4th Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 4378
Senator VARDON presented a petition from four taxpayers of South Australia, praying the Senate to reject the Land Tax Assessment Bill.
Petition received.
page 4378
– I wish to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, when the revised questions in connexion with the census will be made available?
– The census questions are being prepared to be laid before a meeting of the Executive Council which is to be held some time this week. As soon as the meeting of the Executive has been held, the census questions will be put through, and they will be laid upon the table of the Senate as regulations immediately afterwards.
– Arising out of the Minister’s answer, I should like to ask whether the Senate will be afforded an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the census questions?
– The ordinary procedure when regulations are laid upon the table of the Senate is that any honorable senator can give notice to dissent from a regulation, or can move to substitute a new regulation. ‘ If any such motion is tabled an opportunity will be afforded for discussing it.
ADJOURNMENT (Formal).
Census Questions.
– I have received the following letter : -
The Senate, 12th October, 1910.
Mr. . President,
I beg to state that I propose to-day to move the adjournment of the Senate, with a view of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government after definite promises to afford senators an opportunity of discussing the questions to be asked in connexion with the census of1911.
Yours obediently,
D. Chataway.
Four honorable senators having risen in
– I beg to move) -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until to-morrow at 9.30 a.m.
I mentioned this matter to the Minister of Defence before the Senate met to-day, and assured him that I did not intend to occupy more than a few minutes. In the course of procedure upon the Supply Bill on Wednesday last honorable senators had an opportunity of discussing the census questions, which, it will be admitted, have been attracting a. great deal of attention all over the country, and have been the subject of a considerable amount of unfavorable criticism. The questions might reasonably enough have been discussed at some length then. Senator Gould therefore asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council a question, intimating that we were anxious to know when the Senate would have an opportunity of discussing the questions. Thereupon the Vice-President of the Executive Council made the definite promise that an opportunity would be given on the following day - that is, on Thursday last. What happened on the Thursday morning? Notice of motion was given by Senator Findley, which held out the hope that the Senate would be afforded an opportunity of discussing the matter on the following Tuesday - that is to say, yesterday. When the motion was called on yesterday, however, in spite of the fact that an honorable senator on this side of the Chamber called “ Not formal,” it was ruled - perfectly correctly, I understand - that the Minister was at liberty to take no action whatever. Accordingly the motion lapsed. Where do we stand now ? We have granted Supply for two months, and have not been afforded the opportunity for which we were anxious. We were promised by the VicePresident of the Executive Council that we should have an opportunity within twenty-four hours after the matter was mentioned to him. In reply to a question which I put to-day the Minister of Defence stated that the census questions were to be dealt with by the Executive Council this week. If I understood him rightly, he said that the questions would thereafter take the form of regulations, which would be laid upon the table of the Senate. That procedure is not at all in accordance with what Senator McGregor definitely promised. He promised to give us an opportunity of discussing the questions before they were embodied in regulations. Now we have an entirely new proposition laid before us. The census questions themselves must be drafted and ready for submission to the Executive Council. Otherwise the Minister of Defence could not have spoken as he did concerning them. The moment they have been dealt with by the Executive Council t’hey will take the form of regulations. The Government have not treated the Opposition, and their own supporters who wish to discuss the matter, fairly. They induced us to allow an excellent opportunity to slip. I may, perhaps, be using an unreasonably strong term, but when I compare the statement made by Senator McGregor, and the notice of motion given by Senator Findley, with the procedure since adopted, I am inclined to say that the Government have been guilty of trickery. If Ministers can show some really good reason for the position which they have taken up in departing from the promise definitely made, I shall certainly withdraw that last statement, but meanwhile I say that on the face of matters the Government have not treated those who wished to discuss the census questions, fairly. I do not intend to discuss the subject at length at the present stage. I purposely drafted my letter to the President in such a form that - as I knew perfectly - I should have no power to discuss the questions themselves. What I am now discussing is what appears to me to be an absolutely unfair course of action on the part of the Government, namely, that we were assured that we should have a fair opportunity of discussing the questions, and that that opportunity has not been afforded to us. Of course, any honorable senator could raise the matter on the adjournment of the Senate any evening ; but at a late hour honorable senators are tired and not prepared to take an interest in a subject of the kind.
– Moreover, no definite result could then be secured.
– No; as the honorable senator points out, no result could be attained by mentioning the subject on the motion for the adjournment. We have been unfairly treated ; and I have moved the adjournment this afternoon in the hope that the Government will make some more definite statement than has previously been made as to the procedure that they intend to adopt. I say again that we have not been treated well. We were especially asked to reserve our remarks when we had an opportunity, while the
Supply Bill was before us, and were further induced to withhold action by the fact that notice of motion was given by Senator Findley on behalf of the Government. But the very moment that motion was called on the Minister sat tight in his seat, and the motion dropped from the businesspaper. The Ministry themselves must realize that they have not acted fairly. They may have the very best reasons for what they have done, but they have not yet furnished those reasons to the Senate.
Senator St. LEDGER (Queensland) [2.41]. - I do not intend to traverse the history of the remarkable attitude of the Government concerning the census questions.
– There is nothing remarkable about their attitude.
– I think there is. As has been pointed out by Senator Chataway, there have been two opportunities when we might have discussed this very important question.
– An opportunity will not be denied.
– We have been deprived of those opportunities hitherto by the action of the Government.
– The questions could not be fairly discussed until they had been considered by the Government.
- Senator Findley, who represents the Minister of Home Affairs, cannot dispute the proposition that his colleague, the Vice-President of the Executive Council) told us last week that we should have an opportunity of discussing this matter on the day after his statement was made. At a later stage Senator Findley himself gave notice of motion. But yesterday, for some - reason which is not apparent, and which can hardly be considered creditable to the Administration, when we came here expecting that the required opportunity would be furnished to us, the motion of which he had given notice was allowed to lapse. What is the procedure now contemplated? Presumably the Government have discussed the census questions themselves. They are now to be submitted to the Executive Council for approval ; after which the questions will take the form of regulations as required by the Census Act. Those regulations will then be submitted to the Senate and the other House simultaneously. The only chance under that procedure-
– There is no chance of wasting time under that procedure, is there?
– There is no chance of debating the matter properly. We cannot discuss the questions fairly until we have seen them. The Government may submit a formal motion for the adoption of the regulations.
– That is not necessary.
– I was going to point that out. Under the Acts Interpretation Act, regulations laid on the table have the force of law if not dissented from within a certain time.
– What does the honorable senator wish to do? Does he wish to alter the regulations, or to talk about them?
– To alter them, if necessary.
– The course we propose to adopt will give the honorable senator an opportunity to do that.
– In what way? The Government may merely lay the regulations on the table, and it may be left to some member of the Senate to submit a motion that they be disagreed with, or that they be amended in some way.
– I gave honorable senators a definite promise that if such regulations were tabled they would be given an opportunity to discuss them. What more do they want?
– The Minister will pardon me for saying that, in view of the remarkably curious attitude which the Government have adopted in this matter, he can scarcely expect honorable senators on this side to take his word without something more.
– There is no occasion for that statement.
– I regret to have to make it, but I think the attitude of the Government in connexion with this matter justifies a comment which in other circumstances would not be courteous.
– I am prepared to put my word against the honorable senator’s at any time, and fifty persons out of sixty would accept it before they would accept the honorable senator’s word.
– If the Minister wants to place himself upon a pinnacle of perfection, and, by insinuation, to place me at the bottom of the pedestal, I have no objection ; but I think that my criticism is justified in the circumstances.
– The honorable senator is a nice fellow to say that he will not take a man’s word.
– We accepted Senator McGregor’s word the other day.
– I resent such a statement coming from that quarter.
-I cannot understand why the Minister of Defence should try to make this matter personal.
– Because the honorable senator has already done so in saying that he would not take my word.
– I shall give the honorable senator an example of a generosity he has not extended to me by saying that if I made any remark which may be taken to imply a personal reflection! upon him, I did not intend to do so; and I unqualifiedly withdraw it.
– I said that the Government would give honorable senators an opportunity to discuss the regulations, and the honorable senator said he was not prepared to take my word.
– I said nothing of the kind. 1 am afraid the honorable senator is becoming nervy over this matter. I say that if the Minister of Defence, on behalf of the Government, gives the Senate an assurance that an opportunity will be afforded to discuss the regulations, and, if necessary, to alter them, I shall accept it unreservedly ; but in the circumstances surrounding the matter up to the present the honorable senator can scarcely blame me for saying that we require something more than his definite assurance. What is there discourteous to the Minister personally in that statement? It may be that the VicePresident of the Executive Council found that he was unable to follow the course which he assured the Senate would be taken in the matter. If that can be shown to be so, every honorable senator on this side will be perfectly satisfied. But I point out that when the regulations are tabled we may not be given a proper opportunity to discuss them. When the Minister says that the Government will give us an opportunity to do so, I accept his assurance unreservedly.
– If it is accepted, what is the object of the motion for the adjournment of the Senate?
– Perhaps the honorable senator will permit me to complete my sentence. I should like him to accompany his assurance by a statement that when the regulations are tabled the Government will submit a formal motion in connexion with them.
– That is absolutely impossible. Such a thing is never done.
– Then the Opposition will have to find an opportunity to see that it is done.
– I have said that we will give honorable senators the opportunity.
– I regret that the Minister should have taken any remarks of mine as a personal reflection upon him. Now that we know that the regulations dealing with the census papers are to be placed on the table, it will be for the Senate as a whole to find a way in which to deal exhaustively with the whole question.
– I am at a loss to understand why certain members of the Opposition should impart so much heat to the discussion of this matter. When later in this week or next week the regulations are laid on the table of the Senate, honorable senators will be given an opportunity to express their opinions in respect to every question that appears on the census papers. When questions concerning the matter were asked me, as the representative of the Minister of Home Affairs in the Senate, I told honorable senators that there was no desire on the part of the Government to prevent a discussion of the matter. A few days ago I laid on the table copies of the forms proposed to be used in connexion with the collection of the census. Some honorable senators contend that the attitude of the Government in this matter is somewhat extraordinary. But really it is their own attitude that is extraordinary, because, if the subject had been discussed in connexion with the papers laid on the table, no matter how much honorable senators might have been opposed to the questions proposed, no action could have been taken to alter them, and the discussion must have keen fruitless. The Government are proposing now to give the Senate the opportunity which some honorable senators say they desire, to take action which may have some result.
– They never offered that opportunity.
– The honorable senator will pardon me. Last Friday afternoon, on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, Senator McGregor, as Leader of the Senate, told honorable senators plainly that it was the intention of the Government to withdraw the papers which had been laid on the table, and to table regulations under the Census and Statistics Act, and that when they were laid on the table, an opportunity would be given to honorable senators to discuss them. Section 27 of the Census and Statistics Act reads -
The Governor-General may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all acts and things which by this Act are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.
Under that provision, full power is given to the Government of the day, whoever they may be, to prescribe regulations under the Act. Then section 10 of the Acts Interpretation Act points out the way in which individual senators may proceed when regulations are tabled of which they disapprove, and which they might desire to amend. The section provides that -
Where an Act confers power to make regulations, all regulations made accordingly shall, unless the contrary intention appears -
be notified in the Gazette;
take effect from the date of notification, or from a later date specified in the regulations ;
be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within thirty days of the making thereof, or, if the Parliament is not then sitting, within thirty days after the next meeting of the Parliament.
But if either House of the Parliament passes a resolution of which notice has been given at any time within fifteen sitting days after such regulations have been laid before such House disallowing any regulation, such regulation shall thereupon cease to have effect.
What further power does any member of the Senate require? Why this motion has been submitted in the circumstances I cannot understand.
– Because the honorable senator did not make any explanation when he withdrew the census papers.
– That is an unfair statement to make. I do not think that it is necessary that members of the Government should be getting up day after day to repeat whathas previously been said. I informed the Senate only a moment ago that Senator McGregor on Friday afternoon last explained that the Government intended to withdraw the census papers, and later to lay regulations dealing with the matter on the table of the Senate.
– Why did the Government withdraw the papers?
– I am telling the honorable senator why. It was in order that the Senate might have a full opportunity of discussing the regulations.
– Nonsense; that is not the reason at all.
– That statement is unjustifiable, and uncalled for. I hardly expected such a statement from Senator Vardon who, as a rule, is very fair in any statement he makes. The Government have no desire to withhold anything from the Senate, and let me repeat again that honorable senators will be given the fullest opportunity to discuss the regulations when they are laid on the table, and they may amend any question proposed in any way they think desirable.
– Before they are included in the regulations?
– No; that is the whole point.
– There is no point. Surely the Senate must have something to discuss.
– We had something to discuss last week, but the Government would not permit us to discuss it.
– If honorable senators had discussed the matter on the occasion referred to until the .track of doom it would have had no effect upon the Government, and no useful result of any kind. Under the course we now intend to follow, the Senate will be given an opportunity to amend any of the questions proposed, if a majority of honorable senators believe that to be desirable. In the circumstances, I think that the motion for the adjournment of the Senate is altogether unnecessary, and to discuss it is only taking up time unnecessarily.
– I think it is as well that we should deal at once with the last remark made by the Honorary Minister. The whole crux of the matter is that we desire to discuss the census questions before they are confirmed in a regulation by the Executive. The Government do not desire that we should discuss them until they are embodied in the regulations. An honorable senator may disapprove of some of the questions, but if he is a follower of the Government, he will not be disposed to vote against the regulations as a whole, because, if the Senate declined to pass the regulations as a whole, the Government might regard that as a motion of censure.
– Nonsense.
– I wish that every member of the Senate should be able to consider the questions to be asked in connexion with the collection of the census, before they are decided upon by the Execu tive. That is what we were promised on last Wednesday. I brought the matter up on the Supply Bill, and we were given an assurance by the Vice-President of the Executive Council that an ample opportunity would be afforded honorable senators to discuss the questions before the Executive Council took any hand in the matter. I do not know why that promise was broken. To my surprise, Senator Findley tabled a motion in connexion with the matter, but when it was called upon yesterday, he withdrew it. 1 objected on a point of order, but the President ruled, correctly, I suppose, that the Minister had power towithdraw the motion. The honorable senator did so without offering any explanation whatever, and to-day we are told that later in this week, or during next week, after the Executive Council has dealt with the matter, regulations under the Census and Statistics Act will be tabled, and we may discuss them. ‘The difficulty is that we shall not then be able to deal with the questions separately.
– Yes; the honorable senator does not understand the position. Ask Senator Stewart. He has already done it in one case.
– We believe that this matter has not been dealt with in a straightforward manner. On Wednesday last the Vice-President of the Executive Council promised that honorable senators would be enabled to discuss it upon the following day. No mention was then made of the circumstance that it was necessary that the regulations should first go before the Executive Council. On Thursday last the Honorary Minister gave notice of a motion, which was duly placed upon the business-paper, but which was yesterday withdrawn. Thus the promise of the Leader of the Senate has not been redeemed. Instead, it is proposed to lay certain regulations on the table, which - if they are not vetoed - will become law. It would be far better for the Government to say to honorable senators, “ Here are the questions which we intend to adopt in connexion with the census papers. We propose to give you an opportunity of discussing them separately.”
– Will not the Senate have an opportunity of amending those questions ?
– No. When once they have been approved by the Executive, and have lain upon the table of the Senate for a certain .period, they will have the force of law. Of course, any honorable senator will be at liberty to move that they be disagreed with, but any such action would place him in a very awkward position, inasmuch as he may approve of some of the regulations and disapprove of others. I hold that before the Government adopt these regulations the Senate should be afforded an opportunity of saying whether or not, in its opinion, the questions which are to be placed upon the census papers are suitable or otherwise. But it is the same old practice of government by regulation, to which Senators Givens, Lynch, and myself have so strenuously objected.
– The honorable senator did not help me the other day when I wanted him to adopt that attitude.
– Only yesterday, in connexion with the Navigation Bill, it was proposed that certain things should be prescribed by regulation. I objected to that proposal, but Senator Lynch was quite prepared to accept it. I would further point out that the Government already monopolize the whole of the time which was previously available for the transaction of private members’ business, and consequently we shall be debarred from objecting to these regulations. I do not see that any other course was open to Senator Chataway than that which he has taken this afternoon. He has embraced the first opportunity which presented itself of protesting against the action of the Government with a view to the Senate being afforded an opportunity to discuss the questions which are to be placed upon the census papers before the regulations are approved by the Executive Council.
Senator VARDON (South Australia) £3.6]. - I feel very strongly that the Government have not dealt fairly with the Senate in this matter. If my recollection be right, it was the Leader of the Opposition who first asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he would lay. on the table of the Senate a copy of the questions which it was intended to include in the census papers, and whether he would afford us an opportunity of discussing them. The Vice-President of the Executive Council stated that he would grant us that opportunity, and in fulfilment of his promise the Honorary Minister gave notice of his intention to move -
That the Senate approves of the questions (as laid on the table on 28th September last) proposed to be asked at the census” to be taken on the 3rd April, 1911
Had that motion been submitted, honorable senators would have been afforded an opportunity of approving the questions which it is intended to place in the census papers before they were embodied in regulations. From the promise which was given, it appears that the Government were then willing to consider any representations which might be made regarding those questions, and, if necessary, to modify them before they were embodied in regulations. Why was the motion of which notice was given by the Honorary Minister withdrawn from the business-paper? At a later stage the Vice-President of the Executive Council declared that, because the Senate did not pass a two months’ Supply Bill without debate, he would reconsider the matter, and withdraw the motion from the noticepaper. So far as we know, that is the only reason why it was withdrawn, and why we are refused an opportunity of approving or disapproving of the questions which it is intended to place upon the census papers. That refusal is the punishment to which we are to be subjected be-1 cause we did not approve of a two months’ Supply Bill without discussion. I repeat that the Senate has not been properly treated by the Government. When a promise is made it should be fulfilled to the letter. I protest against this sort of treatment of the Senate by any Ministry. The Government may have the numbers behind them, but that does not make their action right. The Vice-President of the Executive Council, having made a definite promise, has no right to withdraw it on such a shabby pretext. I strongly dissent from a number of the questions which it is proposed to place upon the census papers, but I will not attempt to discuss them now.
– Most of the noise made this afternoon by honorable senators opposite is intended to make it clear that, because the Government have a following in this Chamber, they are in a position to bring down’ regulations which that following must support, irrespective of whether the regulations are right or wrong. That is entirely opposed to my notions of the duties of a Government. This is the first time I have been given to understand that a Government can bring down a set of regulations which must be regarded as sacred, which’ must not be touched, and which they themselves regard as vital. Take the case of the Navigation Bill, which is before the Senate. Presumably its provisions have undergone a great deal of Executive criticism. Its clauses represent a list of Cabinet decisions. But when each clause comes under our review every honorable senator is free to vote yea or nay upon it.
– Does the honorable senator say that the Navigation Bill came before this Chamber after it had been passed by the Executive?
– After it had been approved by the Cabinet. In my view, a Bill and its clauses are superior at any time to regulations. To attempt to elevate a set of regulations to the same plane as that which is occupied’ by a Bill is ridiculous.
– Regulations are far stronger than is a Bill. A Bill is nothing until it becomes an Act.
– We all recognise that the clauses of the Navigation Bill, which had met with Cabinet approval before being submitted to us, have since undergone a very great change. It would be extraordinary if we were told by the Government that these regulations would be treated by them as vital to their existence. I am sure that the Ministry do not expect their supporters to follow them blindly upon a mere matter of regulations. At any rate, I shall exercise my independence in respect to every one of those regulations.
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [3.13].- From the tone of the debate it seems rather a pity that the Government did not see their way to allow the Senate to debate the motion of which notice was given by the Honorary Minister last week. Had that course been followed we should have been afforded an opportunity to express our opinions upon questions to which we are strongly antagonistic, and it would also have enabled the Government to ascertain the feeling of the Senate. Instead, it is now proposed that the whole of the questions to be placed on the census papers shall be embodied in regulations, and we are told that it will be competent for any honorable senator to discuss those regulations on a specific motion. That statement is quite true, so far as it goes. But as has already been pointed out by Senator Sayers, Government business already monopolizes the whole of our time, so that we may really have no chance of dissenting from any particular regulation. I think that the Ministry ought to afford us such an opportunity.
– I gave a definite assurance to-day that we will do that.
– I assumed that the Government would do so. I also wish to point out that the Acts Interpretation Act of 1904 provides that -
Where an Act confers power to make regulations, all regulations made accordingly shall, unless the contrary intention appears -
be notified in the Gazelle;
take effect from the date of notification, or from a later date specified in the regulations ;
be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within thirty days of the making thereof, or, if the Parliament is not then sitting, within thirty days after the next meeting of the Parliament.
But if either House of the Parliament passes a resolution of which notice has been given at any time within fifteen sitting days after such regulations have been laid before such House disallowing any regulation such regulation shall thereupon cease to have effect.
– There is no provision in that Act for amending regulations.
– The forms of the Senate allow that to be done.
– I was going on to point out that we have the right to disallow a regulation.
– You can give a reason for the disallowance.
– In this case, for instance, the Senate can disallow a regulation because it contains certain questions which are objectionable, and then I assume that the course for the Ministry to take would be to submit another regulation embodying the questions which have been approved. It is rather a pity, I think, that the Senate has not had an opportunity of debating the census questions as was promised. On Wednesday last a promise to that effect was made by Senator McGregor, and subsequently Senator Findley gave notice of a specific motion which was supposed to take the place of the promise that the questions should be discussed at an early date. That variation has, no doubt, created the feeling that the Senate had not been treated fairly. I trust that Ministers, now that they have ascertained its feeling, will lose no time in submitting regulations in order that they may be dealt with as promptly and effectively as possible, and not hold them over until such a late period that there will not be ample time to discuss any objectionable features of them.
– I think that the Senate has some cause for complaint. It was very generally under- stood amongst honorable senators that there was some objection to the questions as embodied in the forms supplied to us. I heard a great deal of criticism with regard to some of them.
– Some of them are mere impertinences.
– One-half of the questions were deemed to be of a most ridiculous character, and as tending to bring discredit upon the authority which was responsible for issuing them. Somehow or other the feeling got abroad that the Government was prepared to give the Senate an opportunity of discussing the questions with the object of discovering which of them were objectionable to honorable senators, and that the result was to be some sort of a guide to them in framing regulations. Senator McGregor promised that the Senate would have an opportunity of discussing the questions. For some reason or other that promise has not been carried out, and now the Government falls back on its present decision which is to issue the regulations in due course, and then we are told the Senate will have an opportunity of discussing them. I wish to point out that the regulations, so far as we know, are not yet framed, and that after they are ready the Government will be under no obligation to lay them on the table at once. They can do so at any time within thirty days after they are so prepared. I do not say that the Government will delay the tabling of them for that period, but it may do so. If that course is adopted the Parliament will have no opportunity of discussing the questions. Thirty days from a week or a fortnight hence will be well into the month of November, when, I suppose, everybody will be anxious to get away, and there will be the usual crush of business which occurs at the end of every session. In those circumstances, the probability of the census questions receiving anything like a fair discussion is very doubtful. I did not hear what the Minister said in reply to Senator Gould, but the Government need not give the Senate any opportunity of discussing the questions.
– The honorable senator heard what I said to-day, in reply to Senator Chataway ‘s question, but, of course, he will please himself as to whether he will believe my statement or not.
– I did not hear the honorable senator; indeed, he is so saving of his breath that in nine cases out of ten I do not know what he is talking about.
– The honorable senator does not want to know.
– Either I shall have to get some sort of artificial ear, or the honorable senator will require a bellows to give him more wind.
– There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.
– That is rather an ungenerous statement. In any case, I think that the first decision of the Government was the best. It would have given the Senate an opportunity of discussing thi: questions in a friendly way before they were embodied in regulations, and then, after they had been issued there would have been no need to go over the whole matter, again. “
– I wish to remind the last speaker, and other honorable senators, that the Senate is not a mere debating society. We are here for the purpose of moulding the measures which come before us from time to time.
– A schoolmaster.
– What the Senate is concerned with is how it can most effectually do that, and not to enter upon a mere aimless discussion, arriving at no end and serving no purpose.
– How we can keep the Government up to the mark is another thine.
- Senator Stewart has said that what honorable senators wanted was a discussion with the object of discovering which of the census questions were objectionable. What would that mean ? Every one of the thirty-six senators would have to give his opinion on each of the fifteen questions. Who would interpret them ? Speaking from the Government bench, I might interpret the discussion as being wholly favorable to the fifteen questions, whereas Senator Chataway, or some other senator on the Opposition side, might interpret it as being wholly unfavorable. What possible register of opinion would there be in such a discussion? If Senator Stewart really means what he says the course proposed by the Government is the best to meet his view, as he knows, because, on a previous occasion, he moved to amend a regulation and succeeded in accomplishing his object. ‘
– I know that I had some difficulty to surmount.
– The honorable senator knows that that is the best way to accomplish anything. If, however, he merely wants an aimless discussion, arriving at no end and accomplishing no purpose, the course adopted by the members of the Opposition is the one which he should support. It would mean an aimless discussion, rambling over the whole of the questions and not altering one of them, nor giving the Government an opportunity of ascertaining what is the opinion of the majority. But I understand that Senator Stewart wants to assist the Government in getting on with the business of the country, and it is solely with that end in view that the Government have taken the course which they have adopted. We have also given an assurance, which Senator Stewart refuses to accept, in common with one or two honorable senators - that if, within fifteen sitting days of the tabling of the regulations, any honorable senator gives notice of a motion disagreeing with any one of them, we shall afford to the Senate an opportunity of discussing’ the motion, and, of course, they will also have the opportunity of taking a vote.
– Will they be here in time ?
– The honorable senator well knows that any honorable senator can give notice of a motion, not in respect of the regulations as a whole, but in regard to any particular regulation, even because of one word therein.
– Will they be here in time ?
– Senator Vardon knows that too; in fact, they all know it. They are aware that if they desire to register the objection of the Senate to any words in a regulation that is the proper, and the only, course to take.
– I want a Government which will keep its promises.
– Is the honorable senator merely concerned with the keeping of an imaginary promise, which, as has already been explained by my honorable colleague, is being kept?
– An “ imaginary “ promise ?
– Or does the honorable senator want an opportunity to register the opinion of the Senate?
– The explanation was given after the promise was broken.
– Then we have Senator Stewart’s innuendo. He knows that he cannot refute what I have said, but he implies that the Government are going to be so cowardly as to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded by the Acts Interpretation Act in order to dodge a discussion. He implies that we intend to take advantage of the whole period of thirty days which the law allows before we lay the regulations on the table.
– How long will it take?
– -The honorable senator know how long it will take. He knows that if a meeting of the Executive Council is held to-day, and the Senate meets tomorrow, the regulations can be tabled tomorrow.
– Oh, well, that will satisfy me.
– The honorable senator knows that, but he implies that, in order to burke discussion - to dodge criticism - the Government intend to avail themselves of the whole period of thirty days. One would not be surprised at hearing such a statement made by a member of the Opposions, but coming from a supporter of the Government it certainly is a strange criticism, and shows a peculiar judgment.
– I do not think that this Government is much better than some previous Governments.
– Do the Government expect their followers to accept the regulations in toto?
– Certainly not. The statement made by Senator Sayers that the Government are going to resign, or to make some question a vital one, is too ridiculous to be debated.
– Of course, everything is ridiculous except what the honorable senator says. He is a schoolmaster.
– And equally ridiculous is the statement by the honorable senator that the Senate must reject the regulations as a whole, and, therefore, can have no opportunity to object to any particular question.
– I have heard the matter argued in that way, and so has the honorable senator.
– If the honorable senator will simply consult the President or the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, he will find that, if he likes, he can move to disagree with any of the regulations because of one word in it.
– Can an honorable senator move to disagree with one word in a regulation?
– Yes ; and if the Senate carries the motion the regulation will be nullified. That will be a direction to the Government to bring in a new regulation in the direction indicated by the Senate. There must, however, be Executive action in regard to the framing of regulations. They cannot be framed in the Senate. They must be framed by the Government and submitted to the Senate for approval. If the Senate disallows a particular regulation, the Government, as the Executive body, will carry out the will of Parliament. Any Government would be stupid in the extreme if it reintroduced a regulation contrary to the expressed will of a branch of the Legislature.
– Suppose the other Chamber disagreed with a decision of the Senate as to a regulation?
– In that case, the Government would have to make a choice, or to find a via media. But if either House of the Legislature disallows a regulation, the Government must accept the decision. I do say that the Government have some cause of complaint with regard to this debate. After I had given a distinct promise to Senator Chataway that, after the regulations were laid upon the table of the Senate, we would afford an opportunity of discussing any motion that might be submitted for the disallowance of a regulation, we have a cause of complaint that the adjournment should have been moved.
– The honorable senator did not make that promise before I moved the adjournment.
– I did. The honorable senator asked mea question.
– The honorable senator did not make the promise in replying to my question.
– I made the promise in reply to a question asked by Senator Givens. I gave the Senate a distinct undertaking that the Government would give a full opportunity ; and in the face of that undertaking the submission of a motion for the adjournment of the Senate could have but one meaning, and that is that those who rose in their places to support Senator Chataway refused to take the assurance of the Government. Either that, or they simply wished for an opportunity to belabour the Government because of the action that they took on a previous occasion - an action which was explained on Friday last by my colleague.
Senator CHATAWAY (Queensland) moving the adjournment to-day, it has been furnished by the wild and whirling words that have been uttered by the two Ministers. They have become absolutely angry about the matter. One would imagine that, instead of having asked the Government to explain why they broke a promise made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, we had suddenly laid some dark and dangerous trap for them.
– Is it not a fact that the Vice-President of the Executive Council said, after he made the promise, that, under certain circumstances, he would not be bound by it?
.– - That statement is not very creditable to the Vice-President of the Executive Council.
– At any rate, the point that I wish to make, and that has not been met by Senator Pearce, is that on Wednesday last we had an opportunity of debating the census questions on the Supply Bill. The Leader of the Government, in a reply to Senator St. Ledger, when he began to speak about the census papers, said, “ If you are going to discuss that matter now, I will not give you an opportunity to-morrow night ‘ ‘ ; that is to say, on Thursday night. Later on, in reply to Senator Gould, the Vice-President of the Executive Council said, “ I promise to give an opportunity to discuss the whole matter to-morrow.
– Conditionally.
– The VicePresident of the Executive Council did not use that word. If Senator Lynch is going to edit Hansard he should retire from Parliament and become a salaried officer of the Crown. Meanwhile, he may accept my assurance that I am quoting from Hansard. On the strength of the definite promise that was made, the Supply Bill went through. On the following day Senator Findley gave notice of motion. Discussion of that motion would have carried out the promise made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. The only explanation offered by Ministers to-day for the withdrawal of that opportunity is that when the regulations are tabled we shall be able to deal with them. Of course, we can take what action we please on regulations submitted to’ us. That is not a case of the Government affording the Senate an opportunity. It is an opportunity which we take for ourselves.
– It is the Government that will give the opportunity to discuss the regulations.
– The Government having captured the time allotted for private members’ business, we find that we have not the right to discuss the regulations without their consent. I consider that I was amply justified in protesting against what I think was really a bit of trickery.
– Order !
– I used the same word before, and it was not ruled out of order.. The Government, apparently, have misled us. They led us to believe that on a certain occasion we should have an opportunity of discussing the census questions. What has happened is that, between the time that promise was made and the time for it to be carried out, the Government have thought fit to censor the questions, and to bring forward a fresh set. If one effect of this debate will be to cause the Government to table the regulations and give us an opportunity of discussing them, my motion for the adjournment will not have been submitted in vain.
– We have not taken this action because of the discussion.. I made my promise before the discussion came on.
– The Minister’s promise was not made before this debate commenced.
– Yes, it was.
– I asked a certain question about the regulations, and the Minister then told me that the whole matter was coming before the Executive Council this week. He made no definite promise as to a debate in the Senate. It is only reasonable that the members of this Chamber, seeing how short the session is likely to be, and how little time is left to us, should be afforded the very earliest opportunity of discussing the regulations. I trust that they will be debated as soon as possible. With the consent of the Senate, I now beg leave to withdraw my motion.
– On behalf of the VicePresident of the Executive Council I wish to say-
– Is this in order?
– Senator Findley is in order in making an explanation relating to anything affecting himself.
– During the discussion on Senator Chataway’s motion, it has been slated that the Government made a promise which has been broken. As a member of the Government that statement reflects upon me.
– The honorable senator is only entitled to make a personal explanation at this stage. He cannot make an explanation on behalf of Senator McGregor.
– I wish to make it clear that the promise has not been broken. Senator Chataway has incorrectly quoted Senator McGregor. In justice to my colleague I think that the promise which he made should be correctly quoted.
– The honorable senator is not in order at this stage in making a statement concerning the VicePresident of the Executive Council. He is only entitled to make a personal explanation.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
page 4388
Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Pearce) read a first time.
page 4388
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
– In moving -
That this Bill be now read a first time,
I desire, in fairness to honorable senators, to draw attention to the fact that as it is a Bill which the Senate may not amend, honorable senators are entitled to discuss matters in general on the motion for the first reading.
Debate (on motion by Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir Albert Gould) adjourned.
page 4388
(No. 2).
The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a message from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this Bill.
page 4388
/ n Committee (Consideration resumed from nth October,(vide page. 4339) :
Clause 202 -
The Minister may, if he is satisfied that the immediate resurvey of a steam-ship will occasion unreasonable or unnecessary expense or inconvenience, and that no danger to the ship or her crew passengers or cargo will arise from the extension, extend the time for her next resurvey, and the currency of her certificate of survey, for any period not exceeding one month.
Upon which Senator Givens had moved by way of amendment -
That the following words be added to the clause : - “ Provided that no extension of the currency of the certificate shall be granted to enable the vessel to proceed to another port for the purpose of docking or repairs if proper facilities are available for such docking or repairs at any of the ports to which the vessel is usually trading.
– I should like to hear some reason for the amendment.
– I advanced some reasons for it last night.
– I think the honorable senator spoke at large on the question, and he will remember that it was the last thing dealt with last night.
– I have moved the amendment for two or three reasons. It will be admitted that it is highly desirable that, at as great a number of ports in Australia as possible, we should have facilities provided for the repairing of vessels. I am sure that every honorable senator desires that the policy of decentralization should be the policy adopted in this connexion. So far, in almost every State, a policy of absolute centralization has been adopted. The policy in New South Wales has been to drag everything to Sydney ; in Victoria, to bring everything to Melbourne; in South Australia, that everything should be done at Adelaide. I believe it is as bad in Western Australia, and if things are not as bad in Queensland in this regard it is because the coast line of that State has not lent itself to the adoption of such a policy. It has been represented to me by men who have gone to a great deal of trouble and expense in establishing patent slips and other appliances for the repairing and docking of vessels that vessels trading to the ports in which these facilities have been afforded, having exhausted the currency of their certificates, have applied for an extension, in order to enable them to proceed to some other port for docking and repairing. I say that this practice is grossly unjust to those who have displayed sufficient enterprise and energy to establish patent slips and repairing facilities in the smaller ports of the Commonwealth. No extension should be granted to a vessel in order that she may proceed to some other port for docking and repairs if facilities for the purpose are provided at one of the ports to which she usually trades. I remind the Committee that the amendment can do no injustice to, nor inflict any hardship upon, any shipowner, because, if he considers it essential that his vessel should be taken to some port to which she does not usually trade for the purpose of docking and repairs, he can see that she is taken there during the currency of her certificate. The clause provides that the Minister may grant an extension of the currency of the certificate if he is satisfied that it would involve no danger to the vessel or to human life ; butI say that the only way in which the Minister can properly satisfy himself on those points is by a resurvey of the ship, and that takes place before a new certificate is issued. It is therefore essential, in my opinion, that no extension of time should be granted upon any flimsy pretext, if facilities for docking and repairs are available in any port to which the vessel usually trades. Under existing conditions, vessels are frequently run for the full term of their certificates; then application is made for a month’s extension of the currency of the certificates, and the vessels are taken to Sydney, or somewhere else, from the northern ports of Queensland, to have the work of docking and repairing done there, when facilities for the purpose are provided in the ports to which the vessels usually trade. I have no doubt that the same thing applies in each of the other States. It will be admitted that it is a most undesirable practice, and discourages the establishment of facilities for the docking and repairing of vessels in the smaller ports. I know that there are a number of small vessels trading between ports in the north of Queensland, where patent slips and facilities for repairs are provided, and when they have run the full term of their certificates they proceed to Brisbane or Sydney, on an extension of time, for necessary repairs. This is in keeping with the bad policy of centralization, which this Parliament should discourage in every possible way. I repeat that the proviso would not deprive any ship-owner of any right he should possess. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
– I should be prepared to accept the amendment if the honorable senator would consent to leave it optional with the Minister to refuse an extension in the circumstancesstated?
– That would be a senseless thing to do, because the Minister may refuse the extension in any case as the clause stands. I wish to provide that it shall not be competent for the Minister to refuse an extension in certain circumstances.
– I see that the honorable senator is right in his contention. I do not feel that I can oppose the amendment, but I fear that it may work some hardship occasionally.
– It may.
– It may work some hardship to some people in Sydney.
– The amendment was submitted only last night, and I think we cannot be very dogmatic about it.
– The ship-owner will be at liberty to take his vessel elsewhere if he does so within the currency of his certificate.
– I should like more time to consider the effect of the amendment. I propose to accept it temporarily, but I wish the honorable senator clearly to understand that if, upon reconsideration, we find that the proviso would work any considerable hardship, I shall move for the recommittal of the clause, with the object of striking it out. I think that some amendment is necessary to provide who shall be the judge as to when proper facilities are afforded.
– The Minister would be the judge, and in such a matter, would take the advice of his responsible officers.
– I have not had time to go into the matter thoroughly, but, as I have said, I accept the amendment temporarily, and, if upon reconsideration, it is found that it would involve any considerable hardship, the clause will be recommitted.
– I think the Minister’s proposal is a perfectly fair one, and I am satisfied that he should adopt the course proposed. I wish it to be understood also that, if the clause is recommitted, and the Government endeavour to have the proviso struck out later on, I shall be at liberty to fight just as hard for its retention.
– Hear, hear.
.- Surely we are living in a Commonwealth? One would imagine from Senator Givens’ remarks that we were still living in separate States. –The owner of a steam-ship must be the best judge of where he can get repairs to his vessel properly attended to. Why should we try to drive him into a corner ?
– He would be at liberty to take his vessel where he pleased for repairs provided he did so during the currency of the certificate.
– The honorable senator knows how often it happens that a vessel is unable to reach her regular docking port within a specified time.
– Of course, there are all sorts of accidents at sea. Fifty things might occur which would prevent the master of a ship from complying with the strict letter of the law. We should not do anything which might hamper the development of the young shipping industry of Australia. Let us remember that we live in a Commonwealth. To consider merely the interests of Rockhampton, Cooktown, or some other little place is a miserable, small-minded policy.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [3.57].- I am sorry that the Minister has promised to accept the amendment without further consideration. The honorable senator may be anxious to conciliate the Givens’ party, but I wish the Committee to realize what the proposal really means. The Minister has power at any time to require that a steamship shall be resurveyed. We provide in clause 200 -
The Minister may at any time, for the purpose of survey, require a steam-ship at the expense of her owner to be taken into dock, or to have her cargo discharged, or her boilers or machinery opened out, or her fittings removed as far as is reasonably necessary.
– The Minister must give good reasons for requiring that to be done.
.- That is so. We must rely upon the good sense and fairness of the Minister. We have no provision to say when the power given under this clause may be exercised. Without wishing to impute any improper conduct to the Minister, I cannot fail to recognise that Ministers, like private members of Parliament, are fallible. I direct attention to the fact that a regular survey of steam-ships is provided for in clause 194. In certain circumstances they are to be surveyed once in six months, or once in every twelve months as the case may be.
– That has nothing to do with my amendment.
– A vessel may not be at her home port when the time for her resurvey has come round, and the Minister ought not to be deprived of the right to extend the currency of the certificate to enable her to be taken to her usual port for repairs.
– The Minister has power to extend the certificate for one month.
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - I understand that Senator Givens is taking exception to that.
– No, but I think it should not be granted for a particular purpose where it can be shown that it is not necessary for that purpose.
– If the amendment be carried, it will deprive the Minister of power to grant an extension of one month to enable a vessel to return to her home port for the purpose of being surveyed, simply because docking facilities may exist at another port. Thus, we shall practically be saying to a ship-owner, ‘ ‘ Although you may be in the habit of having your vessel docked in Brisbane, because she happens to be in Townsville at the time the resurvey should be made, and because docking accommodation exists there, she must be resurveyed there, notwithstanding that the work may cost from 15 to 25 per cent, more than it would cost at her home port.” The proviso would, therefore, deprive the owner of a vessel of freedom to determine where his ship shall be docked and repaired. Under clause 200 of the Bill the Minister is empowered at any time to require a steamship, at the expense of her owner, to be taken into dock for the purpose of survey. The widest possible power is given to him in this connexion. The amendment would not safeguard the clause one iota, but it might compel a ship-owner to have his vessel docked in a port in the docking capacity of which he had no confidence. It would thus hamper the ship-owner for the benefit of any enterprising individual who may have established a dock at a seaport in Australia. Senator Givens is a strong advocate of protection to our manufactories, but whoever heard of persons being called upon to purchase their goods in any place in which they happened to be at a certain time ? If we adopt the amendment we shall be acting unfairly towards the shipping industry.
– Kill every other port in New South Wales but Sydney.
– If the honorable senator wishes to talk nonsense, let him do so outside. I do not wish him to talk nonsense here when a matter of serious moment is under consideration. Honorable senators must recognise that every additional burden that we impose upon the shipping industry will, inflict another hardship upon our primary producers. I do not wish to prevent any class of the community from embarking upon the shipping industry, but I do say that, to prevent a ship-owner from getting his vessel to her home port for the purposes of resurvey, simply because a little peddling industry has been established at some other port, would be ridiculous. The amendment, I repeat, would inflict hardship on the ship-owners, and would further shackle an industry which we ought to make as free as possible.
– I think that the Minister has acted wisely in accepting the amendment, and I am rather astonished at the attitude which has been taken up by Senator Gould. So far as the provisions of this Bill are concerned, great liberality in the matter of the survey of ships has been extended to the ship-owners. In most of the States the law provides that all ships shall be surveyed every six months. But this measure provides that ships under five years old shall undergo only an annual survey. The amendment submitted by Senator Givens is an eminently reasonable one. The Bill declares that a certificate of survey shall be issued in respect of all vessels every six or twelve months. Consequently, the shipowner is in a position to arrange that his vessel shall be in a certain port when the period for her resurvey comes round. But in order to prevent him from suffering unnecessary expense or inconvenience, he has the right to apply to the Minister for an extension of one month. That provision has hitherto been operative in our State laws, and has been largely availed of. With’ what result? By repeatedly securing an extension of one month, the ship-owner has obviated the necessity for one survey every six years. If a vessel be trading to some port where docking facilities do not exist, her owner can always represent to the Minister that it is inconvenient to bring her away for the purposes of survey at the prescribed time. When he has secured a month’s extension, he may approach the Minister and say, “ I want another month’s extension to enable me to take my ship to a port where she can be surveyed.” The amendment will prevent that being done. Hitherto owing to the want of uniformity in our legislation shipowners preferred to send their ships to certain ports where the legislation was not quite so strong as in other States. But hereafter no matter at what port it may take place, the survey will be absolutely uniform, and so far as the Government are concerned, the cost will be uniform. Are we to permit an owner to hold back his ship until after her certificate has expired, to call for tenders for. the cheapest docking place, and then for the purpose of getting to that place to grant him an extension of time for the survey? Senator Gould has not looked at this proposal as fully as he might have done, otherwise he would have recognised that it will only serve to do a considerable amount of justice. If, however, the Minister can show that it is likely to do an injustice to the shipping industry, I am prepared to reconsider my position. In the meantime I shall support the amendment.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.16].- 1 think that there must be some misunderstanding in this matter. We are all agreed in regard to the provision for extending the time for making a survey, but Senator Givens has submitted an amendment that no extension of the currency of the certificate shall be granted to enable a vessel to proceed to another port for the purpose of docking or being repaired, if proper facilities for that work are available at any of the ports to which she usually trades. That means that a vessel cannot leave any such port until the survey takes place. Suppose that the master of a steam-ship wishes to proceed to another port to get docked or undergo repairs, the Minister will not be empowered to grant an extension of time if the port where she is lying possesses docking facilities. It is not a second extension, but only one extension that is contemplated.
– It may be a second extension.
– The honorable senator has pointed out that a survey is usually required every six months. But I am advised that the law at present in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and New Zealand only requires a survey to be made once in twelve months.
– In New South Wales it has to be made once in six months.
– I know that in the case of that State the period was reduced to six months, but I am advised that it has been altered to twelve months again, and that in the four States I have mentioned it is only necessary to have a survey once in twelve months, except, of course, in special circumstances.
– All that happened in New South Wales Was that its Premier gave notice of his intention to introduce a measure extending the period for the survey to twelve months.
-The Merchant Shipping Act only requires a survey of a passenger steamship to be made once in twelve months, and I do not see why we should place an additional restriction on ship-owners. I shall certainly oppose the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 203 agreed to.
Clause 204 - (2.) The owner, master, or agent of a steam ship shall not take payment of the passagemoney of any persons intending to become passengers in excess of the number allowed by the certificate.
Penalty : One hundred pounds, and also an additional penalty not exceeding Five shillings lor every person on board above the number allowed by the certificate. (3.) Any penalty under this section may be sued for and recovered by any person and retained by him for his own use.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.31].- I think that, as the law stands, the penalty for the overcrowding of a steam-ship is £20, and, if I mistake not, that penalty ‘ is also prescribed in the Merchant Shipping Act. It would be only reasonable to reduce the penalty in this clause from £100 to £20. It might frequently happen that, although the master would be legally responsible for the fact, it would be an overcrowding over which he had no practical control. Surely a penalty of £20, and an additional penalty of 5s. for every passenger in excess of the prescribed number, ought to meet adequately the offence which it is proposed to guard against. I, therefore, move -
That the words “ One hundred “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Twenty.”
– This clause deals with a most serious offence, and also one of the most difficult offences to detect. On some steamers it has been the practice - I have seen it done - to rush on passengers after the Customs officer has gone ashore. It is necessary to impose very stiff penalties, in order to deter owners and masters from acting in that way. Not only does overcrowding lead to discomfort, but it leads to positive danger, especially in the case of river and bay ships. The penalty prescribed in the clause is none too large. The only trouble I feel about the provision is that it is a most difficult one to enforce. I trust that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.24].- I move -
That sub-clause 3 be left out. lt is entirely novel to allow a person to become an informer with regard to the overcrowding of a steam-ship. It may be that, without the cognisance of the master of a ship, there may be an excess number of passengers on board, and moneys may be received from the passengers by some individual who may subsequently become an informer, and thereby obtain the benefit of the penalty inflicted, whether it be large or small. Unless this amendment is made, many a man may be induced to have recourse to a method which would be anything but an honest one for the purpose of getting a large sum out of his employer or the captain of a ship. In no other State is a similar provision to be found. It is undesirable to enact a provision which must tend to breed a race of informers. One of the worst things we could do would be to legislate in that direction. Unless this sub-clause is omitted, many persons may commit the offence of overcrowding in conjunction with somebody else, and then may go and lay an information against the owner or master. So far. does the law disregard such evidence that, in ordinary criminal procedure, the evidence of an approver has to be corroborated in some important particulars before it is considered worthy of credence. Suppose that a man is employed in selling tickets, or admitting persons on board a steam-ship, and he finds that there are three or six persons in excess of the prescribed number. Under this clause he can become an informer against his employer. It must have a tendency to create disloyalty amongst employes. However desirable it may be to avoid overcrowding on ships - and we all admit that that is very desirable - I do not think it is advisable to enable an employe to give information for the purpose of procuring a very heavy penalty out of the pocket of his employer. I believe that a spirit of fair play and justice as between man and man will commend the amendment to honorable senators as a reasonable one. There are officers appointed by the Government whose duty it is to guard against overcrowding on ships. I would not say a word against a Customs officer or a police constable performing the duty for which he is paid by the State ; but I do not believe in encouraging employes to become informers as against their employers. It has been shown in many cases in Sydney that there has been a larger number of passengers on board a ferry boat than the master was aware of. I trust that the Minister will see that my proposal is a reasonable one, particularly as there is no precedent to encourage him to adhere to the clause. Whether it was contained in the Bill of 1908 or not, I am not aware; but certainly it appears in no Act in any portion of the British Dominions, and 1 hope that it will not be insisted upon.
– I do not think that the provision is unnecessary. On the other hand, for the reasons I gave in a previous speech, I think it is necessary. It is a most difficult thing for a single officer to check the number of passengers going on board a ship. Honorable senators who have done much travelling by sea know what an amount of bustle and hurry accompanies the sending of a ship to sea, and how difficult it must be for an officer of the Government to find out whether the number of passengers allowed to be carried has been exceeded.
– No; the officer issuing tickets to passengers can keep a check on the number. In the case of a ferry steamer a check is kept on the number going through the gates.
r-There is no tally as to the number of regular subscribers to a ferry who go on board.
– It is quite easy for the company to put up turnstiles to count the number going through. It is a reasonable thing to bring in the passengers to police this provision, because the passengers who go on board a ship are interested in having the law obeyed.
-The Bill proposes to reward passengers who secure conviction.
– Yes; because if a ship-owner chooses to break the law the passengers have to suffer. If the ship is lost a passenger may lose his life or his luggage. Even if the ship be not lost he will suffer discomfort from overcrowding. The principle of this clause is already in operation in the Game Acts of some States. Owing to the impossibility of the police force exercising proper supervision, sportsmen are brought in to assist, and are rewarded if a conviction is secured against a person who has broken the law. The law cannot be broken without the connivance of the owner or his agent. Senator Gould says that there may be collusion between the agent and the passenger who seeks to get the award.
– If the Court could be shown that the owner had taken all proper precautions, and had issued instructions to prevent overcrowding, those facts would be taken into consideration. In the case of collusion, does the honorable senator think that any Court would enforce the penalty? It must be remembered that the penalty of £100 is not arbitrary. The Acts Interpretation Act provides that a penalty prescribed in a Commonwealth Act means that the amount stated is a maximum. I venture to say that any magistrate to whom reasonable proof of collusion was given would, inflict a merely nominal penalty. The overcrowding of ships is a very serious offence indeed, and I am informed that it is impossible for the Department to employ sufficient officers to protect passengers. We, therefore, propose to bring in the passengers to police the measure, and to encourage them by giving them the penalty which may be recovered.
– - I trust that Senator Gould will press his amendment to a division. Whilst admitting the difficulties that the Minister has pointed out with regard to the administration of this clause, and acknowledging the danger which it is desired to combat, I point out that administration by the evidence of informers involves the adoption of a most abominable system. There is in me a dash of the blood of a people who have been cursed by informers. Their name is odious, and any administration which depends for its effectiveness upon their evidence is more or less abominable. The model shipping Acts which we have had before us - those of Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand - contain no such provision. No Government but our own has made this proposal. Has any sufficient reason been given for the introduction of such a discreditable system of administration? As Senator Gould has pointed out, any person under this clause may actually plot to bring about the offence which it is profitable to him to take means to punish. In the administration of Licensing Acts the Departments responsible employ individuals to obtain evidence when the law is believed to be broken. These officers may disguise themselves in the pmsuit of their work ; but no Government in this country has encouraged informers to obtain evidence by granting them part of the penalty imposed. In every city in Australia there are regulations providing against the overcrowding of tramcars. Those regulations are frequently broken, but the law does not encourage informers to give evidence. In all probability the injury done through the overcrowding of trains and tramcars is large as compared with the injury done from the overcrowding of steamers. It is quite true, as the Minister says, that the object is to protect passengers. But surely a passenger who goes on board a river and bay ship which is overcrowded can draw the attention of the proper authorities to that fact. It is rather a strain on our credulity to say that the Department could not make proper provision against the overcrowding of our large steamers. There are many ways by which the Minister could provide for the administration of the clause.
– Would the honorable senator have a policeman on every ship?
– I would rather have that than descend to the abominable system of administration by paid informers. I believe that the ship-owners of Australia will loyally assist the Government in carrying out this provision. The Government can very well afford a little extra money for the employment of officers to exercise vigilance in the administration of the provision. Any course is preferable to this system, which offers a direct incentive to ill-conditioned persons to conceal themselves on board a ship, with a view to securing evidence against the ship-owner and hauling him before the Court, which in itself is a revolting thing to do. In the summer time in Brisbane there are week-end and holiday excursions down the river, which are enjoyed by thousands of persons. Over and over again I have seen officers standing on the wharf and stopping people from going on board, because there was no more accommodation. As far as I could gather, the administration was quite effective. It might have been made thoroughly effective by the appointment of additional officers. The Minister may be thinking of the large seam-ships which leave Sydney and Melbourne carrying hundreds of passengers. Hundreds of persons go on board these ships to bid farewell to their friends, and, even though the ship may be in charge of the most vigilant master, and he may be acting under the instructions of the strictest of owners, it would be possible for an illconditioned officer to make use of this provision in- order to harass the owner. We have nothing but the assertion of the Minister that this is the only way in which, in the administration of the law, we can protect the lives of passengers. He tells us that it is necessary to resort to this abominable system of administration by informers. It is extraordinary that, in connexion with this our first Navigation Act, the Government should propose to adopt a form of administration which is condemned in almost every civilized country. It exists in France, and also in Russia. It involves the employment, for purposes of administration, of what is known as I’ agent provocateur. Over and over again the French and Russian systems of administering laws by means of persons whose interest it is. to provoke a breach of the law has been condemned. The most vigilant of ship-owners could have no guarantee that he would not be struck at under this provision, if a single passenger beyond the regulation- number was carried on one of his ships. The ship’s officers might be under instructions tq search every nook and corner ‘of the ship to see that the regulation with respect to the number of passengers to be carried was strictly observed, and, notwithstanding the fact that their duty was carefully performed, the owner would have no guarantee that he would not be charged with an offence. I have travelled a good deal on the eastern coast of Australia, and I know that great vigilance is shown by ships’ officers in this matter. Persons who have no tickets to present have been isolated, and as soon as the vessel has arrived in port have been handed over to the .authorities. I have known that to be done on more than one occasion. When the owners of vessels aire trying to observe the law, they should be encouraged, and should not be left open to an attack of the kind which would be possible under this provision.
– What should happen where they do not observe the law?
– They should be punished, by all means. But we should not endeavour to secure the administration of the law by the employment of informers. Such a system would not be tolerated, I think, in any British community. The large cities of Australia are infested with the worst kind of criminals, as bad, I suppose, as any to be found in any part of the world ; but public opinion would never tolerate a proposal that the administration of the law for the protection of the lives and property of people on land should be through informers, on the French model.; That the Government should think it necessary to resort to such a method of administration for our first merchant shipping law is a mystery which has not yet been explained. I feel so strongly upon the matter that if some amendment of the proviso is not proposed I hope it will be pressed to a division, so that we may be able, at least, to record our dissent.*
.- I wish it to be clearly understood that in objecting to this proviso, our objection is not to the penalty proposed to be imposed on ship-owners for overcrowding. We recognise the serious danger of the overcrowding of ships, though I do not think there would be much danger of foreign-going ships being overcrowded with passengers. The crew and passengers of such vessels are mustered from time to time, and, if the number of passengers on board exceeded the number allowed by law, the fact would soon be discovered. Danger might arise in the case of vessels acting as ferry-boats, and making short passages. If we take the case, for instance, of the vessels plying in Sydney Harbor, it is next to impossible to check the number of passengers that crowd into one of these boats on a holiday. The real difficulty is that this clause would enable any person giving information of overcrowding to recover the penalty for the offence for himself.
– I would suggest that the Minister should make provision that the person giving the information should, upon a conviction being obtained, receive only his out-of-pocket expenses in connexion with the case, and that the balance of the penalty should go into the Consolidated Revenue.
– The honorable senator thinks that a private citizen should initiate a prosecution?
– He could give information to the police ; they might initiate the prosecution, and he could attend as a witness in support of the charge, and be paid his expenses. The employment of what Senator Gould has described as V sneaking informers” must be revolting to every man of honorable feeling. I am sure that Ministers would not encourage anything of the kind in their private capacities. I am satisfied that, as honorable men, they desire to deal fairly, arid to keep up the good name of the country. I hope they will do nothing which would create the class of people who would be likely to take .advantage of a provision of this kind ; that the Minister of Defence will agree to modify this proposal, and will provide that the person giving information shall be paid only his expenses, the balance of any penalty imposed going into the Consolidated Revenue.*
– We have heard a lot of the evils of informers, and while I have no love for that class of individual, I cannot overlook the fact that a person giving information under this provision would not be an. informer in the ordinary sense of the term. The popular conception of an informer is a parson who, securing the confidence of another, inveigles him into the perpetration of an unlawful act, and then turns round and swears his life away. But to obtain evidence under this clause a man will have to go about his work in the most open-handed way. It would be of no use for him to expect to induce the ship-owner to commit an unlawful act. If this offence is committed it will be committed deliberately by the ship-owner or his agent.
– Would the honorable senator agree to the insertion of the word “knowingly”? If that word were inserted there would not be so much objection to the clause.
– It would be impossible to do that.
– The honorable senator forgets that a passenger is not a person who steals unawares on board a ship. According to the definition clause, a “ passenger “ means any person other “than the master and crew, or the owner, his family or servants, carried on board a ship with the knowledge or consent of the owner, agent, or master thereof. The experience we have had in the past of the greed of ship-owners in carrying more passengers on their vessels than could be carried with safety, shows the necessity for an effective provision to deal with this evil. Honorable senators who remember the rush that took place to Western Australia, will know that in many cases ship-owners appeared to be quite indifferent to the safety of their passengers;, and many were carried in excess of the number for which provision was made in the matter of life-saving appliances. It must be remembered that every passenger taken on board a vessel in excess of the number for which life-saving appliances are supplied, endangers not only his own life, but the lives of all other persons on board the ship.
– Every one agrees with that ; the objection is to permitting the informers to retain the penalty.
– I agree that this is an extreme provision, but it is intended to deal with persons who knowingly commit an unlawful act which may result in the loss of the lives of the persons intrusted to their charge. Such an offence should be met with a heavy penalty, and the means to be employed for the discovery of offences of the kind should be such as to make evasion of the law extremely difficult. I have said that a person informing under this provision would not be an informer in the ordinary sense of the word at all.
– I congratulate the honorable senator upon being able to draw a distinction between an informer under this clause, and informers in a country of which he has some knowledge.
– A man who feels that his life is endangered by the fact that a vessel carries more passengers than she is entitled to carry, and gives information of the offence, cannot be considered an informer within the usual meaning of the word. His life may be endangered, and he is at liberty to take advantage of a provision such as this to preserve his own safety.
– I do not blame the Government for introducing a drastic provision of this kind, because those who have charge of the lives of people at sea should be obliged to take every precaution for their safety. I do not object that heavy penalties should be imposed under this clause. But I certainly object to sub-clause 3, which provides that any person may lay an information against the master of a vessel for overcrowding, and may pocket any fine which may be inflicted on the offender. In no other industry is such a thing permitted. I have seen tramcars crowded to their utmost limit, and I have known of a man being seriously injured as the result of a fall from a tramcar, consequent upon overcrowding.
– The principle is contained in our Licensing Act to-day.
– There is no law under which a passenger by an overcrowded tramcar may lay an information against the Tramway Company, and pocket the fine which may be imposed.
– There is no law relating to overcrowded tramcars
– Yes, there is. When the Commonwealth was established I saw men riding on the roofs of railway carriages in Sydney. Surely that was not a proper thing.
– The honorable senator would not condemn a man for initiating a prosecution against an individual who illtreats a horse.
– But I would not allow the informant to pocket the fine which was imposed upon the offender. We do not allow an employe” to recover a penalty for any infringement by his employer of our factories laws.
– The Companies Act permits an individual to sue and retain the penalty inflicted.
– Not in a case of this sort. It has been urged that in the absence of this provision a difficulty is likely to arise in the administration. But I venture to say that if the Government will only take one or two offenders into Court, and have them mulcted in a heavy penalty, it will have a deterrent effect upon the owners and masters of steam-ships who may be disposed to permit overcrowding.
– A heavy penalty may be inflicted upon the masters of vessels for bringing Chinese into Australia, but they are brought in nevertheless.
– But do we allow any informer to pocket the fine which may be imposed upon a master who is convicted of that offence? Why then should we allow some mean, unprincipled scoundrel to benefit in this way ? I believe in honest administration, and I do hope that we shall not cumber the Bill with this provision. Let us do everything that we can to secure the safety of passengers and crews, but do not let us do it in such a mean and contemptible way as is here proposed.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [5.5].- It has been suggested to me that instead of eliminating the entire penalty, it would be wise to omit the words “and retained by him for his own use.” In speaking of this matter the Minister of Defence endeavoured to evade the objection which has been urged against the creation of a breed of informers. He said that passengers by sea might be sufferers as the result of the overcrowding of vessels, and that, therefore, they ought to be encouraged to lay informations where such offences are committed. But if overcrowding occurs on any vessel, a passenger has merely to protest to the master, and if he cannot secure redress to communicate: with the police.
– When he is at sea?
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - When he again reaches the shore. It will then be the duty of the authorities to take action. The clause practically affirms that we do not think any passenger will lay au information against the master of a vessel which has been overcrowded in the interests of the public safety, and in the absence of a pecuniary reward. I hold that it is not proper to offer an inducement of this sort, of which advantage may be taken by dishonest passengers. Quite a number of persons who travel by our ferry boats will be prepared to lay informations against the masters of those vessels if there be a prospect that by so doing they will obtain a substantial reward.
– Is not that a libel on Australians?
– If we hold out to these persons the hope of such a reward we shall at once engender a suspicion as to the validity of any complaint which may be made. I can corroborate the statement of Senator McColl in regard to the Sydney ferry boats. I know that when the masters of those vessels have been summoned for having permitted overcrowding upon public holidays it has been clearly shown that such overcrowding was the result of a great rush at a particular time - a rush which it was impossible for them to avert.
– Suppose that a dishonest person lays an information and that the master is not convicted ?
– The informant may be a man of straw, so that the result of the action does not matter twopence to him. I ask the Minister to cause his officials to inquire whether the statement which I have made in regard to the Sydney ferry boats is not absolutely true. I challenge him to quote any instance in which a similar law is operative, either in connexion with merchant shipping or navigation. I know that there are a few cases’ in which the statutebook has been disgraced by such legislation in other directions.
– We are establishing precedents and not following them.
– If we establish precedents in the light of reason and knowledge I shall not utter a complaint. But this Parliament has created most undesirable and most un-British precedents. It would be unparliamentary for me to say more than that. But if I were on the public platform I should speak more plainly. -
– Speak plainly here. The honorable senator is afraid to do that.
.- - I am not. But I am not so foolish as to allow the honorable senator to side-track me in that way. The Min,ister of Defence has not attempted to reply to the statement that, in many cases, this clause would act as an incentive to the members of the crews of vessels to lay informations against the masters of those vessels - informations which were not absolutely correct. Senator Lynch “has affirmed that where a master knowingly permits overcrowding he deserves the penalty which would be inflicted upon him under this clause, and that the Ministry were justified in using any means by which to secure his conviction. When I suggested that the word “ knowingly “ should be inserted in the clause, the Minister exclaimed, “ How can we consent to that,” seeing that the master of a vessel would be on the bridge, and, therefore, could not know the number of passengers who were on board? But, if any overcrowding takes place, he is the man who is responsible, and who has to pay the penalty. In its present form the clause is most un-British and unjust. I am very sorry that the Minister is not prepared to consider it from that stand-point. He has pointed out that, as the result of overcrowding, a passenger may suffer inconvenience and loss. But in such circumstances the passenger is entitled to recover damages without the necessity of becoming an informer. Every honorable senator must realize at once that the law contains ample provision to enable him to protect his interests. I cannot allow a clause of this character to pass without entering a protest both by voice and vote. Whilst I recognise that the overcrowding of a vessel is a serious thing which ought to be put a stop to, I contend that the proper plan is to allow the marine authorities to deal with the matter, or if a person feels impelled by a sense of justice to intimate to those authorities that a breach of the law has been committed, let him have the right to do so, without having to run the risk of being told he did this because he thought he would receive ^5 or j£io or £20 out of it. If a man sees a person ill-using a horse in the street he can give information to the police, but he does not take the penalty which is inflicted on the wrongdoer. No matter how strong a case may be made out, an honorable senator on this side has apparently very little opportunity of impressing any arguments upon honorable senators opposite. The Minister in charge of the Bill is the arbiter. When he says “ yea “ or “nay “ there are twenty - two honorable senators who are prepared to follow him in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. I think that Senator Guthrie - has realized occasionally, when he has tried to exercise- an independent judgment, that he was kicking against the pricks, and could not get his arguments considered or given proper weight to. It is not a question of one party wanting ‘one thing and another party wanting another. Both parties here, I take it, desire to make as suitable and equitable a law as possible for the country. It is very hard when an honorable senator on this side tries to improve a provision in the Bill to find that he does not receive the slightest sympathy from honorable senators sitting opposite. What one says from this side of the Chamber is just like so much water thrown on a duck’s back.
– Virtually what we are considering is whether a person shall have the right to recover a penalty against an owner for the overcrowding of his ship. I do not think that there is anything new in the provision. Senator Gould has admitted that this principle has found a place in the statute-book on several occasions. I know for a certainty that it appears in the Companies Act of the United Kingdom, and of nearly, all the States. For the very simple offence of not advertising their place of business, any individual in South Australia can sue a company and recover a penalty.
– Did the honorable senator ever know that to be done.
– Yes, and I shall mention the case to the honorable senator privately.
– I have known a case where the man who attempted to do that came to grief.
– The late Mr. C. C. Kingston instituted a case against a company in South Australia and recovered the penalty.
– To put the money into his own pocket?
– No.
– He never did that, I know.
- Mr. Kingston had a client who lost some money through not knowing the whereabouts of a company. He took the matter into his own hands, got a verdict, ‘and handed over the money to his client in lieu of what he ought to have recovered if he had known the whereabouts of the company. When the master of a foreign ship loses his crew, he goes to a police station and says, “ Here is a reward of £10 for each of these men.” The police in the ordinary execution of their duty arrest the men and pocket the reward.
– That is a different thing altogether.
– The police do not layan information, but the master of the foreign ship goes to them and offers them a reward for catching his men. Senator Vardon knows that the Police Superannuation Fund of South Australia has been built up with penalties recovered from law-breakers. The same principle is involved, even although in that case the police are recovering money for their own benefit.
– Give us a parallel case.
– The honorable senator knows that certain societies have obtained concessions by Act of Parliament. For instance, the Dentists Act of South Australia allows the Dental Association to recover penalties, and the money goes to a fund.
– That is a different thing altogether.
– Senator Gould said that if we would insert the word “ knowingly “ he would agree to the proviso.
– No; I suggested the insertion of the word.
– Clause 279 provides that no person shall-
That provision gives to an owner the right, even after a man has tendered his fare, to say to him, “ You shall not enter my ship.”
– That is all right. No one complains about it. The penalty in that case is only
– There is no excuse for the master of a ship taking any excess passenger on board even after he has accepted his fare. Clause 279 also provides that no person shall -
– That is a copy of the provision in the Merchant Shipping Act, and we do not object to it.
– Under this clause the owner has the right to prevent a passenger going on board in excess of the number which his certificate entitles him to carry. What occurs at Melbourne in the excursion season? Even with half-a-dozen policemen at the gangways each steamer goes away overloaded.
– And they have been fined often enough.
– They have been fined a paltry j£io.
– And 5s. a head, too, I expect.
– They can1 fine the owners more heavily if they like.
– It may be possible for the administration to stop persons from rushing excursion steamers, and also to find out if there are too many passengers on board. But I do not anticipate that that is a case where an action is likely to be initiated. On the contrary, it is only likely to be taken in the case of a ship which is going some distance, and has on board more passengers than her certificate allows her to carry. In a case of that kind, the passengers will have to put up with inconvenience. There will be no berths for the excess number, and probably no food After her departure from the wharf everything is found out. Perhaps this may occur on a vessel leaving a port outside Australia.
– Over which we have no control.
– We have control over a vessel which arrives here with more passengers than her certificate entitles her to carry. Suppose that a ship leaves Cape Colony with twelve passengers in excess of the prescribed number. Do honorable senators think that the master is likely to put the names of those passengers on his passenger-list, and thus give evidence against himself? No. As soon as the ship arrives at Melbourne, the passengers begin to scatter throughout Australia, or, perhaps, Australasia, and it is practically impossible for the Department to obtain corroborative evidence. If, however, a passenger who has been inconvenienced by overcrowding is allowed to initiate an action before the passengers have dispersed, there will be a chance of sheeting home the offence to the master. Whatever legislation we pass, let it be effective, but do not let us pass legislation through which the proverbial coach-and-four can be driven all the time. In mi opinion, the Government have acted wisely in making this_provision. We cannot police every ship that sails the water.
– We police every city.
– Yes, but every city is not a ship.
– That is a worse job than policing eVery ship.
– How much would it cost to police every ship? I think that the most effective plan of dealing with the matter has been adopted by the Government.
.- I shall almost feel ashamed to be a member of the Senate if it deliberately approves of a provision to create common informers.
– Under British law an informer is a very important functionary.
– What do common informers care about the lives of people? I can quite imagine a common informer, with a dozen or a score of pals - it is an extreme case, I admit - contriving to overload a ship. These persons are very clever ; they are not lacking in brains.
– The master of a ship has the power not to admit people.
– He is on the bridge.
– He has his officers to look after such things.
– The master cannot be everywhere.
– He is not on the bridge at a wharf.
– The master has other duties to attend to, and cannot trouble about little matters. He does not expect to be subject to the annoyance of common informers or law-breakers in connexion with his ship. It is better for Parliament to encourage a high rather than a low tone of morality in the community. I sent my boys to a high-toned school, where lads were on their honour, and where a boy who told a lie, or did a despicable thing, was looked upon with contempt and treated accordingly. But here the Senate is asked to proceed in the opposite direction. It is invited to encourage a class of low-down informers. Set the public a fine example always, and the moral tone of the community will be raised.
– Is this the first time that the honorable senator has raised his voice against informers?
– I do not know that the subject has ever been raised here before.
– Oh, yes it has. The Legislative Council of Victoria provided for informers in the Fisheries Act and the Game Act.
– And also in the Cruelty to Animals Act.
– That is not so in some of the cases quoted. I was a member of the Legislative Council for twelve years, and know something of the legislation which it passed.
– Oh, but the honorable senator was asleep for most of the time.
– No, I was very active then. I was not so sleepy in those days as I am now. Perhaps the interjector will excuse a man who has reached the age of seventy-nine from not being as wakeful as he was when a younger man.
– The honorable senator is by far from slumbering just now.
– I hope so. I do not want to see this kind of legislation enacted. The people of Australia desire us to maintain a high moral tone. Let the penalties be as severe as the Government like, and let us protect the public in any way we think desirable, but I appeal to Ministers not to make use of the services of common informers.
– I am somewhat surprised at the fusillade of objections which have emanated from the Opposition. The opponents of this provision have concentrated their fire on sub-clause 3. The word “ informer “ has been objected to, although it does not appear in the clause. The only excuse that can be found for those who have fulminated against that word is on the ground of their nativity or their descent. One honorable senator who has spoken is a native of a country whose people abhor and detest an “ informer.” I wish to assure the honorable senator who is so vigorous at the age of seventy-nine, thatI did not refer to his present attitude when I alluded to him as slumbering. I was referring to the time when he was a member of the Victorian Legislative Council. If he had been as wideawake then as he is now we might have heard a dif ferent statement from him. Nohonorable senator more thoroughly detests the word “ informer “ than I do, but I cannot see anything wrong in a passenger who suffers from the overcrowding of a steam-ship laying an information against the owner.I have travelled in many steam-ships around Australia, and can cite instances in which there has been so much overcrowding that first-class passengers had to sleep in the music-room and the dining-room. Would a passenger, who made a complaint against that treatment, deserve to be called an informer? Certainly not. There is no policeman on board a ship to report a breach of the law. Therefore it is reasonable to provide that every ship shall be policed in this respect by the passengers.
– Would it not be easy for a person who had been inconvenienced to lay an information when he got on shore?
- Senator Gould has sufficient knowledge of human nature to recognise that once the pain arising from such inconvenience has gone, persons are inclined to forget all about it. Honorable senators opposite have tried to make out that by this legislation we are endeavouring to manufacture dishonorable men. I resent that charge as an imputation upon the Senate. I am convinced that if the sub-clause becomes part of the law steam-ship companies will take precautions not to overcrowd their steamers. I have heard of no suggestion from the Opposition as to how the provision against overcrowding could be administered effectively by any other means. Even Senator Gould has not suggested a constructive amendment. It appears to me that his object is to destroy the whole effect of the clause.
– Certainly not.
– As far as I can see a passenger on board any ship, who having paid his passage found that the contract into which he entered with the steamship company was not properly fulfilled, would not be transgressing the bounds of honour by lodging an information and seeking to penalize the company.
– And putting money into his own pocket.
– It is to be assumed that the passenger would not be a rich man, and it is not fair to expect a citizen to make such a charge and to pay the costs of the action.
– He would be allowed his costs by the Court.
– Yes, in case he won.
-If he does not win he gets nothing under this clause.
– But the person lodging the complaint has to incur that risk. If he wins his costs are paid, but if he does not he has to pay them out of his own pocket.
– We should be much more likely to have an honest prosecution if the informer did not pocket the fine.
– I would not say that a person lodging a complaint under this clause was dishonest. Senator Gould has practically accused the Senate of being dishonest.
– I did not.
– At any rate, honorable senators opposite have stated that the Senate is lending itself to dishonest legislation, which would manufacture dishonest citizens.
SenatorFraser. - That is the effect of the clause.
– Honorable senators opposite have been indulging in mock heroics. They have concentrated their criticism upon the word “ informer,” but their real desire seems to be to protect the steam-ship owner against the citizen, irrespective of the fact that the steam-ship owner may cause his vessels to be seriously overcrowded. The attitude of the Opposition is that they would allow the dishonest ship-owner to be immune, whilst the innocent passenger is made to suffer.
Question - That the sub-clause proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Gould’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 9
NOES: 15
Majority … … 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 205 agreed to.
Clause 206 (Foreign certificates).
– I have some doubt regarding the effect of this clause. A reference is made to certificates “ recognised by the Board of Trade.” I have no objection to take cognisance of a certificate issued by the Board of Trade. I remind the Committee that under the Board of Trade no certificate of survey is required for British ships that do not carry passengers. Such ships may trade upon our coasts and handicap our own ship-owners. At the Imperial Conference, at which we were represented, the following resolution affecting this matter was adopted-
That it should be a suggestion to the Board of Trade that they should provide for the issue of a survey certificate in the case of nonpassenger vessels, and that standards as to hull, machinery, boilers, and life-saving appliances established by the Board of Trade and testified by current certificates should be accepted for British ships in Australian and New Zealand waters, the Board of Trade certificates’ to be accepted as of the same effect as the local certificates.
That would be all right, but, unfortunately, up to the present, the Board of Trade has not provided for the issue of survey certificates for non-passenger vessels. The use of the expression “ or recognised by the Board of Trade “ leads me to believe that these vessels, which are not required to have survey certificates, may be allowed to enter into competition with our own ships, which, under this Bill, must be surveyed every six months or twelve months, as the case may be. The decision of the Navigation Conference was that we should recognise the British standard, but, as I have said, up to the present time no action has been taken by the Board of Trade to require survey certificates for non passenger vessels. I should like to know from the Minister whether it is intended under this clause that we should recognise non-passenger British ships without survey certificates ?
– This clause is an extension of a similar clause appearing in the Bill of 1908. That Bill provided that -
A steam-ship in respect of which a certificate of survey granted by the Board of Trade of the United Kingdom has been issued, shall, whilst that certificate remains in force, but subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, be exempt from survey under this Act.
The clause then set out the requirements. The provision has been extended in this Bill by the insertion of the words “ or recognised by the Board of Trade.” Senator Guthrie says that the Board of Trade does not require survey certificates for nonpassenger ‘ ships, but it recognises Lloyd’s certificates of surveys, and Lloyd’s recognise the certificates of other institutions, such as the Norwegian Bureau Veritas, which has a similar standard to Lloyd’s.
– But some of these vessels may have no survey certificates.
– The fact that Lloyd’s recognise the survey certificates of these other institutions shows that they conform to their own requirements. That is why we propose in this clause that if the Board of Trade issues certificates, we shall recognise them, and that if the Board of Trade recognises certificates, we also shall be prepared to recognise them.
– There is no law compelling the Board of Trade to recognise these certificates.
– It is the usual practice of the Board of Trade to recognise them. It seems to me that the clause represents a fair and equitable proposal.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 207 agreed to.
Clause 208 - (1.) All steam-ships registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade shall, if required by the regulations, be divided by transverse water-tight partitions in the prescribed manner, and have water-tight false bottoms. (2.) The master and owner of any such ship which goes to sea without compliance with this section shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty : One hundred pounds.
Senator. Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [5.55]. - I move -
That the words “and have water-tight false bottoms “ be left out.
The marginal note to this clause is very misleading, unless the intention is to suggest navigation laws which do not contain such a provision. I have no objection to the first portion of the clause requiring that transverse water-tight partitions shall be provided. That appears to me to be a very wise provision. But I do take great exception to the provision for water-tight false bottoms. I point out that there is no provision requiring these water-tight false bottoms in either the New South Wales Act of 1 90 1, or the New Zealand Act of 1903. There is a strong objection to insisting that water-tight false bottoms shall be provided in ships registered in Australia and engaged in the limited coast-trade. The provision would very materially interfere with coast-trade ships trading to ports in which there is only a light draught of water to be obtained. In the case of such vessels every ounce of unnecessary weight, and every cubic foot of unnecessary space demanded, must add to the inconvenience and loss of the ship-owners. When I referred to the matter on the second reading of the Bill, I gathered from interjections made by Senator Guthrie that he believed this provision would not materially interfere with the construction of vessels. I think the honorable senator was not correctly advised, because a water-tight false bottom must add to the weight of the ship, and so must reduce her carrying capacity.
– This applies to all ships registered in Australia or engaged in the limited coast-trade, and the trip between some ports on the coast is often as bad as any oversea voyage.
– I am prepared to admit that at once. I say that the extra weight of the water-tight false bottom would materially reduce the carrying capacity of the ship. I take it that the false bottom would cover the whole of the bottom of the ship, and would have to be raised above the true bottom of the ship. It must therefore restrict the space which would otherwise be available for the stowage of cargo. I have here a letter from the Superintending Engineer of the Newcastle and Hunter River Steamship Company to the manager of the company. He writes -
I have the honour to draw your attention to Division No. 208 in reference to water-tight false bottoms.
This will be detrimental in adding weight to the hull and consequently increased draught of water when light, and less carrying capacity when loaded.
Besides this, double bottoms in vessels of small tonnage will necessarily be so confined that they will almost be inaccessible for cleaning and cement washing and through want of attention tank tops, filters, and reverse bars will be shortlived.
These are very important objections, apart from those to which I have already referred.
– The additional weight would be infinitesimal.
– I remind the honorable senator that the writer of the letter I have quoted is a superintending engineer of one of. the oldest shipping companies in New South Wales owning vessels trading between Sydney and Newcastle. He says that these false bottoms will be detrimental in adding weight to the hull, and, consequently, increased draught of water when light, and less carrying capacity when loaded. I do not think the honorable senator will be prepared to pit his knowledge of this matter against that of a man whose profession it is to thoroughly understand it. I place great reliance upon the opinion of such a man. Realizing these difficulties, we should surely eliminate this provision from the clause. Hitherto no such provision has been embodied in the law relating to ships trading to Australia. It is not contained in the Merchant Shipping Act or in the New Zealand Shipping Act. For many years a large number of light draught steamers have been trading along the coast of New South Wales, none of which has been fitted with a watertight false bottom. It is true that one of these vessels is occasionally lost, perhaps as the result of bumping upon a bar ; but, in every respect they are admirably fitted for the trade in which they are employed. Many of the companies have been engaged in that trade for scores of years, and in no instance have they considered it necessary to adopt watertight false bottoms for the safety of their ships. Although they have increased and improved the equipment of those vessels, nothing has been done in that connexion. Of course, in the case of a steamer worth only a few thousand pounds, the fitting of a watertight false bottom may not be of much consequence. But I would point out that it has not been found necessary to hamper vessels costing £60,000 or ,£70,000 by restricting their cargocarrying capacity or by adding to their draught. I ask the Minister why this provision has been introduced. He may reply that its object is to protect our passengers, our ships, and their cargo. But ought we unnecessarily to lessen the power of vessels to negotiate bar harbors and to carry a reasonable amount of cargo unless a strong case can be made out in favour of that being done?
– Ought we not to safeguard human life?
– Is is our duty to do that as far as we possibly can. But in dealing with this matter, we have to consider what are reasonable and proper provisions to make. We know that a ship is not permitted to proceed to sea unless she is in a seaworthy condition. In dealing with a provision of this character we ought to be very careful how we interfere with our shipping trade. We ought not to impose too great restrictions upon an industry to which we expect to owe so much in connexion with the future development of this country. We must not make it impossible for ship-owners to carry on an efficient service at remunerative rates. We must also recollect that people have settled in the various States in the belief that their produce will be carried to market, at reasonable freights. I ask the Minister to consent to the elimination of this provision.
– The Government cannot accept the amendment. At the Victoria Dock at the present time there is an exhibit which emphasizes the necessity for such a provision.
– What is the nature of that exhibit?
– It is a vessel called the Papanui. She is of about 3,000 tons register. She recently engaged in a trip to Tasmania and safely negotiated the voyage. But in September last, off the northern coast of that State, she struck a rock which tore a hole in her true bottom almost the entire length of the ship.
– She is of more than 3,000 tons register.
– She is of about 3,000 tons net register.
– Of course, the difference between a vessel’s gross and net register is a very important one. Senator Gould has urged that this provision will have the effect of reducing the cargocarrying capacity of steamers. But I am informed that the space between the true bottom and the false bottom of the Papanui is utilized for water ballast, which adds to her stability.
– For this and for other reasons die Government cannot accept the amendment.
– What is the distance between the false bottom and the true bottom of the Pafanui?
– I cannot say.
– All this space must be cleaned from time to time.
– There are manholes to permit of that being done.
- Senator Gould seems to be chiefly concerned about the cargo-carrying space which will be sacrificed if this provision remains in the Bill. But I take it that our main object should be to see how far we can insure the safety of travellers by sea. The Government can- not accept the amendment.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [6. 11].- I asked the Honorary Minister a question in regard to the Papanui, because I desired to ascertain whether he was aware of the space which has to be sacrificed between the two bottoms of that vessel. If this provision is to be adopted in respect of all our ships-
– It is only to be adopted if required by regulation.
– The argument against fitting a large ship like the Papanui with two bottoms will not apply in the same way as it will apply in the case of small steamers. That vessel may carry water ballast between her true and false bottoms, and there may be sufficient space between them to permit of the interior being thoroughly cleaned from time to time. If a similar space has to be provided between the two bottoms of a small steamer, such as is required to negotiate a bar with only 5 or 7 feet of water upon it, it must materially diminish her cargo-carrying capacity. Thus, what may be a reasonable provision in the case of a large ship may be a most unreasonable one in the case of a small vessel.
– Is it not better to have a limited cargo-carrying space and seaworthy ships, than an unlimited cargocarrying space and unseaworthy ships?
-.Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - But these vessels have hitherto been found, in every respect, suitable for (he service in which they are engaged. The Honorary Minister must know ‘that, within the past few years, we have obtained a very superior class of coastal ship, especially from the stand-point of the accommodation provided for passengers. That has necessarily led to a decrease in their cargocarrying capacity.
– But those vessels always had wooden bottoms.
– I am quite aware of that. The cargo is not loaded on to their plates. If a vessel has a watertight false bottom, the latter has to be protected by a wooden floor.
– The Inter-State ships have such bottoms.
– I cannot realize the force of the speech, I shall not say the reasons given, by the Minister in opposition tothe amendment. It seems to me that hehas an invariable reply to give to every proposal from this side, and that is, “ The” Government cannot consent to the amendment.” That is a very easy way to carry a Bill through the Senate, so long as honorable senators are satisfied. But I would point out to the Minister that it is advisable to give as reasonable consideration as possible to the Bill, and not to leave the other House to correct our mistakes. I feel quite satisfied that many of the amendments which have been submitted from this side will commend themselves to the members of that House, and will, of course, be ultimately accepted by the Senate. I do wish that honorable senators, especially Ministers, would give a little more consideration ;to the Reasons which are advanced from this side from time to time in favour of amendments.
– The speech of Senator Gould might lead some persons to think that this is a new provision in a measure of this kind. As a matter of fact, it has appeared in every Navigation Bill which has been originated here. So far as I can remember, not one witness before the Navigation Commission raised the slightest objection to the provision for watertight partitions in the Bill of 1904. In the face of the fact that all the witnesses accepted the principle, it is rather unfair for the honorable senator to state that the Government have no case further than that they will accept no amendment from the other side.
– Will the honorable senator tell me how many amendments they have accepted from this side?
– At present, we are considering a particular question, and certainly we ought to take the ordinary precautions which are taken the world over to insure the safety of passengers on steam-ships. The principle of watertight partitions is so well-established that I am surprised at any one rising and suggesting that there should be any going back.
-I have not made that suggestion.
– Then I fail to grasp the meaning of the honorable senator’s suggestion.
– Watertight compartments and watertight false bottoms are two distinct things.
– I suppose that if there is one State in Australia in which such a provision is necessary, it is New South Wales. I do not think it is necessary in many of the other States. It is certainly not required for safe navigation in Western Australia. According to the marginal note, this clause was taken from the New South Wales Act of 190 1. It is a very wise precaution to take to insure the safety of navigation in the case of bad bar harbors. In the absence of such a provision, captains would take the liberty of going out when there was not sufficient water on the bar, and incur a very great risk both to the ship and to the persons on board. It is unreasonable to expect the Government to go back on such a wellestablished principle as is embodied in the provision.
.- I . admit that in the case of small craft this provision, if enforced, will increase her draught, but that will not interfere with her going over a bar. Senator Gould has not to take into consideration any additional weight which may be given to a light ship. It is only, a question of the difference between putting down thin steel plates and wooden planks from 2 to 3 inches thick. There is a bottom now in the case of every ship, and the whole question is whether it shall be watertight or not. Under Lloyd’s rules a ship may run five or six surveys before the cement in the watertight bottoms is repaired or renewed. The cement keeps in good condition for a considerable number of years. The clause provides for the making of regulations where required, and we may reasonably assume that this power will be exercised with discretion. The Government must followvery largely on the lines of Lloyd’s, because unless its requirements are complied with’ there can be no insurance on a ship or cargo.
-t-I remind the honorable senator that ships trading on the coast have Lloyd’s certificates, but have no false bottom such as is suggested by this provision.
– Some of them have.
– Many ships belonging to .the North Coast Steam-ship Company and the Illawarra Steam-ship
Company have such false bottoms. I think it will be perfectly safe to leave this matter to regulation. I feel satisfied that the Department will not go much further than Lloyd’s do in the matter of their surveys.
– This clause practically gives a direction to the Minister that certain things shall be done, and nobody can complain if he frames a regulation to carry them out.
– There are, I know, certain vessels in which a false bottom would not be required, so far as insuring safety is concerned, but where it is required the Minister ought to have the power to make a regulation on the subject. The clause goes no further than that, and Senator Gould will be well-advised in withdrawing bis amendment, as he may rest assured that the Department is not likely to overstep the requirements of Lloyd’s register.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [6.26].- I would point out that at present, in order to obtain a Lloyd’s certificate these steamers, certainly the smaller vessels, do not require to be provided with watertight, false bottoms. If we make this amendment there will, at any rate, be an assurance that, so far as any ships are concerned, these requirements will not be necessary unless, of course, Lloyd’s sees fit to .impose them. All these ships are registered at Lloyd’s; they all have to get its certificate. That, I have no doubt, is looked upon, and very . properly looked upon, as a very great help to the Department in dealing with vessels of this kind. But if we know that Lloyd’s gives a certificate in certain cases without requiring a watertight bottom, why should we enable the Minister to prescribe such a requirement, and impliedly tell him that in- our opinion it :.s a reasonable thing to do? If this provision is passed it will be an intimation to the Minister that Parliament contemplates that it is desirable that a vessel should have not only transverse watertight partitions, but also watertight false bottoms. Nobody can object to the provision for transverse watertight partitions, as ships are divided into watertight compartments. I think it would be wise for the Committee to eliminate the words in view of the class of ships which are engaged in the coasting trade, and also in view of the fact that all such ships have a Lloyd’s certificate of the first class when they come to Australia.
. -I know that this or a similar provision was contained in the New Zealand Act of 1903. I am informed, but I am not able to verify the information, that a section to this effect in the New Zealand Act of 1903 or 1908 was repealed by a section in the Act of 1909. I have looked through the Act, but I have not been able to find such a provision. Perhaps the Minister will kindly consult his officers on the point. After the present amendment has been dealt with I intend to submit an amendment which has been circulated. I have received information that if this clause is enacted a large number of the coasting-trade vessels of Australia will go out of commission. I do not know what is the value of the statement, but I admit that it is interested in the sense that it comes from the shipping quarter. I should like to refer to another portion of my proposal, but I promise the Minister that I shall not detain the Committee after the dinner adjournment. I shall simply move the amendment.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.0].- I do not know whether the Minister will be prepared to accept an amendment which Senator St. Ledger has circulated, providing that the clause shall not apply in the case of ships built, or in course of construction, at the time of the passing of this measure, and also a proviso to the effect that the condition as to watertight false bottoms shall not apply to limited coast-trade ships not exceeding 500 tons gross register.
– This has been the law of New South Wales since 1901.
– Pardonme ; there is not a single word in the New South Wales Act to this effect.’ I have taken the trouble to look the matter up. It is true that the provision as to transverse watertight partitions is in the New South Wales Act, but not that with regard to watertight false bottoms. If the amendment circulated by Senator St. Ledger were accepted, I might see my way to withdraw my amendment, leaving the clause applicable to ships of larger tonnage.
– I think we ought to leave the clause as it stands. It contains the words, “ if required by the regulations,” and I prefer to leave the matter to be dealt with by regulation. I do not think that it is wise to exclude from the operation of the clause all ships built before the passing of this measure. I am not even prepared to say that we should exclude ships under 500 tons gross register. A great deal depends upon the trade in which they are engaged. For instance, there are trading round the north-west coast of Western Australia vessels which, owing to the limited population, are necessarily small. But they go right out to sea, and work upon a rocky coast that is insufficiently charted. It might be necessary to require that a vessel trading on such a coast should have a watertight false bottom.
– The greatest danger occurs in the case of small ships which dodge along the coast.
– It is much better to leave the matter to be covered by regulation. We may depend upon it that the Minister, in framing the regulations, will give consideration to the point raised by Senator Gould and Senator St. Ledger.
Amendment negatived.
– I move -
That the following words be inserted after sub-clause 1 : - “ Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in the case of ships built or in course of construction before the passing of this Act.”
It seems only fair that notice should be given to ship-owners that the requirements specified in the clause will apply to vessels built hereafter. But there are some vessels already trading on our coast which have not transverse watertight partitions; and there are a fair number that have not watertight false bottoms. Especially is that so in the limited coast-trade. The owners of those ships are entitled to some notice. Unless the regulations carry out the intention of my amendment, a large number of ships will be driven out of the trade.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.8].- A large number of ships engaged in the coasting trade have not watertight false bottoms. Indeed, I doubt whether any of them are so fitted. I see no objection to the provision as to transverse watertight partitions. I think that most of our ships are so constructed. But a number of ships have been built during the last few years, and contracts have been entered into for the construction of other vessels for the coasting trade. Some of them’ are larger than any ships that we have at present engaged in the trade. It would only be reasonable that Senator St. Ledger’s proviso should apply to them.
– The ship-owners, when they ordered those ships, knew that this provision was before Parliament, and that there was a probability of its being carried.
.- Ships ordered within the last few years have naturally been built in accordance with the requirements of the law that has hitherto applied, and in accordance with British law as it exists to-day. It is a very serious thing, after giving an order for a ship that is to cost £60,000 or £70,000, to have to go to the builder, and require him to make important alterations. It is only reasonable that this clause should not apply to ships that have been built under the existing law, or which have Lloyd’s certificates.
– Vested interests !
– Yes, vested interests. If a man has put a large sum of money into an industry he is entitled to fair consideration. I shall never be found refusing to recognise a vested interest that has been fairly and honestly created, and which is not used for dishonest purposes.
– There is some doubt as to what alterations would be required to fit vessels with watertight false bottoms. It is asserted by Senator Guthrie that the requirement means practically nothing. On the other side, it is asserted by ship-owners that a good deal of the coasting trade, at any rate on the eastern side of Australia, is done with ships which have not been constructed in accordance with these requirements. Unless the Minister, with the assistance of his experts, or of Senator Guthrie, can tell us that the loss of life at sea in the coasting trade of Australia is abnormal, surely we ought to provide that as long as vessels remain seaworthy they shall be allowed to be employed.
– These requirements would reduce the risks 50 per cent.
– I do not believe that there is any reasonably strong evidence to show that the coasting trade of Australia is conducted in vessels so built as to jeopardize human life. The proviso submitted by me is intended to give statutory protection in the case of vessels, the owners of which desire to continue to trade as they have hitherto done. The vessels will still have to come up for survey occasionally, and if they are not fit to carry on the trade they have been doing in the past, other provisions of this Bill will enable the Minister to insist upon such structural alterations as are required. But as long as the vessels are maintained in a condition of efficiency, and are fit to carry on the work they are doing, why impose upon them this additional precaution? Why should not the owners of these vessels be considered? I remind the Committee that we have already, in another part of the Bill, given the Minister power to do what I ask by way of regulation, if he is satisfied that it may be done with safety. In the circumstances, I cannot see why there should be any objection to exempting from this provision vessels already engaged in our coasting trade and carrying it on satisfactorily.
– The Royal Commission said that they are not carrying it on satisfactorily. There is evidence of the necessity for this provision.
– This is the first reference which has been made to it, and I should like to hear .that evidence quoted.
– The honorable senator would exempt all ships, no matter what their condition?
– Certainly not. We have agreed to many clauses giving the Minister large discretionary powers to secure the seaworthiness of vessels engaged in our shipping trade, and to require them, from time to time, to undergo a survey. We must assume that vessels at present engaged in the coastal trade have complied with the provisions of the State Acts, and 1 do not see why we should not permit them to carry on the trade in the future as they have done in the past.
– I have given this matter serious consideration, and I think that honorable senators had better leave it to be dealt with by regulation. Although these ships are limited to a radius of 400 miles, they go to sea very often, and they are ordinarily engaged in a trade which takes them into tidal rivers, in nearly every one of which there is a more or less dangerous bar. Vessels, at times, run considerable risk of striking these bars, and, in the circumstances, it would not be safe to exempt from this proviso ships engaged in the limited coast-trade. The Minister, before enforcing this provision, would take into consideration the nature of the trade in which a ship is employed. If a ship is employed in what is obviously a dangerous trade, he would be justified in insisting that she should have these double watertight False bottoms. To my own knowledge, there are cases in which the Minister might, with safety, exempt vessels from complying with the provision, but it is much better that we should make the provision here, and leave it to the Minister, by regulation, to meet the circumstances of each case. If we were to accept the amendment, the result might be that ships that ought to be compelled to comply with it would be exempt from what is a very necessary provision in certain circumstances.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.21].- I understood Senator Guthrie to say that this provision for water-tight false bottoms was recommended by the Navigation Commission.
– No ; I said that evidence was taken by the Navigation Commission as to the necessity for it.
– Honorable senators will find the following reference to the matter in the Navigation Commission’s report -
The evidence further shows that one of the chief dangers to which modern vessels are exposed is that of collision. While not undervaluing the importance of life-saving appliances, your Commissioners strongly recommend that all ships built after the passing of the proposed Navigation Act shall not be regarded as seaworthy unless divided by properly constructed water-tight compartments.
There is no reference there to water-tight false bottoms. It is all very well for Senator Guthrie to say that evidence was given as to their necessity, but we ought to be guided by the report of the Commissioners, who considered all the evidence. We do not propose to interfere in any way with the provision for water-tight partitions, which are required under the existing law. I assume that every ship at present trading on the coast is supplied with transverse water-tight partitions. In the summary of recommendations by the Royal Commission I find die following -
That all vessels (including ferry steamers) constructed after the passing of the Navigation Bill be fitted with water-tight compartments.
Honorable senators will see that the Royal Commission were clearly of opinion that it is only abstract justice that ships already in commission, or constructed before this Bill becomes law, should not be expected to comply with the additional requirements provided for in this Bill. In the circumstances, I cannot see why the Minister should object to the amendment, though I can understand that he might have some objection to the amendment which I proposed. The amendment now under consideration would carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission in exempting from this provision vessels already in commission and holding certificates of seaworthiness. The Minister might have some justification for objecting to a proviso exempting from the operation of this clause ships of 500 tons burden, but I hope he will agree to accept the amendment now before the Committee.
– We appear now to be in a difficulty similar to that in which we have found ourselves on several occasions in dealing with this Bill. We are trying to frame a law which will be applicable to a whole continent and cover many varying conditions. If there is any meaning in the Constitution, we cannot differentiate between one port and another in Australia. We cannot do it by regulation if we cannot do it by an Act of Parliament. On the eastern coast of Queensland there is a large number of vessels trading within a radius of 150 to 200 miles. There are vessels trading between Rockhampton and Townsville, and calling at the ports of Broad Sound, Mackay, and Bowen. These are small vessels of perhaps 300 tons register, and. similar vessels are employed trading between Townsville and Cairns, going through Hinchinbrook Channel, and calling at Ingham and other small ports on the way. If this provision is to be applied to such vessels, the result will be to destroy a large amount of pioneering trade that is now being carried on. It should not be forgotten that the big steam-ships trading on our coasts are fed by these little steamtenders or lighters that run in and out of the small ports, and bring hides, tallow, sugar, and other produce to the larger ports, from which they are taken by the larger steam-ships. If these little vessels trading between the small ports are to be dealt with in the same way as ocean-going vessels, the effect will be to destroy a certain amount of trade now being carried on. The adoption of the clause will have the effect of stopping this pioneering trade’, which is conducive to settlement. If the Government are prepared to do that, they must accept responsibility for their action.
I warn them that they cannot lay down a hard and fast law for the whole of this huge continent. If, in this matter, they will allow a small margin - as has been suggested by Senator St. Ledger - they will be assisting Australia, whilst doing no injury either to the shipping combine or to the seamen employed on board steamships. I ask the Honorary Minister, who, I notice, is looking the matter up very carefully
– No; I looked it up before the adjournment for dinner.
– Then I hope that the honorable gentleman is in a position to give us a more satisfactory reply than we have yet received.
– I cannot see how Senator St. Ledger can achieve the object which he has in view by means of his amendment. The clause is sufficiently elastic to enable exemptions to be granted by the Minister. But the honorable senator wishes to lay down a hard and fast rule in respect of all ships entering the Australian trade after a certain date.
– In the case of such ships, the Minister will have discretion under the regulations.
– Under the clause itself, the Minister will have a free hand to exempt ships trading in estuaries or rivers around our coast, provided that they have not to enter bar harbors.
– But those bar harbors are already there.
– Then there exists a greater necessity for insisting that the vessels trading to such places shall be fitted with false bottoms. We know that in approaching Brisbane, there is a very nasty bar in Moreton Bay. The clause is sufficiently elastic to enable the Minister to make exemptions wherever he may deem it wise to do so.
-We are asked to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Minister.
– When it should be left in the hands of Parliament.
– I do not think so. If the Minister thinks that the small craft to which allusion has been made will not be called upon to encounter danger, he may exempt them from the operation of this provision. Consequently, there is no need for the amendment.
– I would point out that if the amendment be agreed to, the Minister will not be deprived of any power which he might otherwise possess. It will simply have the effect of exempting from the operation of this clause all ships trading along our coast, together with those in course of construction at the time of the passing of this Act. I object to give the Department of Trade and Customs the power to declare that all vessels which are now engaged in that trade must be fitted with watertight false bottoms. My complaint is that instead of being governed by Acts of Parliament, we are to a great extent governed by regulations. A large number of small craft trade along the coast of Queensland, between Geraldton, Cairns, Proserpine, and Bowen, during the sugar season. If a too strict interpretation be placed upon this clause, these vessels will be forced out of the trade, and the producers will be unable to get their produce to market.
– And they carry 100 tons of cargo to every passenger.
– Yes. It is only in exceptional circumstances that they carry passengers. ‘ If we compel them to be fitted with false bottoms, they will be forced, out of the trade.
– Are not punts chiefly used to bring the sugar to the big ships?
– No. It is brought down to those vessels by small steamers. At Proserpine, there is a bar harbor which it is difficult to enter. The same remark is applicable to Mackay. If the clause be strictly enforced, what will become of these steamers? I have no objection to vesting this power in the Minister in the case of vessels which may enter the trade in the future. But to enforce such a provision at the present time would impose a great hardship upon our producers. Western Australia would be similarly affected.
– There are no coral bars there.
– There are no coral bars in Queensland. The bar at Brisbane is a sand bar. I hope that the Minister will not be too stubborn in this matter. I have no desire to worry him, but- I do ask him to take my representations into his favorable consideration, seeing that the matter is such a serious one to the State which I represent.
Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator St.
Ledger’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 7
NOES: 17
Majority … … 10
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment (by Senator St. Ledger) proposed -
That the following words be inserted after subclause 1 : - ” Provided that the provision in this sub-section prescribing water-tight false bottoms shall not be applicable to limited coast-trade ships not exceeding 500 tons gross register.”
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.49].- I do not know whether the Minister in charge of the Bill intends to accept the amendment or not.
Senator Findley. - No.
– If this provision were intended to apply in the manner which Senator Gould imagines, the probability is that we should become a laughing-stock in the eyes of a certain section of the community. But that is not intended. In imagination the honorable senator pictures the case of a river boat with a few bales of wool, or a few bags of lucerne.
– I have lived long enough on a river in New South Wales to know that it is a fact, and not a piece of imagination.
– The honorable senator imagines that, in a case of that kind, the Minister will rigidly enforce this provision. He must have a very poor conception of the capacity of a Minister who would enforce the provision against such a ship.
– The power which the Minister will have under the provision is one which is given to Ministers under many Acts. It will only be exercised if considered necessary by him.
– And the regulations are to be confined to carrying out the provisions of the Act.
– They are certainly intended for that purpose, and for no other. No Minister would dream, I should say, of attempting to do what the honorable senator imagines will be done under this measure.
– Yet the Minister asks for power to do it?
– The Minister asks for the necessary power, in the event of a contingency arising, to safeguard the interests of passengers and of the community.
– We have already given the Minister greater power in regard to regulations concerning the employment of crews in loading and discharging cargoes.
– Exactly. There need be no fear or apprehension on the part of Senator Gould.’
– We do not admit that we have done so. We shall not accept any amendment in the direction indicated by the honorable senator. We desire that this clause shall be passed as it is.
– The Government will not allow the Committee even to dot an “ i “ or cross a “ t,” I suppose.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 209 to 211 agreed to.
Clause 212 (Compensation for unnecessary detention).
– - I rise, not to propose an amendment, but to ask for information. On comparing this Bill with the last one, I find that two clauses have been omitted. It does not contain clause 207 of the last Bill, dealing with the case of a master who takes to sea a ship which has been legally detained before such ship has obtained a release.
– That appears as clause 213 in the present Bill.
– Then the order of the clauses has been altered. Clause 208 of the last Bill appears to have been dropped, or placed elsewhere in this Bill. As I said, I did not rise to move an amendment, but to point out that, apparently, two clauses of the last Bill have been dropped.
– We are not discussing dropped clauses, but the Bill before the Committee.
– The honorable senator’s colleague has explained to us at considerable length the way in which the Bill has been built up year after year by means of Royal Commissions, and all that sort of thing, and claimed that it is supposed to be the acme of perfection. If I think that some provisions have been omitted from this Bill, I have a reasonable right, without a sneer from the Honorary Minister, to ask why they have been dropped. I am quite willing to accept his statement, if he makes it, that clauses 207 and 208 of the last Bill appear in another part of this Bill.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 213 agreed to.
Clause 214 (Taking official to sea).
– This clause provides that no official performing any duty under the Bill “ shall be taken to sea in any ship without his consent.” What is the object of the clause? The criminal law of every State prescribes a punishment for kidnapping. The penalty under this clause is only £100 but under the criminal law a person guilty of such an offence would be punishable by imprisonment.
– But this only deals with the kidnapping of a Government officer !
– There is no reference in the margin to any Merchant Shipping Act in which there is a corresponding section.
– Suppose a ship sailed with a bailiff on board?
– That would be an offence under the criminal law. I presume that the intention is to protect officers of the Customs, but a bailiff would not be an officer in that sense.
– A bailiff is an officer of the Court.
– Not necessarily. I have known a boy to be sent up from a solicitor’s office and to place a writ on a ship and remain there. The clause, as it stands, seems to me to be an extraordinary one, unless the Minister can show that it corresponds with a provision in some existing Act.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.7].- The word “ official “ under the interpretation clause, includes - all persons in the service of the Commonwealth or of a State, employed under this Act for any purpose or duty in relation to which the term is used.
Sub-clause 2 makes provision for an added penalty on the owner or master of any ;ship in which any official is taken to sea illegally. Surely, however, if an official were illegally taken to sea he could recover damages for false imprisonment. I cannot understand why the clause has been inserted, nor does there seem to be a necessity for it. It cannot be for the express purpose of protecting bailiffs. I have heard of a bailiff going on board a launch, and the engineer starting the engines and then jumping off on to the wharf, leaving the bailiff on board. I trust that the Minister will be able to give satisfactory reasons for the inclusion of the clause.
– Senator St. Ledger has asked whether there is a similar provision in any existing Act, and has suggested that there is not. The honorable senator ought to have been sure of his ground before snaking such an extraordinary assertion. I direct his attention to sections 105 and 106 of the Victorian Act of 1890. Section 106 reads -
Where a ship proceeding to sea takes to sea when on board thereof in the execution of his duty any officer authorized to detain a ship the owner and master thereof shall each be liable to pay all expenses of and incidental to the officer being so taken to sea and also a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds until the officer return or until such time as will enable him to return to the port ‘from which he is taken, and such expenses may be recovered in like manner as the penalty.
One of many reasons for the insertion of the clause is that it is considered essential to prevent ships going to sea while an officer is on board.
– The section in the Victorian Act seems to be part of a comprehensive scheme, but such is not the case with the clause with which we are dealing. The clause seems to stand by itself, and the reasons given for it are entirely inadequate.’ However, we have to, accept them. No doubt strange things do happen at sea.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 215 agreed to.
Clause 2 16 ‘(Security for costs).
– This clause differs from the New Zealand section, and from the section in the Merchant Shipping Act, especially in regard to the proviso. In the Merchant Shipping Act, section 461, the words used are - “ Provided that not less than onefourth of the crew being not less than three.” This clause, however, reads - “ Provided that where the complaint is made by two or more of the seamen.” The meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act is that the complaint that a ship is unseaworthy has to be made by one-fourth of the crew, that proportion of the whole being not less than three. The reason of that is evident, because two seamen might mala fide bring a complaint.
– Could not three do the same?
– I admit that they could. But the greater the number included the more easy it is to detect mala fides. I should like the Minister to give some reason for the departure in this clause from the provisions appearing in the Merchant Shipping Act and in the New Zealand Act requiring that the complaint shall be made by one-fourth of the crew and not less than three before security for costs is dispensed with.
– What size crew would the- ship be carrying ?
– The honorable senator is better able to advise the Committee on that point than I am, but I should imagine that the vessels trading on the coast of New Zealand would be no larger than those trading on the coast of Australia, and the New Zealand Act follows in this matter the provision of the Merchant Shipping Act. The Minister has given no reply to my question, and I think I am entitled to the courtesy of a reply. I should like to know why the Government propose this departure from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act and the New Zealand Act?
– The. honorable senator appears to have been searching all the Statutes he can find, and wherever he has noticed a section in any Statute which he cannot find in this Bill he asks me to get up and explain why it ‘is not here. I have to tell the honorable senator - and I hope he will accept this explanation as applying to all similar cases - that in this case the Government are satisfied that they are right in making the departure proposed. We believe that if two or more members of the crew of a ship make a complaint which obviously is not a frivolous one, security for costs should be dispensed with. That is all that is provided for in this clause. It is not necessary that we should rigidly follow the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act in every case.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 217 to 220 agreed to.
Clause 221 -
Every ship shall be permanently and conspicuously marked with lines, in this Act called deck-lines and load-lines.
This provision shall not apply to -
limited coast-trade ships under fifteen tons gross registered tonnage
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.23]. - I wish to ask the Minister why it is considered necessary to fix the registered tonnage of limited coast- trade ships to which the provision is to apply at 15 tons, in view of the fact that under the Merchant Shipping Act it is fixed at 80 tons ? This provision is applied under the Merchant Shipping Act to every British ship proceeding from a port in the United Kingdom except ships under 80 tons register employed solely in the coasting trade or ships employed solely in fishing. I should like to know the reason for the considerable reduction in the tonnage of the vessels to which this important provision is to apply.
– The honorable senator will find that there is a tendency in colonial legislation to apply all provisions to ships of a lesser tonnage than those to which similar provisions are applied under the Merchant Shipping Act. For instance, under the Victorian Act this provision is applied to ships of 50 tons gross registered tonnage, and I believe that in some of the other States it is applied to ships of even lesser tonnage. The principle I laid down a little time ago in connexion with another clause applies also to this clause. The fact that only a limited trade is available because of the scattered nature of our population leads to the employment of very small vessels. Very much smaller vessels are required to carry on our limited coast-trade than are necessary . to carry on the same trade in Great Britain, where there is a very much larger population, and consequently a larger volume of trade. That is the principal reason why this provision is applied to vessels of such small tonnage. In South Australia I have seen vessels of very small tonnage loaded down to the gunwale with firewood and crossing a dangerous sea in St. Vincent’s Gulf close to the ocean. In such cases a load-line is very necessary. Honorable senators are aware that along our coasts small ketches are employed in carrying limestone and various kinds of produce, and, unless a load-line in such cases is insisted upon, there will always be a tendency to load them up to the danger point. The section dealing with the matter in the New Zealand Act 1908 is section 207, and if. is applied to “ every British ship except ships under 20 tons register employed in the home trade.”
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.27].-I am obliged to the Minister for the information he has supplied. I admit the force of the reason given for the application of this provision to vessels of smaller tonnage than those to which it is applied in the coast trade of Great Britain. I have not sufficient information on the subject to justify me in submitting any amendment, but I should have thought it was not necessary to apply such a provision to limited coast-trade ships of such limited gross registered tonnage.
– I should like to say for the information of Senator Gould that 15 tons has always been the limit adopted in South Australia. I might add to what the Minister has said one strong reason in support of the departure from the practice of the Board of Trade in this matter. These small vessels are usually sailing ships, and in the British coast trade a ship has always some port under her lee to run for in bad weather. On the Australian coast, with the wind from the sea, these vessels are on a lee shore, and there is no weather-bound port to which they can run. That is one of the strongest arguments in support of the reduction of the tonnage of vessels to which this provision shall apply. They have to stand out to sea when they encounter bad weather, whereas in the British coast trade vessels can take advantage of weather-bound ports, if not on the coast of Great Britain, then on the coast of Holland, Germany, or France. They have always in that trade a lee port to run into.
– I suppose the Minister is aware of the provisions of section 444 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, and understands that if any alteration in the loadline is proposed, the Bill must be reserved for the Royal assent ? I might mention the course followed in connexion with similar provisions in the Canadian Act passed in 1904 or 1905. In dealing with the load-line, a slight departure was made from the provisions of the Board of Trade, and the section of the Canadian Act dealing with the matter was prefaced with a special section providing that it was only to come into operation when it had received the Royal assent. If we make any alterations in the load-line in this Bill, it must be understood that the provision must be “reserved for the Royal assent.
– Not necessarily.
– I do not intend to argue the question, which is a constitutional, as well as a legal, one, but I would refer Senator Guthrie to the clear terms of section 444 of the Imperial Act.
– Our Commonwealth Constitution Act is a later Imperial Statute than that.
– I know that that is so. I wish to ask. the Minister whether the Government contemplate the adoption of two load-lines?
– There are five loadlines.
– The Board of Trade have the fresh-water, the Indian summer, the winter, and the winter North Atlantic load-lines. Does the Minister intend to follow the Board of Trade regulations by prescribing the position of these various load-lines?
– Sub-clause 3 of clause 223 deals with that matter.
– We intend to follow the Board of Trade load-lines.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 222 - (1.) Deck lines shall be not less than twelve inches in length and one inch in breadth, and shall be painted longitudinally on each side amidships, or as near thereto as is practicable, and shall indicate the position of each deck which is above water. (a.) The upper edge of each of the deck-lines must be level with the upper side of the deck plank next the water-way at the place of mark ing, and the deck-lines must be white or yellow on a dark ground, or black on a light ground. (3.) In this division “ amidships “ means the middle of the length of the load water-line, as measured from the fore side of the stem to the aft side of the stern-post.
– I move -
That in sub-clause 2 the word “ upper,” line 8, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ lower.”
Probably no honorable senator knows more about load-line legislation than I do, because it was my lot to pilot a Load-line Bill through the South Australian Parliament prior to the passing of the Imperial Act. The Imperial assent to that Bill was refused, but subsequently another measure was enacted by that Parliament which received the Royal assent. The assent to the first Bill was withheld because at that time the South Australian Parliament had not before it the report of the Load-line Committee and the scientific tables upon which the load-line was based. A rule of thumb had been adopted, under which a certain amount of free-board was allowed in every ship according to her depth of hold, and irrespective of her length and breadth. We have since adopted the tables of the Loadline Committee, and I am moving this amendment merely because of the abuse of those tables by certain Australian shipowners. Honorable senators must understand that when the surveyors are called upon to mark a vessel, their first duty is to define the deck-line. It is proposed in this clause that in computing the freeboard of a ship the upper deck-line shall be the point of departure. That is the line which was fixed by the Board of
Trade. The length, breadth, and depth of hold of a vessel are then taken into consideration, as well as any buoyancy which she may possess in the shape of deckhouses, &c, and thus her free-board is arrived at. Let us suppose that a vessel’s free-board is 3 feet. That free-board is arrived at by measuring from the upper part of the deck. This custom worked fairly well until recently, when some shipowners took advantage of it to sheath the iron decks of their vessels with wood. The practice is not a general one, but it has been adopted, and I ask honorable senators whether it is wise to allow a ship-owner to build on to the deck of his vessel to such an extent that virtually she has no freeboard? Under the rules laid down by the Load-line Committee, a very small margin of safety was allowed. In computing the tables which it adopted it merely inquired, “ How much can this ship safely carry?” If we allow ship-owners to adopt the practice which has been adopted by a few of their number, we shall deprive their vessels of all margin of safety, and jeopardize the lives of our seamen. There can be no guarantee of safety either to our seamen or the general public if the upper part of the deck-line may be shifted at the whim of any ship-owner. I have consulted, a great many persons upon this matter, and I am satisfied that the position which I am putting to the Committee is an absolutely correct one. We ought not to provide any ship-owner with an opportunity to ignore the intentions of this Parliament. I ask honorable senators to extend to this proposal fair consideration, because of its great importance.
– I quite agree with Senator Guthrie that this is not a matter which ought to be lightly passed over. But I trust that the clause is one which is not likely to be altered. We are acting on the experience of a good many years, and we must recollect that the loadline has been adopted by Lloyd’s, the great underwriters, for the protection of their own interests.’ We must also remember that it has been adopted by the Board of Trade and by every foreign country. With all respect to his seafaring experience, I am afraid that Senator Guthrie has scarcely grasped the principles upon which the loadline is determined. He speaks as if the deck were the factor in determining it.
– It is no factor.
– Then what does it matter whether the deck is raised 3 inches or 3 feet? The Department does not say that every ship’s load-line shall be 3 ft. 6 in. from the deck. In determining where the load-line shall be, it does not take the deck into consideration. The load-line is determined mathematically in accordance with certain tables, and after taking into consideration the structure of a ship’s hull, and also her superstructure. There is a complicated set of tables for determining by mathematical calculation the load-line of a ship, in the course of which the contour of the vessel, as well as her depth and beam, is taken into consideration.
– Where do they measure that from?
– The measurement is not from anywhere.
– Free-board.
– In determining where the load-line shall be, the surveyorstake into consideration the whole structure of the ship, and the buoyancy is determined, as everybody knows who has ever made a toy ship, by a mathematical calculation. Having determined the load-line, they ascertain that the distance from the deck-line to the loadlinefor that ship is 3 ft. 6in., or 5 ft. 6 in., or 6 ft. 6 in., but they do not say that on all ships of that tonnage it shall be the same.
– Nobody has ever proposed that.
– No, but the honorable senator has spoken as if that were so.
– Not at all.
– If they put in a deck of 3 ft. 6 in. thick, that would not affect the load-line. They can put in a deck of 1 foot thick, and it will not affect the load-line by 1 inch; that will remainwhere it was put. If it was 3 ft. 6 in. from the load-line to the deck-line, anda deck 6 inches thicker is put in, in thenext determination they will find that it is 4 feet.
– The honorable senator is wrong.
– I am not wrong.. These are the principles on which the loadline is determined, and the distance fromthe load-line to the deck is arbitrarily fixed’ by the position of the load-line, not by the position of the deck ; and the load-line is determined, as I said, by the buoyancy of the ship and mathematical calculation.
– The honorable senator has got the thing upside down.
– An honorable senator has interjected about the free-board. That is only a term of reference, and it relates to the distance between the waterline, which may be below the load-line, and the deck-line. Honorable senators will, therefore, see that to accept Senator Guthrie’s proposition would be, not merely to alter the system of determining the loadline, but to adopt a system which is absolutely unsound. It would introduce a revolution, and an unsound one. Because then the load-line would be determined, not according to the buoyancy of the ship and a mathematical calculation, but according to where the deck was. The proposition is absolutely ridiculous. It disregards the matters of buoyancy and construction, all the mathematical formulae which have been worked out as the result of the experience of centuries, which have been adopted by the great firm of Lloyd’s, the underwriters, and are regarded by them as giving perfect safety. I trust that the Committee will not do anything of the kind proposed.
– I must object to being misrepresented by the Minister as I have been. Had he been paying attention whilst I was speaking, instead of consulting persons, he would have known that I placed the greatest reliance on the scientific measurement of’ the ship to find the free-board. I mentioned that, to arrive at the free-board, the length, the depth, and all her reserve buoyancy had to be taken into consideration, and that there were tables for working it out. The only difference between the Minister and myself as to finding the free-board ;s that he starts from the load-line, when that has not yet been determined.
– Yes, it has.
– My contention is that, after making the most use of the scientific tables, we come to the decision that a certain ship is entitled to a freeboard of, say, 3 feet. Where is it to be measured from? The Minister has told us that it is to be measured from the load-line. In the first place, we have to get a departure for measuring the load-line, that is to fix where it shall be placed. The Bill provides plainly that the free-board shall be measured from the upper part of the vessel’s deck.
– That is only for the purpose of indicating the position where the deck-line is to go.
– Exactly. But what is the line for? The line placed outside the ship is to show the position of the deck inside.
– What is the honorable senator’s alternative?
– My contention is that, under the law as it stands, that line has to be placed outside the ship at a point level with the upper part of the deck. That is, I think, a plain proposition.
– Does the .honorable senator say that that determines the position of the load-line?
– No; I never said anything of the sort. It is the departure for measuring the load-line, that is, for measuring the free-board. The thing is as plain as can be. It is a bad departure, because it is one which can be built upon, when the free-board is reduced.
– And, if that point of departure is moved, does the honorable senator say that the load-line will be moved ?
– Exactly.
– Ridiculous.
– As regards the measurement of the load-line, the honorable senator said that if a certain ship required 3 ft. 6 in., it did not matter whether the deck-line was raised 6 inches or not. If he will consult some experienced person, he will find that the measurement of the free-board has to be taken from the upper side of the deck. The free-board of 3 ft. 6 in., which he has just mentioned, has to be taken, under the Bill as it stands, from the upper side of the deck. If it is in the power of a ship-owner to alter at his sweet will the starting point, it will interfere with the free-board. Let me give one case in point. The ship Era, belonging to Melbourne, was measured for her freeboard, and the point of departure taken, Her deck-line was placed at the upper part of an iron deck, and her load-line was fixed, according to the tables, at the distance necessary from that deck, giving her freeboard. A wooden deck was laid on top of the iron deck, the deck-line was lifted by 3 inches, and the load-line certainly had to come up 3 inches. Because of putting that wooden deck on part of her - she is a well-decked ship - she is to-day loaded 3 inches more than she was intended to load, and the wooden deck has added nothing to her buoyancy. The Minister has emphasized the fact that mathematical tables have been approved by Lloyd’s.
– Lloyd’s is a gambling machine.
– Exactly. What has Lloyd’s done in the case of. the Era? It has withdrawn its certificate from her because her load-line has been altered.
– What does that mean ?
– It means that the ship, if lost, cannot claim insurance.
– It means a good or a bad gamble from Lloyd’s point of view.
-Lloyd’s is “laying off,” to use a gambling phrase. It says, “ We wash our hands of the thing, because you have altered her load-line; we no longer recognise that we have a responsibility to you.”
– Will not the increased strength add to the buoyancy and stability of the vessel ?
– No.
– What !
– It will not add anything to the buoyancy of the ship.
– Or to its stability ?
– More than that, the weight of the timber has given the vessel a deeper draught, and taken away from her buoyancy. It has increased her weight ; it has made her displacement greater.
– What!
– The weight of the additional timber has added to the weight of the ship, and has not increased her buoyancy, but has rather reduced it.
– If you increase the strength of the deck there, are you not increasing the stability of the vessel, which is an element in the buoyancy?
– No; the first question which the honorable senator asked was as to the buoyancy of the ship ; I am dealing with that question.
– That is what the load-line deals with.
– The stability does enter into the matter, but it is not Increased. The very fact of Lloyd’s withdrawing its certificate from the Era shows that the risk was so great that it was not prepared to take it.
– Somebody may have “ gerrymandered “ one vessel.
– Not only that ship, but others. There is an absolutely unsafe position. The upper part of the deck of a ship is a movable part, and my suggestion is that if the measurement is taken from the lower part of the deck there can be no alteration made. The Minister has misunderstood the very object of the deck-line being put there. There is conriderable discussion going on in Melbourne regarding the shipI mentioned. The owner was perfectly justified, under an Act similar to this Bill, in doing what he did. But I think that the marine authorities were lax in allowing the building-up to go on and the load-line mark to be shifted, because it is a certainty that the scientific tables only give the ship a very small margin of safety indeed.
– Does the honorable senator question the accuracy of the tables ?
– No.
– The honorable senator said that they would have to be altered.
– I said that my amendment might cause some slight alterations in the tables. At present, the clause lays down a point of departure in the measurement which can be shifted at the sweet will of an individual. That should not be possible where life and property are at stake. We ought to have a fixed point, and the only point which can. be selected for that purpose is the under part of the deck. I ask the Minister to again consider the amendment before he gives a definite reply as to whether he can accept it or not.
– Senator Guthrie could not have supplied a better illustration of what I was saying just now than he did in citing the case of the Era. On her certificate, the load-line was fixed by measurement from the upper part of the iron deck. The deck was not used in determining where the load-line should be put, because the tables determined that. But when they put on a new deck, 3 inches thick, and repainted the ship, they measured the load-line from the upper part of the new deck, whatever its thickness was. That, of course, gave her 3 inches less free-board ; and as I have just said, when the ship came to be underwritten, Lloyd’s refused to undertake the underwriting. Why? Because the loadline was not in conformity with the rules. The owners had raised the load-line by a trick. The fault lay with the surveyor, who had allowed the vessel to go out of dock without being re-surveyed. If she had been re-surveyed, supposing that the old load-line had been 3 ft. 6 in., and the deck-line had been raised 6 inches, they would have had to put the load-line 4 feet from the top. If that had been done, the position of the load-line would have been exactly as it was before - proving what I have said, that it is not the deck-line that determines the load-line at all. The honorable senator’s amendment would not have met that case. What happened there was that there was no re-survey. If the vessel had been re-surveyed, the load-line would have been put precisely where it was before: Those are the facts.
– .No: I have had the facts from Lloyd’s.
– The honorable senator is not the only one who acquaints himself with the facts affecting these questions. We have had the facts in regard to the matter ascertained carefully, and what I have stated is the reason why Lloyd’s refused to underwrite - simply that, and nothing more. I therefore trust that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
– If we pass this clause as it stands, the load-line must be level with the upper side of the deck. Take the’ case quoted by the Minister. Say that it is decided that the free-board of a vessel shall be 3 ft. 6 in., and that that measurement is afterwards altered.
– It would not be done if the surveyor did his duty.
– Under this Bill, the surveyor could make no alteration, because the length, the breadth, and the depth of the ship decide the free-board. But when it has been decided that the freeboard shall, be 3 ft. 6 in., where is that measurement to be taken from ? The whole matter in dispute between the Minister and myself is this: After you have arrived at the free-board to which a ship is entitled, the question arises as to how that is to be measured. My contention is that under this Bill, the free-board will be measured f rom the upper part of the deck.
– The honorable senator wants to set up an entirely new standard of measurement.
– I want to set up what is right and just. We are asked to re-enact a thing that we know is not right. The Minister admits that the ship ought not to be measured from the upper part of the deck, and yet we are going to re-enact what the Minister says should not be allowed. I say that the measurement should be taken from the lower part of the deck. The whole -position is absolutely easy and clear. I know that there is a prejudice against my proposal, because some honorable senators feel safer in following what has been enacted by the Imperial Parliament, and recommended by a great many marine architects, and other experts. But we have plain proof before our eyes that the load-lines of vessels have been altered, and that ships have been put in danger through that alteration. The only way to set that right is by making the measurements from the lower side of the deck instead of from the upper side.
– I notice in the report of the Conference held in London, at page 136, that as small a difference as 2 or 3 inches rules between the North Atlantic load-line and the summer load-line. So that, if Senator Guthrie’s contention be correct, that a ship-owner is free to add 2 inches to the free-board of a ship, it means a difference between the North Atlantic load-line and me summer load-line. Captain Chalmers, in his evidence, states that the addition to the summer load-line is in the case ot steamers 2 inches, and in the case of sailingships 3 inches. So that, as has been mentioned by Senator Guthrie, the subject is much more serious . than some honorable senators are inclined to think. As according to Captain Chalmers, the expert of the Board of Trade, 2 inches constitutes the difference between the safe load-line for winter traffic in the North Atlantic, and the easy load-line for summer traffic, it is evident that a matter of 2 inches is highly important. As to Senator Guthrie’s contention that the load-line is measured from the top of the deck, I can hardly agree with him. It is only lately that I have noticed in reading clause 223 how difficult it is to understand what Senator Guthrie is aiming at. Sub-clause 3 of clause 223 states that -
The position of the disc shall be fixed in accordance with the tables in force in the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, subject to such allowance as may be made necessary by the difference between the position of the deck-line marked under this Act and the position of the line from which free-board is measured under the said tables.
It will be seen, therefore, that while Senator Guthrie has . been . assuring us that the disc is measured from the upper side of the” deck. sub-clause 3 of clause 223 states that the fixing of the disc is subject to the difference between the upper side of the deck and the line from which the free-board is measured. In this proviso there are two points to be taken into consideration. Firstly, there is the upper side of the deck; and, secondly, there is the line from which the free-board is to be measured. What is that line? If it is possible to add 3 inches, it is evident that that is sufficient to destroy the whole difference between the winter Atlantic load-line and the easy summer load-line.
– To talk of determining the load-line, not according to the build of the ship, but according to the position of the deck, is absolutely ridiculous.
-i am in doubt about Senator Guthrie’s amendment, and am not inclined to vote for it.
– I think that Senator Guthrie is right in this matter. In the first place, what determines the amount of free-board? As pointed out by the Minister, it is determined by measurement. A ship of a certain length, a certain breadth, and a certain depth is entitled, we will say, to 3 feet of freeboard. Where is that to be measured from ? You cannot start from the load-line, because there is no load-line to start from. There must be a place from which the measurement shall start in the first instance. Now the place from which the measurement starts is the deck-line. The deck-line is mentioned in the preceding clause, which says that -
Every ship shall be permanently and conspicuously marked with lines in this Act called deck-lines and load-lines.
The deck-line, Senator Guthrie says, should be measured from the lower part, instead of from the upper part, of the deck. The deck must be a permanent structure. Say that a vessel has an iron deck. It is, as honorable senators know, very thin. But if 2 inches of planking are added permanently to that iron deck, then that deck-line is shifted. What does that mean ? From that line the measurement is to the load-line.
– Making a corresponding increase in the free-board.
– No; there can be no corresponding increase, because it would mean a decrease in the buoyancy of the ship. If, according to the measurement, it is estimated that a ship is entitled to 3 feet of free-board to give her buoyancy at sea, every inch taken from that decreases her buoyancy, and to that extent renders her more unsafe. What was done in connexion with the Era was all right, only the insurance people or Lloyd’s might have said, “ As you have made this alteration we shall no longer accept any responsibility in connexion with the vessel.” That would not be because the law had been broken. The Minister says that if the surveyor had only re-surveyed the ship everything would have been different. But the surveyor would have been absolutely helpless, because he could not alter the deck.
– Yes he could.
– The honorable senator might just as well say that the surveyor could put the deck-line wherever he pleased. He has nothing to do but obey the law which provides that the deck-line shall be on the upper side of the deck. If the deck were a permanent structure the surveyor would have no power under the Act to alter it. As Senator Guthrie has rightly said, we should lessen the safety of the ship by reducing her free-board and so reducing her buoyancy. The reason why Senator Guthrie asks that the measurement should be from the lower side of the deck is that if that course were followed it would be impossible to alter the deck-line, no matter how much planking was placed on top of the deck, though that might increase the buoyancy of the ship and thereby increase her safety.
– What difference would alteration of the load-line by 2 inches make in the carrying capacity of a vessel ?
– I admit that it would make a very considerable difference in the case of a big ship. I think that Senator Guthrie is right in this matter, and I shall vote with him if the amendment is pressed to a division.
– Senator Turley has fallen into the same error as Senator Guthrie. If their argument were correct it would mean that the load-line is determined by the position of the deck-line. But that is not so. What the deck-line is for is to enable the Department to indorse on the certificates at what depth from that deck-line the load-line shall Be placed.
– That is the whole thing.
– If an alteration is made in the deck the deck-line is altered; but that is not a determining factor in deciding the load-line, as Senators Guthrie and Turley must admit. The determining factor in fixing the load-line is the mathematical calculation of the buoyancy of the ship. If that were not so, the load-line would have to be raised, simply because the deck-line was raised. Do not honorable senators see that the two things are mutually destructive ?_ If the position of the deckline determines the position of the loadline, then the buoyancy of the ship is hot taken into consideration at all. Senators Turley and Guthrie must be aware that in fixing the load-line the measurements of the ship have to be taken into consideration, and two ships of the same tonnage might have the load-line in two different positions. This proves that the load-line is fixed by something other than the deck-line. Honorable senators will find that in clause 223 it is provided that -
The centre of the disc shall be placed at such level as is approved by the Minister below the deck-line marked under or in accordance with this Act, and specified in the certificate given thereunder. ….
That is why we fix a deck-line. Having ascertained by mathematical calculation where is the line of buoyancy, we indicate on the certificate that so many inches below the deck-line the load-line shall be marked. If the deck is raised by some inches-
– The load-line remains the same.
– The load-line remains in the same position, although the distance from it to the deck-line has been -altered. In the case quoted by Senator Guthrie the. distance between the load-line and the deck-line would be 4 feet instead of 3 ft. 6 in. That is all that would happen.
– I cannot let this go yet. I have here a book, and I ask honorable senators to consider the depth from one cover to the other as the distance between the deck-line and the centre of the disc forming the loadline. We will say that it represents 3 ft. 6 in. I place on top of this book another to represent a wooden planking i inch thick on the top of an iron deck. It will be seen that I have now shifted the upper part of the deck from which the freeboard is measured, by 1 inch.
– And the distance is 3 ft. 7 in., instead of 3 ft. 6 in.
– The load-line remains in the same place.
– When the mathematical calculation is made, it is estimated that the free-board of the ship should be 3 ft. 6 in.
– Measured from where ?
– I leave all marks out of the question altogether. We take into consideration the length of the ship, her beam, and her moulded depth, and decide according to the tables that she must ‘ have 3 ft. 6 in. free-board.
– Measured from where ?
– From anywhere. How are we going to measure that freeboard? Lloyd’s tell ys that the measurement shall be from the centre of the disc to the upper part of the deck. The distance, therefore, from the centre of the disc to the upper part, of the deck must be 3 ft. 6 in.
– How do you calculate where to put the disc?
– From the deckline.
– Not at all. The disc is fixed before the deck-line, according to the Minister.
– No, you cannot fix your disc until you get your deck-line.
– Has every ship of the same tonnage got the same free-board?
– No. The freeboard is arrived at in this way : The length, breadth and moulded depth of the vessel, that is, the depth from the underneath part nf her deck_ to her keelstone, are taken. The poops, deckhouses and forecastles are taken into the calculation. The whole thing is mathematically worked out, and it is found that the ship is entitled, because of her measurements, t’o a free-board of so much, say, of 4 feet. How then are you going to give the ship the 4 feet? First of all we say there shall be a mark amidships showing her deck-line, and 4 feet is supposed to be given from the deck to the water when she is loaded.
– Simply for the -purpose of the certificate.
– And for many other purposes. The Plimsoll mark was first put on ships so that a sailor could see if a ship was fairly loaded before he went to sea in her. On the ship’s articles the free-board must be inserted, and cannot be altered during the currency of the agreement. In the Era. the free-board was never altered, although the mark was raised 3 inches. From the upper part of the deck to the centre of the disc there was the same measurement. That is the point the Minister does not seem to grasp.
– If you keep adding inches to it, what then?
– You would do away with the free-board altogether.
– Lloyd’s must be a set of fools.
– It is not, because in those cases it refuses to have anything more to do with the ship. Lloyd’s certificate was withdrawn in that case, as the Minister knows.
– If the Era had been re-suryeyed, as she ought to have been, her load-line would have been precisely where it was before.
– Under this pro: vision no surveyor can take anything but the Act to guide him. He would have to give the ship her measurement to the upper part of her deck.
– The Act says you shall do it in accordance with the tables in force in the United Kingdom.
– That applies to finding the free-board. To measure the freeboard afterwards is another matter. The deck-line is only used for measuring the free-board, for showing the free-board on the side of the ship, for use on the ship’s articles, and so on. If you shift that mark as you build up the deck you will lift the Plimsoll mark and put people’s lives in jeopardy all the time.
Question - That the word “ upper “ proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Guthrie’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 9
NOES: 11
Majority. … … 2
AYES
NOES
Question’ so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 223 - (1.) The owner of every ship shall . . . mark upon each of her sides … a circular disc. ….. (2.) The centre of the disc …. shall indicate the maximum load-line in salt water to which it shall be lawful to load the ship. (3.) The position of the disc shall be fixed in accordance with the tables in force in the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act
Provided that, in ships laden with coal, the position of the disc shall be, at all seasons of the year, not higher than that prescribed, by the Hoard of Trade Regulations, for the Winter load-line.
Amendment (by Senator Guthrie) proposed -
Thatafter the word “ coal “ the words” or deadweight cargo” be inserted.
Progress reported.
Senate adjourned at 10.38 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 October 1910, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1910/19101012_senate_4_58/>.