Senate
6 December 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

PRIVILEGE
- Northern Territory Acceptance Bill : Press Reports
QUESTION
- NEW ZEALAND AND SOUTH AFRICA: CUSTOMS AGREEMENT
QUESTION
- STAMPS BRANCH : FEMALE EMPLOYES
QUESTION
- QUEENSLAND MAILS
NORTHERN TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL
QUESTION
- COTTON GROWING: NORTHERN TERRITORY
BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE BILL
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
DEFENCE BILL
SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL
PATENTS BILL
NAVAL LOAN BILL
SURPLUS REVENUE BILL
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
PATENTS BILL

The President took the chair at 11 o’clock a.m., and read prayers.

page 7017

PRIVILEGE

There are few orders more important than this for the conduct of debate, and for observing courtesy between the two Houses.

We have a standing order which precludes any reference to a debate or to what has taken place in another Chamber. It may assist honorable senators in dealing with a question of this kind in the future if I mention here that they are entitled “to refer to the Votes and Proceedings of the other House which are placed upon our table.

That, of course, does not give them the right to debate what has taken place in the House of Representatives or to refer to the debates therein, but it gives them a record of what has taken place there, and the record may be referred to at all times. On referring to the Votes and Proceedings for Saturday last I find the following entry -

Mr. Poynton rose in his place, and said that he proposed to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “The present unsatisfactory position of the Northern Territory.”

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Because we do not desire to waste time at this hour of the session.

page 7021

QUESTION

COTTON GROWING: NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

– I desire to ask the Minister of Trade and Customs, without notice, whether he has observed the cablegram in this morning’s Argus which reports the Right Honorable A. J. Balfour as having expressed the opinion that, if a supply of cotton is to be kept up, more must be grown within the British Empire? Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister to obtain the consent of South Australia to confer with the British Cotton Growing Association, in order to ascertain upon what terms they would endeavour to grow cotton in the Northern Territory? I assume, of course, that facilities would be offered to them for that purpose.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I have already noted with some satisfaction the statement made by the Right Honorable A. J. Balfour to which Senator Dobson has alluded. I also notice my honorable friend’s suggestion with satisfaction, ‘and shall have very great pleasure in conferring with the Prime Minister on the matter.

Senator PEARCE:

– Does the Minister think that any good purpose can be served by such a Conference, seeing that, unless the Commonwealth takes over the Northern Territory, we can have nothing to do with the growing of cotton therein?

Senator Dobson:

– That is why I mentioned obtaining the consent of South Australia.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– If it be possible to acquire any information on the subject, it is desirable to do so; and my honorable friend ‘Senator Pearce would not suggest that any harm can accrue from my conferring with the Prime Minister.

page 7021

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE BILL

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether it is the inten tion of the Government to proceed with the Bureau of Agriculture Bill during the present session?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– If time permits.

page 7021

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator PEARCE:

– I also desire to make a personal explanation. What was charged against Senator Neild was that he was present at the meeting of the Select Committee on Press Cable Service at which the resolution admitting the press was carried.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– What personal explanation is this? I did not charge Senator Pearce with anything.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Pearce is explaining why he made a certain statement.

Senator PEARCE:

– The original statement to which Senator Neild alluded was made by me. I obtained the minute-book of the Select Committee, which recorded the names of those present at the meeting in question. Amongst the names was that of Senator Colonel Neild. I did not say that the honorable senator was present at the time when the resolution was carried. I did not know whether he was present then or not. I simply said that he was present at the meeting.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– That is very mean.

page 7022

DEFENCE BILL

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

Senate’s Amendment. - Insert after clause 4 the following new clause - “ 4a. Provided that the limitation in the pre ceding section in respect to service in the ranks shall not apply except as far as may be found possible until the expiration of two years from the commencement of the training prescribed in section one hundred and twenty-five, paragraph c;

Provided also that the limitation in the preceding section shall not at any time apply to the appointment of officers in the Senior Cadets.”

House of Representatives’ message. - Amendment agreed to with the following modifications -

Insert in clause 4 as provisos to section11a instead of inserting as a new clause.

Omit the number “4A.”

Omit the words “ the preceding section “ wherever occurring, and insert the words “ this section “ in place thereof.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– The House of Representatives’ message indicates amendments which in no case alter the substance of any amendment made by the Senate. They are proposed to make the object of the Senate’s amendments more clear, and in one or two cases to remove an obvious oversight, as, for instance, the amendment to insert the word “ principal “ before the word “Act.” In proof of what I have stated, I take the first amendment made by the House of Representatives. The Senate inserted as new clause 4A what is really a proviso to a preceding section. That was done because, if I remember aright, Senator Lynch had missed an opportunity to submit it as a proviso. I then suggested that it might be submitted as a new clause. The House of Representatives desires that we should exercise the opportunity which their message gives us to put the matter right. In another amendment, the House of Representatives proposes the insertion of the letter “ b “ after the words “ section 123 “ ; and a further amendment is made in the clause prohibiting employers from throwing any difficulty in the way of their employes attending training. The House of Representatives desires that we should add the words “ or from attending any camp of instruction appointed to be held by the Head-quarters of the Commonwealth or any military district.” It was thought that some little loop-hole might be left in the difference between attending training and attending a camp. I move -

That the House of Representatives’ amendment be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House of Representatives’ amendments on Senate’s amendments in clauses 7 and 18 and new clause 17 a, agreed to.

Resolutions reported and report adopted.

page 7022

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

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

Clause 6 (Time for taking proceedings).

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit “ time when she was last heard of “. and insert “ date when she is deemed under section 12 of this Act to have been lost with all hands.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– The House of Representatives has made only one amendment in this Bill. It is intended to remove some little conflict, and possibly some ambiguity. The clause which has been amended’ is that in which a time is set out within which proceedings for the recovery of compensation must be initiated. As the Bill left the Senate, it provided in the case of a ship lost with all hands that such proceedings must be instituted within eighteen months of the time when she was last heard of. In clause 12 there is a fuller definition of what constitutes the official recognition of the loss of a ship. There is a slight conflict between the two clauses, and the House of Representatives thinks it desirable to make them uniform. Another reason for adopting the definition in clause 12 is that it is in conformity with British legislation. And a further reason for agreeing to the amendment is that there is a considerable amount of indefiniteness in the term “ Time when she was last heard of.” There might be dispute as to when that time was. For these reasons the House of Representatives, at the instance of the Attorney-General, agreed to the amendment, which is now submitted to the Senate. I move -

That the House of Representatives’ amendment be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported and report adopted.

page 7022

PATENTS BILL

Bill returned from the House of Repre sentatives, with amendments.

Motion (by Senator Sir Robert Best) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the House of Representatives’ Message being at once considered and all consequent action taken.

Ordered -

That the message be taken into consideration at a later hour.

page 7023

NAVAL LOAN BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 4th December, vide page 6976) :

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

The Governor-General may from time to time raise by way of loan, moneys to an amount not exceeding Three million five hundred thousand pounds for the purpose of the Naval Defence of the Commonwealth.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– It has been objected that the Government, in proposing to go to the loan market to provide for the naval defence of the Commonwealth, are doing something extraordinary, and highly reprehensible. I wish to point out that in Germany a steady increase of loan expenditure, mainly for naval purposes, has been going on for the last five or six years.

Senator Pearce:

– I pointed that out on the second reading of the Bill.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Clause 3 gives authority to raise , £3,500,000, and it is quite relevant on that clause to point out that other Governments are providing for the building of a navy by the adoption of a. loan policy. I intend to quote the German, figures.

Senator Lynch:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable senator in order in referring to the principle of a measure which, unfortunately, was adopted by the Senate on Saturday last?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Clause 3 deals with the principle of the Bill, and the honorable senator is therefore in order in referring to it.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator is repeating arguments which were used on Saturday in support of a principle which the Senate has already agreed to.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– The sufficiency or insufficiency of the amount proposed to be raised is certainly a question relevant to this clause, and I intend to show the expenditure which is being made from loan money in Germany, which is going in largely for a naval policy, as we are proposing to do now. In 1904 the naval expenditure from loan account by Germany was 136,000,000 marks. The following year it was 244,000,000 marks, in 1906 it was 264,000,000 marks, in 1907 it was 257,000,000 marks, and in 1908 it was 265,000,000 marks. These figures are taken from the Statesmen’s Year-Book for 1909. In other words, Germany began with a naval expenditure from loan moneys of £6,750,000, and has increased it to £13,500,000. We propose to commence with a loan expenditure of £3,500,000, which is to be distributed over fifteen or twenty years. I am not aware that any objection can be urged to a pawnshop policy by honorable senators opposite, seeing that’ one of the greatest Empires in the world, in building up a great navy, has adopted a loan policy. We cannot go very far wrong if we follow the example of Germany. On the ground of precedent alone, the Government have very strong justification for mortgaging the future to some extent in order to establish an Australian navy.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– According to Senator St. Ledger, the policy of borrowing money to establish a navy is of the “ made in Germany “ pattern - a sort of jim-crack affair, which has no solidity or substance about it. I have always understood that Senator St. Ledger was a good Britisher. Upon many occasions he has flaunted his devotion to the flag in the face of the people of Australia. Yet we now find him passing by the old British custom of building its fleet out of revenue, and seizing with avidity upon the example of Germany. We know very well that quite recently Germany was brought to the very verge of a financial crisis by this system of borrowing. The people there have been loaded with taxation of almost every description in order that these huge loans may be redeemed, and that the finances of the Federation may be placed on a sound footing. Whatever may be Germany’s policy in this connexion, I unhesitatingly say that no necessity exists for a rich young country like Australia to resort to borrowing for naval defence purposes. Upon numerous occasions Senator St. Ledger has boasted about our wealth. He has declared that we have a magnificent country - that we possess great resources - and yet he is now endeavouring to lead us up to the pawnshop. For what ? To defray current expenses. What a nonsensical proposal. No man in his senses would object to borrowing for reproductive public works, but it is ridiculous to borrow for current household expenditure - for mere purposes of defence. There is no earthly necessity for the Commonwealth to resort to the loan market while a leakage of £20,000,000 is annually finding its way into the pockets of private individuals. But while that leakage is going on, we are asked to enter the money market tor the purpose of borrowing a paltry sum of £3,500,000. I say that we should stop the leakage.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– What is the leakage ?

Senator STEWART:

– The honorable senator ought to know, if he does not. I am not here to educate him. If he cannot find time to school himself in these matters. I am not going to act as his tutor. He reminds me of the old dog who was too infirm to learn new tricks. If the honorable senator has not yet grasped the financial position of Australia, he will never grasp it. I repeat that there is a leakage of £20,000,000 annually in the Commonwealth which must be stopped. It is the height of madness on the part of this rich young community to permit itself to be plundered in such reckless fashion whilst it is compelled to go, cap-in-hand, to the pawnshop for a paltry sum of £3,500,000 for the purposes of defence.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– May I point out to Senator Stewart that the Commonwealth proposes to pay this £3,500,000 out of revenue. During the next sixteen years a sufficient sum will be annually set aside to redeem the loan.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Subject to this Act, the moneys to be so raised shall be raised by the creation and issue of inscribed stock.
Inscribed stock shall bear interest at such rate, not exceeding three per centum per annum, as the Governor-General from time to time before the issue of the stock, directs.

That after the word “ three,” line 5, the words “ and a half “ be inserted.

Senator Fraser:

– Never.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator Millen:

– After 191 2.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.1 5 “-p.m.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I do not propose to discuss the relative advantages of 3 and 3J per cent, stocks, but I desire to place before the Committee the view which induced the acceptance of the lower rate of interest by the Government in the other House. Every one will, of course, admit the desirability of borrowing money at 3 rather than 3J per cent, if it is obtainable; and undoubtedly it would be very much to the advantage of Australia if it were known throughout the money lending world that its credit stood in such a favorable condition that money could be raised at 3 per cent. I have to again admit that the Government, having received advice from London, felt justified in providing in the Bill originally that the interest was not to exceed 3J per cent. But the manifestation of opinion in the other House . was very pronounced in the direction of testing in the market whether or not money could be advantageously borrowed at 3 per cent., and, sympathizing to some extent with that view, the Government accepted the amendment. I invite the attention of honorable senators to the next clause, under which power is taken to raise a proportion of the money authorized to be borrowed by Treasury bonds. Should the Bill pass in its present form, it is our intention, when the time arrives, to endeavour to secure the money at 3 per cent. If, however, we find that it is not possible to get the money at 3 per cent., except at a very heavy dis- count, we certainly will not attempt to float a loan. In these conditions, there can be no desire to have Australian bonds quoted at such a heavy rate of discount as would put them on the same level as the bonds of South American Republics. If the Government ascertained that the market was not favorable to the flotation of a loan at 3 per cent., we would abandon the effort to raise the money under this clause, and issue short-dated Treasury bonds under the next clause. If when the money was immediately required the market price was high, it would obviously be advantageous, quite apart from the rate of interest, to raise it by short-dated Treasury bonds, with a view to converting them into inscribed stock later, when probably the money market might have become easier. I ask honorable senators, after the very full and not uninteresting discussion, to assist us in arriving at a determination. Nothing which we can put in the Bill is likely to affect the price which Australia will have to pay for the money it requires. That will be determined by factors quite outside our control.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I am pleased indeed with the determination which the Government have come to. For their information, I propose to read a short quotation as -to the prices which Australian 3 per cent. stocks have obtained in the London money market. I have before me a copy of a letter from the manager of the Bank of New South Wales, dated 1897, and giving the prices of those stocks in the London market.

Senator Clemons:

– The world has changed since then.

Senator WALKER:

– My honorable friends cannot make me believe that, in time, Commonwealth 3 per cent, stock will not be as valuable as some of those stocks were in 1897. The writer says -

To give the present quotation of the three Australian 3 per cent, inscribed stocks, namely,

New South Wales, 3 per cent., 1935,101-; Western Australia, 3 per cent., 1915-35, 99-¼; South Australia, 3 per cent., 1916-26,98½-¾. . . . We certainly think that the best rate would be 3 per cent. This we believe would be the most practical basis upon which the debt could be consolidated.

So far as I can see, there is no reason why the outlook should be different now when money becomes cheaper.

Senator Clemons:

– What has that to do with the present time?

Senator WALKER:

– A great deal. It was then proposed to issue an Australian stock for all time, not for limited periods. It would be a great mistake to discount our future by saying that we would never be able to borrow money at 3 per cent.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I am more than surprised at Senator Walker putting forward a statement sent to him in 1897, when the financial position in the Old Country was widely different from what it is to-day. The arrangements for Australian stock must be made with some reference to the conditions that exist in London to-day. At that time the value of money did undoubtedly point to 3 per cent, as the rate for Australian loans, but the whole position of affairs has changed since then. English consols to-day are only2½ per cent., that is from ten to twenty points less than what they were worth then. Three and a half per cent, is something like the rate which the values of Australian stocks suggest today. It is wise that the Government should take this power and it is for that reason only that I support the amendment.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Clemons’ amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority……… 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Trustees of Sinking Fund).

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I should like to know what directions the Government propose to give to the trustees of the sinking fund. We all recognise that the value of a sinking fund is to be judged by its inviolability. In the various States sinking’ funds have disappeared in times of stress. I believe that Western Australia has declared the conditions for the management of its sinking funds by Statute. I should like to know if the Commonwealth Government propose to follow that example?

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I am not in a position to say whether it may or may not be desirable to have another measure specifically defining the duties of the trustees. I would remind Senator Pearce that it is not possible for one Parliament of the Commonwealth to bind another by an Act.

Senator Pearce:

– Surely we can bind the Treasurer?

Senator MILLEN:

– This measure sufficiently directs that the appropriation is to be made each year and paid to the trustees of the sinking fund, who will be the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary to the Treasury. As to any existing fund, the Treasurer of the day would have to secure the sanction of Parliament to suspend its operation. He could not do it otherwise. Even if we could more clearly define what is intended, it would still be possible for some future Parliament to suspend the provision if for financial reasons it was not convenient to continue the sinking fund for the time being. We have to depend upon the determination of Parliament, and it is scarcely likely that Parliament would sanction any departure from the provisions of the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 -

The moneys raised by virtue of this Act may be expended towards the initial cost of a Fleet Unit for the purpose of the Naval Defence of the Commonwealth, and are hereby appropriated accordingly.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I move -

That after the word “ Commonwealth,” line 4, the following words be inserted : - “ and as far as practicable within the Commonwealth upon vessels constructed therein.” 1 said on Saturday, and I desire to em phasize the point to-day, that the people of Australia at the last general election declared emphatically for a Protective policy, meaning thereby that all work that might be made available in connexion with the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth should be done in Australia byAustralian workmen. A large amount of work will be necessary in connexion with our naval policy. It ought to be the desire of every Protectionist, and of everybody . who wishes to see Australian workmen well employed, that, as far as practicable, the work in connexion with the Australian fleet should be performed in this country by our own workmen. The Fisher Government were responsible for sending to Great Britain a number of artisans who, to-day, are acquiring a knowledge of naval construction. It will be extremely beneficial to give effect to that policy under this Bill. In introducing the measure, the VicePresident of the Executive Council said that the cost of the River destoryers would be about £80,000 each. That is a clear indication that the Government have considered the cost, and determined to have the vessels built in Great Britain; because there is a difference of £20,000 between the estimated cost of construction in Great Britain and in Australia. We are not here to consider what the Commonwealth might save by having the vessels built abroad. We should first consider the interests of the Australian people and Australian workmen. To be consistent to the principles upon which we were returned to the National Parlia-. ment, we should adopt the amendment which I now submit.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– Whilst it may be argued that we could not build an Indomitable in Australia, I am certainly of opinion that, with the experience gained by the artisans whom we have sent to Great Britain, and taking advantage of the fact that the third of the three torpedo-boat destroyers is to come out in sections and be put together in Australia, we ought to be able to commence building in this country. But there is a circumstance which seems to indicate that the Government do not intend that the work should be done here. Inquiries made while I was Minister of Defence elicited the information that the cost of building in Australia would be probably about 20 per cent, higher than that of building in Great Britain. The contract cost of a torpedo-boat destroyer in Great Britain is about £80,000. The Government estimate the cost of the three additional vessels at £80,000 each, and the fact that the Government have adopted that estimate is an indication that they contemplate having the vessels constructed in England. I could not help overhearing a contemptuous remark of ‘the Vice-President of the Executive Council with reference to the six men sent to England. But I would remind him that they were not sent there to learn their trade. They are experienced workmen, and they will gain experience in naval construction while they are there. When they come back, the experience which they have gained will be used for the tuition of other workmen skilled in various trades, but who have had no opportunity of acquiring technical experience in this particular line. These men will act as leaders, and no doubt other workmen can be brought from Great Britain also to act as leading hands. I think that the Committee ought to give a direction to the Government in this regard.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I trust that the Committee will not adopt the amendment; and I express that wish with no inclination to resist the view put forward by Senator Findley. The Government intend as far as possible that work required for defence purposes shall be done in Australia. But what is the meaning of the term “as far as practicable,” in Senator Findley’s amendment? When terms like that are inserted in Acts of Parliament, the effect is either to leave matters as they stand to-day, or to open the road for controversy at a later date.

Senator Pearce:

– Are the Government going to build the destroyers in Australia?

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not know, because that subject has not been brought under review. But I do know that the Government are determined to have as much work of this character as possible carried on in Australia; and that quite apart from any fiscal view. The Government believe that it is not sufficient merely to have warships on our coasts, but that it will be necessary at a time of national crisis to create implements of defence in Australia. Therefore, they are seized of the importance of having work of the kind done in this country.

Senator Givens:

– Why not say so in the Bill?

Senator MILLEN:

– We cannot provide for such a matter except in terms that are indefinite. There” may be differences of opinion as to what is “ practicable.” It might be “ practicable “ to build a certain vessel in Australia, but when built, she may not be quite so efficient for defence purposes as a vessel built elsewhere. We have to provide fighting machines which will be as efficient as those constructed in any country. Then, again, we must have some, regard to cost. I am sure that even Senator Findley would not say there is not a limit beyond which we cannot go. Further, in all matters it is necessary to make a beginning. It might be possible to build a Dreadnought in Australia, but to build one would not be the best way to commence our career of naval construction.

Senator Findley:

– Japan builds her own vessels.

Senator MILLEN:

– But Japan had a navy thirty years before she began to build. I am not saying that we should not make a start, but we must not involve Australia in a great” waste of money. The Government has not gone into this matter yet. It may be that the Minister of Defence will find that it is possible to have a large amount of the work done in Australia. But we must always bear in mind that a. fighting ship, to be of any value, must be the best of its kind. We may in other matters put up with a little inconvenience, but when we are buying ships upon which will depend, not only the safety of those who will man them, but possibly the safety of the whole naval unit, and of Australia, it is quite imperative that we should avail ourselves of the best material and the best constructive skill. Japan started just as we are doing, and went on extending her limits, laying down more plant, and acquiring more skill, until now she is able to build her own Dreadnoughts. That appears to me to be the. sound way of proceeding. There is one other reason why I ask that the amendment should not be accepted, and it is that time is an important element in this matter. I have already intimated that in ordinary circumstances the Government would have deemed it desirable to consult the constituencies before committing the people to an expenditure of this kind, or lo the adoption ox a loan policy. But, because of the urgency of the matter, they have taken the responsibility of submitting this proposal. If we were to give effect “literally to Senator Findley’s amendment, it would follow that we should have to lose very many, months in putting down a plant for the construction of these vessels in Australia, which would cost very many more millions than will the proposed fleet unit itself. In view of the fact that in another place, as well as here, the Government have given definite assurances in connexion with this subject, and that it is impossible to say what-“ as far as practicable” might be, I ask the Committee to leave the clause as it stands. Honorable senators must know that if the Government do what is wrong, it will be in the power of Parliament to punish them. The amendment can have no practical effect, and, if carried, might involve a consumption of time, which at this stage is very valuable.

Senator NEEDHAM (Western Australia) [2.47J. - 1- intend to support the amendment, because I consider it a reasonable one. It is desirable, not only that weapons of Australian defence shall, as far as practicable, be produced in Australia, but also that the money expended in their production shall be circulated amongst Australian workmen. I have not the slightest doubt that we can build, not merely torpedo boats, but cruisers, in Australia. The last Government decided to have one of the torpedo-boat destroyers built in the Old Country, and to have the parts of the others assembled here. They further decided to send men to the Old Country to learn the technicalities of this class of ship building, and we can expect those men to impart the knowledge they will have gained to their fellow workmen on their return to Australia. We have tradesmen who are quite competent, with the instruction which the men sent Home will be able to give them, to build these vessels. We have also the material for their construction in Australia, and need only the operation of a thoroughly Protective policy to effectively develop the mineral resources from which that material is to be obtained. Doubtless it would cost a little more money to have these vessels built in Australia. I quite realize that it would be necessary, as we should be commencing the work, to import some of the machinery. We should need keel-plate bending machines, saws, mangles, and punching and shearing ma chines. But the time to commence is now. Even if we were to have one of the cruisers built in the Old Country, we should, in the meantime, be making preparations for the building of the others here. The amendment, if agreed to, would not leave the decision of the matter in the hands of any Government. It would be an expression of the opinion of this Parliament that, as far as practicable, these vessels should be built in Australia by Australian workmen. The Vice-President of the Executive Council referred to Japan, and I recognise that it took some time before Japan was able to build all her own war vessels. In the early nineties, the Japanese Government were having the first of their line of battleships constructed at J. and J. Thompson’s yards at Clydebank, in Scotland. The vessel afterwards took a prominent part in the Russo-Japanese war. I was a workman in the- yard referred to at the time, and, though it is not twenty years ago, the Japanese are now building their own war vessels. At the time I refer to, the parts of some vessels were being constructed at the Clydebank yards, and were to be sent to Japan to be assembled. We are adopting a similar course, and we should instruct our workmen, and develop our resources, in order that we may at the earliest possible moment begin to build our own fleet. I believe that the men who have been sent Home to assist in the construction of the torpedo-boat destroyers will be able to impart a very great deal of knowledge to a large number of boilermakers, carpenters, and engineers in the various details of this class of shipbuilding. I hope the Committee will accept the amendment, which, if adopted, will appear in the Bill as the mandate of Parliament to any Government that may be in power.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [2.53].- Every member of the Committee, and indeed of the Federal Parliament, is in accord with the principle underlying the amendment, that, as far as practicable, we should build our own warships in our own country. But we must face the present position. We must make a start sooner or later, of course, but we have not, so far, begun this work. Before we can start it we must have the necessary plant. It will take a very considerable time, and involve a great deal of expenditure, to lay down the plant necessary for the construction of the larger of these vessels. It may well be that the smaller .vessels could be constructed here, but I feel convinced that it will be many years before Australia will be in a position to lay down and construct the larger vessels upon anything like as satisfactory conditions as those which would apply to their construction in the Old Country. I remember, also, that time is the essence of this matter. We have been told repeatedly that it is .necessary that we should put our house in order as soon as possible, and it will be about three years before we can expect the proposed naval unit to be completed, even under the most favorable circumstances. We should be unduly hampering the Government if we inserted a provision o± this kind in the Bill. The adoption of the amendment could do no more than express the desire which is shared by every member of this Parliament that, in this matter we should, as far as possible, assist ourselves. We are taking steps in the establishment of ammunition and small arms factories to secure our self-dependence in other directions, and we all hope to see the principle carried further. We must crawl before we can walk, and walk before we run, and it seems to me that the amendment indicates a desire on the part of some honorable senators that we should attempt to run before we have learned t© crawl so far as the building of warships is concerned. It would be better to leave it to the Government to do what they consider best in the interests of Australia. They will always be amenable to Parliament for whatever action they may take, and Parliament will always be in a position to assert its opinion. When we consider the personnel of the Government, honorable senators will agree that there are members of it who are in strong sympathy with the principle of having as much of this work done in Australia as possible.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have my doubts about some of them.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD.- That may be; but I think we are all agreed that it is desirable that Australia should be in a position to assist herself. ‘ As soon as the vessels of the fleet unit arrive in Australian waters, and repairs to them become necessary, that work will have to be done here, and it will serve to educate our artisans in this class of shipbuilding. It is simply impossible to emphasize too strongly the statement made by the Vice-President of the ExecutiveCouncil that, in the matter of war ships and war materiel, the only quality we can afford to purchase is the. very best. In my opinion, this matter should be left entirely in the hands of the Government, particularly at the present stage, and it wouldbe unwise to begin the experiment of building vessels of war in these watersuntil we have greater experience of the work.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– This Bill proposes the initiation of a loan policy ; but it also proposes the creation of an Australian fighting unit, which we are all agreed should be ready within the time specified, namely, about two and a half years. The amendment is one which must appeal to the sympathy of the Australian people generally.

Senator Findley:

– We want something, more than sympathy. We want something practical.

Senator MULCAHY:

– Can the honorable senator show the Committee the practicability of inserting this provision in the Bill? He must know that it would require an enormous amount of money to lay down the necessary plant, and that unless we imported a very large part of the labour necessary, we could not have the fleet unit constructed in the time prescribed. If we attempted to construct these vessels with Australian labour, under present conditions, supplemented by a few workmen imported from the Old Country, they would be almost obsolete before their construction was completed. There is a general desire that Australia should be a self-contained and self-supporting country. But we have a great deal to do be-fore we can reach that stage in the manufacture of vessels and instruments of warfare. We have still to develop, to a very great extent, our iron industry, and Senator Findley is trying to introduce into a measure which contemplates the creation of an Australian fighting unit in two and a half years, a practically impossible condition.

Senator McColl:

– It would only bluff the whole thing.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I do not think that is the intention. ) agree with the principle underlying the amendment, and, no doubt, something might be done in this direction in the construction of the smaller vessels ; but, if we desire that Australia shall be represented in the Empire’s fighting line with a fleet unit in a reasonable time, we should not attempt to impose the condition which Senator Findley now seeks to lay down.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I cannot understand why the Government! object to the amendment, which simply der clares that where it is practicable the work of building the vessels of the new fleet unit should be done in Australia.

Senator Millen:

– Without any time limit ?

Senator TURLEY:

– No, not without a time limit. But it strikes me that this question of time has been raised rather suddenly. If anybody had suggested twelve months ago that time was an element in the construction of a fleet for Australia, he would have been laughed at. Did not Sir George Reid say, in Sydney, “ What is the use of humbugging with these tinpot vessels when we have somebody else to defend us”? We know, too, that the late Government were subjected to all sorts of criticism, because they had the temerity to say that one of . the torpedo-boat destroyers should be put together in Australia. Now, for years past, a good deal of sympathy has been expressed with Australian industries. But very little has been done to give practical effect to that sympathy. For instance, two years ago, an attempt was made to get the new mail steamer fleet constructed locally, and certain gentlemen visited Australia for the purpose of reporting upon the suitability of certain sites for ship-building.

Senator Pearce:

– The Government have been twelve months endeavouring to make up their minds where they will have the third torpedo-boat destroyer put together.

Senator TURLEY:

– I think we can easily guess where that work will be undertaken.

Senator Pearce:

– At Williamstown ?

Senator TURLEY:

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Findley’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 13

Majority … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria.

.- In order to further test the sincerity of Protectionists in the chamber, I move -

That after the word “ Commonwealth,” line 4, the following words be inserted : - “ and of the vessels comprising such unit those known as torpedo destroyers shall be built in Australia.4’

If that amendment is made, I shall then ask the Committee to insert after the word “ and “ in the last line the words “ such moneys.” If the two amendments are made the clause will read -

The moneys raised by virtue of this Act may be expended towards the cost of a Fleet Unit for the purpose of the Naval Defence of the Commonwealth, and of the vessels comprising such unit those known as torpedo destroyers shall be built in Australia, and such moneys are hereby appropriated accordingly.

Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 (Provisions relating to Commonwealth stock inscribed in the United Kingdom).

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– Sub-clause 1 says -

Inscribed Stock may be inscribed and transferred in a register kept in, the United Kingdom by some bank, Commonwealth officer, or person, appointed for that purpose by the GovernorGeneral.

Does the order in which the various authorities are set out indicate the order in which the Government exalt the depositories of inscribed stock? It will be remembered that one State in the group has broken away from the ring, and is inscribing its own stock. Are we to understand that the inscription of the stock is to be undertaken by a bank and, failing that, by a Commonwealth officer?

Senator Millen:

– No. There are three alternatives, neither one taking priority over the other.

Senator PEARCE:

– I hope that the Commonwealth will come to the decision to inscribe its own stock, because once it got into the hands of a bank it would be very difficult to get out of them.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 -

Commonwealth securities, and the income derived therefrom, shall not be subject to taxation by the Commonwealth.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– Does the clause also mean that the income from Commonwealth securities shall not be subject to taxation by the State?

Senator Millen:

– No.

Senator WALKER:

– That is what I thought. A man will have to pay a tax on his income to the State from the Commonwealth securities.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 19 and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

Report adopted, and Bill read a third time.

page 7040

SURPLUS REVENUE BILL

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

[3.30]. - I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Under section 87 of the . Constitution there is payable to the States not less than threefourths of the Customs and Excise revenue of the Commonwealth up to 31st December, 1910. At the Premiers’ Conference held in August, it was agreed between the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Commonwealth - subject, of course, to the approval of Parliament - and the Premiers of the States, that towards the payment of old-age pensions the States should permit to be deducted the sum of £600,000 from the revenue payable to them for the year ending 30th June, 1910. In the Constitution Alteration (Finance) Bill recently passed it was provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in section 87 of the Constitution, the ‘Commonwealth might in the year beginning 1st July, 1909, apply out of the net Customs and Excise revenue any sum not exceeding £600,000 over and above the one-fourth of net revenue. It was also provided that section 87 of the Constitution should cease to have effect. In the Conference to which I have referred it was agreed that the £600,000 should be deducted in the following proportions - that the pension States, New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland, should contribute 3s. per head, and that the non-pensions States, Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania, should contribute 2s. per head. That understanding was embodied in the third paragraph of the agreement, which provided that in recognition of the heav obligations incurred under the old-age pensions legislation, the Commonwealth might during the current financial year withhold from the moneys returnable to the States such sum, not exceeding £600,000, as would provide for the actual shortage from the revenue at the end of such year, if such shortage amounted! to £600,000; and that, as I have already stated, the pension States should contribute 3s. per head, and the non-pension States 2s. This Bill seeks to carry out that arrange ment. It is only fair to tell the Senate that it will not come into operation unless the Constitution Alteration (Finance) Bill is at the coming general election duly accepted by the people. In other words, unless the Constitution be altered under the terms of the Finance Bill, this Surplus Revenue Bill will not have effect: but if at the referendum the Finance Bill is accepted, this measure will enable us to avail ourselves of the £600,000, which would otherwise be returnable up to 30th June, 1910.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported without amendment.

Standing Orders suspended and Bill passed through its remaining stages.

page 7040

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

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

– I move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

– No.

Senator MILLEN:

– Se far as I know, the honorable senator takes up the position that the cost does not matter. It may not matter to him,* but I ask honorable senators to consider whether or not it is a business-like and common-sense proceeding to adopt a proposal which would involve the country in an expenditure, the extent of which they have no knowledge. I hold that before we make such a radical alteration of the law, as is proposed, some opportunity should be given for an inquiry as to the extra financial responsibility which its acceptance would cast upon the Treasury. It has been pointed out here this afternoon that it is obvious that before long there will have to be a complete overhaul’ of the Public Service Act. If that is the case - and I am not dissenting from that view - that will be the time for Senator Stewart to urge the proposition which he has just submitted.

Senator Stewart:

– I might not be alive then.

Senator MILLEN:

– Politically, I hope my honorable friend means ; otherwise, I feel perfectly sure he will be alive. He will see, I think, that that will be the proper time for a proposal of this kind to come under review. I ask him, therefore, whether, having ventilated the matter, he cannot see’ his way to withdraw the motion ?

Senator Stewart:

– I cannot withdraw the motion. I must get a vote.

The PRESIDENT:

– Standing order 319A reads -

An instruction can be given to a Committee of the Whole on a Bill to amend an existing Act, to consider amendments which are not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, but are relevant to the subject-matter of the Act it_ is proposed to amend, provided that such motion shall be carried by at least fifteen affirmative; votes.

I direct the Clerk-Assistant to ring the bells, in order that honorable senators may be in. their places.

Question- That the motion (Senator

Stewart’s) be agreed to - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 11

Majority……… 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator. Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [5.37]. - I now desire to move that the Committee be empowered to consider an amendment of the principal Act– -

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

Section 5 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (6) the words “twelve hundred” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ fifteen hundred.”

This section shall be deemed to have commenced on the fifth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and nine.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I shall vote against this clause, by way of protest against the manner in which the employes in the. Stamps Branch of the Government Printing Office have been treated. It is absolutely degrading to the Commonwealth to allow girls to be employed at 7s. 6d. per week. The extra £300 proposed to be voted to the Public Service Commissioner would be enough to pay 10s. to 2,400 girls; and I am quite sure that so many are never likely to be employed in the Stamps Branch. I also take exception to this payment of £300 to the Public Service Commissioner whilst we are employing women in this branch of the service who were taken over by the Commonwealth from, the States at £1 per week. I trust, that the Committee will refuse to grant the increase proposed until such time as the Government have rectified the wrongs to which I have so often called attention.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– Senator Henderson has advanced a good reason why the whole of the clauses of this Bill should be rejected. We are merely tinkering with the Public Service Act. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has admitted that shortly the whole of this legislation will come under review. It is a mistake, at the tail end of a session, to spring a Bill of this kind upon us, without giving any reason why we should pass it. I understand from Senator Pearce that a promise was made to the Commissioner that his salary should be increased to £1,500. I also understand that the Commissioner desires that a Deputy should be appointed to assist him.

Senator Pearce:

– That proposal was not entertained by the late Government.

Senator VARDON:

– If the Commissioner’s hands are so full that he cannot compass the work, it would be better to give him an assistant, and to keep his salary at the present figure, or even to reduce it, in order to pay the assistant a fair amount.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I hope that the Committee will not be led aside by the two previous speakers. I cannot add very ‘ much to what I previously stated in reference to the terms under which the Public ServiceCommissioner entered upon his office. It has to be remembered, quite apart from what may be regarded as the work of his. position, that he came to us from New South Wales at a time when the Bill before Parliament proposed that his salary should be £1,500. It is perfectly true that he was aware that the salary was subject to Parliamentary ratification, but still that circumstance ought to be fairly considered.. He has rendered good and faithful service, whilst his duties have been steadily increasing in volume and responsibility. As far as we can judge they will increase still further during the term of . his reappointment.

Senator Colonel NEILD:
New South Wales

-45]. - I take exception to what I regard -as an exceedingly vicious method of legislation, in selecting one officer, no mat- ter how worthy, and making his concerns the subject of a special Bill.

Senator Pearce:

– In this case, the question is raised by his re-appointment.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– That, of course, is another matter. I have no wish to belittle in the slightest degree the great services which Mr. McLachlan has rendered, and will no doubt continue to render, to the Commonwealth. But I do not like this method of legislation. Only a little time ago, we passed a measure granting compensation to a few old officers and the widows of old officers, whilst very many just as deserving cases were left unconsidered, and remained unconsidered to-day. I understand that another measure of the same class will be submitted to us before long. I regret the introduction of this measure for two reasons. It proposes an Increase in the salary of the Public Service Commissioner, and increments for the Clerical Division, whilst it does nothing for the great General Division, which contains a very large number of hard-working, worthy officials. I object to the clause “under discussion for the reasons I have given, but if there is a majority determined to pass it, it is of little use to further debate it. If the Bill goes through in its present form, I shall vote against the third reading.

Question - That clause 2 stand as printed - put. The Committee divided..

AYES: 10

NOES: 8

Majority … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Provision for long-service increments in Class V.).

Question - That the clause 3 stand as printed- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 4

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 negatived.

Clause 5 and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

Report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I have voted against this Bill because, as I said in the beginning, it is patch-work legislation. I do not oppose it because I am against any . proper increase in the salaries of any officers of the Public Service. I understand that the increments provided for the Clerical Division in clause 3 have already been paid in many cases to those concerned. I should like to know whether, if the Bill is not passed, the money which has been paid to the officers in question will have to be refunded by them. I have no desire that any member of the service should suffer, or to prevent the payment of fair salaries. I have never been one to stand out against men being well paid in the Public Service. But I believe that the Public Service should be overhauled from top to bottom. In my opinion there should be minimum and maximum salaries in respect of the services to be rendered in particular offices. The mere fact that a man has been in the service for a great number of years should not entitle him to a higher salary than the services which he renders are worth. I think that the matters dealt with in this Bill should have been allowed to wait until a comprehensive measure amending the Public Service Act could have been introduced. With regard to clause 4 of the Bill, which proposed to increase the age limit, up to which telegraph messengers may be retained in the service to twenty years - The PRESIDENT.- As that clause has been deleted, the honorable senator cannot discuss it.

Senator VARDON:

– Upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill, I desired to show that that clause shoull be excised, and the matter to which it relates should be considered in connexion with a general amendment of the Public Service Act. In the circumstances, I shall vote against the third reading of the Bill.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.- I agree with other honorable senators that it is very unfair that a Bill of this description should be rushed upon us during the closing hours of the session. 1 think that we are rapidly approaching the time when the way in which the cost of our Public Service is being piled up, will have to be taken into serious consideration. That expenditure is being piled up at an enormous rate. In the aggregate, these little increases to officers make a very large sum. I agree with the objections which have been urged against the Bill. I think that it should be held over for the consideration of the next Parliament ; and that, during the recess, the Government should go carefully into the whole question of our Public Service Act, with a view to submitting to that Parliament a Bill for the rectification of recognised anomalies. For these reasons I shall vote against the third reading of the measure.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

.- 1 agree with the remarks of the two previous speakers. This is a Bill of which we knew nothing, until the very last moment. Personally, I believe that the whole Commonwealth Public Service requires to be remodelled. I am not opposed to the increase in salary proposed to be granted to the Public Service Commissioner ; but I object to tinkering with Public Service legislation in the dying hours of the session. I shall vote against the third reading of the Bill, as a protest against the action of the Government. I hope the measure will be defeated, and that next year the Ministry will bring forward a’ scheme having for its object the remodelling of the entire service.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I supported the clause relating to long service increments from a desire not to do injustice to any employes in our Public Service. I said that I was aware that some of these officers had already received their long-service increments, and I feared that it the Bill were not passed, they might !)e called upon to ref ur.d that money. Now, I have learned that that fear is groundless ; and, realizing that I shall not be doing these men any injustice, I intend to vote against the. third reading of the Bill.

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

– I take it that, after we have reached this stage in the passage of the Bill, it is unlikely that any honorable senator’s vote will be influenced by anything that I may say upon its general principles. But I wish to reply to Senator Vardon, who raised the question of whether - in the event of the Bill being rejected - the long-service increments already paid would be affected. While I still plead with the honorable senator not to sacrifice the measure, I feel bound to say that its rejection cannot affect payments which have been already made. They could be recovered only , by action on the part of the Government, which is not likely to be taken, seeing that the increments were paid under the authority of an Appropriation Act. I must ask honorable senators to allow the Bill to pass in its present form. The money was paid over last year, and has been provided for this year. But a doubt exists as to whether it can be legally paid on the mere Act of Appropriation. Mr. Hughes has expressed the opinion that it can, and the present AttorneyGeneral has expressed a somewhat different opinion.

Senator Vardon:

– If this Bill be not passed, can the Government continue to pay?

Senator Turley:

– They will do so; and they will afterwards get an indemnity.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am endeavouring to put before the Senate the facts as I understand them. Having reached the present stage, I ask honorable senators to pass the Bill, and to leave other matters which are debatable to be dealt with in the future1.

Question - That this Bill be now read a third time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 8

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative..

Bill read a third time.

page 7057

PATENTS BILL

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

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After clause 6 insert new clause 6a.

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

[6.15]. -When I submitted this Bill to the Senate some time ago, I indicated that the object was, as far as possible, to adopt a number of the provisions of the English Patents Act of 1907. But the other House thinks it desirable that it should include another section of that Act for administrative purposes. This is not a provision to which I think any exception can be taken. Its insertion in the Bill was requested by the Commissioner of Patents for the purpose of facilitating administration. Its main object is that a single patent may be issued for cognate inventions, instead of one or two patents. For instance, if a man has secured a patent for a particular process, and subsequently he considers it desirable to make some alteration, he puts in ‘ another, application. But this provision, if adopted, will permit both applications to be combined, and a single patent issued for the invention. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 14 (Revocation of patents worked’ outside the Commonwealth).

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit section 87A, and insert in lieu thereof new section.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs)[6.18]. - As this clause left the Senate it provided - 87A. - (1.) At any time not less than four years after the date of a patent, and not less than one year after the commencement of this section, any person may apply to the Commissioner for the revocation of the patent on the ground that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on exclusively or mainly outside the Commonwealth.

It went on to provide that, if after the Commissioner had considered the application, he was not satisfied that the patented article or process was being manufactured or carried on to an adequate extent in the Commonwealth, it should be competent for him to make an order revoking the patent either forthwith or at a time to be stated. There was also provision made for a further order extending the time in certain circumstances to a period not exceeding twelve months, while sub-section 4 provided that an appeal might be made from the decision of the Commissioner. That was, I may say, the same as the English provision. In the application of that section in England it was discovered that it went somewhat further than was originally intended. It was intended in our Bill to compel the manufacture within the Commonwealth of the article or process within a. period of twelve months. But it was discovered that it would permit persons who were interested in importations on some specious pretext to apply for a revocation of the patent, and on the application being granted to bring their importations into the Commonwealth free, and without the protection which was afforded originally by the patent. In the circumstances it was thought desirable by the other House to substitute the following provision for proposed section 87 a -

At any time not less than four years after the date of a patent, and not less than two years after the commencement of this section -

That . is the first alteration. It was represented by patentees, through the Department, that one year was insufficient, and it was thought that two years would be fair - any person may apply to the High Court or the Supreme Court for an order declaring that the patented article or process is not manufactured or carried on to an adequate extent in the Commonwealth.

When the provision left the Senate, it provided that the application should be made to the Commissioner of Patents, but the other House now proposes that it should be made direct to the High Court, or to the Supreme Court.

Senator Pearce:

– Why?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The provision as it left the Senate allowed an appeal to the High Court or to the Supreme Court. It is now felt that if the application is made direct to the High Court, or to the Supreme Court, it will mean a substantial saving in expense. The experience of the Mother Country was that an application for this order is a very elaborate proceeding, and has to be entered upon with great care, having regard to its importance, and that almost invariably an appeal is made to the High Court. To save expense, it is thought desirable to allow an applicant to go straight to the High Court. The amendment from the other House continues - (2.) If, on the hearing of the application, the Court is satisfied that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on exclusively or mainly outside the Commonwealth, then, subject to the provisions of this section, and unless the patentee proves that the article or process is manufactured or carried on to an adequate extent in the Commonwealth, or gives satisfactory reasons why the article or process is not so manufactured or carried on, it shall make the order applied for, to take effect either -

at the expiration of such reasonable time as is specified in the order, unless in the meantime it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on to an adequate extent in the Commonwealth.

So far as that sub-clause is concerned, the main feature to which I draw attention is that the Court is substituted for the Commissioner. Under sub-clause 3 the Court may make a further order extending the time so specified to any time not exceeding twelve months. The only difference between that provision and ours is the substitution of the Court for the Commissioner. Sub-clause 4 is a very important one -

From and after the time when an order under sub-section (2) of this section takes effect, the patent shall not be deemed to be infringed by the manufacture or carrying on in the Commonwealth of the patented article or process, or by the vending within the Commonwealth of the patented article made within the Commonwealth.

The effect of that provision is that if the patent is not worked within the time specified it will be competent for an application to be made to the Court to declare that the patented article or process is not manufactured or carried on to an adequate” extent, in the Commonwealth, when the Court can make an order, the effect of which will be not a revocation of the patent, because that would not only permit its manufacture, but the importation of the article free from the trammels of the patent, but the local manufacture of the article will not be an infringement of the patent, and there will be protection as to any importations from abroad.

SenatorMacfarlane. - That is ratherhigh.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– No; it is quite the contrary. It will achieve all that we originally desired, and prevent abuse of the section.

Senator Pearce:

– What does the Minister mean by his reference to protecting any importations, from abroad? Does he refer to importations of the same article or a like article?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Suppose that a man in Germany has a patent for an article, and that the article is also patented in the Commonwealth. If it is not worked within a particular time, we insist that it shall be worked. Under the former provision the foreigner could set to work, and obtain a revocation of the patent. Articles produced under the foreign patent - by the same process, of course - could be introduced into the Commonwealth, because of the revocation, of the patent. But the new provision will compel the manufacture of the article in the Commonwealth, and declares that that shall not be an infringement of the patent. The patent will still remain alive to prevent the importation of these productions from abroad. Honorable senators will see at once, I think, that that is a very marked improvement.

Senator Macfarlane:

– That practice annuls the patent.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– It declares that the manufacture of the article in the Commonwealth shall not be an. infringement of the patent ; but there are manufacturers abroad who, in order to secure the Commonwealth market, would seek to get a revocation under the provision, as it passed the Senate. Their intention would be not to manufacture the article in. Australia, but to get importations of the same article from their foreign factories, and by that means defeat our purpose. Sub-section 5 of the new provision reads -

If at any time after the making of an order under sub-section (2) of this section the Court is satisfied that the patented article or process is not manufactured or carried on in the Commonwealth by any other person than the patentee, and that the patentee is manufacturing it or carrying it on to an adequate’ extent in the Commonwealth, the Court may in its discretion, if it thinks it just so to do, revoke the order, which shall thenceforth cease to have effect.

That is, I think, a rather valuable provision. Under the provision, as it left the Senate, it would have been competent for an application to be made for an order revoking a patent, and for the applicant, on getting the order, not to proceed with the manufacture of the article. The new provision will, in such circumstances, offer a sort of locus penitentiae to the patentee, who can come forward, and say : “I am manufacturing the goods in the Commonwealth, and nobody else is manufacturing them. Therefore, I apply to the Court to revoke the order.” That is, I think, a fair and just thing in the interest of the patentee. Sub-section 6 makes it competent for the Court in such circumstances instead of making such an order to direct the patentee to grant a Compulsory licence to the applicant on such terms as it may think fit; while sub-clause 7 provides that the Court may insist upon security for costs. In the Old Country, a man of straw has applied for the revocation of a patent. The patentee has been put to great expense in trying to defend his patent, and when the application has been dismissed, he has found that there was no possibility of recovering costs. Consequently, in the new clause, a discretion is given to the Court as to security for costs. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator PULSFORD:

– They have put in its place practically the same thing. When this Bill was previously before the Senate, I referred to negotiations proceeding between America and Germany. These have resulted in a law under which a patent of either country stands in both if worked in either. Many things have since occurred which indicate that even in England the new patent law is not working as satisfactorily as it was thought it would. When we remember that we are asked in a young country like Australia, with only one-tenth of the population of the United Kingdom, to adopt a similar law, we may expect more or less of failure and disappointment. The main effect of the provision, will be to limit the opportunities for the carrying out of Australian invention, and Australian inventors will be the persons who will suffer most under it.

Motion agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Insert the following new clauses : - “ 14A. After section ninety-one of the Principal

Act the following section is inserted : - 91A. Where any person claiming to be the patentee of an invention, by circulars, advertisements, or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of any alleged infringement of the patent, any person aggrieved thereby may bring an action against him, and may obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats, and may recover such damages (if any) as he has sustained thereby, if the alleged infringement to which the threats related was not in fact an infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats.

Provided that this section shall not apply if the person making such threats with due diligence commences and prosecutes an action for infringement of his patent.’ “ “ 14b. Section one hundred and seven of the

Principal Act is amended by adding after the words ‘ describe himself as a patent attorney ‘ the words ‘ or as a patent agent or as an agent for obtaining patents.’ “

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [8.6]. - I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The proposed new section 91 is really section 36 of the English Act. It is quite recognised that there is a system amongst patentees of levying blackmail against the owners of patents of a similar character. The proposed new section provides that if the owner of a patent threatens the owner of a patent of a cognate character, or warns his customers not to purchase it, it shall be necessary for the patentee making the threat to proceed with an action to substantiate his case, or otherwise be liable.

Motion agreed to.

House of Representatives’ amendment to clause1 6 agreed to.

Clause 17 -

The Second Schedule of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the figure “ 5 “ in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof the figure “ 3.”

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit the clause.

Motion (by Senator Sir Robert Best) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I hope the Committee will not agree to this amendment. The history of the matter is, briefly, this : The original Act provides in the second schedule for certain fees. We amended the schedule by providing that the fees for preparation for sealing which was fixed at£5 should be reduced to That was a compromise accepted by the Government.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– No. It was resisted by me at every stage.

Senator PEARCE:

– It was a compromise upon the reduction I had at first proposed, and it was carried by a majority of the Senate. It is when a patentee is struggling to make a success of his patent that the fees charged to him should be low ; and I was willing, upon the reduction of the fee for preparation for sealing, to support an increase in the fee for the renewal of the patent. I felt that the successful inventor is the man who should be called upon to pay the fees.

Senator Turley:

– We did increase the renewal fee from £5 to £12.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is so. It was pointed out that if we fixed the fee for sealing the patent at £3, that would bring our schedule into conformityw ith the legislation of New Zealand, and quite a number of other countries.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– No.

Senator PEARCE:

– We then increased the renewal fee from £5 to £12, in order to make up to the Government any deficiency in revenue that might follow from the reduction of the fee for preparation of a patent for sealing. I cannot remember the exact figures which were quoted at the time; but we were told that the Patent Office had made a profit in previous years, and that for the first time in the history of the office, it was estimated that there would be a loss this year. It was admitted, when we were discussing the matter, that the Commonwealth does not desire to make a profit out of inventors. It should be our object to encourage them. I have been surprised that, after the Senate had, by a majority, registered the opinion that there should be a reduction of the fees to struggling inventors., the Government should now say that they are unable to accept the reduction.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (VictoriaMinister of Trade and Customs) [8.12]. - Under the original Act for the preparation of a patent for sealing, a fee of £5 is charged. I may explain, at the outset, that between the date of application and the date when a patent is ready for sealing, a period of sixteen months might elapse. In the meantime, a great deal of work has to be done by the Patent Office. We have a number of examiners who are professional men, and whose duty it is to investigate applications for patents. For this work, a fee of £5 is charged. A patentee is given the opportunity of operating his patent for seven years, and, if at the end of that period it is shown to be of commercial value, he is permitted to renew the patent, and under the existing law, a fee of £5 is charged for the renewal. Senator Pearce induced the Senate to reduce the fee for preparation for sealing to £3, and to increase the fee for the renewal of a patent to £12. In the first place, the effect of clause 17, which the House of Representatives asks us to omit, must be a certain loss, as compared with the existing law, of £2 on every application for a patent. As we have between 1,300 and 1,400 applicants in a year, it would involve a certain loss of £2,600 or £2,800. It is true that, at the instance of Senator Pearce, the Senate increased the renewal fee from£5 to £12 ; but, of course, we have so far had no renewals. The first application under our Act is dated 1st June, 1904, and no renewal is necessary until a patent has been in operation for seven years. In the circumstances, it is quite impossible to estimate what the additional revenue from the increase of the renewal fee would be. This general principle was affirmed by the Senate; that it is desirable that the Patent Office should pay its way. As a matter of fact, under the fees which are at present charged it ‘is estimated that there wiil be a loss on the current year of £2,800, and the proposal of my honorable friend would increase that loss by £2,600. In the first place there has never been any substantial objection urged to the present fee of £5, and, secondly, the proposal of Senator Pearce would inflict hardship upon those who have taken out patents in the usual . way by compelling them to pay £12 instead of £5 for the renewal of their patents. Under these circumstances where is the necessity for the clause, especially when we bear in mind that at present it costs only £13 to see a patent right through, and that prior to Federation a patentee had to pay £97 ? With the exception of one or two countries, our fees are the lowest in the world. In various countries, such as Germany for example, patent fees range up to £100, £200, and £390. In the Mother Country they total £.120.

Senator Pulsford:

– The fees charged in the United States, which has twenty times our population, are the lowest in the world.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I admit that in the United States the fees are £1 or £2 lower than are our own. But I could produce figures which would convince my honorable friend that with the exception of one or two countries, our fees are the lowest in the world. Having regard to the fact that we cannot tell what the effect of the increased renewal-fee would be upon the revenue, and that there is already a loss of£2,700 the working of the” Patent Office, I think we should agree to the amendment of the other Chamber.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I propose on this occasion to repeat the vote which I cast some months ago. I have the greatest belief in the value to a country of low patent fees. I believe that to a very large extent the United! States owes her manufacturing position to her marvellously low patent-fees. In that country those fees are lower than they are in Australia, and I would point out that the difference is not to be expressed in mere money, because even if our fees were the same as those charged in the United States, a patent in the latter country will afford an inventor protection amongst a population twenty times larger than is our own. So that the fees in the United States are really equivalent to only about one-twentieth of our own.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I have been looking up the history of this provision, and it seems to me that the arguments which were advanced by the Minister of Trade and Customs in opposition to it when it was previously under consideration, were sufficient to induce a big majority of honorable senators to vote for it. The only reason which he urged against the clause was that under it we should not get such a large revenue from the Patents Office as we have been getting. He said nothing whatever about the assistance which it would give to an inventor who had very little money to spare. The whole of his opposition to it was based upon the fact that in certain years we had been able to make a profit of so much out of the Patents Office, and that that profit had increased as the years went by. On page 2621 of Hansard, he is reported to have said -

In 1904-5, we returned to the States , £5,386 ; in 1905-6, £6,388; in 1906-7, £4,700; in 1907-8, £2,973; and in 1908-9,£1,739.

He went on to say that we had now reached the normal condition, and that in all probability the revenue from this source would decline, and we should be faced with a deficit. To my mind there is a good deal in the contention of Senator Pulsford. We all know that under the high fees which were charged in Great Britain for many years, a considerable number of inventions by persons resident in that country were first patented in the United States, because the patents could be obtained there easier and cheaper, and because no trouble was afterwards experienced in getting the patented article manufactured in Great Britain. When this provision was previously under consideration, I find that Senator Pearce, acting on the suggestion of Senator Symon, amended his original proposal by moving to omit the figure “ 5 “ with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the figure “3.” That amendment was carried by seventeen votes to ten. On that occasion quite a number of honorable senatorsopposite evidenced their belief that it was right that we should make things as easy as possible for the inventor in Australia. The ayes were: - Senators Findley, Givens, Gray, Guthrie,

Henderson, Macfarlane, Needham, Pearce, Pulsford, E. J. Russell, W. Russell, Stewart, Story, Symon, Turley, Walker, and Lynch. I admit that the Government opposed the clause, but it seems to me that even now the Minister of Trade and Customs has advanced no argument against it, except that as we are extending a certain amount of protection to the man of inventive genius who has a patent, he should be asked to pay for that protection.

Senator Mulcahy:

– That is a fair proposition.

Senator TURLEY:

– But the inventor is already asked to pay a certain sum for that protection. In the early history of his patent he has to pay £5, and after he has proved its commercial value he is required to pay another £5. Under the clause, the inventor for a sum of £3 will be able to secure protection for his patent in its initial stages. That seems to me an eminently fair proposition, and I do not think that the Committee should allow legislation which it has passed in good faith to be upset in the absence of substantial reasons.

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

AYES: 12

NOES: 10

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

House of Representatives’ amendment omitting clause 18, agreed to.

Resolutions reported, report adopted.

Senate adjourned at 8.31 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 December 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19091206_senate_3_54/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 6 December 1909

PRIVILEGE

Northern Territory Acceptance Bill : Press Reports

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator de Largie:

Senator Colonel NEILD:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator St Ledger:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Story:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND AND SOUTH AFRICA: CUSTOMS AGREEMENT

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

QUESTION

STAMPS BRANCH : FEMALE EMPLOYES

Senator HENDERSON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND MAILS

Senator CLEMONS:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

NORTHERN TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL

Senator STORY:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator STORY:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator STORY:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

QUESTION

COTTON GROWING: NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator DOBSON:TASMANIA

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE BILL

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Colonel Neild:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Colonel Neild:

DEFENCE BILL

Senator MILLEN:New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

Senator MILLEN:New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

PATENTS BILL

NAVAL LOAN BILL

Senator ST LEDGER:Queensland

Senator Pearce:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Lynch:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Lynch:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senate
6 December 1909

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia,

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade