the use of these words would impose a limitation. Between Port Darwin, in the Northern Territory, and Wyndham, in Western Australia, there is only one vessel trading, a boat called the Woy Hoy. In the circumstances it could not be said that the trade was the subject of competition.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Are there not two distinct matters to be dealt with - one the repression of monopolies, and the other the repression of injurious competition?

Senator CLEMONS:

– The title of the principal Act is - “ A Bill for an Act for the Preservation of Australian Industries and for the Repression of Destructive Monopolies.” If we are going to amend that Act, for the purpose of repressing monopolies, we must take care that we do not allow any monopoly - destructive or otherwise - to escape from the operation of the law. But that is exactly the result which will be brought about if this proposed new section be passed in its present form. .If the Minister of Trade and Customs does not move for the omission of the objectionable words to which I have referred, I shall certainly do so.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [4.54]. - Since Senator Pearce mentioned this matter, I have had an opportunity of discussing with the draftsman the meaning which he meant to attach to the words of which complaint has been made. I understand that his main object was that which I have already suggested. The words refer to goods which are recognised as the subject of competition - goods in connexion with which rebates are chiefly -granted. The draftsman used them for the purpose of more clearly identifying the provision with trade and commerce. From what I learn, it appears that they are capable of a wider meaning than was at first anticipated, and after consultation with him, I think that the provision will be made more comprehensive and effective by their omission. It is probable, as my honorable friends have pointed out, that where a monopoly exists the objection would be taken that the industry was not subjected to competition, and thus the very cases which we desire to assail we might be precluded from touching, if we retained these words. Upon further consideration, I think that the clause will be rather strengthened than otherwise by their omission. I move -

That the words “which are the subject of competition “ be left out.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I did not think that Senator Gray was in any doubt as to what my principles are. They are well defined and well known. It occurs to me that Senator Symon’s remarks indicate that some light on this subject is beginning to dawn, even upon him, and that he is coming to believe that ours is the proper cure for these evils. I am satisfied that this kind of legislation will prove to be of very little service, and this Bill will be worse than, useless if the words to which reference has been made are retained.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [5.34]- - I understand the position taken up by my honorable friends opposite, and I have no right to complain of it. Our contention is that there are certain trusts and monopolies which are regarded a? a menace to the community. They constitute evils and sores on the body politic, that we should endeavour to remedy. The design and object of this legislation is to deal with the system which has to so great an extent created these evils. Unless, following upon well-defined lines, we can by legislation of this kind control trusts and monopolies, we can understand the contention of our honorable friends on the other side, that nationalization is the only remedy for the evils complained of. I ask honorable senators to say whether they are prepared to admit that they are unable to control monopolies that are evil. I do not contend that all monopolies are evil. According to the terms qf the Bill, we propose to deal only with those whose operations are detrimental to the public. I appeal to my honorable friends to say whether they recognise an evil and , will make no effort in the interests of the public to control it. It must be borne in mind that we are not here proposing to introduce any new principle. The principle is already embodied in the original Act. In that Act we have legislated against any person entering into a contract in relation to trade or commerce, with the intention to destroy or injure, by means of unfair competition, any Australian industry ; and we have provided that the competition shall be deemed to be unfair unless the contrary is proved -

If the defendant with respect to any goods or services which are the subject of the competition gives offers or promises to any person any rebate refund discount or reward upon condition that that person deals, or in consideration of that person having dealt, with the defendant to the exclusion of other persons dealing in similar goods or services.

It was found that prosecution was too much encumbered by our present legislation, and it is desirable that we should simplify our procedure in order to carry out the object of the principal Act. In this Bill, we have gone no further. We simply say that, instead of having to prove all the various things I have already mentioned, the mere fact of giving a rebate upon the condition of exclusive dealing - (because that is the foundation of the whole thing - shall constitute an offence. Senator Guthrie delivered a most vehement speech denouncing myself and honorable senators for seek ing to deal with a recognised monopoly, so far as our coastal trade is- concerned. Honorable senators know the method bv which the Shipping Conference controls the coastal trade.

Senator Guthrie:

– And they know the family lawyer, with whom a family exclusively deals. *

Senator Chataway:

– He is a very useful person.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– First of all. I have told my honorable friend that the Bill deals with goods and services. I cannot conceive of any banking case - and certainly no such case was mentioned bv “Senator Macfarlane - which would come within the terms of this Bill ; but, if tankers are guilty of the offences mentioned here, and which constitute a recognised evil, they must desist, as well as everybody else. But in the ordinary course of dealing I am not aware of any transactions of theirs which, would come within this provision. I would further urge that this proposed section has been introduced in pursuance of the terms of the principal Act and on the recommendation of that group of the Navigation Commission which included Senator Guthrie, and which, after pointing out the arbitrary conduct of monopolies, and particularly of the shipping monopoly, said -

As your Commissioners consider that the rebate system is open to grave abuses, and calculated to seriously prejudice the commercial and industrial interests of the Commonwealth, they recommend the introduction of legislation at an early date, making it illegal for the owner, master, or agent of any vessel to give rebates or other advantages to any shipper or consignee of goods, if the condition of such rebates or advantages is that there shall be exclusive shipment by a certain vessel or vessels.

Senator Guthrie:

– The Minister of Trade and Customs should also read that portion of our report in which we recommend that the coastal trade should be given to Australian ships.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I do not know that that portion of the report has any bearing upon this provision. In discussing the question of rebates the section of the Commission to which I have already referred says -

Upon the point that the limitation of the coastal trade to vessels complying with Australian conditions would result in a monopoly, a considerable amount of evidence was received. lt was freely stated that a combine does already exist, by which the rates for passengers and cargo carried by the companies in the Steam-ship Owners’ Federation are regulated. Its extent may be gauged from the fact that out of about 188,000 tons engaged in Inter-State traffic, less than 10,000 are outside the ring. It would appear that the combine has been in operation for a long time, and complaints of a very strong and emphatic character were received as to its methods.

-But they are the producers. They have got rid of the middle-man, and deal directly with the consumer. I hope that the same principle will, in time, be applied all round. The middleman should be wiped out. He is one of those costly agents in modern production that our trust’s have shown us how to dispense with. I desire to inquire whether, if a co-operative timber company enters into a contract to supply the whole of its timber to one firm, it will run counter to this Bill?

Senator Chataway:

– Not if it entered into such an agreement without the condition that the buyers should not be allowed to deal with any one else.

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I should like to have some further explanation of the meaning of the word “ services,” as used in this Bill. In its ordinary signification, the word covers a great deal, and I should like tq, know exactly what it will include as used in this Bill. I am afraid that if strictly administered, this law, as Senator Stewart has observed, would involve very serious consequences. The honorable senator probably knows that I am not by any means a supporter of the measure.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– The word “goods” and the word “services” are both intended to have the very widest meaning as used in this Bill.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

Senator STEWART:

– Exactly. Would the Bill apply in such a case?

Amendment agreed to.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I am not anxious to throw cold water on the efforts of the Government, but I wish to ask them to accept one or two amendments. I wish to have the words “ or receives from “ inserted after the word “ to “ in line 8, and the word “ unfair “ after the word “ any “ in line 8, so that this portion of the proposed new section would readgives, offers, or promises to or receives from any other person any unfair rebate, refund - and so on. As the word “ unfair “ may have adifferent signification to some people to that which it has to those who desire to have the amendment made, I may say that I propose, at the end of the provision, the insertion of an explanation of what the word shall mean in this Bill. I intend to move the insertion at the end of the proposed section of the words - “ Unfair “ in this section means unfair in the circumstances and to the detriment of the general public.

Surely it will be admitted that there are cases in which the payment of rebates would not be detrimental to the general public, and would not, therefore, be unfair. This Bill is regarded in the commercial world as a very contentious one, and the amendments I suggest are submitted on behalf of persons interested in commerce. I agree with other honorable senators that the word “services” has such a very wide signification that it is doubtful whether there is any business at all that would not be more or less affected by this Bill, even though it might not constitute a monopoly. Honorable senators are aware that persons who buy goods in large quantities obtain an advantage over those who purchase only a small quantity. A steamer might be put on to a certain trade route, under a promise of support for a certain time. Some one, seeing that the steamer was paying well, might wish to start an opposition steamer, and those who began the service might feel justified, in order to retain their business, in demanding a promise of support from those who had induced them to start the service. If, in order to do so, they quoted a special rate of freight, that might be regarded as involving the payment of a rebate. I move -

That after the word “to,” line 8, the words “ or receives from “ be inserted.

– The amendment which Senator Walker lias submitted is one which I thought- the Minister of Trade and Customs would have straightway accepted. The Bill in its present form declares that the granting of rebates shall be a criminal offence, and Senator Walker’s proposal would make the acceptance of such rebates a similar offence. The question of unfair rebates will have to be dealt with subsequently. In my opinion, the words “ or receives from “ cannot be inserted in this provision. Perhaps the Minister will agree to the suggestion of Senator Walker, and embody his idea in a. new clause.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [8.8]. - In reply to Senator Pulsford, I wish to say that I endeavoured to deal with Senator Walker’s amendment as a whole. It is obvious that the words “or receives from” cannot be inserted here,, because they would be inconsistent with the terms of the provision itself. They will require to be embodied in a new clause. I should like fo see such a clause circulated before subscribing to the honorable senator’s proposal, because, in my judgment, it is capable of some abuse. We are endeavouring to repress monopolies, and it would be very inconsistent if we struck at some poor hardup trader in the grip of a monopolist, who was practically forced to accept a rebate. We wish to strike at the monopolist, and not at his victim.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– If the Minister is willing to embody my idea in a new clause, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Walker) proposed -

That before the word “ rebate,” line 8, the word “unfair” be inserted.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

– I should like to support this Bill for many reasons. In the first place, I realize the terrible injury which may be inflicted upon the public if some steps are not taken to control large monopolies. But there is an equally dangerous aspect of this Bill, which makes me doubtful whether I ought to support it. There appears to be no intermediary between the Minister, who will put trie law in motion, and the delinquent. Surely there ought to be some such intermediary as the Inter- State Commission, otherwise an appeal should be allowed to the High Court. In the absence of such a provision we shall be absolutely at the caprice of the Minister in office for the time being.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I would point out that the word “ unfair,” which Senator Walker desires to insert before the word “ rebates,” is already in the Bill. The marginal note to this proposed section reads:- “Unfair concessions by persons.” That is all that my honorable friend asks should be recognised. He merely desires to make it illegal for unfair concessions to be granted. Does the Minister of Trade and Customs recognise what is stated in the marginal reference?

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– When the provision is read as a whole, certainly.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I think that there is justification for inserting the word “ unfair,” not only in the marginal note, but in the provision itself, and, therefore, I cordially support the proposal of Senator Walker. I wish now to direct attention to one or two other matters. I hold in my hand a copy of the New South Wales Railway Guide, ;..and I find that the railway authorities o:f that State are in the habit of granting a concession which they term a rebate. This rebate is given to traders in regard to the. tickets or passes purchased for their commercial travellers.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– But the Railways Commissioners will give the concessions to anybody.

Senator PULSFORD:

– If the freight of a firm amounts to ^1,000 per annum, the rebate will be 5 per cent, on one or two tickets. The concessions go up by ^1,000 of freight at a time, until when the freight payable per annum reaches£19,000, the rebate is 95 per cent.

Senator Millen:

– But there is no condition that the trader shall trade only with the railways.

Senator PULSFORD:

– The big man, however, gets a large concession, while the small man gets practically nothing. If by Federal legislation we are to declare that the whole system of rebates is inherently wrong, we then and there strike a blow at the legislation of the States. Further than that, the States Governments differentiate in the matterof traffic rates on goods. They give the man who sends large consignments a reduction or rebate as compared with the charges made to the sender of smaller quantities. In Victoria, the concession is called not a rebate, but a reduction; but the reduction operates just in the same way as in New South Wales. I suggest that it is desirable that we should look ahead, and ask ourselves where we are going. I also bring under the notice of the Committee a famous case in regard to rebates on freight which was dealt with some years ago in England. In the year 1888, the case of the Mogul Steamship Company Limited v. McGregor, Gow, and Company, and Others, was tried. The defendants consisted of ten other companies, including the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.The defendants had, by agreement, made arrangements whereby they undertook to give to all shippers by their vessels a rebate at the end of the season of 5 per cent. The Mogul Steamship Company, who were not in the agreement, desired to enter into the trade, and brought an action against the combination of companies. The case was first tried by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge. Afterwards, it went to the Court of Appeal, and finally to the House of Lords. In the first trial, it was held that - the association being formed by the defendants with the view of keeping the trade in their own hands, and not with the intention of ruining the trade of the plaintiffs or through any personal malice or ill-will towards them, was not unlawful, and that no action for a conspiracy was maintainable.

Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, in the course of his judgment, said -

One word in passing only on the contention that this combination of the defendants was unlawful, because it was in restraint of trade. It seems to me that it was no more in restraint of trade, as that phrase is used, for the purpose of avoiding contracts, than if two tailors in a village agreed to give their customers 5 per cent. off their bills at Christmas on condition of their customers dealing with them and with them only. Restraint of trade, with deference, has, in its legal sense, nothing to do with this question. But it is said that the motive of these acts was to ruin the plaintiffs, and that such a motive, it has been held, will render the combination itself wrongful and malicious, and that if damage has resulted to the plaintiffs an action will lie. I conclude that if the premises are established the conclusion follows. It is too late to dispute, if I desired it, as I do not, that a wrongful and malicious combination to ruin a man in his trade may be ground for such an action as this. Was then this combination such? The answer to this question has given me much trouble, and I confess to the weakness of having long doubted and hesitated before I could make up my mind. There can be no doubt that the defendants were determined, if they could, to exclude the plaintiffs from this trade. Strong expressions were drawn from some of them in cross-examination, and the telegrams and letters showed the importance they attached to the matter, their resolute purpose to exclude the plaintiffs if they could, and to do so without any consideration for the results to the plaintiffs, if they were successfully excluded. This, I think, is made out, and I think no more is made out than this. Is this enough? It must be remembered that all trade is, and must be in a sense, selfish ; trade not being infinite, the trade of a particular place or district being possibly very limited, what one man gains another loses. In the hand to hand war of commerce, as in the conflicts of public life, whether at the Bar, in Parliament, in medicine, in engineering (I give examples only) men fight on without very much thought of others, except a desire to excel or to defeat them. Very lofty minds, like Sir Phillip Sidney, with his cup of water; will not stoop to take an advantage, if they think another wants it more. Our age, in spite of high authority to the contrary, is not without its Sir Phillip Sidneys; but these are counsels of perfection which it would be silly indeed to make the measure of the rough business of the world as pursued by ordinary men of business. The line is in words difficult to draw; but I cannot see that these defendants have in fact passed the line which separates the reasonable and the legitimate selfishness of traders from wrong and malice. In 1884 they admitted the plaintiffs to their conference; in 1885 they excluded them, and they were determined no doubt, if they could, to make the exclusion complete and effective, not from any personal malice or ill-will to the plaintiffs as individuals,’ but because they were determined, if they could, to keep the trade to themselves: and if they permitted persons in the position of the plaintiffs to come in and share it they thought, and honestly and, as it turns out, correctly thought, that for a time at least there would be an end of their gains. The plaintiffs’ conduct cannot affect their right of action if they have it; but it is impossible not to observe that they were as reckless of consequences in regard to the defendants as they accuse the defendants of being in regard to themselves; they were as determined to break in as the defendants were determined to shut out ; and they made their threats of smashing freights and injuring the defendants a mode of rather forcible suasion to the defendants to let them into the conference. If they have their right of action, why they have it ; if they have it not, their own conduct disentitles them to much sympathy. On the whole I come to the conclusion that the’ combination was not wrongful and malicious, and that the defendants were not guilty of a misdemeanour. I think that the acts done in pursuance of the combination, were not unlawful, not wrongful, not malicious; and that therefore the defendants are entitled to my judgment.

Judgment for defendants.

The defendants were not content. They brought the matter before the Court of Appeal. Of the Court of three Judges, Lord Esher, Master of the Rolls, was for granting the appeal. Lord Justice Bowen and Lord Justice Fry were against that course, and the appeal was consequently dismissed. I need not quote from their lordships’ judgments.

Senator Turley:

– What anti-trust legislation was in operation in England then?

Senator PULSFORD:

– Let me deal with one matter at a time. If the honorable senator will “ mark, learn, and inwardly digest “ what I am about to quote, it will do him good. The case was taken to the House of Lords. Judgment was not given until 1891, when quite a number of noble lords spoke to the matter, and one and all confirmed the judgment originally given by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge. I will make one or two brief extracts. Lord Halsbury said -

Now, after most careful study of the evidence in this case, I have been unable to discover anything done by the members of the associated body of traders other than an offer of reduced freights to persons who would deal exclusively with them ; and if this is unlawful it seems to me that the greater part of commercial dealings, where there is rivalry in trade, must be equally unlawful.

In concluding his judgment, he said -

I am of opinion, therefore, that the whole matter comes round to the original proposition, whether a combination to trade, and to offer, in respect of prices, discounts, and other trade facilities, such terms as will win so large an amount of custom as to render it unprofitable for rival customers to pursue the same trade is unlawful, and I am clearly of opinion that it is not.

Lord Watson, in concluding his remarks on the case, said -

My Lords, in this case it has not been proved, and it has not been suggested, that the respondents used either misrepresentation or compulsion for the purpose of attaining the object of their combination. The only means by which they endeavoured to obtain shipments for their vessels to the exclusion of others, was the inducement of cheaper rates of freight than the appellants were willing to accept. I entertain no doubt that the judgment appealed from ought to be affirmed. I am quite satisfied with the reasons assigned for it by Bowen and Fry,

L.JJ., and the observations which I have made were not meant to add to these reasons, but to make it clear that in my opinion the appellants have presented for decision no question of fact or law attended with either doubt or difficulty.

Lord Bramwell, another eminent Judge, confirmed the same view, as did also Lord Morris and Lord Field; the latter Judge concluding with the words -

I think the Appeal fails, and ought to be dismissed.

Lord Hannen, the last of the Law Lords to speak, ended with the words -

It appears to me that, in the present case, there is nothing indicating an . intention to injure the plaintiffs, except in so far as such injury would be the result of the defendants obtaining for themselves the benefits of the carrying trade, by giving better terms to . customers than their rivals, the plaintiffs, were willing to offer. For these reasons, I think that the judgment of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed.

Order of Lord Coleridge, C.J., and order of the Court of Appeal, affirmed, and appeal dismissed with costs.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I propose to make some quotations from the evidence given before the Navigation Commission on the question of rebates. It is very hard indeed, to say when they are fair or unfair. Personally, I cannot see how they can be justified. Where there is fair dealing there is no necessity for them, and if they constitute unfair dealing the whole trade in which the system is adopted must be condemned. I do not know whether honorable senators opposite are prepared to go that far. There is certainly a very unfair system of rebates in force in the coastal trade of Western Australia. I can assure honorable senators that one witness who suffered from the operation of the system, was a man in a large way of business as a merchant and in a smaller way of business as a ship-owner. I refer to Mr. Bateman, a very large merchant and ship-owner of Fremantle. He is a member of a family who have been in business in Western Australia for nearly two generations, and yet by the operation of the system of rebates, he was actually driven out of the shipping trade. I could have understood such a thing in the case of a mushroom firm, or one that had only recently been established in business. Mr. Bateman was asked when before the Navigation Commission -

It has been suggested that the system of deferred rebates is of benefit to the merchant, because he gets regular freights right through, owing to the shipping companies having certain business ?

He replied -

I think it is a very questionable benefit. I think it reacts on the consumer in the end. The consumer would have to pay more for the stuff. As a merchant myself, I say there is no benefit.

He went on .to explain how the system affected him as a ship-owner. He was asked-

Will you give an instance of the unfair working of the system? and he replied -

Yes. It affected me in two cases. At the latter end of 1903 I -had a vessel loading at Singapore. In the following month a circular was issued by certain companies interested in the trade between Singapore and Australia and New Zealand, to the effect that in the future if their shippers sent cargo to Australia except to Western Australia by any boats other than their boats, or to Western Australia except by the boats of the Western Australian Steam Navigation Company and the Ocean Steam-ship Company, they would be deprived of their rebates on shipments to all ports of Australia; and the rebate was the heavy rebate of 20 per cent. If my vessel went to Singapore again for cargo the people who are in the habit of shipping to Western Australia and buying from the merchants of Western Australia and the Eastern States, would absolutely refuse to execute orders for shipment by my boat. They would otherwise jeopardize not only the rebates on cargo to Western Australia, but their rebates on cargo to the Eastern States as well. As this would mean a very big thing to them, it would be beyond possibility for me to get cargo from outside people for my vessel. It would even stand in the way of my getting - even getting - a man to buy cargo for my own ship; because if he bought cargo which was shipped in my ship it would be a contravention of the rebate arrangement. As merchant and shipper, I would be under a disability in trading to Singapore.

That evidence from a man of the standing of Mr. Bateman proves that the rebate system operates in such a comprehensive way that it is impossible to provide any satisfactory method to put an end to it. The more I examine legislation of this kind the more satisfied I am that whatever our proposals may be we shall be unable to abolish the rebate system. It is a natural evolution of the capitalistic system, and those whose capital is invested “in enterprises of this kind will bring the system into force in every way they can. In fact, there is no other course open to them. The danger to capitalists of unbridled competition is so great as to justify me in saying that the rebate system, whether fair or unfair, will continue, and, therefore, all such legislation must be doomed to’ failure. That, I think, must be admitted, even by honorable senators opposite who are adherents of an obsolete fiscal system.

Senator Gray:

– - Is that the system which Senator Pearce advocates?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I know that Senator Pearce has as little confidence in Free Trade as in Protection as a remedy for this evil. The adoption of no particular fiscal system will put an end to it. It can be put an end to only in one way, and I am satisfied that Senator Gray would rather do anything than adopt that way.

Senator Walker:

– Does the honorable senator say that all rebates are wrong?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Yes, there can be no manner of doubt about that. I have made up my mind that this Bill is only so much waste paper, and that we are merely playing at legislation in passing a measure which is doomed to failure. At the same time, I am prepared to assist the Government to put such legislation on the statutebook in order that it may be proved, if further proof is necessary, that this kind of legislation must prove worthless to attain the end for which it is passed.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– Honorable senators will notice in the marginal note to this proposed new sec tion a reference to “ unfair “ concessions. It will, therefore, be admitted that the provision is directed only to unfair rebates, and I am, therefore, at a loss to understand why the Minister should object to the insertion of the word “ unfair “ as I propose.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– Does not my honorable friend see that the rebate system, plus the condition of exclusive dealing, must be unfair in any case?

Senator WALKER:

– Does the honorable senator object to the word rebate?

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– No; I object to the insertion of the word “ unfair.”

Senator WALKER:

– In sub-section 2 of section 6 of the principal Act, there is a description of what is deemed to be unfair competition. The sub-section provides -

In determining whether the competition is unfair regard shall be had to the management, the processes, the plant, and the machinery employed or adopted.

And so on. As the word is not excluded from the principal Act, I must press my amendment to a division.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

– I shall vote with Senator Walker, because I regard this provision as an exceedingly dangerous one in the absence of any intermediary between the Minister, who will put the law in motion, and the delinquent.

Senator TURLEY (Queensland) fq.2]. - Senator Walker’s definition of “ unfair “ has completely altered the whole complexion of his amendment. He says that “ unfair “ means “ unfair in the circumstances.” In what circumstances? Competition may not be unfair to the public, notwithstanding that it may be grossly unfair as between different traders. I do not know whether Senator Walker would regard as unfair competition the system of accepting rebates which was recognised by certain merchants’ in Queensland. Evidence concerning that system will be found on page 1193 of the proceedings of the Navigation Commission, which are set out in Vol. 3 of the Parliamentary Papers of 1906. Mr. Hockley, of Maryborough, was asked -

Do you as a shipper get a rebate allowed you on all shipments? - They arrange for a rebate.

Is that with whomsoever may be acting for you? - Yes, with the merchants.

Could you state what the amount of the rebate is? - Ten per cent., I believe.

Have you any knowledge of some goods being brought here on a vessel outside that combine which were sold by auction ? - Yes ; the goods comprised a variety, including cement, pig-iron, and such like.

Did you purchase any of those goods at any time? - Yes, I believe we did.

Did the shipping companies take any exception to your purchasing it, owing to the boat by which it was imported being outside the combine ? - Yes.

Did you lose your rebate on account of your doing that? - Yes.

What did the rebate amount to? - I could not say from memory; the rebate is only paid after twelve months - that is, a rebate earned this month would not be paid until this time twelve months.

It might have been anywhere from six months to nine months’ rebate that you lost? - Yes.

Did you get any information about it, or did they send any one’ to you respecting the matter ? - Yes, they simply sent us a notification, which was given to us by their agents verbally.

Was he a local agent, and what was his name? - He was the local agent of the company ; I could not give his name.

I suppose you consider action of that kind rather interfering with your individual liberty as a commercial man ? - I do.

By Mr. Chanter. - Being satisfied about the existence of combines, in shipping, can you make any suggestions to the best method of breaking down these rings - for instance, if the Commonwealth were to make the giving of rebates il legal, would that have any effect? - Yes; I believe it would have a good effect.

Upon page 1195 we find recorded the evidence of a sawmill owner in the same town - I refer to Mr. Hyne. It was his vessel which brought certain timber back from Sydney to Maryborough - the ship’s original starting place - where it was sold by public auction. What do we find? That because certain merchants in Maryborough purchased that timber in open competition - not because they had any connexion with shipping goods by another steamer - they had to forfeit the rebate which had been accruing to them for some time. Mr. Hyne was examined as follows -

By the Chairman. - Is it a fact that you have brought cargo back in the boats which took your timber to Sydney? - Yes. The back loading consisted of bar iron, barbed wire, cement, bran, pollard, flour, and goods of that description.

Did you bring these goods back for your own use or for sale? - Some of them were for sale, bought in Sydney for the purpose, and others were for merchants in the town of Maryborough.

Did you personally have some of those goods sold by auction or publicly? - Yes; in October, 1903, we sold 250 casks of cement.

Can you say, of your own knowledge, whether any of the people trading with the shipping companiesyou mentioned, bought any of those goods at auction? - Yes, they did.

And with what result? - They lost their rebates from the shipping companies; they were verbally told that their rebates would be cancelled.

Do you know for certain that they absolutely lost their rebates because of that? - I could not say definitely whether it was on account of that particular transaction; but on subsequent transactions I am absolutely certain they did.

In the transaction referred to, they were told they ran a risk if they did it again? - Yes.

Could you give the Commission the names of any persons who were notified to that effect? - Messrs. Hockley and Company, Messrs, Horsburg and Company, and Graham, and Gataker, in this particular instance.

You cannot say whether they actually did lose their rebates? - No.

Did you bring back cargo in your vessel from Sydney later than that in1897? - Yes; we were bringing it back every month.

Could you give a definite instance where any person or company actually lost the rebate because of shipping cargo by you ? - Yes ; in the case of Walkers (Limited), Horsburg and Company, Hockley and Company, and Oclvicks and Martin.

By Mr. Chanter. - Did you find great difficulty in getting back loading for your vessel in consequence of those rebates? - Yes.

If such rebates were made illegal would it advance the interests of your industry by giving you a greater opportunity for trade? - Yes.

Mr. Henry James Hope was examined, as will be seen by reference to page 1197, as follows : -

By the Chairman. - There are other mills here in. Maryborough besides your saw-mill, are there not?- Yes.

How do those other mills ship their timber? - One has a boat of its own, but the export they do is very little. I am practically the only one in this place who has taken up the exporting of timber seriously.

Those mills have no timber to offer you? - We would take it for them if they had.

But up to the present they have not desired to send any by you, nor have they shipped any by the combine? - I could not say whether they had shipped any by the combine. I am disposed to think that they have. I may also mention that I quoted for the delivery of some cedar logs in Sydney, to be delivered by my own vessel. I wrote to a firm in Cairns, from whom I previously bought similar logs, but they wrote back stating they could not supply me, otherwise they would lose their rebate. The letter I received was as follows : -

Cairns, 30th September, 1905.

Messrs. Hyne and Sons, Maryborough.

Dear Sirs,

We are in receipt of yours of 22nd instant, and now beg to confirm our wire advising that we had asked Mr. James Lyons to quote you for silky oak logs, which we understand he has done. We may state that we are unable to quote for shipment by any other than the asso; ciated company’s steamers, otherwise we should lose our accrued bonuses with those companies.

Burns, Philp, and Co.

On another occasion, our agent in Bowen wanted to sell some coal. He saw Burns, Philp, about it. He wrote down to us the following : -

Bowen, 20th November, 1905.

Dear Sirs, -

Yours of 17th inst. to hand. I have spoken to the manager of Burns, Philp, and Company, and he tells me he cannot be supplied by your vessel; however, I will get rid of whatever you can send in your baskets, and I will see the manager of the Meat Works for next season’s requirements if possible.

So that I was not allowed to sell coal in Bowen nor buy cedar in Cairns, or ship for or sell any cargo to people in Maryborough.

Mr. Harrington, the manager for Walkers (Limited), on page 1201, was examined as follows : -

By the Chairman. - Do you import anything to Maryborough from any of the States outside Queensland? - We import from Sydney and Melbourne chiefly.

By what shipping do you carry the goods which you import from those places? - The coastal steam-ship companies we have to do with here- the A. U.S.N. Company, Howard, Smith and Company (Ltd.), and the Adelaide Steam-ship Company.

Practically all your imports must come by those boats? - Yes, by either of those three lines.

Are there any other steamers trading to Maryborough besides those? - The boats owned by the saw-mills carry timber and coal. Two of them were running to Sydney for some little time. One is known as the steamer Hopewell, and the other the schooner Mayflower.

There are other boats which trade here? - Yes.

Is there any system of rebates adopted by those companies you have mentioned? - Yes. In 1897 they issued a circular saying they would allow a rebate of 5 per cent, payable after the expiration of six months. I have now in my hand the original circular. That rebate was to be given on all goods shipped by us, provided we confined our entire shipping business to them.

The date of the circular is 13th August, 1897.

On page 1202 the same witness points out how this practice hampers the possibility of his firm manufacturing boilers, machinery, &c, for the mining and sugar refining industries which are carried on in Queensland. He was examined as follows -

Do you think that condition of things tends to hamper trade in your particular business? - Unquestionably ; we have been hampered, and have lost a volume of business through it. I told Mr. Newman and their agents over and over again that they were simply attempting to close our gates; that as soon as I received their circular in 1897 I was quite sure of it. I tendered for three steam boilers to be delivered at Port Mackay, which might be 300 or 400 miles from here; the rates were given at £60 each boiler, that is j£i8o for the three. They would possibly weigh 12 tons each. I told them that on such rates the business would certainly pass us. that I was sure of it, and it did. lt went to Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox, of Glasgow, who make patent water-tube boilers, which they ship in segments, and the freight on them becomes less on account of their being so handy for transport. There is one piece which would weigh about 5 tons, the remaining segments probably 1 ton each or less. Those would be delivered from Glasgow to Mackay at about half the freight we quoted from Maryborough to Mackay. I. could repeat similar instances. Our firm have lost volumes of business on the coast, and the companies themselves have lost the carriage of it. These goods now coming from England or America as it may be, have come in other bottoms oversea.

- Mr. Harrington’s evidence before the Commission was given on oath. Some honorable senators may say that there was fair dealing on the part of the shipping companies. I say that it. was not fair at all. It is quite true, as Senator Pulsford pointed out, that the Railways Commissioners grant concessions, but at the same time any person who does business with the railways to the same extent is entitled to the same concessions. The railways do not say, “Any goods which you send between any two points must be carried by us.” Any person is allowed to take advantage of the best means of transit available to him. If the word “ unfair “ is to be inserted, the Bill might as well be dropped. At the same time, I do not think that this measure wilt be effective. I honestly believe that the companies are strong enough to beat this, sort of legislation in the Courts. Whether there is a question of fairness or unfairness or not, in every instance the companies have been financially strong enough to command the best legal talent and have fought from one Court to another until they won. I do not think that combines are going to be controlled in this way. Still we shall not oppose any legislation which the Government bring forward with this object in view. The peculiar position now is, that we find a Government bringing down a measure of this character, and their own supporters moving amendments having the effect of emasculating the Bill. Honorable senators on the Opposition side of the chamber are not prepared to support amendments having the effect of weakening the Bill and creating loopholes for monopolies already existing to carry on their practices, and defy the intention of Parliament.

Question - That the word “unfair”proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 20

Majority14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Proposed new section, 7a, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new section 713 consequentially amended, and agreed to.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I move -

That the following new section be inserted : - “7c. -1. Any person who, as principal or agent, in relation to trade or commerce with other countries or among the States, enters into a contract with any employé with the intent to restrain the freedom of contract of the employé either as a principal agent or servant in relation to any such trade or commerce after he has left his service, is guilty of an offence. Penalty : Five hundred pounds. “2. Every contract made or entered into in contravention of this section shall be absolutely illegal and void.”

The justification for moving this amendment is contained in the clause of an agreement, which I read some time ago, relating to the Vacuum Oil Company. I am given to understand that a similar form of agreement is quite common. Let me first of all deal with the legal aspect of the matter. The point, of course, will be taken that such an agreement cannot be made illegal by Commonwealth legislation if it applies only to State disputes, such as the bakers’ dispute in Victoria. In various cases in America, especially in the case of N. C. Brooks v. Southern Pacific Company, it has been held that -

Congress may prescribe, as between an InterState carrier and such of its employés as are engaged in Inter-State commerce, that the carrier shall be liable for the death or injury of any such employé while so engaged which may result from the negligence of a fellow servant.

On the other hand, it has also been held that in the case of a person being injured, or of trouble arising inside a State, the State is solely responsible, and the State legislation must prevail. I am not attempting to provide a remedy for such cases as, say, the bakers’ dispute, unless we can imagine a case arising on the border of Victoria and New South Wales; where we have a town on either side, and where the control put over one person will extend to that person carrying on operations in another State. Here we have a chance to do a little towards stopping what I certainly think is an evil, and what Senator Turley, judgjng by his remarks the other day, thinks is a very serious evil, not only inside a State, but even among States. Let us take a very simple instance under the agreement I read to honorable senators the other clay, and here let me say that I rather object to the careless manner in which one of the daily newspapers reported what was said. It reported me as objecting to the way in which “some employés” were compelled to sign agreements, whereas I used the term “all employés.” Let me take the case of a clerk who is engaged in an office in Sydney, and gets an opportunity to go to an office in Brisbane. If he is an honorable man, and holds honorably by the document to which he put his signature, he is not allowed to be in any way instrumental in obtaining orders during the prescribed period from any customer for the goods dealt with. That is an unreasonable restriction to put upon anybody, and I believe that, as a matter of public policy, it would not hold good in a Court of law. Suppose that we have in Melbourne a firm called “A” manufacturing boots, and in Brisbane a firm called “ B “ manufacturing boots; and suppose that the firm “ A “ has employed a man for a certain period to travel for the sale of its boots, and that, after he has travelled through Queensland for a certain period, the firm called “ B,” having heard from its own travellers that be is a smart man, with a good presence, and a good salesman, offers an engagement to him. If this rule which has been operating amongst certain firms is allowed to apply, that traveller cannot engage himself with the firm called “ B “ in Queensland. It is said that these men are engaged as travellers, and in that way have opportunities to ingratiate themselves with certain people in order to sell their employer’s goods. I do not care twopence for the supposed extra shilling or two which they get a week for the purpose of buying drinks for customers, because my experience as a business man tells me that when a man goes to buy he tries to get the best goods he can at the lowest price, and is not largely influenced by the consideration that the traveller has a nice dark moustache, or is clean shaved, or has a grey beard. The man’s manners do not occur to him when he is dealing. If a man has received a certain amount of education and possesses engaging manners that is part of his capital, and the employer has no more right to exploit his ingratiating manners than he has to exploit his muscle. Of course, my honorable friends may say that I am asking a great deal at their hands.

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator is.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I think that if any honorable senators had, by reason of their ability, raised themselves to the position of good travellers, or good clerks,’ or good accountants, they would hold that they should not be compelled to sign a document which required them as honorable men to refrain from doing certain things.

Senator Gray:

– Why is a man compelled to sign it?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– A man is compelled to sign the agreement because he cannot get an appointment . without doing so.

I have put the case before honorable senators^ - of course, the Minister may have other views - and I leave them to judge the fairness or otherwise of my amendment. I only regret that I have not the eloquence and the ability which some of my honorable friends opposite have to put the proposal forward in forty different phases, but always in a strong way. I hope that the amendment will be carried.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

[9.40]- - I have no doubt that honorable senators’ feel much sympathy with the views put forward by Senator Chataway, and the case which he specially referred to, where a company in a particular State bound down its employes in what appeared to be a harsh way. There is no doubt that if we could put an end to a practice which obtains to some extent in other States, it would be our duty, so far as we could, to do so.

Senator Gray.Within reason.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Of course, within reason. It is of no use to shut our eyes to what is taking place every day, and that is that the vendor of a business is bound down not to start a business in a certain area within a given time. If Senator Chataway were purchasing a business, he would make sure that he was protected in that way. But the whole point of the present law is that the agreement must be reasonable in its nature. This measure does not cover such cases as have been referred to by Senators Turley and Chataway, where the engagements are made within a State. Under the Constitution, we have no control over a case of that kind. That is purely a matter for State regulation. I confess that I find very great difficulty in imagining what particular class of cases a provision of this kind could apply to. It would have to be a case in relation to trade or commerce within the States, or to over-sea traffic. There might be an occasional case of the kind. But I do not think that the provision, if adopted, would be likely to cover many cases. It deals with a class of employment which at present does not occur to my mind. I am not aware of any class of engagements to which it would apply. But, sir, there is another point to be considered. I do not think that the amendment can be received, because it is quite outside the scope of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to amend the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906, and that Act provides for the preservation of Australian industries and the repression of destructive monopolies. The object of this amendment, however, is to deal with something outside the purposes of that Act, and that is the relationship of employer and employé. We have a standing order which says -

Any amendment may be made to any part of the Bill, provided the same be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate.

Bill reported with amendments.

page 1666

ADJOURNMENT

The Labour Party : Pairs

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I desire to take advantage of the opportunity which this motion gives me to refer, with very great reluctance, to some remarks which were made by the Minister of Trade and Customs on last Thursday night, the 22nd July, as reported in the Argus of the 23rd. The honorable senator was addressing the Hawthorn branch of the Australian Women’s National League, and is reported to have said -

Mr. Joseph Cook was most hopeful and anxious to be present that evening, but at the last moment he had come to him and expressed extreme regret that owing to the disregard of the usual amenities of parliamentary life, he had been denied a pair by the Opposition, and so was not permitted to be present.

The only inference to be drawn from these words is that the usual amenities of parliamentary life have been disregarded this session, and that pairs have not been given. When the Minister for Defence made that statement, he ought to have known, if he did not know, that the amenities of parliamentary life to which he referred were being regarded.

Senator Gray:

– By whom?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– By the Labour party, whom the Minister of Customs was accusing. The honorable senator should have known that at the time he spoke pairs had been given, and he should have been careful not to make statements from a public platform which perhaps he would not make on the floor of this chamber. He went on to say -

In these circumstances, Mr. Cook had remained at his place in Parliament to resist an unworthy and improper effort on the part of the Opposition to saddle the community with an additional burden of no less than£1, 100,000.

Opposition to grant pairs now is not prompted by the refusal of other honorable senators to grant pairs last session. That was not the reason assigned by Mr. Fisher. So that honorable senators opposite are rather late in making these excuses-

Senator de Largie:

– We make no excuses.

Senator MILLEN:

– Are we to understand that the official declaration as to the prohibition of pairs has been withdrawn?

Senator McGregor:

– There never was any such prohibition.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am in a position to affirm that there was an official refusal by the head of the Labour party to grant a pair to one of my colleagues, and what is more, the refusal was accompanied by the statement that pairs were officially “off.” Are the declarations which we have heard to-night to be regarded as an intimation that better counsels have prevailed, and that the practice which has ordinarily obtained is to be revived? I sincerely hope so. I take no exception to the mariner in which any honorable senator may choose to express his individual views. But I hope that in this Chamber we shall at least get back to the old practice under which a courtesy offered by one side was readily responded to by the other.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.12 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 July 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19090728_senate_3_50/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate28 July 1909

QUESTION

DEATH OF MR. SPEAKER HOLDER

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

The PRESIDENT:

The PRESIDENT:

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Free Trade

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator MILLEN:

QUESTION

PAPUA: COFFEE

QUESTION

EXCISE (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) ACT

QUESTION

ADVERTISING AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:for Senator Findley

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, ADELAIDE

Senator STORY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

PAPERS

PATENTS BILL

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator TURLEY:Queensland

Senator Walker:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Walker:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Walker:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Stewart:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Gray:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Gray:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Turley:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senate
28 July 1909

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Free Trade

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator PEARCE:
for Senator Findley

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania