Senate
25 October 1912

4th Parliament · 3rd Session



The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 4685

PAPER

Senator PEARCE laid upon the table the following paper : -

Defence Act 1903-1913. - Regulations amended, &c, Military Forces - Statutory Rules IgI2 Nos. 306, 207, 208.

page 4685

QUESTION

EPISODE IN CHAMBER

Senator SHANNON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Minister leading the Senate if he intends to let the episode which took place in the chamber yesterday afternoon pass’ unnoticed ?

Senator Chataway:

– I hope so.

page 4685

COPYRIGHT BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 4685

DESIGNS BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator McGregor) read a first time.

page 4685

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South. Australia · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time. Since the passage of legislation dealing with invalid and old-age pensions, it has always been the practice of the Government to endeavour to provide, some little time ahead, sufficient funds to meet the liabilities of the Commonwealth with respect to that beneficent legislation. Hitherto the only question raised on a Bill of this kind has been that of an appropriation for old-age pensions. Since the proclamation was issued bringing into existence invalid pensions it has been thought advisable to have an appropriation for both invalid and old-age pensions. Various amounts have been appropriated in this way. Last year the amount was j£$, 000, 000, in the preceding year it was £3,000,000, and in the year preceding, that a lesser sum. These appropriations are made beforehand for the purpose of permitting the Government to put into a trust account for this purpose any moneys which they find at their disposal from time to time during the financial year. It has always been found a wise practice. Last year the amount necessary for oldage pensions was a little over £2,100,000, and this year it is estimated that it will be £2,45°,°°o. A great many of the people of Australia are availing themselves of the benefit which has been conferred upon them by this Parliament, and in order that there shall always be money available to meet these liabilities these appropriations are necessary. There may be other phases of the invalid and old-age pensions system which might be gone into, but T think that, in connexion with a simple appropriation of this kind, it is not necessary to do so. This year we ask for an appropriation of £3,000,000.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The Bill calls for no comment other than that with which it has been introduced. As the Minister has correctly stated a practice has grown up - I notice that he was discreetly silent as to its origin - of passing these . Appropriation Bills in order that the Treasurer may pay any surplus revenue into trust accounts, rather than have to distribute the money, as be otherwise would to the States. . That is a provision to which I direct the attention of the Minister.

Senator Givens:

– That necessity does not exist now that we have made a financial agreement with the States.

Senator MILLEN:

– Pardon me, the necessity does exist under the Surplus Revenue Act. I am not aware of any State Treasurer building up any hopes of such a surplus coming to his Treasury. I should like the Vice-President of the Executive Council to obtain for me a statement showing, not merely the anticipated increase of expenditure this year as compared with’ last year’s expenditure, but the yearly expenditure since the inauguration of the pensions system. According to the honorable senator, the increase this year is estimated at .£350,000. If that increase is abnormal, the Senate is entitled to a little explanation. If, on the other hand, it is a normal increase, it does suggest either that the statisticians were hope- lessly in error in the figures which they g laced before us, or that a very large number of persons refrained from availing then selves of the pensions compared with those who do now.

Senator Needham:

– The value of thehouse is not now to be taken into consideration.

Senator MILLEN:

– There is the fartthat after the Act has been in operation for a few years the increase for this year is estimated at £350,000. We would al* like to know whether this increase of £350,000 is normal, or whether thereare any special circumstances whichmake the increase this year so large- - an increase which we do not anticipate .in future. I shall be obliged’ to the Minister, if it is not possible for him to do so now, if he will take steps toplace the information before the Senate by-and-by.

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– Before the third reading of the Bill is carried I shall have very muchpleasure in procuring the information’ which the leader of the Opposition hasasked for. This is a Bill of only twoclauses, and we might as well put it through Committee to-day, and fix itsthird reading for the next day of sitting, when I shall have the desired informationavailable. I hope that will satisfy thehonorable senator.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Appropriation of £3,000,000* for invalid and old-age pensions).

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– We are now’ allocating a portionof our surplus for the purposes of invalid and old-age pensions.. I suggest to the Government that it would be a good idea to adopt the Queensland system. In that State, whenever there is a surplus at the end of the financial year, it is used to pay off the debts of the State, and not for a special purpose of this sort. Under thisBill, if we have a surplus at the end of the financial year, it is to be used to pay old-age and invalid pensions, which will’ immediately lead to the Government of theday increasing the amount of the1 pensions on the pretext that they have the money b> spend. In Queensland, a surplus is immediately paid over to Commissioners appointed for the reduction of the publicdebt j and those Commissioners, at the shortest possible notice, buy up a certain, amount of Queensland bonds, so as to liquidate as much as possible of the obligationsof the State. Here we are to use the- ^surplus for increasing any eleemosynary ^grants to people who are a little hard up.

Senator Barker:

– It is the best thing we can do with a surplus.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– -Well, there are <two ways of looking at the matter. I think it would be better to reduce the total -debt of the community than to increase the aid given to a certain section.

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

(10.47]. - I admire the apparent simplicity -of Senator Chataway, though I do not think he is quite so simple as he would like to make us believe. If he had listened to the short speech made by his leader, he would have understood the position of the Commonwealth with regard to any surplus we may have. We have to -allocate our surplus monthly. Queensland has no liability with respect to any other governing body. She can do her own business as she pleases. But the Commonwealth cannot do anything of the kind. “When Senator Chataway attempts to create the impression that it is the intention of the Government to increase the allowance paid to invalids and old people, he is misleading himself and trying to mislead the public. When he thinks seriously, he will realize that the Commonwealth has many more obligations to meet than invalid and old-age pensions. There are also trust accounts with respect to defence and other matters. From time to time money will he allocated for those purposes. No increase in the amount of old-age pensions, and no extravagant allowances to invalids, will be made without the consent of both Houses of Parliament; and when Parliament thinks that the time has arrived for such increases to be made, I have no doubt that Senator Chataway will assist his brother legislators in making them. Even if he does not assist, I am satisfied that in a very few years he will be telling the people that the increases had all his sympathy. That has been our experience in -the past. When the time arrives for the Commonwealth to have absolute control of the national debt of Australia, probably provision will be made to create a trust account in that respect, as well as to provide for old-age and invalid pensions, the maternity allowance, and many other pieces of beneficent work done by the Commonwealth Parliament. We shall then do -something to relieve Australia of the debts that have been piled upon the people, though not through the instrumentality of this Parliament.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I am much obliged for the information given to the Senate by the VicePresident of the Executive Council. I am only sorry that he did not go further. He has referred to the large surpluses which it is anticipated that the Commonwealth will have in the future.

Senator McGregor:

– That is to say, if the Labour party are in power.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator means to say that if there is no Labour party there will be no surplus? Seeing that the Government are now spending .£2,250,000 more than they are receiving, I should like the Vice-President of the Executive Council to tell us from what source he anticipates receiving these surpluses in future years? We know, on the authority of the Budget-papers, and from the statement of Senator Pearce, that expenditure is likely to grow rather than decrease on the present basis.

Senator Lynch:

– Is it not time to take the fence when we come to it?

Senator MILLEN:

– But my honorable friend is holding out this alluring prospect of a. surplus. It would ‘allay a great deal of natural anxiety on the part of many honorable senators if we could be assured that there is a probability of a surplus in the years immediately ahead of us.

Senator Rae:

– I rise to order. I wish to know whether the Leader of the Opposition is in order in discussing any surplus, real or alleged, in connexion with this clause. I take it that the clause is for the purpose of appropriating money for a specific object, and that it is not therefore in order to have a general discussion on the finances of the Commonwealth.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do not think that Senator Millen was out of order. He was discussing the general question in relation to the payment of old-age pensions.

Senator MILLEN:

– I have nothing further to say. I merely desired to emphasize that I see little ground for the view presented by the Vice-President of the Executive Council that there seems to be a prospect of a surplus somewhere. The figures published by the Government do not show it j and I am, therefore, entitled to assume that the Government are contemplating some other method of taxation to secure the surplus to which the Minister referred just now.

Clause agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the report be adopted. I am now in a position to reply to the request for information made by Senator Millen. I may point out that there is an anticipated increase of ,£80,000 with respect to proposed legislation, having for its object to remove any embargo that may be placed on recipients of old-age pensions with respect to the values of the homes in which they live. It is hoped to introduce a Bill making pensions free from deduction on account of the places of residence of the recipients. It has been a source of hardship, and, in some instances, of great difficulty, to apportion the value of homes, and many old people have been placed in a peculiar position. The remainder of the anticipated increase is due to the greater number of recipients of old-age pensions.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [10.57]. - I was not present when the second reading of this Bill was moved, but I understand that the object of it is to appropriate a sum of about ,£3,000,000 for invalid and old-age pensions. This is simply following out the principle hitherto adopted, of appropriating moneys that may be available for specific objects, so that there may be no question of distributing our surpluses amongst the States. But is the Vice-President of the Executive Council in a position to assure the Senate that there will be an opportunity of putting aside £3,000,000 to this Trust Account; or are the Government merely holding out to the public a placard by means of which they hope to show their good intentions, and to assure the public that they do not anticipate any difficulty whatever with respect to adequate provision for old-age and invalid pensions during the next twelve months?

Senator McGregor:

– If the honorable . senator had been present, he would have learnt that we appropriated ,£4,000,000 last year and met all our obligations. Surely, then, we can appropriate £3,000,000 this year.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - I am aware that all obligations were met during the past year. But, if I mistake not, when the financial position of the Commonwealth was discussed, it was shown that practically the whole of our surplus had been exhausted. In fact, I am informed that there was n© surplus when obligations had been discharged. Ministers, in order to meet their obligations, have had to draw, not on a surplus for the present year, but on £2,250,000 of surpluses from previous years, accumulated before we got upon such an outrageous line of expenditure as is rapidly growing at the present moment. I should like to be assured that, during the current year, there wilt be an amount of £3,000,000 to be appropriated for this purpose. Is it not a fictitious amount inserted in the Bill as a placard to induce the people to believe that the provision stated has been made?

Senator Rae:

– Does the honorable senator imply that we shall not be able to pay old-age and invalid pensions?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

.- What I imply is that the Government wish the people to believe that this provision will be made for the purpose, while they know that they will not have a surplus of ,£3,000,000 at the end of the current year to put into the Trust Fund for such a purpose; nor is there a surplus at the present time available to assist them in making up <the amount stated. I wish honorable senators to understand that I take no exception to an efficient administration of the Invalid and Old-age . Pensions Act, but I do take exception to a placard intended to lead the public to believe that funds will be available for a specific purpose when the Government are aware that they are not likely to have the funds necessary to meet the special provision made by the Bill. The honorable senator, in answer to Senator Millen, said that ,£350,000 was being added to the expenditure this year, anc? gave in this connexion what I admit were good reasons so far as they go. I wish honorable senators to realize that while a certain number of pensioners drop off from time to time, the number must continually increase to a certain extent if the Commonwealth is to be progressive. The* expenditure in connexion with invalid and’ old-age pensions must be a continually increasing expenditure, while the population of the Commonwealth continues to increase. I hope that the case will not prove to be so bad as appears to be likely at the present time. I shall be very pleasantly surprised if the Government are able to show a considerable surplus at the end of the current year. We know that the policy adopted by most Governments in Australia to-day is one of increased ex>penditure, trusting to Providence and a continuance of unlimited good seasons to enable them to provide the money. Apparently they fail to realize that good years are sure to be followed by lean years. During the good years they should not live up 4o the maximum of their incomes, but should make provision for the lean years which must inevitably follow.

Senator WALKER (New South Wales) £11.3]. - The Minister of Defence told us the other day that any surplus would go to a reserve fund to replace obsolete ships. I desire to know whether, in the event of the whole of the £3,000,000 not being required, the surplus will go to a reserve fund to make provision for replacing obsolete vessels?

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

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - If we make a specific appropriation we cannot go behind that, except by another Act.

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– When I asked what provision was being made to replace obsolete ships the Minister informed us that the surplus would go to a reserve fund for that specific purpose. I should like to know what amount is at the present time to the credit of that reserve fund.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

page 4689

TASMANIAN GRANT BILL

Second Reading

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time. In the drafting of the Constitution, provision was wisely made that if any of -the States at any time got into financial difficulties, was unable to meet her obligations, or, in short, was under the shadow of the hard times so often referred to here, she should receive assistance from the Commonwealth. I hope that, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, hard times will never come about while the Labour party tare in power. In such conditions as I have described, any State has the right, under section 96 of the Constitution, to appeal to the Commonwealth for the financial assistance which may be necessary. Honorable senators will remember that this matter has been repeatedly brought under the notice of another place, as well as of the Senate. I have heard from time to time the cry of representatives of Tasmania concerning the difficulties under which that little State has been labouring since the advent of Federation. We know the appeals that have been made for an alteration of the provisions of the Constitution with respect to the system adopted for the distribution of surplus revenue. At all times I have been prepared to listen to Tasmanian representatives on the subject. Many honorable senators who have heard these petitions for assistance have declared that Tasmania has, in the past, been so mismanaged that she is herself responsible for the difficulties of the position in which she is placed. They have urged that her legislation has been of such a Conservative character as to block all progress, and that nothing but poverty and degradation could be expected in the little island State. When a man appeals to a friend for assistance, it is scarcely fair, if that friend has any respect for the applicant, to turn round and tell him that his father was a drunkard, that his mother was an irresponsible individual, or that he was not brought up in the true faith, and consequently he would not listen to his plea. Tasmania may be in exactly the position of such an applicant for relief, but, as an integral portion of the Commonwealth, it is the duty qf the rest of the Commonwealth to render her assistance, just as it would be the duty of the members of a family to cheerfully and willingly afford assistance to a needy member.

Senator de Largie:

– Tasmania was the Cinderella of our family until the Labour party came into power.

Senator McGREGOR:

– That is so. The appeals of her representatives have in the past fallen upon deaf ears; but they now fall upon sympathetic ears, and I hope that the people and representatives of Tasmania will recognise that. - Senator Ready. - We shall not let them’ forget it.

Senator McGREGOR:

– ‘The grant which the Government are prepared to recommend for the assistance of the people of Tasmania is not all that the people or the representatives of that State would’ desire. But every one of us must acknowledge that we never get all we ask for or desire. Most people in this world would be very thankful if they got half what they asked for, and the present Government are prepared to grant to Tasmania more than half the amount recommended by a Royal Commission that investigated the matter, and secured all the information available in connexion with it.

Senator Long:

– Why do not the Government give us the full ,£900,000?

Senator McGREGOR:

– If it were not for the mournful prediction by some honorable senators opposite of the disasters that are likely to take place in the next few months or years, we might be prepared to do so. But if we were to regard them as reliable indicators of the future, we should not be able to give Tasmania more than a threepenny bit. If we did, it would be at once published throughout Australia as another evidence of Federal Labour extravagance.

Senator Long:

– When the Government take little notice of the Opposition in other matters, why do they take so much notice in this case?

Senator McGREGOR:

– The Labour Government and the Labour party are themselves the judges as to when and to what extent they should take notice of the predictions of the Opposition. It will not come very well from any member of the Opposition to suggest that we should agree to increase the grant we propose to Tasmania because they have been continually suggesting that wes are unable to meet our obligations, and that, in the very near future, we shall not have an opportunity to do so. I take all their predictions as I have taken the predictions of the people they represent in the country for the last twenty years.

Senator Ready:

– They are not altogether reliable.

Senator McGREGOR:

– They are not in the least degree reliable. Every prediction of honorable senators opposite, with respect to the calamities that were to overtake Australia when a Labour Government got on to the Treasury benches have been proved to be, not only unreliable, but false.

Senator Lt Colonel , Sir Albert Gould:

– They are being proved at the present moment, and will be proved up to the hilt.

Senator McGREGOR:

– Here is the prophet again on the stump. I hope that all the prophecies we have recently listened to will prove to be as futile and false as prophecies from that side have been for the last twenty years. In view of the experience of the last twenty years we haveno hesitation in casting on one side all these dire, pitiful, calamitous prophecies,, and cheerfully accepting the responsibility of advancing £”500,000 within the next tern years for the assistance of the people of Tasmania.

Senator Long:

– Why stop so short insuch a noble work?

Senator McGREGOR:

– There is nostoppage at all. The Labour party claimthat they are only beginning their good? work. Honorable senators representing. Tasmania must acknowledge that this is avery noble commencement of new relationsbetween the Commonwealth and Tasmania. If, after ten years have passed, thingshave not improved in Tasmania, through> those in authority in the State following, the good example set by Labour Administrations in other parts of the Commonwealth, section 96 of the Constitution will? still remain, and it will be possible for the Government or party then in power to* decide whether it is necessary to advanceanother .£500, 000 to Tasmania, or thebalance of the .£900, 000 which representatives of that State are asking for at thepresent time.

Senator O’Keefe:

– It would have beenbetter if the Government had adopted1 fully the recommendation of the Royal Commission.

Senator McGREGOR:

– I am not going to question that statement. Senator O’Keefe is a representative of the little island of Tasmania, and is very sympathetically disposed towards that State. He is a Tasmanian; he knows the people of the State, and what they have suffered inthe past. He knows the possibilities which are before a country like that under proper administration arid proper government. I am sure Senator O’Keefe wilt acknowledge that if the people of Tasmania have free play for the exercise of their intelligence and their energies there will be no necessity for them at the end of ten years to appeal to the Commonwealth for further financial assistance. I’ am convinced that most Tasmanian senators share that feeling. I hope that their best wishes towards their own State will’ be fulfilled within the next ten years. Under this Bill, Tasmania will receivefrom the Commonwealth during the first year of its operation a grant of £95,000, and thereafter that sum will decrease at 1the rate of £10,000 annually till in the “tenth year the State in question will receive a grant of only £5,000. I have no desire to labour this question in any way. In this Bill the Government have endeavoured to do the fair thing. I have no wish to push the measure through at the present sitting. If the Leader of the, “Opposition wishes to secure an adjourn, ment of the debate he is at liberty to move in that direction. Every opportunity will be afforded honorable senators to discuss the measure and to investigate the merits of the case in respect of Tasmania with a view to enabling them to determine whether or not the Government are doing the fair thing in this Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Millen) adjourned.

page 4691

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

Second Reading

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– In moving -

That this Bill be now read a second time, I wish to say that it provides for impressions made by a lawfully-used recording machine being accepted as prepayment for postal articles and as charges on telegrams.

Senator Lynch:

– Will it apply to letters?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes, to letters :and telegrams. In December, 1908, a Bill, very similar to that which is now under consideration and having the same object in view, was introduced into this Chamber by Senator Pearce, who was then Minister of Defence. It passed through all its stages, and was transmitted to the other branch of the Legislature. A short time afterwards something happened - something which is not likely soon to be forgotten - because it is unparalleled in the history of the Commonwealth.

Senator Millen:

– The Honorary Minister is referring to the way in which his party “ squealed “ ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am referring to the birth of the Fusion. I remember that occasion when the members of various political parties came together, embraced each other as long-lost brothers, and swore allegiance to a new king. Rumour hath it that they have been more or less unhappy ever since. After the Bill had passed through this Chamber a new Government came into office. The measure was taken np elsewhere by the then PostmasterGeneral, Sir John Quick. He advanced it to its second-reading stage, where, I think, it stopped. This Bill is almost similar in its terms to. that one, so that most honorable senators are familiar with its provisions. The recording machines to which it relates are not inventions of yesterday They have been in use in New Zealand for some years, and the reports from the Dominion in regard to them are of a very favorable character.

Senator Millen:

– Has the Department received any reports since the first batch was sent along ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes. In January, 19 10, we had a communication from the Secretary of the Postal Department in New Zealand to the effect that the machine was working so smoothly that it had practically become part and parcel of the postal system there. We know, too, that many private firms in the Dominion are enthusiastic in regard to the use of the machine. One firm has written to the effect that it would not go back to the old method of “ licking “ stamps - to use the vernacular - even if the machine cost four times the amount which has to be paid for it. The advantages to be derived from the use of such a machine must be patent to all. We know that in the commercial world, no matter how well managed any business may be, leakages will occur so far as stamps are concerned. The use of these machines would prevent those leakages. Further, it would enable business houses to put their letters through the post much’ more expeditiously than can be done today. I think, too, that the use of the machine is advantageous from a hygienic point of view. When the previous Bill was under consideration in this Chamber, one of the objections urged against it was that the machine would probably become of universal use, and that, as a result, the adhesive stamp, which is a good advertisement for Australia, would disappear. But I would point out that machines are not likely to come into universal use.- They are too expensive for individuals to purchase. Their use, however, would be a distinct advantage to commercial houses, as well as to the Government. Under the Bill power is given to the Government to purchase the patent rights of the machine.

Senator Millen:

– Have any negotiations to that end been opened up ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– No. When this Bill has passed through all its stages, it is the intention of the Postmaster-General to appoint an expert Committee to investigate the merits of the various machines. When the former Bill was under consideration, only one type of machine was discussed. Since then other inventors have been at work, with the result that to-day there are other machines which are declared to be as good, if not better than, the machine which is in use in New Zealand. The’ Postmaster-General will appoint a Committee to investigate the merits of the different machines, and when that Committee has made a recommendation to him, he will, in all probability, accept it, and permit machines to be used by commercial houses, as well as authorize their introduction into Government Departments. In those Departments we know that a large volume of postal and telegraphic business is transacted. At the present time, when a person desires to transmit a telegram, he has to present himself at the telegraph office, and fill in a printed telegraphic form. He then inquires the cost of the telegram, and obtains from the person behind the counter stamps representing the amount of that cost. These adhesive stamps are attached to the telegraphic form, and the telegram is duly despatched. The use of one of these recording machines at the telegraph office would simplify matters very much, in addition to proving more economical. Then, a person who wished to send a telegram would be told what its cost would be, the man in charge of the machine would turn the handle, the cost of the telegram would appear on a meter, which would automatically register, from time to time, the amounts which had passed through the machine. On one machine which I have seen there are impressions of different denominations varying from a Jd. to is. There is an indicator in front of the machine, and that indicator is placed opposite the denomination which the user of the machine desires to record, either on an envelope or on a telegram. As soon as the handle is turned the impression is made, and the machine automatically registers the amount involved, as well as the impression. If these machines were in use by the commercial community, an officer of the Department would probably pay weekly or fortnightly visits to the different houses, and the machine would inform him of the amounts which the firms had to pay the Department by way of postage or by way of charges on telegrams.

Senator Blakey:

– That is introducing the credit system.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is scarcely that. Before a person would be allowed touse one of these machines he would have to put up a bond, and to furnish a guarantee to the Department. Further, business houses would be required to give the Department a guarantee against any fraud* or fake, so that the Department would beamply safeguarded. The departmental interest would, in my opinion, be thoroughly safeguarded.

Senator Millen:

– You have practically got the same system in vogue to-day in connexion with the big newspapers.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is true. A bundle of newspapers is taken to the postoffice and weighed, and the amount which the sender has to pay is entered, instead of a stamp being affixed to each newspaper. This Bill, as I said before, differs slightly from the previous Bill in the sense that the Postmaster-General may manufacture or obtain recording machines, and may, subject to the Act and regulations, issue them for use by private persons. If he is of the opinion that it would not be to the advantage of the Commonwealth to purchase the patent rights and manufacture machines, then he may grant to any person a permit to issue recording machines of an approved pattern, and may at any time revoke a permit.

Senator Millen:

– Did the previous Bill empower the Minister to manufacture machines ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– No. Under this Bill there are two courses open to the Postmaster-General, and he can adopt what he considers the better course. In addition to that, the dies in respect of the recording machines can only be made by the authority of the Postmaster-General, and’ will be his property for all time. It was said on a former occasion that in the making of the dies a secret mark would, be put on them as a further protection to the Department, and that as the secret mark could only be known to the Department if any attempt were made to fake a machine or take advantage of the Department from the revenue point of view, the fraud could easily be detected. The machines will be kept under lock and key, and the key will be in the exclusive possession of an officer authorized by the Postmaster-General. I do not think that any machine is absolutely perfect. We know that frauds are attempted from time to time in respect of many things. Forgeries are attempted in regard to bank notes, gold and silver coinage, and many other things. Of course, a recording machine cannot be free from an attempt to defraud the Department. But the experience of New Zealand during the last five or six years is that there has not been any fraud perpetrated.

Senator Mcdougall:

– They have not found it out.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The experience has been that there has been no fraud perpetrated over there.

Senator Rae:

– So far as they know.

Senator FINDLEY:

– If the honorable senator has any knowledge of any fraud which is being attempted there it will be very useful when we are discussing the measure. Under the Bill an authorized officer of the Department will have power to inspect the machines at any time. Now, as the machines will be under the strictest supervision, as they will not be permitted to be used except by approved persons who have entered into a bond and given a guarantee to the Department in case any fraud should be perpetrated, as the dies will be the sole property of the PostmasterGeneral, as the keys will be in the possession of an officer of the Department, and as the machines have so far as experience shows given general satisfaction not merely to the commercial world, but to the different public Departments in New Zealand, I have no hesitation in recommending the Bill, believing that the experiment will be so successful that, with the passing of each month, the machines will come to be more generally used. A desire for their introduction has been expressed over quite a long period by an important section of the community. A motion’ was carried bv the sixth annual Conference of Associated Chambers of Manufacturers of Australia, and the resolution was presented to the Prime Minister by a deputation on the 17th August, 1910, as follows -

That, re-affirming the motion carried at the last Conference held in Melbourne, the Commonwealth Government be again requested^ to introduce automatic postage stamping machines into the Commonwealth.

The previous resolution reads -

That the advisability of adopting automatic postage stamping machines be placed before the Federal Government, with a request that it should be given effect to at the earliest possible moment.

On the 17th September of this year, the adoption of franking machines was urged upon the Prime Minister by the President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Howard Berry. I want honorable senators to understand that the introduction of these machines will not be merely an ^advantage to the commercial community, but a very great convenience to different Departments of the Commonwealth. The machines have, so far as our knowledge of them extends, much to recommend them, and I believe that they will enable commercial men to expedite their business, prevent leakage, and economize in many directions, and offer similar advantages to the Departments of the Commonwealth.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Having previously had the privilege of submitting this Bill to the Senate, I shall now only support the general proposition contained in it. It is a matter of some little surprise, as well as some little regret that, speaking in the light of the knowledge of to-day, an earlier move has not been made towards the adoption of this very useful aid to ordinary commercial undertakings. It is generally admitted now that the only ground of opposition which manifested itself before is not one which need concern us any longer. That ground was a fear that the machine might, in .practice, be so easily tampered with as to be made a very fruitful source of fraud. Every day has shown us that that fear is groundless. We have only to look at the rapid spread of the cash register, where the safeguards are similar, to be satisfied on the point.

Senator Rae:

– Still, there are some frauds practised.

Senator MILLEN:

– There is fraud practised in connexion with everything. One has only to take the probabilities and see whether the advantages, even with a liability to fraud with these instruments, will outweigh the disadvantages with a liability to fraud all the same. There is a liability to fraud in connexion with stamps just the same as there is in regard to these instruments. Even the Postal Department has been known to figure in a Police Court in the prosecution of an official. But we do not shut up a postoffice because a fraud takes place there. The adoption of this stamping machine will be an additional guarantee against fraud. I confes that, formerly, I had a strong prejudice against the use of recording machines; but I have been convinced that we can trust these machines as much as we can trust any other implement which is the result of human brains and hands. We have been told that it is the intention of the Postmaster-General to appoint a Committee of experts to examine the various machines submitted. It seems to me, with all due deference to experts, that there is a very much better test of the machines than any which a Committee can subject them to, and that is actual practice. I suggest that while a Committee of experts may do useful work in throwing out obviously unsuitable machines, still those machines which are entitled to consideration should be placed upon the counters of the busiest post-offices and subjected to the actual test of work. Some weaknesses not previously suspected are discovered when machines are submitted to the conditions of every-day life. I know of no test which is so completely satisfactory as that of putting the machines on telegraph-office counters, where they will be operated entirely by officials. I think that if machines were placed for a trial at the telegraph offices in the larger cities we should get a very effective test of what each machine was capable of doing, and I have no doubt that it would emerge very successfully from the test. In the Bill there is one provision to which I very strongly object, and that is the provision empowering the Postmaster-General to manufacture machines apparently without any further reference to Parliament. I think that if it is desirable that the Government should enter upon a new form of manufacturing enterprise, they ought to come down here with a full specific statement of what they propose to do, and not merely take a general power to manufacture these instruments. Probably the Honorary Minister will turn round and tell me that the PostmasterGeneral is not likely to take that step unless he is satisfied that it will be an advantage to the Department. But, in my judgment, Parliament ought to be satisfied before it gives authority to any Minister to launch out into a business undertaking of this kind.

Senator Clemons:

– Is there no question of patent rights involved?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes ; but the PostmasterGeneral would have to make an arrangement with the holder of the patent rights before he could proceed to manu facture. The Bill gives two powers to the Postmaster-General. It authorizes him, on the one hand, to obtain recording machines from those who hold the patent rights or manufacture them, and, on the other hand, to manufacture them himself. But even that second power would not relieve him of the obligation to meet the claims of those who hold patent rights. If it is the intention of the Department to start a factory for the manufacture of these machines, we ought to be informed. When it has made up its mind on that point, the Government should come down with a specific Bill, and give us an estimate of the proposed expenditure, and tell us what machine it is proposed to make. It is not novel, I am sorry to say, for a member of this Government to come here and ask for a blank cheque in this way. During the past few years, we have got rather accustomed to this sort of procedure. I am going to ask the Minister, perhaps without much hope of success, to assent to the omission of the words “ manufacture or “ in proposed new section 650. I feel pretty confident that it is not the intention of the Government at present to proceed to make these instruments. They are merely taking this power in anticipation of something which may turn up; but I have no doubt that the Minister will see that it will be much more businesslike to wait until something does turn up. When the Department is in possession of specifications of the plant required, and an estimate of the cost, and can tell us what arrangement it has made with the holders of the patent rights, then will be the time for the Minister to ask Parliament whether it approves of the Government going into this new venture or not. I hope that the Minister will agree to the deletion of those words. It will not hamper the Government to do so because they cannot at the present moment anticipate any immediate action in the direction of making those machines; and if they do decide to do so it will not be a very difficult matter to come to Parliament with a measure showing the specific advantages of the new venture, and inviting us to approve an appropriation for the purpose of establishing a factory.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I am not too jubilant about this measure, although certainly it marks an advance in relation to the transmission of correspondence. I recollect a notable instance where the revenue was defrauded to a large extent through the use of such machines, and feel that there may be a danger of similar loss here.

Senator Findley:

– Where was that?

Senator LYNCH:

– In the Old Country.

Senator Clemons:

– In the Postal Department ?

Senator LYNCH:

– Yes; I remember reading about the case, but cannot recall the exact circumstances. I think it was an instance of the unlawful use of a machine of this kind by which the revenue was defrauded of a considerable sum of money. I recognise that it would be a great convenience to the commercial community if, instead of having to stamp every packet or letter transmitted through the post, a machine were used ; and that advantage would be extended to those who have dealings with commercial people. But at the same time, there must be great risks if the machine gets into the hands of unscrupulous people. There is one feature of the measure itself that I do not like. I refer to the extraordinary power taken to secure the conviction of persons using a stamp resembling the departmental mark. I think it is a mistake for this new departure to find such a prominent place in such a piece of legislation. Under the clause to which I allude, an officer of the Post and Telegraph Department, or some agent representing it, has merely to allege that some person is guilty of an offence, and the mere fact of the allegation imposes on the shoulders of the individual accused the obligation to establish his own innocence. I recognise that wherever loss of revenue is involved that is a very necessary provision to have. But in the mere case of a stamp recording the date of the transmission of any document, where no loss of revenue is involved, I think the principle is being carried too far. The clause upon which I am commenting provides that a person using a machine of this kind, not for the purpose of recording the value of any mark upon a telegram or article for transmission, but merely for recording a date - a matter in which there is no risk of loss of revenue involved - has cast upon him the onus of proving his innocence.

Senator Millen:

– It is very easy to prove it. A person has to have the authority of the Postmaster-General to use one of these machines. Whether he has or has not that authority is very easy to demonstrate.

Senator Rae:

Senator Lynch means putting some mark on a document which resembles the authorized stamp.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is so. The onus is. laid upon the person accused of making any mark or impression resembling or intended to resemble the impression stamp, or mark authorized by the Department, to prove his innocence. If he does not do so he may be found guilty of a misdemeanour. In the case of other clauses, where loss of revenue may be involved, it is quite justifiable to make provision that a person suspected of fraud should be called upon to establish his own innocence. But in the case I have mentioned, where a person may innocently employ a device for his own convenience, and that device may resemble the official mark of the Department, surely it is carrying matters too far to call upon the accused to establish his own innocence. The Department has ample machinery at its disposal, if it suspects that a person is improperly using its device, to prove in a court of justice that the person has been guilty of a misdemeanour. But that ought not to be done in a case where a person may innocently employ a device resembling the mark of the Department for his own convenience. I shall object to that clause unless I hear strong reasons for its retention. For centuries it has been a standing maxim in British law that every person shall be regarded as innocent until his guilt is established. In French jurisprudence the contrary practice is the case. I favour the British system, which the clause to which I have referred reverses.

Senator de Largie:

– We have a similar clause in a number of Federal Acts.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am aware that we have such a clause in our anti-trust legislation, and in our Customs and Excise Acts. But it was inserted in those measures for the protection of the revenue, and rightly so. As employed in this Bill, however, it is carried too far, and limits to too great an extent the freedom of the individual.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I do not know that there is anything in this Bill about which we should go into raptures. It may mark a stage of progress, and certainly I should be very loth to oppose a measure having the effect of facilitating business and enabling machinery to do what is now done by more clumsy methods. I share, to some extent, Senator Lynch’s opinion with regard to one of the latter clauses of the Bill, which, it seems to me, really has nothing to do with the subject-matter of it. Probably the heads of die Department know the reason for the introduction of the clause upon which the honorable senator has commented, and will give us an explanation as to its intention. As to Senator Millen’s objection to the clause giving the Government power to manufacture machines for themselves, I think that that is one of the most useful provisions of the measure. It is obvious that no private firm, whether established within the Commonwealth or elsewhere, ought to be able to impose unfair conditions upon the Commonwealth in negotiating for patent rights. This measure by prohibiting the use of these machines, except on a permit by the PostmasterGeneral, will render them absolutely useless within the Commonwealth, unless owned or authorized by the Department.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator is arguing the advisability of manufacturing them, but that is not my point.

Senator RAE:

– I am arguing the advisability of giving the power to the Government, as this Bill does, to manufacture these machines, if they think fit, after buying the patent rights from the inventors.

Senator Millen:

– My contention was that if the Government contemplate a business proposal of that kind they should submit it to Parliament and get specific authority.

Senator RAE:

– If the Government make a bad business arrangement in connexion with anything of the kind they will be open to the censure of Parliament. There will be no danger that an excessive demand will be made for the patent rights of one of these machines, because if the inventor is not prepared to sell his rights at a reasonable price the Government can refuse to permit his machine to be used. They will have him under the whip, and will be in a position to resist an exorbitant demand. I do not for a moment suggest that the Government should endeavour to obtain the patent rights to manufacture one of these machines at less than a fair price, but I do say that it is wise that they should be in a position to resist any exorbitant demand. It is well that we should make provision in this Bill to enable the Government to secure the patent rights of these machines rather than wait for months, and possibly for years, to pass a special Bill for the purpose.

Senator Millen:

– The delay will be just the same in passing the necessary appropriation.

Senator RAE:

– The necessary appropriation will go through in the ordinary course, whilst the passing of a special Bill through both Chambers would be a different matter.

Senator Millen:

– The appropriation will have to pass in both Chambers.

Senator RAE:

– I hold that this is a very necessary power which the Government should have. I should like to say that I do not see how the general public are likely to gain very much from the use of these machines.

Senator Findley:

– Many of the general public go to the post-offices to send telegrams.

Senator RAE:

– I am aware that they do, and the use of such machines may be a convenience to them. I suppose that they will not be installed in the little country post-offices. This will be another instance of the people in large centres who at present have all the advantages being given a few more, and the people in little towns must continue to do what the country yokel has to do today. I am not one of those who believe that very much is gained by the extreme hurry which is characteristic of the present age. A person who will object to spend a little time sticking a few stamps on a telegram form will waste half-an-hour talking to the first person he meets when he leaves the telegraph office. All the talk we hear about the saving of time is, as a rule, only so much balderdash. I am prepared to admit that the use of one of these machines by a big business firm might be an important consideration. It might lead to a substantial saving of time, and possibly prevent the peculation which sometimes occurs. I should like to know why business firms using these machines should not be asked to pay rent for them.

Senator Millen:

– The proposal is that they should buy them.

Senator RAE:

– I am not aware that there is any such proposal in the Bill.

Senator Findley:

– Provision is made that the Postmaster- General may manufacture them, but he cannot do so unless he is given the necessary power

Senator RAE:

– I see no power under the Bill to charge rent for machines supplied to private firms under a permit from the Postmaster-General. The Government ask for power to manufacture trie machines and to grant permits to private manufacturers.

Senator Findley:

– The manufacturers will ask a rental or a royalty, and will get it.

Senator RAE:

– If that be so, it seems that the Postmaster-General’s Department proposes to go. out of its way to build up a big business from, which private firms may derive a handsome income from the rent of these machines, whilst the Department will gain nothing.

Senator Millen:

– It will cost the Department nothing.

Senator RAE:

– The Department proposes to provide facilities.

Senator Millen:

– No, to withdraw obstacles.

Senator RAE:

– I do not care which way the honorable senator puts it. Every shield has two sides. Under this Bill certain firms will be in a position to make a handsome income which they cannot make now, and something should be charged for the privilege. We should not spend the time of this Parliament, and of the Departments, in providing facilities for the convenience of the commercial classes, and not of the great bulk of the people, without demanding some compensation.

Senator Findley:

– The Department is run in the interests of the people.

Senator RAE:

– But what is the Department going to gain by this proposal.

Senator Findley:

– Time.

Senator RAE:

– So far as I can see, the only people who will gain anything by it will be business people. The Department does not lose much time in connexion with the fixing of adhesive stamps to letters and telegrams. It is the customer of the Department who has to do this. I have seen regulations posted up in various post and telegraph offices forbidding officials to affix stamps to telegrams. It is true that they sometimes do it, but they are under no obligation to do so. We seem to be passing a Bill to provide special advantages for one class at the expense of the rest of the community.

Senator Millen:

– What expense is thrown on the rest of the community?

Senator RAE:

– I mean to say that these machines can only be used by private individuals as the result of the passing of a measure of this kind. We are proposing to grant special privileges to the owners of these machines, and they should be asked to pay something in the nature of a royalty to the Post and Telegraph Department, if the Department does not buy the machines right out. I am not opposing the Bill, but I do not see much advantage in adopting this class legislation for the saving of the time of the commercial community when the rest of the community will get nothing out of it.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– When a similar Bill was before us on a previous occasion I supported it. I was at the time under some apprehension that the use of these machines would afford opportunities for fraud. I have seen some of them, and I take it that no machine has yet been made upon which some improvement cannot be suggested. At present, if I want a postage stamp, I must pay a penny for it, but this Bill proposes the introduction of a new system of credit.

Senator Findley:

– The users of the machines have to out up a bond.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– But what does that amount to? A firm may be doing business with the Post Office to the extent of hundreds of pounds each day for telegrams and postage, and if it goes into liquidation, where is the bond?

Senator Millen:

– That system is in operation to-day with every big newspaper.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am aware of that, but it should not be in operation. If I have to pay my penny for every stamp I require, why should not the big newspaper have to do the same?

Senator Millen:

– If the honorable senator has a telephone in his house, he is given credit.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– No, the Department makes me pay my rent for the telephone in advance.

Senator Findley:

– But the honorable senator does not pay in advance for calls.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– It is only the additional calls for which I am given credit. I asked the Department recently to fix a bell, at the cost of 4s., and when I left the matter for ten days I was given notice that I would be cut off. That is the kind of credit I get from the Department. We are introducing by an Act of Parliament a credit system in the management of the Post and Telegraph Department on the strength of a bond which may be valueless. In the past the Railway Departments of the different States have given credit to big firms for freight, and have had to fish for their money. I believe that some of these machines secure actual payment for every stamp before it goes into the machine. The experts who will be called upon to advise in this matter should be careful to see that absolute security will be given to the Department for every stamp that goes through the machines. I approve of the provision for manufacture by the Government, or for procuring the machines, and letting them out to different firms. This is in accord with the practice adopted in connexion with public utilities under the control of State Governments and municipalities. In connexion with water supply, for instance, the States manufacture the meters which measure the water supplied to householders.

Senator Millen:

– No, they do not.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Iti South Australia they do. If a municipality controls the supply of gas, they do not give to private individuals the right to put in the gas meters.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator has missed my point. I do not raise the question of whether the Government should make these machines, but that if they intend to do so they should come to Parliament for specific authority.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– What more authority does the honorable senator require than is provided for in this Bill? It makes provision for the manufacture of these machines by the Government, and if the honorable senator is opposed to that he can move to strike out the clause.

Senator Millen:

– Whether it will cost ££5,000 or .£50,000, Senator Guthrie is no doubt quite satisfied with the proposal.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The cost will be in accordance with the demand for the machines and the cost of their manufacture. If we were to appropriate ,£10,000 for the purpose, and it were subsequently found that to supply the demand, ,£50,000 would be required, the facilities afforded to some would have to be denied to others. My objection to the measure is that it introduces the credit system, which I consider a bad one. If it be possible to invent a machine which will require the money to be deposited before it can be used, by all means let us adopt it, in preference to a machine which will give credit. I hope that, in framing regulations under the Bill, the Minister will take this point into consideration.

Senator BARKER:
Victoria

.- I understand that these recording machines will be under the control of the Postal Department, and will offer to those persons who will probably use them facilities which are not enjoyed to-day. Their use will also relieve the Department of a good deal of work which it now has to perform,, so that their introduction will be of general benefit to the community. To argue that because there is the possibility of a loss occurring by reason of their use, is,, to my mind, to argue against progress. "”Senator Guthrie. - We . should cover ourselves against loss.

Senator McGregor:

– The machine willreturn every penny that is put into it.

Senator BARKER:

– Exactly. Take, as an illustration, the penny-in-the-slot gasmachine.

Senator Guthrie:

– That provides for cash payments.

Senator BARKER:

– Yes. In the same way any person who uses one of these recording machines will first have to put upthe money.

Senator McGregor:

– The cash must be put into the machine before it is used.

Senator BARKER:

– That, I understand, is the position. If the machine will simply record the number of impressionsmade by it, and if it does not provide for the money being deposited in it, the Department will be entirely at the mercy of the user, who may, possibly, become insolvent. The sooner we know whether that is the position, the better. I understand, however, that the machine cannot be used until the money has been deposited in it. If that be so, I fail to see what objection can be urged to the Bill.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– The matter of the type of machine which may be used for recording purposes in postal and telegraphic business is one upon which there is room for a difference of opinion. We know that various machines have been invented from time to time, with a view to taking the place of the old adhesive postage stamp. Those machines may be either mere recording machines, or machines of the slot type. The latter are, .to my mind, the better machines. But if we are to adopt merely a recording machine in connexion with our postal and telegraphic business, that is quite another matter. There is no escape from the fact that if we wish to keep up to date in our Post Office, we must take advantage of new inventions from time to time. Now, the recording machine is a very old device. It was in use in several countries at the time the Postal Commission was pursuing its investigations. Several types of machines were put before that

Commission, and very clever contrivances they were. But, of course, the best of such machines are capable of being manipulated. That circumstance, however, ought not to deter us from using these machines with proper safeguards. I cannot understand Senator Guthrie’s opposition to the Bill, in view of his action in sacrificing an enormous revenue by voting for the adoption of penny postage throughout the Commonwealth.

Senator Rae:

– Did not the honorable senator vote for it?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I did not. If there is one country in the world in which penny postage ought not to adopted, it is Australia. Our distances are too great to warrant us in giving such a ‘luxury to the public. I believe that the use of a recording machine in connexion with our postal and telegraphic business would conduce to the more economical working of the Department. I believe, too, that the existing stamp method of payment upon telegrams is one which could be much improved upon. It is all very well for honorable senators to argue that the use of a recording machine would play into the hands of big commercial houses. They forgot that when they voted for the introduction of penny postage. However, I am not quite sure that their argument is altogether a sound one. So long as the benefit which is enjoyed by one section of the community is not paid for by another section, I fail to see what ground there is for complaint. The Bill proposes a very small measure of reform, and I think that the adoption of these recording machines will add to the profitable working of the Postal Department. I, therefore, support the measure.

Senator FINDLEY (Victoria- Honorary Minister [12.27]. - I am glad that general approval has been given to the Bill. The only objections which have been urged to it were urged by Senators Millen and Lynch, although, incidentally, a mild protest was entered by Senator Guthrie. The Leader of the Opposition generally approved of the Bill ; but, whilst he does not object to the PostmasterGeneral being clothed with power to manufacture these recording machines in the event of their patent rights being secured, he thinks it would be far better to eliminate that power from the Bill, and for the Postmaster-General subsequently to ask Parliament for the necessary appropriation and authority to engage in the work. Personally, I prefer that the power should be taken under this Bill. When it becomes law, the Postmaster-General may be able to secure the patent rights of a machine which meets with his approval, and which will have behind it the recommendation of those who are best qualified to express an opinion on the different machines which will, doubtless, be submitted to the Department for examination. When that is done, he may be able to acquire the patent rights of a suitable machine at a reasonable price. If he is successful in doing this, he will then be able to immediately proceed with the manufacture of the machines.

Senator Millen:

– Without asking for an appropriation?

Senator FINDLEY:

– That would be sought later. Let us do now that which can be done now. The PostmasterGeneral, in all probability, would be in a position to supply the various Commonwealth Departments with them at a less cost than that at which they would be obtainable if the Government had to depend upon private individuals, and to pay them royalties for the use of the machines. He would, also, be able to supply the general community with them at a less cost than would private manufacturers, because the Commonwealth would not seek to make a profit out of their manufacture. I would remind Senator Millen that we did not ask for a special appropriation to enable us to purchase machinery for the printing of our Commonwealth bank notes nor did we require a special appropriation for the purchase of machinery with which to print our postage stamps.

Senator Millen:

– The Government obtained a special appropriation for the purchase of the stamp-printing machinery.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not think so. It is far better for us to take the power now, and if we can get the patent rights of these machines, the community will be better served by the Department than they would be if the machines were made by private enterprise, and handed to those who desire to use them, and the users had to pay a royalty to the inventors. Senator Guthrie says that it is introducing the credit system. I interjected, and the Leader of the Opposition interjected, that we have the credit system in operation today in at least one Department of the Commonwealth, and that is in regard to telephonic messages. Senator Guthrie says that he pays in advance for his calls. If he does pay in advance, he is the only person I know of in the Commonwealth who does.

Senator Chataway:

– How can he pay in advance ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is what I want to know. How can the Department anticipate the number of calls which the honorable senator will make during a given period ?

Senator de Largie:

– What Senator Guthrie meant was that he pays so much for rent and the rest for calls.

Senator FINDLEY:

– He pays a rental for the machine, but that does not cover the cost of the calls.

Senator de Largie:

– It does cover the cost of some of the calls.

Senator FINDLEY:

– No. There have been prosecutions by the Department against a number of persons who have not paid for their calls.

Senator Millen:

– That is rather confirming Senator Guthrie’s argument - that it is dangerous to give credit.

Senator FINDLEY:

– No; because in connexion with the telephone we do not make the same provision in respect of calls as we make in this Bill in respect to recording machines. Before any person will be allowed to use a recording machine he must be approved of by the Postmaster-General, and, in addition, he must enter into a bond, and give a guarantee that the Department will not be at any loss in connexion with the machine. Unlike the practice in connexion with telephonic messages, a departmental officer will call, in all probability weekly, and collect the amounts which firms or persons will be liable to pay. An objection was raised by Senator Lynch to proposed new section 102a, which deals with the illegal making of post-office date stamps. The honorable senator complains that it throws upon persons the onus of proving their innocence, and that he says is rather a novelty in respect of our Acts of Parliament.

Senator Lynch:

– So it is.

Senator Needham:

– It is quite an old custom.

Senator Lynch:

– Not in this respect.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is an old custom in this and many other respects. I have made inquiries.

Senator Lynch:

– It is only to be found in the Customs Act, the Anti-Trust Act, and the Excise Act.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Let me disabuse the mind of the honorable senator on that point. Not only do we find this pro vision in the Customs Act, the Australian Industries Preservation Act, and the Excise Act, but also in section 48 of the Inscribed Stock Act, which deals with a person having in his possession any form of stock certificate. Again, the provision is in section 22 of the Australian Notes Act, which deals with persons found in possession of forged Commonwealth security. It is also contained in section 26 of the Australian Notes Act, which deals with a person found with copies of Australian notes in his possession. Again, the provision is found in section 84 of the Arbitration Act, which deals with the case of a person disobeying a summons as a witness, or refusing to be sworn, or to produce documents. It is also contained insection 59 of the Commonwealth Bank Act,, which deals with a person found in possession of forms of security of the bank, or in> possession of instruments by which distinctive marks or signatures on securitiesmay be made.

Senator Lynch:

– In all these measures,, it is a case of vital concern to the revenue or the community.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Does the fact of a witness disobeying a summons issued’ under the Commonwealth Arbitration Act seriously concern the revenue?

Senator Lynch:

– It is of vital concernto the community.

Senator FINDLEY:

– So is this.

Senator Lynch:

– The mere matter of a date stamp is not.

Senator FINDLEY:

– This provision is made in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in connexion with the dismissal of an employ^ on the ground of being a unionist, and of an employe declining to work on the ground that the employer is a* unionist. We find the provision, tpo, in section 182DD of the Electoral Act in regard to a person making an official mark on paper, or having in his possession any paper bearing an official mark, or a. person marking on, or in, a ballotpaperany official mark. The provision also appears in the Immigration Restriction Act,, and other Statutes. That ought, I think, to be enough for Senator Lynch this morning.

Senator Millen:

– It is too much ; that is . the complaint.

Senator Lynch:

– I would not say that.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In these circumstances, I think that Senator Lynch ought” - to waive his objection to the provision. As the Bill, on the whole, has met with general support, I trust that it will pass- through the Committee stage without alteration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time. /« Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

After Part I. of the Principal Act the following Part and sections are inserted : - “ 65D. - (1.) The Postmaster-General may manufacture or obtain recording machines and may, subject to this Act and the regulations, issue them for use by private persons.

«

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– Two or three years ago, I dealt with this proposal pretty fully. I still think that we shall make a mistake in giving to a private firm the right to, as it were, regulate the management of our Post Office business. What is the present system? The Government say, “We hold complete control ; we regulate the rates of postage, and only our own postage stamps shall be placed upon documents.” But the system which is being introduced by this Bill will give to a third party, who, of course, will be licensed, the right to impose certain postage rates. The rates, of course, may be those prescribed by the Government. This is going back farther than fifty years. It is proposed to allow a private machine to be licensed by the Government, and, under the authority of that licence, to stamp letters and documents as having been properly passed. It is putting back the hands of the clock, and laying down a rule by which a person owning a machine under a licence from the Government can go and stamp letters and documents to be carried through the Post Office. I believe that the clause is framed on wrong lines, but I leave the matter to the Government. They can do what they like. I believe that they are about to make a mistake, and by-and-by they will find out that the mistake is a very serious one.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) (1 2. 43]. - I move -

That the words “ manufacture or “ be left out.

I want the Committee to affirm that if the Government propose to enter into a business enterprise at all, into any manufacturing or other undertaking, they should come down to Parliament, as they would do if they were handling a business concern, and submit in broad detail their proposal, in order that Parliament itself may judge whether it is a good business proposition or not. We are very much in the position of a board of directors. Would any one believe for a moment that power would be given to the executive officers of a business concern to go away and enter into a new branch of manufacturing without the whole of the details being first submitted to the board? I decline to discuss whether it is desirable or not to multiply Government factories, because that is not the point at present. All I want the Committee to affirm is that if it is desirable that the Government should at any time start a business undertaking, they ought to submit full details to Parliament, and leave it to decide. I recognise that, although I raise this point, and try to limit the discussion to it, I shall be met immediately with an argument which in no sense deals with my contention, and that is that the Government ought to make these machines. I am not arguing that point now. I submit that if the Government ought, and intend, to make the machines, they should tell us exactly what they propose to do; how much the plant to turn out the machines will cost, how many men will be employed, and how many machines the factory is likely to turn out. If any one were asked to put a £s-note into a company, he would at once ask for these particulars on his own account. There is a considerable danger in following out the practice of granting these blank cheques every time the Government ask for them. The Government are going to take this Bill as an authority to make any arrangement they like with the owners of patent rights, to buy any machinery they like, to erect a factory, to make permanent appointments, probably for seven or eight years, and to start a business - all without referring the matter to Parliament. I say that if such a course is persisted in Parliament will become itself a mere recording machine, and its value will largely disappear. We are supposed to control the public affairs of this Commonwealth, but if we are going to give power to a Government to do such things without asking for authority, we shall lose that proper control which we ought always to exercise. I am simply asking, by this amendment, that the Government shall tell us in detail how they propose to exercise the power conferred upon them.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– What we have just heard from Senator Millen is merely an uptodatedressing of a very old argument. He would refuse to give authority to the Post and Telegraph Department to make these simple machines ; and he has given expression to a view that has over and over again been placed before the people of this country. That view is that it is impossible, in the interests of the taxpayers, for a Government factory to manufacture or undertake any work as advantageously as it would be done under private enterprise.

Senator Millen:

– I have not raised that point at all.

Senator LYNCH:

– The honorable senator proposes to take away from the Post and Telegraph Department the power to manufacture these machines.

Senator Millen:

– What I propose is that the Government should come down when they want that power and tell us what they propose to do.

Senator LYNCH:

– This Bill proposes to give the Government that power. I -acknowledge that you are fairly slippery, but it would take even more than your skill in slipperiness to prevent us from seeing what the object is.

Senator Millen:

– I have so frequently had remarks like that made about me by men whose word would not be taken in this or any other place-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Henderson:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Order !

Senator Millen:

– There are a lot of blackguards here using language of that kind. We have had quite enough of it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! If the honorable senator asks for an expression used by Senator Lynch to be withdrawn, it should be withdrawn.

Senator LYNCH:

– If I understand Senator Millen to apply the word “ blackguard “ to me, I have to say that I can place my record, public and private, alongside his, and allow it to be open to inspection at any time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable senator must withdraw the word of which complaint has been made.

Senator LYNCH:

– I will withdraw it, on condition that Senator Millen also withdraws the epithet which he so unwarrantably applied to me.

Senator Long:

– Withdraw the word without qualification.

Senator LYNCH:

– I withdraw the word “ slippery.”

Senator Long:

– I rise to order. I think the Senate is entitled to insist upon .Senator Millen withdrawing the statement that there are “ blackguards “ in this Chamber.

Senator Millen:

– Do you think that applied to yourself?

Senator Long:

– I think it was appiied to members of the Senate. I also think that it is in very bad taste for the Leader of the Opposition to be continually lecturing honorable senators on what they say and do.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.It is certainly disorderly to hurl epithets about the Chamber, and I ask Senator Millen to withdraw the word.

Senator Millen:

– I thought that, seeing that much stronger remarks have recently been made in this Chamber without attention being directed to them, or their withdrawal being insisted upon, it had come to be a recognised practice that we could use terms of that kind. But I will withdraw the word that I used if you, sir, rule that it was out of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I rule that the word was out of order.

Senator Millen:

– I withdraw it. At the same time, I am not inclined to sit down quietly any longer when such accusations are made from the other side.

Senator LYNCH:

– The simple proposal is to empower the Postmaster-General to manufacture these recording machines if he thinks fit. The proposal of Senator Millen is to withdraw that power from the Postmaster- General. I was endeavouring to point out that the argument used in favour of the withdrawal of the power was merely a repetition of a view that has been expressed for a long time in this country - that nothing could be economically produced by any Department of State. To disprove that argument, I have only to direct attention to what is happening in Senator Millen’s own State. In connexion with, the manufacture of bricks, a great saving has been effected through the Government coming forward and undertaking their manufacture.

Senator Millen:

– Bricks are now dearer than ever they were.

Senator LYNCH:

– Compared with what was paid previously for bricks under private enterprise, the Government venture has been an economical one. It has also been shown clearly in the State of Victoria, as the result of investigation by a Committee that was by no means friendly that locomotives manufactured at the Newport workshops have cost £3,000 less than those manufactured under private enterprise. Consequently the argument of Senator Millen will not stand the test of experience. It, has been shown over and over again that commodities manufactured by Government Departments have been more economically produced than was the case under private enterprise. I have risen partly with the object of inducing Senator Millen to acknowledge precisely what he means. It is very often difficult to ascertain his meaning, because he is so agile that one cannot determine where he stands on any question at issue. I wanted to know why he wished to withdraw this authority from the Postmaster-General, and I think I was quite justified in endeavouring to draw from him an explanation of where he stands. As I have already said, the simple purpose of this clause is to enable the Postmaster-General to manufacture these machines if he thinks fit. That is to say, if he, in his Ministerial capacity as the representative of the taxpayers, thinks it wise and economical that a Government factory should manufacture the machines, he should be free to follow that course, no matter what Senator Millen may say.

Senator Shannon:

– The Minister may go beyond that.

Senator LYNCH:

– It is not proposed in the clause that he shall go a hair’s breadth beyond that. The clause simply gives him power to do so much. Senator Millen; as a leader of political thought in this country, knows very well that the PostmasterGeneral could not manufacture a single machine if Parliament objected to it. He must first come to terms with the owners of the patent rights. If the owners choose to place a high or exorbitant price upon the patent rights, the Postmaster-General would very likely be prevented from manufacturing the machines. We know that there are always patent rights in connexion with machines of this character. The Postmaster-General will have to satisfy himself that a reasonable agreement has been arrived at between his Department and the owners of the patents. There will always be that rock in the path before any manufacturing can be undertaken. But Senator Millen desires that the Department shall not manufacture the machines under any circumstances, even though an officer of the Post and Telegraph Department might invent quite a new instrument. Surely we are here to do the best we can in the interest of the taxpayers; and if it is proved that the most eco nomical course is for the Department tomanufacture the machines, it will be wise for that to be done. I presume that Senator Millen will recognise that he has someresponsibility, and will acknowledge that,, if the Postmaster-General sees an opportunity of saving the taxpayers’ money, heshould be at liberty to do so. Yet the honorable senator proposes to withdraw that right from the Minister. He will find evidencein nearly every State of the Commonwealth, if he look for it, that commodities, have been produced under Government direction decidedly to the interest of the taxpayers. I can point to what hasbeen done in my own State, where the taxpayers have been saved hundreds and thousands of pounds by the Government manufacturing things that were required for public purposes. In view of this experience, not in one State only, but in< every State of the group - from the manufacture of locomotives in Victoria to castiron pipes in Western Australia and bricks in New South Wales - this policy has beena success. Now, however, Senator Millen> proposes to reverse the procedure that has been adopted, and which has conferred aninestimable boon upon the taxpayers by giving them the commodities they needed at a. much lower price than that for which private enterprise would have supplied them. I say that a man who stands up in thisChamber and says that private enterprise: should have the field is not a friend of the Commonwealth. Such men are merely here as touts of the investors and those engaged in pushing forward industries. They are not here in the interests of the taxpayers, but rather in the interests of those who havecapital invested. It is time we showed1 up these people in their true light, and directed attention to the absolute hypocrisy

Senator St Ledger:

– I wish to ask whether Senator Lynch is in order in characterizing the Leader of the Opposition and members of this Senate as touts of the investors of Australia?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I did not understand the honorable senator to address his remark to the Leader of the Opposition. I understood him to use the word ‘ 1 touts ‘ ‘ without specifying those to whom he applied it.

Senator Millen:

– He said “ touts here.”

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.When the sitting was suspended for theluncheon adjournment, there was, I regret to say, a somewhat heated atmosphere prevailing in the chamber. In order to satisfy myself as to the correctness of the position I took up in connexion with the use by an honorable senator of certain remarks to which objection was taken, I requested the shorthand writer to give me the full text of the words objected to, inasmuch as I had stated from the Chair that it did not appear to me that the remarks in question were directed to any particular senator or senators, and that any member of the Committee might as readily as another assume that they were directed to him. The full text of the words used by the honorable senator whose remarks were objected to is as follows : -

I say that a man who stands up in this chamber and says that private enterprise should have the field is not a friend of the Commonwealth. Such men are merely here as touts of the investors and those engaged in pushing forward industries.

I want to say that it appears that the position I took up was so nearly accurate that it was scarcely possible for me to adopt any other. I may, however, say that the word “ touts “-

Senator St Ledger:

– And the word “ here.”

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Yes. The word “touts” and the word “here,” as used, do appear to me to be offensive to the Committee generally. In the circumstances, I ask Senator Lynch to withdraw these offensive terms, in order that the Committee may proceed with the Bill.

Senator LYNCH:

– What terms are you anxious that I should withdraw along with the word “tout”?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I am anxious that the honorable senator should withdraw the expression: “such men are merely here as touts.”

Senator LYNCH:

– Of course, I have but one option, in order to facilitate the business of the Committee, and that is to withdraw the expression. But in taking that course I wish to point out-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator to withdraw the expression.

Senator LYNCH:

– I withdraw the words “tout” and “here,” complained of. and have only to say that if they think the cap to fit them–

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable senator should withdraw the words and that should suffice.

Senator LYNCH:

– Very well, I withdraw. Before this little passage occurred J was engaged in pointing out the folly of offering any resistance to the passage of this clause. I mentioned the great economies effected to the advantage of the taxpayers by State and Federal Departments carrying out certain works. In view of this I fail to see why any opposition should be urged to the adoption of this clause, which has only a similar purpose in view. Those who are opposing the provision have created a bugbear quite unnecessarily. They have admitted that they wish to withhold from the Postmaster-General the power to make, or have made, these small devices. They have overlooked the fact that these devices are controlled by those who possess the patent rights for them. Neither the Postmaster-General nor any one else desirous of using or manufacturing them could do so without coming to terms with the owners of the patent rights. Therefore, the apprehensions expressed by some members of the Committee are without any foundation. The ownership of the patent rights dominates the situation, in so far as they cover any part of these devices. Of course, the Postmaster-General could have manufactured parts that are not subject to patent rights, but those parts of these machines which are protected by patent rights could not be manufactured without the consent of the patentee. It is clear, therefore, that there is no need to fear any encroachment upon the rights of private enterprise. I support the clause, and hope it will not meet with any serious opposition, because of the experience we have had of the great economies which have been effected in the interests of the taxpayers by State Departments undertaking works of a very much more extensive character than are contemplated in this provision.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– If the amendment were agreed to the power given under this Bill to the Postmaster-General to engage in the manufacture of these machines, after having secured the patent rights, would be taken away.

Senator Millen:

– No, he could come to Parliament with a definite proposal.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I said that the power under this Bill would be taken away. If the Leader of the Opposition could have his way, the Postmaster-General would have no power to manufacture any recording machine of this kind until he sought an appropriation for the purpose from Parliament, and gave all the details which the honorable senator claims should be given in connexion with matters of the kind. Senator Lynch, speaking earlier in the day, made a remark which, of course, was not in order, but at the same time it does appear strange-

Senator Millen:

– If the Minister is looking for trouble he will get it.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am not looking for trouble. The honorable senator might let me proceed. I have not said anything which should ruffle his feathers. I say that the attitude of the honorable senator does appear strange when contrasted with his attitude in connexion with provisions in other Bills introduced into this Chamber from time to time giving similar powers. Is there anything offensive in that remark?

Senator Millen:

– There was in the honorable senator’s indorsement of- Senator Lynch’s remarks.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I was endeavouring to point out the inconsistency of the Leader of the Opposition in moving his amendment. We have had Bills before us giving power to the Minister intrusted with the administration of a particular Department to establish factories and undertake manufacturing, without any special appropriation. There is power given in the Defence Act to the Minister of Defence to establish clothing, woollen, harness, and cordite factories without the necessity for the introduction of a special Bill.

Senator Millen:

– In connexion with those matters a definite proposition was unfolded in this Chamber.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In connexion with those matters a sum of money was placed on the Estimates, but the power to undertake the establishment of the factories was given to the Minister of Defence by provisions contained in the Defence Act. He could not establish them without money, and could not obtain the money without the approval of Parliament. If the PostmasterGeneral wishes to engage in the manufacture of recording machines he cannot do so without money, and before he can get the money provision for the necessary expenditure must be made on the Estimates. When those Estimates are before Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition will have the fullest opportunity to discuss any details in connexion with the matter which he thinks ought to be discussed. I have said that the honorable senator is inconsistent in submitting this amendment. When the Defence Bill of 1909, introduced by Mr. Joseph Cook, as Minister of Defence in another place, came to the Senate, it was in charge of Senator Millen. In that Bill power was given to the Minister of Defence to establish and maintain factories for the manufacture of naval and military uniforms. The honorable senator approved of that when he was Leader of the Government in this Chamber, yet to-day he submits an amendment and utterly condemns the giving of any such power to the Postmaster-General, -because there happens to be a Government in power that does not meet with his approbation. He was in favour of a similar power in another Bill in 1909, when he was himself a member of the Government, but he is opposed to it to- . day because a Labour Government is in power.

Senator Rae:

– Why grumble? Honorable senators opposite live upon inconsistencies.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The action of the Leader of the Opposition in submitting this amendment is utterly inconsistent.

Senator McGregor:

– But the honorable . senator is now in opposition.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Even though he be in opposition, we have a right to expect him to display some semblance of consistency.

Senator Rae:

– The honorable senator expects too much.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Having shown the inconsistency of the Leader of the Opposition, I expect that members of the Committee will be almost unanimous in preventing the elimination of the words which the honorable senator desires should be omitted. He would take from the PostmasterGeneral the power to immediately engage in the manufacture of these machines without coming before Parliament for a special appropriation.

Senator Millen:

– Hear, hear !

Senator FINDLEY:

– Why did not the honorable senator say “ Hear, hear !” to a similar suggestion in 1909?

Senator Millen:

– I did, as I shall show directly.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I say that there is not the slightest danger that anything will not be done under this Bill which will not be in the best interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Senator Millen would have no objection to giving the PostmasterGeneral power to obtain these recording machines. He would not require details as to their cost, or how many the Postmaster-General might decide to obtain, though the expenditure might run into a considerable sum. But the honorable senator has the strongest objection to the Commonwealth Government extending its sphere of usefulness.

Senator Rae:

– The Postmaster-General might pay excessive royalties for the use of these machines.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is so; and we know that inventors desire to secure as much as they possibly can in as short a period as possible for the use of their machines. The Leader of the Opposition would have no objection to that. It is better that the Postmaster-General should have the power, after securing the patent rights at a reasonable price, to engage in the manufacture of these machines if he deems it necessary. I venture to assert that if the Department does engage in the manufacture of these machines, at will be able to manufacture them more economically than they can be manufactured by private enterprise. Further, the Postmaster-General will be able to supply these machines to those who desire to use them at a much more reasonable price than would private individuals. I hope that the Committee will not approve the amendment.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) £2.45]. - I am under a deep obligation to the Honorary Minister. I am not often in that position, and, therefore, I desire to make my acknowledgment of the fact at the earliest possible moment. Nothing could have demonstrated the consistency of my attitude more clearly than did the remarks of the Honorary Minister. He stated that if my amendment were carried I would deprive the Postmaster-General of power to manufacture these machines until he had sought and obtained an appropriation from Parliament. That is substantially what he said, and it truthfully represents the effect of my amendment. My proposal is not designed to stop the manufacture of these machines by the Government, but to take away from the PostmasterGeneral the right to act behind the back of Parliament. What did the Minister say in regard to that section of the Defence Act to which he referred? He said that the power was there, but - and that “but” covers the whole thing - the Minister could not start the factory until he had obtained an appropriation from Parliament. Before lunch, however, Senator Findley stated that it might be desirable for the Postmaster-General to make an arrangement with the holders of the patent rights of these recording machines, and get to work in anticipation of an appropriation.

Senator Findley:

– I did not say anything of the kind.

Senator MILLEN:

– I strongly object to the practice which is growing up in our Commonwealth Departments of the Minister in charge of any one of those Departments entering into private contracts and bargains of which Parliament knows nothing. It is becoming the practice of the Department of Home Affairs to resume properties all over Australia without ever consulting Parliament. The business is done privately in the Minister’s office, and we know nothing of it except that we have to pay for such properties. Senator Findley pictured the Postmaster-General going to the inventors of these recording machines, and purchasing the patent rights of them behind the back of Parliament. I repeat that there is a practice growing up in our public Departments of Ministers entering into private contracts and bargains which sooner or later, either with this or some other Government, will end in a public scandal. What is taking place in regard to our resumption of lands? Most State Governments have machinery by which that sort of thing can be done openly and publicly. But under Commonwealth administration all that is thought necessary is for the Minister to obtain a general sanction from Parliament, and then to make a private deal in his own office. We are not travelling on safe lines. If I had my way, I would insist that no definite bargain should be made at all with the holders of these patent rights, but that the Postmaster-General should acquire an option from them, which should be submitted to Parliament for its approval.Parliament would then determine whether the proposal was a fair one to the Commonwealth and to the vendor. That is not a novel proposition. The practice obtains in every State. But here it is thought quite sufficient - because the ideals of a party are advantaged by it - to sign a blank cheque. I protest against that sort of thing. If we permit this lax system to continue, I feel sure that same bad bargain will be entered into, or something worse will happen, and then everybody] will turn round and blame Parliament for having neglected to take ordinary business precautions.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I fail to see that the Leader of the Opposition has enlightened us as to what he would do if he were in charge of a Bill of this kind. It seems to me that, inasmuch as the Postal Department has not a recording machine of its own, if effect is to be given to this legislation, it must obtain a machine from a private vendor. Consequently, it rests with the Department to determine whether it would be cheaper for the Commonwealth to rent or to manufacture these machines. I apprehend that if the machine which is best capable of doing the work that we require to be done is obtainable only from a foreign country, an ordinary business deal would be concluded under which the right to use that machine in the Commonwealth would be rented. On the other hand, should it be found that it is more to the advantage of the Commonwealth to manufacture the machines here, the Postmaster-General would, of course, have to justify his action-

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator seriously put forward that argument?

Senator RAE:

– Why not?

Senator Millen:

– If the Government were challenged upon a bad deal, how would the honorable senator’s vote go?

Senator RAE:

– I admit that under our party system of Government one cannot get all his own way.

Senator de Largie:

– There is not a man in this Chamber who votes against the Government more frequently than does Senator Rae.

Senator Millen:

– But he is very careful to first see which way the division is going.

Senator RAE:

– That gibe is scarcely justified. Very often the Leader of the Opposition has voted with the Government when my vote would have defeated them.

Senator Millen:

– That has been on the rare occasions upon which they were Tight.

Senator RAE:

– I think there is something in the honorable senator’s contention that there should be a more systematic way of dealing with questions such as are raised in this Bill. Of course, it would require separate machinery to organize any system under which land resumptions could be carried out. I am not aware that the honorable senator, when he was in office,advocated any measures with that end in view. Clearly he has not explained the inconsistency of which the Honorary Minister accused him in connexion with the Defence Act.

Senator Millen:

– In that case, the Honorary Minister himself admitted that the Minister of Defence could not act without coming to Parliament, whereas under this Bill the Postmaster-General can act without consulting Parliament.

Senator RAE:

– If this system is going to be universally applied to our post-offices, it will be a big thing, although at its initiation it may be only a small thing. In thefirst instance, any man at the head of the Postal Department, who was possessed of ordinary common sense, would authorize the use of only a few of these machines, with a view to thoroughly testing their capabilities. I am quite at one with thosewho do not desire to see individual Ministers committing the country to a vast expenditure, which Parliament must either indorse or adopt the alternative of turning the Government out of office. But it seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition is now straining at a gnat, whereas previously he has swallowed a camel. While a patentee need not necessarily part with his rights, the Commonwealth will have a monopoly of the business in connexion with which the recording machine adopted will be of any use. Consequently, no patenteewill be able to demand an extortionateprice for his invention. The PostmasterGeneral, therefore, will have every inducement to enter into a sound bargain, especially as his action may be subjected to a good deal of criticism, not only by members of the Opposition, but by members of his own party.

Question - That the words proposedto beleft out be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 19

Majority … … 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

.- Having dealt with the provisions which apply to recording machines, and seeing that this is a measure designed to amend the Post and Telegraph Act of 1901-10, I wish to ask the Minister whether he has any reason for not making the Act absolutely watertight with regard to some of its principles. Section 57 reads - (1.) If the Postmaster-General has reasonable ground to suppose any person to be engaged either in the Commonwealth or elsewhere in receiving money or any valuable thing -

  1. as consideration (1) for an assurance or agreement express or implied to pay or give; or (2) for securing that some other person shall pay or give any money or valuable thing on an event or contingency of or relating to any horse-race or other race or any fight, game, sport, or exercise ; or
  2. for promoting or carrying out a scheme connected with any such assurance, agreement, or security, or a lottery or scheme of chance, or an unlawful game ; or

That is what is known as the Tattersalls section.

Senator Lynch:

– Through which they have driven a coach and four.

Senator KEATING:

– I believe not.

Senator Lynch:

-Very innocent.

Senator KEATING:

– My honorable friend says “very innocent.” I can get a ticket in Tattersalls either in Melbourne or in Tasmania.

Senator Ready:

– And without much trouble either.

Senator KEATING:

– Yes. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will be prepared to bring in a measure making it impossible for any individual to send by telegram what the law says he cannot send by post? Any member of the Committee can telegraph this afternoon a communication to what is known as Tattersalls in Hobart.

Senator Rae:

– I am very glad that you told me that.

Senator KEATING:

– Any honorable senator can send a telegram this afternoon to Tattersall’s, asking for so many tickets.

Senator Barker:

– Do you want to lead us into temptation?

Senator KEATING:

– No. What I want to point out is that the law as it stands gives a great advantage over the rest of the community to persons who wish to advertise. In Tasmania it is not competent for a person, not even for Tatter salls, to advertise in the press. The law prohibits any individual who is organizing a lottery from advertising. But persons can advertise in the Australasian and other Victorian newspapers, and these newspapers can be brought to Tasmania.

Senator Rae:

– We could not touch that under the Post and Telegraph Act, could we?

Senator KEATING:

– No. In the newspapers which come into Tasmania the names of different bookmakers are advertised, and persons wire freely to them from Tasmania. Thousands of pounds go out of the State into Victoria and New South Wales in regard to every race of any standing at all.

Senator Rae:

– This is about “ evened up” by sending our money over to Tasmania for Tattersalls.

Senator KEATING:

– That may be, but why should we in section 57 of the Act give power to the Postmaster-General to refuse to register or deliver letters if he has reasonable ground to suppose - not even to believe - any person to be engaged in the Commonwealth or elsewhere in receiving money or any valuable thing for the purposes which I have already quoted ?

Senator Lynch:

– What jurisdiction has he outside the Commonwealth?

Senator KEATING:

– He stops certain letters addressed to Germany. I am not attributing any fault to the present Government. Our position right through is entirely inconsistent. The Minister can take up a newspaper to-day, and see that men are actually inviting the public by advertisement to use the telegraph for betting purposes. I do not wish to advertise anybody, but in any newspaper one may pick up he will find an advertisement from certain men asking the public to bet with them. Under section 57 of the Act the Postmaster-General can turn round and stop the delivery of letters addressed to Senator Lynch or Senator Rae.

Senator Lynch:

– He is all powerful, but still powerless.

Senator KEATING:

– He is all powerful, but if a telegram is lodged for Senator Lynch or Senator Rae he cannot stop its transmission. That is the curious position today. In Victoria and New South Wales the bookmaker advertises freely. The very newspapers in which he advertises are those which support this section. He is not allowed to advertise in a Tasmanian newspaper.

Senator Lynch:

– The section is a farce.

Senator KEATING:

– The section and the administration of it may be a farce.

This is a period of the year at which it might occur to the Government that it is necessary either to wipe out the section, or, if they intend to retain it, at least to make it a watertight provision by preventing telegraphic information of this character from being forwarded.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– This measure has nothing to do with the matter mentioned by Senator Keating. Section 57 of the Act not only refers to the institution in Tasmania known as Tattersalls, but also has application to any firm or individual engaged in a business in contravention of the provision. The delivery of letters has been stopped, not merely to Tattersalls, but to some men whom probably the honorable senator has in his mind. The postal authorities have stopped the delivery of letters to men who are engaged in a certain line of business, and now that the horse-racing season is on I can quite understand Senator Keating and others desiring that what is done in connexion with Tattersalls should be permitted to be done all over Australia.

Senator Keating:

– Do it all round.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Of course, Tattersalls is a big institution, and we have passed special legislation to deal with it. But it comes as a great surprise to me to know that, although the Government of Tasmania has legalized that institution - and Tasmania is the only State in Australia where Tattersalls has found a restingplace - it is prevented from advertising its business.

Senator Keating:

– No: that legislation was passed in 1878.

Senator FINDLEY:

– But Tattersalls was established since that period. This shows the inconsistency of the Tasmanian Government in legalizing a lottery and yet legislating to prevent the lottery from advertising. The matter brought forward by Senator Keating really has nothing to do with this Bill.

Senator Keating:

– It touches the Post and Telegraph Act.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator has moved no amendment ; and even if he did move one on the lines that he has mentioned, I do not think that it could be accepted by the Committee, because instructions were not given to the Committee by the Senate to deal with that aspect of the case.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– The Minister has made a reflection upon the action of the Tasmanian Government.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! While I considered that Senator Keating, in his previous speech, was travelling beyond the Standing Orders, by referring to a matter not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, I thought that he would connect his remarks with the question before the Committee. He failed to do so. I then allowed Senator Findley to reply to him. But the honorable senator will not be in order in making further remarks on the lines of his previous speech. The Standing Orders clearly lay down that no amendment which is not relevant to the subject-matter of a Bill can be moved. This Bill simply deals with a recording machine, and has no application to section 57 of the Post and Telegraph Act, which applies to Tattersalls and similar institutions.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I thought in my opening remarks I made reference to the fact that the point with which I dealt was not exactly within the order of leave. I was simply asking for information. That information has now been supplied, and of course I cannot carry the matter any further.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 -

After section one hundred and two of the Principal Act the following section is inserted : - “ 102A. - (1.) Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse (the burden of proof whereof shall be on the person charged) -

makes or causes or procures to be made; or

aids or assists in making ; or

uses, or knowingly has in his custody or possession, any instrument capable of making an impression, stamp, or mark, resembling (or apparently intended to resemble or pass for) the impression, stamp, or mark, made by any post-office date stamp shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding Fifty pounds.”

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the words “ (the burden of proof whereof shall be on the person charged) “ be left out.

I do not desire to repeat the reasons which I gave for taking exception to the words quoted in my amendment. I am quite aware that similar words have already been embodied in some of our legislation. But the Acts where they occur have for the most part, reference to the protection of the public revenue. In the Electoral Bill, some time ago, similar words were inserted, but without my vote and consent. This is another attempt to still further widen the circle of easily-obtained convictions on the part of Government Departments. It is an endeavour to enable a Department to secure a conviction against a person without proving its case. The mere, fact that a person is found with a stamp in his possession capable of making a mark which resembles any mark or impression made by a recording machine will, unless he can prove his innocence, make him liable to conviction. Such a provision does not stand on all fours with provisions in other legislative Acts, in which we lay the onus of proof on the accused.

Senator Rae:

– In any case, what has the clause to do with the Bill?

Senator LYNCH:

– The clause is not of very great moment, as far as the Bill is concerned, but it is of such moment that it may at some time imperil a perfectly innocent person. I do not want to see such a person mulcted in law costs and damages unless he is made to stand in precisely the same relationship to a Court of Justice as an individual charged with any other misdemeanour. He ought not to be required to prove his own innocence. It should be the duty of the Department to support its case, and a perfectly innocent person ought not to incur the risk of being found guilty until a Court of Justice, on evidence produced by the accuser, finds him guilty.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I trust that the Committee will not agree to the amendment. This morning I gave quite a number of instances in which a similar provision is embodied in Acts passed by the Federal Parliament, and I thought they would be sufficient to induce Senator Lynch to withdraw his intended opposition to the clause. The honorable senator tells us that he has no objection to such a provision being inserted- in the Bill where the revenue of the Commonwealth might be affected. But the revenue of the Commonwealth might be affected under this clause by some person having in his possession an instrument that might be used improperly.

Senator Rae:

– What is the object of inserting the clause in the Bill, anyhow?

Senator FINDLEY:

– It has not any particular application tr> the Bill now before us, but there was a case in Queensland, recently tried at Toowoomba, in which a man was prosecuted for having in his possession a stamp capable of making an impression like that of a Post Office stamp.

Senator Lynch:

– A stamp of value?

Senator FINDLEY:

– It was a Post Office date stamp.

Senator Rae:

– What good could he do to himself with that?

Senator FINDLEY:

– It was something that he ought not to have, and that ought to be the sole property of the PostmasterGeneral. If we allow people to have in their possession, and to tinker with, instruments by which they can imitate the stamps of the Department, we shall make the work of the Department very difficult. In this case the prosecution failed, because there was no provision in the Post and Telegraph Act to sustain a charge against the man. This clause is inserted in the Bill to give the Department power in such cases. Senator Lynch need have no fear in respect of the clause, because a prosecution would never be initiated against a person unless good reason existed for suspecting that he was doing something in contravention of the law, and unless the circumstances to warrant prosecution were strong.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales> [3.27]. - I am glad that Senator Lynch hassubmitted this amendment, and I even venture to express the hope that the Committee will support his action. I ask honorable senators to forget all that the Minister has said, which had no bearing upon the question at’ all. What Senator Lynch has asked us to do is to stand by the old” British principle of holding a man innocent until he is proved guilty, rather than holding him guilty unless he proves his innocence. That has always been a principle of British law, in contradistinction to the law of some foreign countries, where the accused is held to be guilty until his innocence is proved.

Senator Long:

– That is a principle which has often been departed from.

Senator MILLEN:

– Unfortunately so, in this country.

Senator Long:

– In our Mining Acts, in case of accident, the onus of proof is on the management to show that the accident was not due to their negligence.

Senator MILLEN:

– We ought never to depart from this principle without good cause, and the necessity of proving that there is cause was on the Minister in charge of the Bill. In this case, the Minister has failed to show that there are any special circumstances as to why the Post and Telegraph Department should be placed in a different position from any other individual or institution whose revenue might be affected. It is perfectly true that in this case the revenue of the Department might be affected, but its revenue would also be affected by a forgery.

Senator Findley:

– There is such a provision in the Australian Notes Act.

Senator MILLEN:

– If I am charged with committing a forgery, the onus of proving my innocence is not upon me.

Senator Findley:

– It is, under the Australian Notes Act.

Senator MILLEN:

– The Minister rests on the argument that we have departed from that principle in one or two cases, but he has not shown that it is wise to depart from it in this case. Good cause ought to be shown; but instead of that, when we object to the principle being departed from q in this Bill, we are told that it has been departed from in previous Acts, and when in the future we object to its being departed from in other Bills, the reason given will be that the same was done in the Post and Telegraph Act. Each of these matters should be determined according to its- own environment. Mr. Justice Higgins laid down in one of his decisions how wide a departure this form of legislation represented from the principle, which, after all is said and done, is the bedrock of British law. He said it was only justified in certain circumstances ; that it was, possibly, necessary in Customs and Excise Acts, and mentioned a class of laws in which it might be held desirable to depart from that good old principle. I do not see why a person suspected of what may be described as a mechanical forgery should be placed in any different position from that of any other accused person. If there is a reason for this proposal, the Minister has certainly not disclosed it. The honorable senator proposes that the mere accusation of the Department he represents should be held to be proof of guilt until the accused person demonstrates his innocence. It is all very well to say that if a man is innocent he can very readily prove it. I see Senator Rae smiling, and he will understand that what I propose to say is said only by way of illustration. If I made a serious accusation, calling into question the honorable senator’s veracity in this Chamber, it would be impossible for him to prove his innocence of the charge. It might be equally impossible for me to prove it. It is ridiculous to assume that an innocent person can, in all cases, easily prove his innocence. The Minister lent some strength to the argument I am about to advance, when he said that the Department is not likely to move in such a matter unless there is some clear evidence and strong suspicion of guilt. I say that if the Department has such evidence, it should place it before a Court, and let the Court determine the matter. It should not throw upon the individual charged the duty of proving himself innocent. As the Minister has used the fact that we have already adopted legislation of this kind as a reason why we should go on adopting it, I ask the Committee, by accepting this amendment, to cut across this line of legislation, and refuse to blindly reverse the traditions of the past. We should affirm that such a provision should be made only where, in ordinary circumstances, there is no chance of demonstrating the commission of a crime by the person charged with it. In this case, the ordinary laws of evidence are quite sufficient to enable an accusation to be proved if it has any foundation. We have no right to give a public Department engaged in trading and business operations the power or opportunity to exercise a tyranny which we would deny to a private trading institution.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– - I intend to support the amendment. I do not know that it is necessary for me to add to what has already been said by Senators Lynch and Millen. A reference was made to the adoption of a similar provision in connexion with the electoral law.

Senator Millen:

– We refused to adopt such a provision in the electoral law.

Senator RAE:

– I was under the impression that we had adopted such a provision in one case.

Senator Millen:

– We adopted it in one case, and rejected it in another.

Senator RAE:

– I am sorry we did not reject it in both cases. This matter does not relate to the recording machines, which are the chief subject-matter of the Bill, but to dating appliances. I do not know how any one could gain a! big profit by the stamping of wrong dates on envelopes.

Senator Findley:

– Whether they could or not, no one should be allowed to tamper and tinker with postal matter.

Senator RAE:

– I should like to ask the Honorary Minister whether there is anything contrary to the Postal Act in a person writing something on an envelope?

Senator Findley:

– If it were done to mislead the Department there would be.

Senator Millen:

– When the Honorary Minister says that people should not be allowed to. tamper with postal matter, the answer to him is that the Department should go into Court and prove that the persons accused did tamper with postal matter.

Senator RAE:

– Just so. It occurs to me that unless we distinctly state that no mark other than that made by an officer of the Department shall be permitted on an envelope, we shall raise up a host of trouble, because a person might quite innocently, and by mere penmanship, make a mark on an envelope which would lead to a suspicion that he used some appliance for the purpose. The offence it is proposed to guard against is so unlikely to be committed more than once in a long period, or to be attended by profit or gain,’ that it is almost unnecessary to provide against it at all. I do not know-that the Bill is of very much use but to assist commercial men to do their business a little more cheaply than they have been able to do it before. I fail, to see that the offence referred to is likely to be so widespread, or to cause so much injury to the Department that it is necessary that we should depart in the way proposed from what, whether we call it British tradition or anything else, is a fairly sound principle to proceed upon, namely, that a person should be held to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. There is another equally useful aphorism to the effect that it is better that ten guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should be “lumbered.” I fail to see why we should impose this disability upon ordinary citizens, for it may be a quite imaginary advantage to the Post and Telegraph Department.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [3.38]. - I wish to add my voice in support of the objections to this clause. Unfortunately, in connexion with Commonwealth legislation, we began with the enactment of a vicious principle to secure the conviction of persons charged with offences. When we were considering the Customs Act in the early stages of the Commonwealth, and objection was raised to the adoption of this principle in that Act, it was urged that when the public revenue was liable to be defrauded, it was well to give every possible power to the Customs authorities to deal with offenders against the law. It was stated, also, that no Government would permit a power of this kind to be exercised without great consideration, and only in urgent cases. But we found that the Government of the day departed from that undertaking immediately, and all sorts of prosecutions, founded upon imagination and hearsay, were launched, and accused persons told that it was their duty to prove that they were not guilty of the charges made against them. That vicious principle was subsequently re-enacted in other measures; and now, under Commonwealth legislation, numerous offences may be charged against people who will be liable to punishment unless they can prove their innocence.

Senator Needham:

– A policeman may arrest a man in Melbourne for having no visible means of support.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– If he does, he must give evidence in support of the charge. If, when he is brought to the lockup, the man charged is found to have 5s. or 10s. in his pocket, the charge against him must fail.

Senator Needham:

– But the man is arrested without evidence.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - I could have the honorable senator arrested to-morrow upon a criminal charge.

Senator Needham:

– Who would have to prove innocence?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The honorable senator would not have to prove his innocence ; I should have to prove his guilt. With respect -to the question of arrest, the honorable senator might raise an equal objection to the fact that any one can get a summons against another, though he may have no grounds for it. To say that, because a man is charged with the commission of an offence, it shall be necessary for him to prove his innocence, is opposed to every idea of British justice. It is said that this is a trivial and unimportant matter; but, if that be so, there is the less reason for the enactment of so drastic a provision to deal with it. The Government are, in this matter, following a wrong lead, which, I am sorry to say, has already been followed in many previous instances. If this is continued, by-and-by all one will have to do will be to charge a man with an offence, and he will be convicted and punished, unless he proves himself innocent of the offence charged against him. Some reference has been made to the electoral law, and I remind the Committee that if a man is charged with personation, evidence in support of the charge must be submitted. If a prima facie case is made out, the accused person must, of course, give evidence in rebuttal to show that the prima facie case cannot be sustained. We are here departing, in circumstances that are utterly unjustifiable, from a principle under which we have lived for many years, and which has been invaluable to the community at large - the principle of regarding aman as innocent until there is proof of his guilt.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– It occurred to me while listening to the debate, that there is a complete answer to Senator Findley’s contention that, because we have incorporated this principle in other measures, we should, therefore, incorporate it in this Bill. That may be countered by reminding the Committee that when the Electoral Bill of last session was before us, we refused to insert a similar provision in connexion with the proposals for compulsory enrolment. It was proposed that the affirmation of a registrar that he had served notice upon a man was to be held as proof that he had failed to enroll himself, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. We amended that provision. It was amended in such a way as to strike out of it the obnoxious proposal that a mere accusation should in itself be sufficient.

Senator FINDLEY:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · ALP

– Before a vote is taken on this amendment I wish to say a few words in reply to Senator Millen. It is quite true that we struck out one portion of the Electoral Bill which would have thrown the onus of proof on the individual, but it is equally true that we retained in it a provision which absolutely throws the onus of proof upon a person when marks are made on an official ballot-paper.. In such circumstances it is for the person to prove that he is innocent of the charge which is laid against him. The same principle is embodied in quite a number of Acts apart from those under which revenue is collected for the Commonwealth. It is much easier for a person who is found in possession of unlawful property to prove his innocence than it is for the Department to prove his guilt. I have already mentioned that a case of this kind occurred at Toowoomba, Queensland. There a post-office official had in his possession a date stamp. He could derive no monetary advantage from having that stamp in his possession, but it would provide him with the means of altering the dates upon letters, and thus might cause endless trouble and irritation to the Department. Because he had that date stamp in his possession the Department prosecuted him.

Senator Rae:

-Was he using it for the purpose indicated?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I believe that he was. But there was nothing in the Act which enabled the Department to prove a. case against him.

Senator Rae:

– There will be now.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes. It would be easy for that official to say, “It is true that I have a date stamp in my possession.” Then he would doubtless be asked, “Where is your authority to use it?” If he could not produce his authority he could not prove his innocence, and ought therefore to be found guilty.

Senator Millen:

– If it were unlawful for him to have a date stamp in his possession the mere fact that such a stamp was found in his possession would be sufficient to secure his conviction.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Not necessarily. It would be much easier for hirn to prove that he had authority to use it.

Senator Rae:

-It was the absence of a provision of this kind - and not the onus of proof - which caused the case against him to break down.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It was both. I trust that the clause will be allowed to stand as printed.

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

AYES: 11

NOES: 13

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 4714

NAVIGATION BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

page 4714

ADJOURNMENT

Mount Lyell Disaster - Senate Episode

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator LONG:
Tasmania

.- I rise for the purpose of announcing to honorable senators that their subscriptions to the Mount Lyell Relief Fund amount to £81 13s., which is a splendid donation when we consider that several honorable senators have contributed through other channels.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

. -When the Senate met this morning Senator Shannon was very anxious to know whether a. certain episode which occurred yesterday was not going to be referred to by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. The only purpose for which I have risen is to point out to Senator Shannon that if there is any subject which he thinks ought to be opened up in the Senate there are standing orders which provide for its discussion in a variety of ways. I would also remind him that not only may He refer to any such matter under our Standing Orders, but he has an absolutely unlimited opportunity of referring to it outside of this chamber, and some of us would not have the slightest objection if he decided to adopt that course.

Senator SHANNON:
South Australia

– I take the earliest opportunity of letting Senator Givens understand that I intend to refer to the disgraceful incident which took place in this Chamber last night at a time most convenient to myself.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.58 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 October 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1912/19121025_senate_4_67/>.