4th Parliament · 3rd Session
The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 4884
-I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether the Government will take the necessary steps to have the Electoral. Acts and the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act printed in one volume, so. that we can have them all together?
– And the regulations, too.
– This is really a matter relating to the Home Affairs Department. No doubt it will be put before the Minister of Home Affairs, and he will deal with it.
page 4884
– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs been drawn to the fact that Senator Millen has stated in New South Wales that some of the officials employed by the Government at Port Darwin are Chinese? I should like to know if the statement is correct, and, if so, whether he will kindly tell us the number of such officials, and the positions which they hold?
– My attention was incidentally called to some remarks by the Leader of the Opposition, but ‘ I think he conveyed an erroneous impression. When the Northern Territory was taken over by the Commonwealth, there were nine Chinese employed by the Government of South Australia, and that number has been reduced to six. There are four Chinese employed in the hospitals, namely, a cook, a dough-boy, a messenger, and a warder. Two Chinese are employed on the railway, namely, a carpenter at1s. 4d. an hour, and a sanitary employé at 15s. a week. No extra Chinese have been employed since the Commonwealth took over the Territory.
-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - What happened to the other three?
– The Lord only knows.
– Is the employe: who gets 1 5s. a week provided with rations and housing as well?
– I cannot say, but I shall make inquiries.
page 4884
– On the 24th October I asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, the following questions, upon notice -
I desire to know if he . has yet been supplied with the information?
– The Deputy PostmasterGeneral at Brisbane has furnished the following information -
page 4885
Bill read a third time.
page 4885
in Committee (Consideration resumed from 30th October, vide page 4826) :
Clauses 2 and 3 and title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
page 4885
In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message) :
House of Representatives’ Amendments: - After clause 39 add the following new clauses : -
Section one hundred and twelve of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead : - “112. - (1.) Any person who represents a trade mark as registered which is not so shall be liable for every offence on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding Five pounds. “ (2.) A person shall be deemed, for the pur poses of this section to represent that a trade mark is registered, if he uses in connexion with the trade mark the word ‘ registered,’ or any words expressing or implying that registration has been obtained for the trade mark.”
Section one hundred and thirteen of the Principal Act is amended -
by inserting therein after the words “ Royal Arms “ the words “ or the Arms of the Commonwealth”; and
by omitting therefrom the words “so nearly resembling them” and inserting in their stead the words “ so nearly resembling the Royal Arms or the Arms of the Commonwealth.”
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
On reference to section 112 of the Trade Marks Act of 1905, honorable senators will see that the first part of the amendment of the other House makes very little difference other than that it adopts the language of the provision in the Imperial Act of 1905. Section 112 of our principal Act was copied from the famous Imperial Act of 1853. The new provision adopted in 1905 by the Imperial Parliament means the same thing, but it is , put in a different way. The object of proposed new clause 30 is to bring section 112 of the principal Act. into conformity with the latest Imperial Act. The object of proposed new clause 31 isto amend section 113 of the principal Act for the purpose of putting the Arms of the Commonwealth in the same position as the Royal Arms. That is, I think, a very wise thing to do. If there is no objection I should like the amendment to be dealt with in one motion, but, of course, if any honorable senator wishes to submit an amendment I shall ask the Committee to deal with the several paragraphs- separately.
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported; report adopted.
page 4885
In Committee (Consideration of House of Representative’s message) :
Clause 1 -
This Act may be cited as the Navigation Act 191 1, and shall commence on a date to be fixed by proclamation.
House of Representatives’ Amendments. - 1.
Omit “1911,” insert “1912.” 2. After “proclamation “ insert “ after the King’s approval thereto has been proclaimed in the Commonwealth.”
– The first amendment is merely formal, and is rendered necessary by the time that has elapsed since the Bill’ was previously before the Senate. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -
That the amendment (No. 2) be agreed to.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [2.55].- I wish to ascertain exactly what will be the effect of the amendment. Is it contemplated that the Bill will be reserved for the Royal assent, and that we shall have to wait until it has been consideredat Home before it will be possible to proclaim the date upon which it shall come into force, or is it considered that the Government will be able to obtain the Royal” assent to the measure in the ordinary way through the Governor-General?
SenatorPEARCE (Western AustraliaMinister . of Defence) [2.56].- The Merchant Shipping Act 1894, in the provisions conferring power upon “ Colonial Legislatures to control their own coasting trade,” sections 735 and 736, as also in the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act,’ dealing with the power of British Dominions to make laws in regard to such matters as salvage, &c, it. is made a condition of validity that any such legislation shall contain a suspending clause providing that it shall not come into force until His Majesty’s pleasure thereon has been publicly signified in the British Possession in- which it has been passed. In simple language this means, I understand, that any such legislation may not be assented to by the Vice-Regal representative in the Dominion, but must be reserved for the Royal approval. The matter has -been the subject of some correspondence between theImperial authorities and this Government, and it, has been suggested to us that such a qualification is - desirable to obviate the possibility of the Navigation Act being declared invalid by reason of its omission.
– Which will . mean delay.
– No, according to the Acts I have quoted, the measure is one which must be reserved for the assent of the King, and could not be assented to by His Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth. While no delay will be involved, I should like to say that the Government do not agree with the contention that the general power of this Parliament with regard to navigation is derived from the Merchant Shipping Act, and not from our own Constitution. It is quite possible, however; that power is conferred under the Merchant Shipping Act to regulate the coasting trade to a greater extent than may be done under the power conferred by the Constitution. We have power under the Constitution, to regulate shipping trading Inter-State and with foreign countries, but the power conferred under the Merchant Shipping Act is not subject to any such limitation, and might be construed as giving us power to control shipping engaged in trading between port and port anywhere along our coast, including shipping trading within the limits of a particular State. Our power under the Constitution enables us to control Intra-State shipping to the extent of imposing upon it obedience to such- rules of the road as may be necessary to insure the safety of Inter-State and foreign-going ships using the same waters, but under the Merchant Shipping Act power is given to regulate wages, discipline, salvage, and such matters, which could . not be regulated in the case of Intra-State shipping under the- power given by the Constitution. The amendment practically means that the Bill Shall not come into operation until His Majesty’s assent thereto has been proclaimed in the Commonwealth.
SenatorLt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [2.58].- I thank the Minister for the explanation he has given. The contention of the Government is that, so far as Australian shipping is concerned, we have power under the Constitution to deal with it, irrespective of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, but that the moment we go beyond those powers it is necessary for us to take further steps to get the assent of the Imperial authorities to the measure we have passed. We are really dealing with a Bill of a composite nature. So far as one portion of it is concerned, it is entirely within our powers under the Constitution. Another portion of this measure deals with shipping trading beyond the Commonwealth, and the Government are in doubt as to -its validity. If it were to be declared ultra vires of the Constitution, the whole measure would be destroyed. That difficulty would have been avoided if the Government had been content to deal solely with Australian shipping in Australian waters. . We are passing a law intended to apply to Australian ships engaged in trade or commerce with other countries or amongst the States. . We propose that certain rules shall be applicable to such shipping which we are unable to make applicable to ships that are not Australian ships, but which may trade between Australian ports as well as with ports beyond the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. In this way we place Australian-owned ships at a disadvantage as compared with the ships of other nations. We may deal with thatmatter more fully when we come to consider the next amendment of the House of Representatives. One portion of the Bill is clearly within our powers, and the validity of another portion will depend upon the view which the Imperial, authorities will take . of the powers we propose to exercise. I remind honorable senators that, although the Imperial authorities may not withhold assent to the measure, and may say, “ We do not wish to interfere in any way with what you propose to do in the case of Australian ships,”- the provisions of the measure may still be held to be ultra vires, because the owners of the ships will have the right, if they see fit, to claim that the restrictions placed upon them are. beyond our powers under the Constitution, and they may be determined to be beyond our powers by the High Court, whose decision might be upheld upon appeal to the’Privy Council. It might be held that such provisions could not be enacted unless by the Imperial Parliament.
– An exceedingly interesting point has been raised by Senator Gould, and the explanation given by the Minister of Defence indicates an extraordinary state of affairs which I do not think honorable senators were generally aware of. The honorable senator’s explanation seemed to indicate that this measure may be unconstitutional in some of its provisions, unless it is approved by the Imperial authorities. That, to my mind, supposes a serious limitation upon what I believe to be our powers of self-government. From what Senator Gould has said, it would appear that it was possible for us to legislate in this matter beyond the powers conferred upon us by the Constitution, provided that we secured Imperial sanction.
– No.
– That, I think, was implied in what has been said.
-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - A portion of the measure requires that authority.
– It means that, while we can legislate to a certain extent under our Constitution, we have power to legislate beyond the Constitution, provided the Imperial authorities afterwards assent to our legislation.
– No, we cannot do that.
– I do not say that we can ; but I say that is implied in the arguments to which we have . listened.
– Both the Merchant Shipping Act and the Constitution are Imperial Acts, and it is a question of the relative scope of each.
– I am aware that they are Imperial Acts ; but it appears that we can trench upon Imperial powers, provided we afterwards get the assent of the King to our legislation.
– No.
– That is certainly implied in the arguments which have been advanced, and Senator Gould further said that even if we. did get the assent of the
King to certain provisions, they might afterwards be decided to be ultra vires by the High Court.
– Anythingis possible to the High Court.
– Anything seems to be possible under our chaotic Constitution.
– That is a better way to put it than to drag in the High Court as Senator de Largie has done.
– I do not think the honorable senator wishes to drag in the High Court. Unfortunately, honorable senators opposite are continually dragging in the High Court. We should be very glad to keep the High Court out of it.
– We have power under the Constitution only over ships whose first port of clearance and. whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.
– If we can legislate only in respect of ships registered in the Commonwealth, and have no power to deal with ships not registered in the Commonwealth, but trading in our waters, our own ships might remove their registration from Australia, and be registered elsewhere in order to evade the provisions of our law.
– Probably that will be done in certain instances.
– If that be so, it is clear that our constitutional powers are not so wide as they might be, and any one who would oppose the extension of our powers in that direction would be an enemy to Australian interests.
– We cannot, widen the Constitution to include Fiji.
– We should, be able to widen the Constitution sufficiently to cover all matters affecting Australian interests. The Minister has not made it clear that the necessity for securing the assent of the King to this measure will not cause any delay.
– It will not cause delay, because the Merchant Shipping Act, and the other Act which I quoted, lays it down that this class of legislation must be reserved for the, Royal assent.
– I understand the- contention now. It means that whether this amendment be made or not, the assent of the King to this measure will be necessary, and sp there cannot be, because of the amendment, any additional delay in bringing it into force. I hold that what has been said indicates that there is a serious limitation upon our powers in . dealing with this matter which affects . the interests of the Commonwealth. That should make those people, who have hitherto opposed the extension of our powers, repent . even at the eleventh hour.
– I do not like this- amendment, andI think that the interjection of Senator Gould to Senator Rae supports the contention which I am about to make. That is, as to the danger that may accrue by the owner of Australian vessels registering outside Australia, and nullifying absolutely the legislation which we are passing in the interest of the Australian people to govern Australian shipping. That is the danger which I see in the amendment. The object of this measure, which has engaged the attention of the National Parliament for the last eight or nine years, is to place the condition of Australian seamen on the highest plane, and at the same time to conserve the interests of the owners of ships, and safeguard those who travel by sea ; but if we calmly submit to this amendment, which provides that the measure shall only become law after the assent of the King has been given, our work for the last two years goes absolutely by the board. It will be wise for the Committee to consider the effect of the House of Representatives’ amendment before assenting to it. I agree with Senator Rae, that if we carry the amendment we shall be recognising the supremacy of His Majesty, and the Imperial Parliament, upon a matter over which we ourselves ought to have supreme control.
– We must have foreign trade here, and we cannot control foreign shipping.
– I admit that we cannot control foreign shipping ; but I contend that when a foreign vessel is trading in- Australian waters, our legislation should be supreme over her.
– The Bill is regarded by some as going beyond that.
– As Senator Gould has observed, the Bill is split into two parts. It is said that we have only control over those vessels which are Australianregistered, and which trade in Australian waters, and have no control over every other vessel that comes into our waters. I hold that if our Constitution is such that we cannot put this legislation into force without the assent of the Imperial Parliament-
– Not of the Imperial Parliament, but of the King.
– The Minister of Defence need not be told that “the King knows just as much about shipping as any one of us, and that he only acts on the advice of his Ministers.
– They are not the Parliament.
– Just as, in the Commonwealth, the Governor-General only acts on the advice of Senator Pearce and his colleagues, so in Great Britain the King acts on the advice of his Cabinet.
– And of the Board of Trade.
– He is also advised, I presume, by the experts, or alleged experts, of the Board of Trade.
– They do not advise the King at all.
– I agree -with Senator Rae that if we concur in this amendment, we shall be limiting our powers. If it can be proved that we have to go to the King and say to him, “ Please, sir, can this legislation of ours be operative over Australian shipping?” the sooner the people, by referendum, alter the Constitution, the better it will be.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [3.16]. - It is just as well that honorable senators should realize exactly what the position is. Whether we think the position a good one or not, we have to accept it. The Commonwealth legislates under the authority of an Imperial Act. We can not go beyond the powers granted to us by the Imperial authorities. In the first place, it is as well to realize what our powers really are. Turning to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, we find that there are certain powers of Colonial legislation defined. Section 735 reads -
The Legislature of any British possession may by any Act or Ordinance, confirmed by Her Majesty in Council, repeal, wholly or in part, any provisions of this Act (other than those of the third part thereof which relate to emigrant ships)’ relating to ships registered in that possession.
That is to say, we may alter the law as set out in the Imperial Act dealing with the accommodation, rates of pay, and so forth.
– Is not our Constitution of later date than the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, and does it not override that Act ?
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - The power which I . have quoted is limited -
Any such Act or Ordinance shall hot take effect until the approval of Her Majesty has been proclaimed in the possession, or until such time thereafter as may be fixed, by the Act or Ordinance for the purpose.
Then the Merchant Shipping Act provides in section 736 -
The Legislature of a British possession, may, by any Act or Ordinance, regulate the coasting trade of that British possession, subject in every case to the following conditions : -
the Act or Ordinance shall contain a suspending clause providing that the Act or Ordinance ‘ shall not come into operation until Her Majesty’s pleasure thereon has been publicly signified in the British possession in which it has been passed;
the Act or Ordinance shall treat all British ships (including the ships of any other British possession) in exactly the same manner as ships of the British possession in which it is made.
So that, in the first place, under the Act of 1894, our powers were very much limited. I come now to the Commonwealth Constitution, which, in section 5 of the covering sections, provides that -
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are within the Commonwealth.
Whilst that section enlarges our powers, it also shows that our powers are clearly restricted in regard to navigation. .
– What, in the honorable senator’s opinion, is a ship’s first port of clearance?
– If a ship leaves Sydney for Melbourne, her first port of clearance ‘is Sydney; but if she is leaving Sydney for Fiji or America, she does not come within our jurisdiction, as far as Commonwealth law is concerned.
– Her first port of clearance is Sydney.
– But we must have regard to the words “whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are within the Commonwealth.”
– Suppose a ship came to Sydney from a foreign country, could we impose our conditions upon her ?
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - Only as far as they were applicable in our own waters. We could not do anything beyond that. What we want to do in this Bill is to provide, as far as our coasting trade is concerned, that our ships shall conform to Australian conditions. The question is whether we are not going . beyond the powers given to us by the Constitution. We have to turn back to the Merchant Shipping Act to see if it will help us in any way, and we find from it that we have no power to deal with anything beyond our own coasting trade.
– That is absolutely wiped put by our Constitution.
– We have, under our Constitution, certain powers, but they do not carry us beyond Australian ports. They may affect the trade between Australian ports, but they do not apply to a ship going outside Australian waters.
– Where is there anything in this Bill that does apply in such a case?
.- The Bill itself, in regard to Aus-‘ tralian shipping, provides that an Australian trade-ship is one that goes from Australia to any other port in Australia, or to New Zealand or to Fiji, showing clearly that we are trying to- go beyond our powers.
– There is no limitation in the Constitution on our making any laws we like for the Commonwealth.
-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD.-Exactly.
– Why should we be restricted when a- ship leaves Sydney or any other Australian port?
– For the simple reason that there are words in the Constitution which- provide for Our laws being in force on ships “ whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.” Beyond that, I contend, we have no power to deal with navigation.
– The honorable senator contends that we have no control over a ship leaving Sydney for some foreign port?
-CoIonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - We have control over her as far as Australia is concerned. Whether I am correct in my contention or not, I hold that under our powers we cannot deal’ with matters the effect of which is to alter the Merchant Shipping Act, even with regard to our own coastal, trade, until approval has been given by the King. It is abundantly clear that we are tampering with questions with ‘respect to the accommodation to be given to sailors, and a multiplicity of other matters provided for in the Merchant Shipping Act, in such a way as to require the assent of the King to the legislation which we propose to enact. .
– Did not the sections from the Merchant Shipping Act, which the honorable senator quoted, apply only to the coasting trade?
– No; section 735 deals with shipping more generally. Under this Bill, I contend that we are practically repealing portions of the’ Merchant Shipping Act, and enacting other provisions which go. beyond the powers given to us in the Constitution.
– The honorable senator holds that it is because the Bill goes beyond covering section 5 of the Constitution that the King’s assent becomes necessary?’
– Yes; but, at the same time, we are dealing in this Bill with things that we could deal with without any restriction, if we saw fit. We are combining them in the same measure with matters which require us to get the King’s authority.
– What are those several matters?
– I have instanced the provision in regard to Australian shipping going to New Zealand or Fiji, territories which are beyond our control.
– Have we not power to deal with such ships when they are in our waters ?
– I admit at once that, as far as we act within the powers conferred by the Constitution, and deal with ships trading within Commonwealth waters, we are within our rights. But we are going beyond those powers in providing that an Australian ship is one that trades to Fiji, and must conform to the provisions of this measure with regard to accommodation, manning, and a number of other things.
– Are there not provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act relating to the coast of Great Britain ?
– But the Imperial authority is a supreme authority, and can make any laws it thinks fit. We are only a subordinate authority. However much we may flatter ourselves that we are a growing nation, weare a subordinate authority as far as Imperial jurisdiction is concerned. The Imperial authority might, if it were thought fit, render any other Acts nugatory, though, of course, it would not do such a thing.
– If a ship left Sydney for New Zealand or Fiji., intending to make a round trip,and come back to Sydney, would not her first port of clearance and her port of destination be within the Commonwealth ?’
– I doubt whether a ship would clear in that way. She would clear for Fiji, and when at Fiji would again clear for an Australian port. I do not raise thequestion of our competency as far as concerns ships in Australian waters.
– Such a ship, would only be engaged in the coasting trade.
– Yes; and that trade is within our control. But when we want to go beyond our coastal trade, it becomes necessary to secure the authority of the KinginCouncil, by virtue of the Merchant Shipping Act.
– The; Government have not the slightest doubt about the provisions of this Bill in regard to foreign trade, but our position in regard to the coasting trade isexactly opposite to that which is taken up by Senator Gould. It is well known that certain legal advisers of the Board of Trade- - not the Imperial Government - contendthat the Commonwealth has only suchpowers of legislation to override the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, as are given by sections 735 and 736- of that Act, and that the effect of paragraph I of section 51 and section 98 of the Constitution is simply to confer uponthe Commonwealth Parliament a power of legislation on navigation matters paramount to that of the State Parliaments. The correspondence . on this point will befound in a printed memorandum containing -the suggestions of the Board of Tradeon the Navigation Bill. The memorandum shows that the Commonwealth law officersare distinctly at variance with the Board of Trade on this point, and the- Commonwealth has never wavered in its view of its powers in this respect. ‘ Perhaps it may be well to- again read section 736 of the Merchant
Shipping Act-
The Legislature of a British possession may, by any Act or Ordinance,’ regulate the coasting trade of that British possession, subject in every case to the following conditions : -
Although the Imperial Parliament gave us power, by the section, to deal with the coasting trade, still a Bill in which we deal with the coasting trade has to be reserved until His Majesty’s pleasure thereon has been made known -
Ot the three conditions enumerated in that section, two - equality of treatment to locally registered and other British ships, and the recognition of the rights of foreign countries under treaties entered into by them with Great Britain - have already been complied with in the Bill, and these are the more important. Whilst the Government in no wise concur in the contention of Senator Gould that the general power of this Parliament, in regard to shipping and navigation, is derived from the Merchant Shipping Act, and not from our Constitution, it is thought possible that the power conferred in the Merchant Shipping Act to regulate the coasting trade mav be wider, so far as that trade is concerned’, than the power conferred by the Constitution -
It is thought possible that the power conferred under the Merchant Shipping Act “ to regulate the coasting trade” may be wider, so far as that trade is concerned, than that conferred by the Constitution.
The latter power is limited in its application to matters affecting ships trading Inter-State or with foreign countries. The regulation of. the coasting trade, under the powers conferred by the Merchant Shipping Act, is not however, subject to any such limitation, and very possibly would be construed as giving power to control shipping engaged in trading between port and port anywhere along the coast, including trade confined within the limits of a State.
The power conferred by the Constitution no doubt gives us a certain amount of power to control Intra-State shipping, to the extent of any rate of imposing upon it obedience to such rules of the road, &c, as are necessary to ensure the safety of Inter-State and foreign-going ships using the same waters, but no more. The power to regulate “ the trade would, on the other hand, imply not only this, but such matters as wages, accommodation, discipline, &c.
Under the Merchant Shipping Act the general power of regulation might give us the power to regulate all these matters.
– But the exercise of that power has to receive the approval of His Majesty.
– That is so. We shall not be placed at any disadvantage in agreeing to this amendment. Rather shall we be placed at an advantage, because the wider powers which are apparently in the Act, and which are provided for in the Bill, may be by that means obtained.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [3.35]. - I do not see why so much apprehension should be entertained by Senator Needham, and, apparently, by Senator Guthrie, in respect to this amendment. Really the view which the Minister has put makes it quite clear that, instead of causing delay, the amendment may cause very great expedition. It may facilitate the Bill being brought into operation without any question which may require to be dealt with by a tribunal. To begin at the beginning, the whole underlying principle is that no country has the right to legislate directly in respect to any other shipping than its own. In the first instance the Imperial authorities had to legislate in respect to, not merely the shipping immediately connected with the British Isles, and trading from that centre, but what might be called Imperial shipping throughout the Dominions of the Crown. As various Colonies were established, power was given to enable them to legislate in a particular way, and within certain restrictions. Of course, the Imperial Act is, in regard to the British Dominions, a code governing all shipping flying the British flag. Then, in order to facilitate, commerce, and incidental to the creation of the selfgoverning Dominions, came the provisionsempowering colonies to legislate in a particular way within the restrictions which the- Minister has quoted. ‘ ‘ Whilst that enabled the outlying portions of the Empire to legislate in order to facilitate trade, ‘ it led to the possibility of legislation assuming a form which might interfere with the general law of British shipping and produce practically chaos. These restrictions were not made with the view of diminishing the self-governing power of any Dominion, nor is it intended by this amendment to cast a doubt on. the national power of the Commonwealth. It is a measure of precaution. It is to prevent the possibility of international difficulties and, it may be, .great confusion in regard to the shipping of the British Empire itself. It is a perfectly reasonable amendment. It does not call forth the condemnation which Senator Needham threw upon it, as though it were an assault upon self-government in Australia. It is nothing of the kind.
– It is an indication of our limitations.
– It indicates no reflection upon the national strength and capacity of our Constitution to enable us to do everything essential for our self-government. If we had power to legislate, as possibly we may have, in regard’ to wages, and so forth, and we imposed our legislation upon foreign ships, we should bring about a position of international conflict in no time. It would be impossible to carry out such legislation. We can legislate about our coasting trade subject to limitations, but we cannot impose our standard of. wages and accommodation upon foreign ships.
– New Zealand has done it for the last ten years, and there has been no complication.
– Only when foreign ships take part in the New Zealand trade, and in this Bill we are doing the same thing.
– Suppose that the advice of the law advisers of the Board of Trade is correct, what would be the result if the Bill were passed without this amendment.? We might have the Bill tied up by an appeal to the High Court, in order to determine its validity or otherwise.
– Will the amendment get over that?
– It will get over it to the extent that it cannot be said that we have not complied with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. Our authority to legislate is derived from the Constitution, which is an Imperial Act. We must legislate within the Constitution, and no approval of -His Majesty can make that valid which does not come within the authority given to us by the Constitutionor the Merchant Shipping- Act. But there is a limitation. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, if that is our authority for any legislation, we have to get the approval of His Majesty before the Bill can come into operation. This is a salutary amendment, which, instead of causing delay, may save 1 great deal of litigation and delay. At any rate, it anticipates an objection which may be made by the Imperial authorities, and which it is just as well to meet beforehand.
Senator GUTHRIE (South Australia)
C3-47]- - I think that the arguments of Senator Symon have a little weight. In the Constitution, the Imperial authorities gave us absolute power over all British ships which have a port of entrance and a port of clearance within the Commonwealth. Why should. we reserve the Bill for the King’s assent? Is it intended to ask the Board of Trade - the most Conservative institution in Great Britain, as has been lately shown by the Titanic inquiry - to deal with matters over which the Constitution gives us full power?” I recognise, of course, that it is another matter when we deal with foreign ships. I asked Senator Gould to cite a provision in the Bill’ dealing with foreign ships -which were not engaged in the Commonwealth trade, but he could not do so.. Unless a’ ship goes- into the Commonwealth trade, the Bill will not affect her. A ship coming here from England will not be subject to our survey or manning scale or food scale ; in fact, to any of the conditions contained in the Bill until she enters into the Commonwealth trade.
– What do you mean by “ the Commonwealth trade “ ?
– I mean unless she trades within the Commonwealth.
– Coasting trade. ‘
– I do not know what the honorable senator calls the “ coasting trade.” I probably take a different view of it. Under the Merchant Shipping Act the coasting trade of England is not confined to the coast of Great Britain. If the honorable senator will look the matter up, he will come to the conclusion that we are asking for nothing more in this;
Bill than the Imperial authorities provided for when defining the coasting trade of Great Britain.
– The honorable senator might say that the trade between here and England is the coasting trade of Australia.
– I do not say anything of the sort, but the Merchant Shipping Act, to which honorable senators opposite pin their faith, extends the coasting trade of Great Britain to the Continent of Europe, between the River Elbe and Brest. Why should we not do exactly as the Imperial authorities have done, and in the same way extend our coasting trade beyond the limits of the Commonwealth ?
– Because we are not the Imperial authorities.
– Then we ought to be ! I say that we have power to do as the Imperial authorities have done. They have defined their coasting trade as extending beyond Great Britain to the River Elbe, along the coast of Holland and France, down to Brest. What difference would it make if we extended our coasting trade in the way I suggested ? It would be in favour of the Commonwealth as against the outsider. I do not think that the reservation of the Bill for the Royal assent matters twopence. lt may mean a delay of six months in bringing it into force’, but we have been considering it now for ten years, and an additional six months is a trifling matter. If, when the measure is referred to the Imperial authorities, there are objections to it, the Commonwealth will have to get up on its hind legs and fight them. Now is not the time to consider possible objections. The memorandum placed in the hands of honorable senators shows that we have dealt with all the objections raised by the Board of Trade. We should agree to this amendment now, and it will be time enough to deal with new objections by the Board of Trade when any are raised. I know that in the case of State legislation affecting outside countries it was necessary that it should be reserved for the Royal assent. I took charge of a Bill in 1892 in the South Australian Parliament, dealing with the load-line, before ever the Imperial Parliament dealt with the subject. The measure was sent Home, . and the Board of Trade advised Her Majesty to refuse the Royal assent, and so the Bill failed, but in the very next year the Imperial Parliament passed the very same provisions.
– The honorable senator was the pioneer of the good work.
– I am not sorry for it. Let us wait until the Board of Trade raise their objections to the measure, if they have any, and it will then be time for us to deal with them. I hope the amendment will be agreed to.
– Senator Symon altogether misunderstood my contention. If it will facilitate thebringing of this Bill into operation, and insure the validity of its provisions, I have no objection whatever to the reservation for the Royal assent. My contention was that, on the argument put forward by Senator Gould, we are restricted in dealing with trade other than Australian coasting trade, and under the Constitution are subject to restriction in dealing with purely Intra-State trade. We seem to have our wings clipped in both directions if we are to accept Senator Gould’s argument. Our legal friends, Senators Symon and Gould, tried to explain away another point, but they have not answered the contention that if our powers are more extended under the Merchant Shipping Act than they are under our Constitution, they cannot be contained within the four corners of the Constitution. I am well aware that both the Constitution and the Merchant Shipping Act are Acts of the Imperial Parliament, but I say that if we can exercise powers of legislation under the Merchant Shipping Act which we could not exercise under the Constitution it is clear that an Imperial Act other than the Constitution, may incidentally increase the powers vested in us by the Constitution.
– Hear, hear !
– But if that be so, the converse will also hold good; and an Im- . perial Act other than the Commonwealth Constitution may incidentally limit our powers under the Constitution. Senator Guthrie has raised the point that the Imperial Parliament has defined the coasting trade of Great Britain as meaning something wider than the interpretation placed upon such a term under this Bill. While we all recognise that the Imperial Parliament can do as it wills, and we can only do what we are allowed to do, I should like to know if there is anything to prevent us enacting a definition of our. coasting trade which would cover shipping between Australia and New Zealand and Australia and Fiji. If we -are not in a position to say that vessels registered in Australia, and trading with New Zealand, shall conform to the conditions prescribed for vessels registered in Australia, and engaged in the Australian coasting trade, it is possible that some companies may remove the registration of their vessels from Australia to New Zealand to escape the provisions of our law.
-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - They would then come under the New Zealand Navigation Act.
– They might have their vessels registered in Fiji, where there is no such advanced legislation, and they would then be in a position to compete unfairly with Australian registered vessels, and so break down the policy of this Bill. On the general question raised as to our powers in connexion with this legislation, I was disappointed with the explanation of the Minister. The honorable gentleman said that the Government are under no apprehension that our powers are restricted in the way indicated by Senator Gould. They believe that we have ample power to do all that this Navigation Bill proposes. But I should like to have had some statement of the grounds on which the Government based that opinion. On a constitutional question of this kind we should be fortified with the best legal opinions to back up our contentions..
– Honorable senators opposite are raising a good deal of dust and fog in connexion with this matter. It has been pointed out more than once in both Houses that the constitutional difficulty is always before us in connexion with this legislation. It arises, not from the Constitution, but out of the very nature of the subject with which we are dealing. I agree, to a large extent, with the explanation given by the Minister of Defence. The honorable gentleman was historically correct in saying that there has been a conflict of opinion on this matter between the law officers of the Commonwealth and the Board of Trade.
– We should know what it is based upon.
– On the -very nature of the subject dealt with.
– We want the reasons for the action taken.
– It seems to me that they are obvious. I thought that Senator Symon had made the matter clear. If he’ has not, it will probably be impossible for me to do so; but I, might refresh the memories of honorable senators, or explain. the matter in my own way. In dealing with navigation, we have to make provision for two classes of ships, those which are on our own register, and trading exclusively in our own coasting trade, and foreign ships, which are not registered here, but which come to the Commonwealth with goods from other countries and take our produce to other countries. It is axiomatic that we have not the same power to deal with ships on a foreign register, trading with Australia, that we have to deal with our own ships engaged in our own coasting trade. Some distinction must, therefore, be made in the legislation applicable to the two classes of shipping. Another point might be referred to which arises in connexion with this subject. If the most extreme unificationist on the other side could give the Commonwealth Parliament all the powers he could imagine, it is clear that there would be doubt as to our power with regard to foreign shipping trading with Australia in only a partial way. The Merchant Shipping Act was designed in order to assist the self-governing Dominions with a power which only an Imperial Act could give. We could not expect to pass legislation so perfect that conflict could not possibly arise in connexion with the treatment of complex questions. The Merchant Shipping Act was never designed to restrict the self-governing powers of the Dominions, but to assist them, and I believe that it does so in a way that is highly beneficial to the Commonwealth, by enabling us to deal with, not only our own shipping, but, to a certain extent, with foreign shipping. I am glad that this clause is to be amended in the way proposed. I think that, on a previous occasion, when the matter was under consideration in the Senate, I pointed out that a similar provision was to be found in the Canadian Navigation Act; and I asked why the reservation for the King’s assent was not included in this Bill. After careful consideration, the Bill comes up to us now from another place with the provision of the Canadian Act to which I directed attention in its forefront.
– At the honorable senator’s suggestion.
– I shall not say so. Hansard, for last year is really too deep a mine in which to delve at this moment.
– We will take the honorable senator’s word for it rather than have him read Hansard.
– Hansard and my word will be found equally correct in the matter.
– The question with which we are dealing is a very complicated one. It is complicated by the doubts which have been expressed as to our constitutional powers ; but. the Government have throughout made it clear that they believe we have full constitutional powers to deal with anything pertaining to the coasting trade of Australia. We do not assume to have full power to deal with foreign ships, but we have always assumed that we have full power to legislate for Australian shipping in whatever way we please, whether as to labour conditions, the seaworthiness of the vessels trading, or any other conditions. The matter becomes complicated when we come to deal with foreign ships that are not British ships; but we hold that when they come into competition with Australian ships it is fair to insist that there shall be no violation by them of the conditions which we apply to Australian ships. But when it comes to a question of seaworthiness we are dealing with a much wider matter, and one that is open to all kinds of complications. The various nations of the world have different standards of seaworthiness, and different ideas as to how it should be measured. For instance, Great Britain leads the way as far as loadlines are concerned. Other nations take other means of determining when a ship is seaworthy and when she is not. France, Germany, and the United States, to single out three countries, have every right to enforce their own ideas of seaworthiness in regard to their own ships, and to a certain extent we respect their conditions. But there are limitations. For instance, we would not allow even a French or a German vessel to leave an Australian port if we were not thoroughly convinced that she was seaworthy.
– We would not allow a foreign vessel to come into Melbourne without a pilot.
– Quite so. and we would not allow her to leave Australia for her home port if it were considered that human life on board was placed in imminent risk owing to the unseaworthy condition of the vessel. It will therefore be seen that there are degrees of control even in regard to foreign shipping. In the present instance we are taking only a reasonable precaution against further delay. If there is one Commonwealth measure more than another as to which there has been delay it is the Navigation Bill. We have had it before Parliament year after year since 1904. Are we to run the risk: of having all our work hung up because there may be in the Bill some provision to which exception is taken? I consider that the Government have adopted a wise precaution in the present instance. If we attempt to make hard and fast rules when we are not quite sure of our ground, we may cause further delay. I do not think that we should be wise in delaying any further a Bill for which the country has been asking so long; and it is because of that that 1 consider that the Government have acted wisely in inserting the amendment before us. Although we may appear to express some doubt as to our constitutional powers, we do so in such a mild form that we can very well allow the amendment to go, knowing that by so doing, we are securing a sure and quick passage for this Bill.
Motion agreed to.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After clause 1 insert the following new clause : _ “ ia. - (1.) This Act shall not apply in relation to any Australian-trade ship, limited coast-trade ship, or river and bay ship, or her master or crew, unless the ship -
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -
That the amendment be agreed to.
SenatorLt. -Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.15].- This is rather an important amendment. If honorable senators turn to the Bill they will find that an Australian trade ship is defined as including - every shipother than a limited coast-trade ship or river and bay ship) employed in trading or going between places in Australia, and every ship employed in trading between (a) Australia and (*) territories under the authority of the Commonwealth, New Zealand, or the islands of the Pacific.
So that an Australian trade ship is denned in the first instance as being a ship trading between various places in Australia and New Zealand or the islands of the Pacific ; and then we have a new clause which practically deals with an Australian trade ship which may be trading elsewhere. In other words, the effect is that an Australian trade ship is defined as a ship trading between the Commonwealth and any part of’ the world.’ Say that a .ship is registered in Sydney, and is trading to the islands and to London. She becomes an Australian trade ship ; and we then provide that she shall be subject to this measure. That seems to be a strange way of determining the matter. I do not know the object of defining an Australian trade ship, unless by way of limitation. If we said that an Australian trade ship was any ship registered in Australia, I could understand it at once. But we say here first that an Australian ship is only to be a ship trading between certain ports, and then we provide that the term is to be applicable to a ship trading between Australia and other countries or among the States.
– - That is broad enough.
– My objection is that on the one hand it is proposed to limit the responsibilities of an Australian trade ship, and that by this new amendment it is proposed to make an Australian trade ship liable to the whole of the conditions of the Bill as long as she is registered in Australia.
– Where does the liability come in?
– We are proposing to throw certain responsibilities and liabilities upon the owners of an Australian trade ship. I should like the Minister to explain in the first place why it was considered necessary to introduce this amendment, and, in the next place, what was the use of introducing it? It would appear that the Government are doubtful as to our rights and powers in this respect, and that, therefore, they have inserted the following extraordinary provision : -
This Act shall be read and construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth, to the intent that where any enactment thereof would, but for this sub-section, be construed as being in excess of that power, it shall, nevertheless, be a valid enactment to the extent to which it is not in excess of that power.
So that practically the Government are inviting people to raise the question as to whether we are acting within or beyond our powers ; and then they want to save their face by saying that if the Court holds that we are acting beyond our powers in one clause, the whole Bill is not to be invalidated.
– It* is a mere precaution, and I think a wise one in the light of a previous decision of the High Court.
.- The decision of the High Court, to which the honorable senator alludes, was to the effect that where an integral portion of an Act was ultra vires, the whole Act was invalidated. But I can conceive of a small provision being beyond our powers, whilst not invalidating the whole Act.
– The whole of the Seamen’s Compensation Act was invalidated because of one provision.
– It is doubtless in consequence of that action of the High Court that the provision which I have quoted has been inserted. We must all be in sympathy with the desire to build up an Australian trade, but we must at the same time take care that we do not put people who engage in that trade in a very unfair position in competition with those foreign shipowners who trade with Australia. We provide in the new clause that Australian trade ships, when trading with other countries in competition with foreign ships, are to adopt certain scales of manning and accommodation, together with a multiplicity of other requirements. That is to say, we are going to put up these ships in competition with foreign ships with which we cannot interfere, and expect them to compete satisfactorily under such a handicap. I can quite understand a provision reserving the coasting trade for our own shipping, and setting out that if foreign vessels wish to participate in it, they shall conform to the conditions prescribed by our law. But here we are going beyond that in providing that a ship going abroad shall be bound by the conditions applicable to our coasting trade, although she will have to compete with foreign ships that are under no such obligation. Evi- dently, we are placing our shipping in a very unfair position. In clause 286 of the Bill it is provided that -
A ship shall be deemed to engage in the coasting trade if she takes on board passengers and cargo at any port in Australia, or at any Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth, to be carried to and landed or delivered at any other port in Australia or in any such Territory.
I assume that when making a provision in regard to our coasting trade, we are acting within our competency. But it is a difficult matter when we insert a provision affecting Australian trade ships engaging in trade or commerce with other countries. Take a foreign ship trading between Australia and Fiji. What authority have we to make her comply with this measure?
– All the authority in the world.
– We have no authority to make her comply, because she is not trading on our coast. We might as well attempt to say that a ship trading between Australia and America is an Australian-trade ship. Do honorable senators mean to tell me that we should be able to make our navigation law binding upon a French, German, or American ship trading between Australia and a foreign country?
– Why does Great Britain lay down conditions with regard to ships trading between British ports and the Continent ?
– Great Britain is a paramount Power, and any legislation which she passes has to be enforced, in the face of treaties and arrangements with other countries. But we have no power to bind the ships of any other nation.
– Are not foreign ships liable to our police laws?
– While they are in Australian waters; but we cannot say to a foreign ship that she shall not carry a bag of wheat from Melbourne to Fiji without our authority.
– We can say that the wheat shall not be placed on board.
– But that would be different legislation from that which we are now enacting. If we were foolish enough we could impose a duty on any commodities exported from this country, and the duty might be so enormous -that it would be ruinous to any one to export. But here we are foolishly and unfairly harassing ships registered in our own country. It would be far better for them to register in some other part of the world than here. Indeed, it is much more satisfactory for shipping companies to register their vessels in England than in Australia. Some of our Commonwealth lines of steamers are registered in London.
– Some British ships register in Hamburg and Antwerp to avoid British conditions. Holt’s Blue Funnel vessels do that.
– Then they are not British ships.
– They are Britishowned, but they register abroad because they want to carry what is no better than slave labour.
– They do that in order to get cheaper labour to enable them to compete with other British ships on more favorable terms. Under this Bill, Australian trade ships would certainly not be able to compete against such vessels. If honorable senators are going to take this line of action, they will prevent our vessels from competing with foreign ships. We ought to consider very carefully to what extent we should place harassing restrictions upon our shipping, and whether it would not be much better to place only such restrictions upon it as may- be regarded as fair and reasonable, taking into consideration the nature of the trade and the. competition. We should not attempt to destroy the building up of a mercantile marine, because the great protection of any country is to have a mercantile marine which is not registered in other parts of the world, but in its own ports. Our duty is to consider carefully the competition our ship-owners have to meet ; they cannot keep the trade entirely to themselves, but must share it with other nations. Apparently, honorable senators on the other side desire to place the trade under such conditions as will render it impossible for a firm whose ships are registered in Australia to compete with the foreigner.
– Are the conditions appli- . cable to British shipping high enough to suit you?
– Perhaps not. We can only legislate for the shipping of our own country. We cannot shut out the foreign competition between Sydney and Fiji ; therefore, we ought to take such steps as will enable our ship-owners to meet that competition on the best possible conditions. If we handicap our own shipping, we cannot possibly build up a mercantile marine. We know that the Powers which are attempting to rival Great Britain subsidize their ships very largely. Our ships do not receive any subsidies, but they have to fight foreign competition in the best way they can. As the competition they have to meet is very unfair, I appeal to honorable senators on the other side to not make the position more difficult for them by imposing on them a further handicap.
– I think that a short explanation of the clause will remove any necessity for further debate. A great many of Senator Gould’s remarks were directed, not to the clause, but rather to the whole scope of the measure. The clause itself clears the air, as it were, for what is to follow. There are certain matters in relation to which we have undoubted power. There are other matters regarding which our powers are not so clear, and new section1a sets out the position. It reads -
This Act shall not apply in relation to any Australian-trade ship, limited coast-trade ship, or river and bay ship, or her master or crew, unless the ship -
That covers all the matters with which the Bill purports to deal.
No one denies that we have this power.
That is where there is a conflict of opinion as to our powers. The statement which I quoted some time ago dealt particularly with that point. I shall read it again -
It is thought possible that the power conferred under the Merchant Shipping Act “ to regulate the coasting trade “ may be wider,so far as that trade is concerned, than that conferred by the Constitution.
The latter power is limited in its application to matters affecting ships trading Inter-State or with foreign countries. The regulation of the coasting trade, under the powers conferred by the Merchant Shipping Act is not, however, subject to any such limitation, and very possibly would be construed as giving power to control shipping engaged in trading between port and port anywhere along the coast, including trade confined within the limits of a State.
The power conferred by the Constitution no doubt gives us a certain amount of power to control Intra-State shipping, to the extent at any rate of imposing upon it obedience to such rules of . the road, &c, as are necessary to ensure the safety of Inter-State and foreign-going shipsusing the same waters, but no more. The power to “ regulate “ the trade would, oh the other hand, imply not only this, but such matters aswages, accommodation, discipline, &c.
That is the reason for the inclusion of paragraph b in this proposed new section. It continues -
That is practically to clothe ourselves with the power, in regard to the Northern Territory, which any State would have in regard to its waters, seeing that there we have undoubted power to do what a State can do within its jurisdiction. There we have explained the reason for each of the provisions. Unless a ship comes within the scope of paragraphs a, b, and c, the Bill does not deal with her, nor does it purport to do so. Therefore, the whole issue, so far as any issue may be raised as to powers, is narrowed down to those three matters. The second part of the proposed new section is designed to guard against the possibility of the whole Act being declared invalid, because of the possible invalidity of any of its provisions. It may be of no value, or it may be of some value. At any rate, it can do no harm, and it may be of some service.
– It covers a case like that of the Kalibia.
– In the opinion of the Government, it is worth while to enact the provision.
– Senator Gould asked if that is not in conflict with definitions contained in the ‘Bill.
– I do not think that there is anything in his argument.
– Read the definition.
– We say that an Australiantrade ship, if it is covered by paragraphs a, b, and c of this provision, is covered by the Bill. As regards the trade to Fiji, if it is an Australian-trade ship, it comes under the conditions of the Bill laid down for Australian-trade ships ; if it is a British ship, it comes under the conditions of the Bill laid down for British ships ; while if it is a foreign ship, it can only be controlled by the Bill in so far as it purports to deal with foreign ships. We know that in regard to foreign ships there is a serious limitation which the Bill does not purport to overcome, and cannot overcome. Therefore, the possibility of competition between foreign and British ships does arise, but will not arise because of the passing of this measure. It exists to-day, and always has existed; but, nevertheless, British ships have been able to hold their own, and may continue to do so. I ask the Committee to agree to the amendment, because it clarifies the position.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.40].- In his concluding remarks with regard to the competition between British and foreign ships, the Minister of Defence omitted to point out that this Bill increases the rate of wages.
– It contains no provision as to wages.
– It deals with the accommodation for seamen, and their victualling. Now, these provisions are, to a certain extent, handicaps upon our ships, and we should do the best we can to minimize them to the utmost possible extent. Take, for instance, the question of accommodation. In our measure we require 140 cubic feet of space to be provided for each seaman. The British Act, 1 think, required 7 2 feet until the space was increased. The Bill which was introduced here some years ago provided for increased accommodation. I forget whether it provided for 100 or 120 cubic feet. Certain ship-owners who were going to trade with Australia made provision accordingly, but now they find themselves confronted with the necessity of providing 140 cubic feet for each seaman. That is only one instance showing how the expenditure is being piled up against our own ship-owners. It would be far better, I think, to limit the Australian trade to Australiantrade ships within the waters which we may regard as our own. In Great Britain they have increased the accommodation considerably. A great deal of evidence was given some time ago as regards the necessity for that increased accommodation, and it was the extreme space which the Commonwealth Government adopted. Whilst I believe thoroughly in building up an Australian marine on fair and reasonable conditions, at the same time I do not want to handicap our own ship-owners when they are attempting to compete with foreign ships in waters where we have no authority.
Senator GUTHRIE (South Australia) ments which have come from Senator Gould. In one breath he said that he was prepared to give every assistance to build up a mercantile marine, but in the- next breath he said that we must not demand any better terms from an Australian shipowner than a foreigner.
– I did not say anything of the kind. I said that I did dot want the Bill to handicap our ship-owners.
– The honorable senator knows as well as I that the Bill contains no provision dealing with wages. In that respect we are not imposing any conditions on any one who likes to come to Australia to trade. I ask the honorable senator if he would feed his dog on the food which is provided for in the victualling scale. He tells us that we ought to come down to the same feeding scale as that of the foreigner.
– I have not done anything of the kind. I said that we should be guided by the scale in the Merchant Shipping Act.
– As regards the question of accommodation, would the honorable senator like to live, as the Imperial Act and some foreign laws lay down, in 72 cubic feet of space? He kicks up row enough now when he has to travel from Melbourne to Sydney in 200 cubic feet of space, and that for one night only. Fancy a man being cooped up in a compartment measuring 3 by 3 by .6 feet for three months. Not only has a sailor to sleep in 72 cubic feet of space, but he has to take his meals there, and do everything else that may be necessary. It is said that we are handicapping our ship-owners bv requiring them to provide 140 cubic feet of space. The statement is absolutely preposterous. We merely say to the shipowners “ If you treat your men decently we will give you some rights; we will reserve the coasting trade for you.” I shall cordially support a provision that not only every coasting ship, but every ship which engages a man in Australia, shall have the benefit of the conditions laid down in the Bill, or better if possible. I do not think we are asking too much. In fact, the shipowners have virtually conceded everything which is provided for in the Bill, and a bit more. The food which is supplied to-day on our coast is worth 50 per cent, more than the food provided for in the Bill. I hope that Senator Gould will help me to keep competitors off who are paying low wages, feeding the men badly, and providing bad accommodation.I shall give him an opportunity to say whether he is prepared to keep the trade for Australia, or to allow Dutchmen to come in and take our trade from us. I think that the Minister has satisfactorily explained why the clause is worded as it is. I realize the danger of passing the Bill without such a provision. When the first case was heard under the Seamen’s Compensation Act, the Act was ruled ultra vires, on the ground that we had exceeded our constitutional power in one small particular. I think that the Government are wise in providing that if an unconstitutional provision is found in this measure of nearly 500 clauses, not the whole Act, but only that part shall be held to be invalid by the High Court.
– Viewing this matter superficially, it is not difficult to understand the objection raised by Senator Gould, because an Australian-trade ship has to be viewed in two aspects. A ship may be engaged in trading between Australian ports, and between Australia and New Zealand or the Islands of the Pacific, and the same ship may be engaged in trading to other countries from Australia. Honorable senators will recognise that it may be necessary, on occasions, to extend the provisions of this Bill to an Australian-trade ship trading with other countries. We have examples of Australian ships finding profitable employment in taking miners from Australia to Klondike. To exclude an Australian ship, under such circumstances, from the operation of this Bill would be decidedly unfair to the Australian seamen employed on board the vessel. The company owning the vessel undertakes the voyage because it pays them well to do so; and it is only fair that the Australian seamen on the ship should derive some benefit from the profits which the owners expect to derive from such a voyage. We know that profitable charters can be obtained from Australia, and they are taken up by Australian-trade ships. It is not unreasonable that the Australian seamen engaged upon them should share to some extent in the profits reaped by the owners.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.54].- I should probably not have spoken again on this clause had it not been for the remarks of Senator Guthrie. It is entirely wrong to say that Australian- trade ships will be required to give only the same accommoda tion, rates of wages, and food as are supplied by foreign-owned ships. I think I made it perfectly clear, when contending, that we should not unduly handicap our ships, that if they were exempt, under certain conditions, from the provisions of this Bill, they would come under the Merchant Shipping Act, and so would be obliged to provide accommodation, rates of wages, and conditions very much better than those provided by foreign-owned ships. Senator Guthrie told the Committee that there is not a single clause in this Bill dealing with the question of wages. If he will look at the provisions affecting the coasting trade, he will see that before a ship can get a licence the seamen employed upon her are to be paid the wages ruling in Australia for seamen employed in the coasting trade ; so that we clearly do provide in this Bill for the payment of an Australian rate of wages to seamen engaged in vessels trading along our coast.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 5 (Definitions).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit definition of “ River and bay ship “ and insert the following definition : - “ River and bay ship includes every ship which trades exclusively within the limits of any port, bay, or river, or within prescribed limits in any gulf or gulfs within the Commonwealth, including a Territory being part of the Commonwealth.”
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
I do not know that any explanation of the amendment is necessary. The object is to bring within the operation of the Bill vessels used on land-locked waters, such as Lake Wendouree, at Ballarat.
Motion agreed to.
Remaining amendments to clause 5 agreed to.
New clauses5a, and 8a, and amendments to clauses 11, 12, 22, 35, and 37, and the omission of clause 28, agreed to.
Clause 38 - (1.) No seaman shall be permitted to engage in any capacity unless he delivers to the superintendent, or in the case of a limited coast-trade ship of less than fifteen gross registered tonnage, to the person engaging him -
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Insert after “ tonnage “ “ or a river and bay ship.”
– I have circulated a consequential amendment in connexion with this clause, and I move -
That the amendment be agreed to with the following consequential amendment, viz., leave out “fifteen” and insert in lieu thereof “fifty.’”
This is consequential -upon amendments already agreed to substituting 50 for 15 tons gross registered tonnage. The amendment is consequential upon one proposed to be made in clause 44. It is desired to permit a seaman on a river and bay ship, and a limited coast-trade ship of under 50 tons gross register, to be engaged by the master on board the ship, as is done at present, without having to go before a superintendent. The present system has worked well in the past, and,’ so far as is known, has never been abused. There is really no difference between the engagement of these men and the engagement of workers on shore, and there is consequently no necessity for the supervision and sanction of a superintendent. Provision is made in the Bill to prevent the practice of crimping, or shanghai-ing, by which men are signed on illegally for deep-sea ships. That is prevented by requiring their engagement to be made before a superintendent. It was never contemplated that such a provision should apply to river and bay ships. The amendment I am now propos-‘ ing will exempt the small ships referred to fr om that provision.
– I hope the Committee will not agree to the proposal. We have established a shipping office under this Bill for the protection of seamen, and if the amendment now proposed be agreed to, we might as well abolish shipping offices throughout the Commonwealth, and so effect a very considerable saving. The provision we have made for the protection . of seamen is necessary for every seaman who has to go to sea.
– These men will not have to go to sea.
– Some of them will. A limited coast-trade ship may have a voyage of 400 miles, and men on board may be away from their home port for six months. I think that it is absolutely necessary that those agreements should be witnessed by a Government official. What is proposed now is that these men shall sign their agreements on board the ship. They will be witnessed by a clerk, or some agent of the ship-owner, and, though the men will be bound by them, the ship-owners will not. When we have established shipping offices, we should make use of them. It must not be forgotten that we impose a tax upon seamen in connexion with these agreements. A seaman must pay is. every time he signs on, and is. for every, discharge.
– We should not use a steel hammer to drive in a brass tack.
– The honorable senator’s interjection has no application to what I am saying. We are dealing now with ships engaged in the coasting trade, and I believe that the proposal is suggested by the Free Labour Association, who want to employ men at their own offices, and’ prevent them being signed on at a shipping office. I may say that, so far as I can discover, there is no power under the Bill to compel a man to go before a superintendent. That has, in some way, been omitted, and an amendment in that direction is absolutely necessary. We make provision for a superintendent, but what he is to do I do not know. We should see that men sign articles before a superintendent who can properly explain to them the nature of the agreements they sign.
– The time was when, as Senator Guthrie has said, it was necessary that strict precautions should be taken to see that seamen, when being engaged, were not taken advantage of, and did not sign their names to agreements which would be to their disadvantage.
– The honorable senator knows what happens in Newcastle.
– I was just going to refer to that. We are dealing here with Australian seamen, and they do not require to be dry-nursed or treated as children. Many of the men who sign on at Newcastle are foreign seamen, who do not understand the English language. They sign on for deep-sea ships, and may be taken advantage of, and it is right that their articles should be signed before a superintendent. In the matter of intelligence they are generations behind the Australian seamen. The case of -Australian seamen engaged in the restricted Australian trade, with which we are dealing in this clause, is quite dissimilar.
Motion agreed to.
Amendments to clauses 39,, 41, 42, ‘and 44 agreed to.
-I think we should have some explanation of these amendments. It is -impossible for us to understand what their effect will be.
– If it is the wish of the Committee, I shall read out each amendment.
Clause 46 - (1.) If a seaman who has signed the agreement is not on board at , the time specified in the agreement and the master engages a substitute -
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After “.agreement” insert “or if within twenty-four hours of the ship’s putting to sea the services of a seaman are lost by death, desertion, or other unforeseen cause.”
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
This amendment is to remedy an omission in the Bill, The clause at present provides that the master may engage substitutes in the place of’ seamen who fail to join at the time specified in the agreement; that, is, newlyengaged men ; but no provision is made for the engagement of substitutes in the place of any seaman already belonging to the ship who deserts at the last moment. The alteration, proposed is on the lines of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act 1894, section 115, the New Zealand Shipping and Seamen Act1908, section 42, and the Canadian Shipping Act 1906, section 156.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 48 - (1.) An agreement may be made for a voyage, or, if the voyages oi the ship average less than six months in duration, may be made to extend over two or more voyages, and agreements so made to extend over two or more voyages are in this Act referred to as “ running agreements.” (2.) A running agreement shall not extend beyond six months from the date thereof -.
Provided that every such agreement shall, in any case, remain in force until the ship reaches a port of destination, and the crew - shall be considered engaged when the agreement is first signed, and discharged when the employment ends.
Provided further that when a ship the crew of which have been engaged under a running agreement which has been in foTce more than six months reachesa port other than a port of destination, and the ship is not then on her way back to the port of discharge mentioned in the agreement, the crew shall be entitled to claim their discharge, and the master or owner shall be liable to provide themwith a passage to the port of discharge or to such other port as is mutually agreed towith the approval of the superintendent.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit the words “ ship reaches a port of destination “ and insert “ ship’s arrival at a port of destination and the discharge of cargo consequent on that arrival.”
.-I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
This amendment is designed to bring the clause into agreement with the usual prac tice on our coast. The articles of agreement in general use on the Australian coast provide for voyages not exceeding six months “ or the first arrival at Melbourne, Sydney, &c., as the case may be, after the expiry of that time, and the discharge of’ cargo consequent upon such arrival.” It is necessary that until the cargo is out, the crew should be available for watching, cleaning the ship, &c.
– Why this amendment should have been inserted I cannot understand. It is true that there was a similar provision in the Imperial Act of 1854, but it was designed for sailing ships. The wages of the men were dependent upon the earnings of the ship, and they had to remain until the cargo was out. Sometimes men had to wait six months before they got their wages. But the present conditions are entirely different. When a seaman reaches the home port he can nowadays leave by giving twenty-four hours’ notice, whether the cargo is or is not out of the ship. The question of cargo has nothing to do with the right of the man to leave the ship.
– Can the seaman be called upon to help to discharge the cargo?
– No ; this Bill prevents him, and says that he shall not discharge the cargo. I cannot for the life of me understand why the amendment was inserted. Just as a seaman can leave by giving twenty-four hours’ notice on reaching the home port, so the master can discharge a seaman by giving twenty-four hours’ notice. But under this amendment the master will be able to say, “ As the cargo is not out of the ship I cannot give you your discharge,” and before twenty-four hours have expired the ship may be at sea again. The Committee will be ‘well advised to reject the amendment, because I do not see any necessity for preventing a man from getting his discharge until the cargo has been removed from the ship. Under present circumstances, freight on cargo is generally paid as soon as the stuff is put on board.
– That is not alwavs so.
– To a very large extent freight is prepaid, and there is no necessity to keep the seamen waiting until the ship has earned the money to pay them. Nowadays men are paid monthly, whether the ship has earned her money or not.
– Senator
Guthrie says that under this clause a seaman would not be able to give twenty-four hours’ notice to leave- . the ship, and might be taken to sea . again’ against his wish. But that situation could not arise under the clause, which relates to the termination of the agreement. Consequently the seaman could not be taken to sea again. Every honorable senator ought to be well seized of the fact that what is here proposed is the present practice. Did Senator Guthrie never hear of the agreement in respect of the steamship Karoola, belonging to Mcllwraith, McEacharn and Company? This is an agreement between the employer and the seamen, who belong to a union of which Senator Guthrie is the president. The agreement provides -
The several persons whose names are hereto subscribed . . . are engaged as sailors, and hereby agree to serve on board the said ship in the several capacities expressed against their respective names on a voyage from Melbourne to any port or ports in the Australian States trading to and fro in any succession of voyages for a period not extending beyond the 31st day of December, 1912, or until the first arrival at Melbourne after the expiry of that time, and the discharge of cargo consequent upon such arrival.
– That is not an award of the Court; it is a copy of the ship’s articles.
– It is an agreement to which Senator Guthrie’s own union have not. objected, and under which men are working to-day. We are simply giving effect to the practice in regard to our coastal shipping.
– Senator Pearce has quoted from a copy, of a ship’s articles. But the award of the Arbitration Court absolutely gives a seaman the right to leave at the home port, whether cargo has or has not been dis- charged. These conditions creep into ship’s articles through the laxity of the superintendents of mercantile marine.
– What . was the document to which the honorable senator put his name?
– It was an award of the Court which provides that a seaman shall’ be entitled, in the home port, to be discharged upon giving twenty-four hours’ notice, whilst the master also can discharge a man by giving the same notice. There is not a word about cargo in the award. The form quoted is being used in shipping offices in Melbourne, and is to-day obsolete. Such a condition ought not to be put in. A seaman is entitled to his discharge, quite irrespective of whether the cargo is in the ship or not. Take the case of . a ship coming to Melbourne with a cargo of coal. Say that the owner thinks that it would be to his advantage to keep the coal in the ship for three or four weeks. Is he going to keep the crew three or four weeks before he discharges them? The award of the Court makes no reference to the discharge of cargo, but simply provides that a man shall be entitled to his discharge by giving twenty-four hours’ notice.
– The agreement from which I quoted also makes reference to giving twenty-four hours’ notice.
– But the twentyfour hours’ notice in the clause now under consideration would ‘ not have effect unless the cargo was discharged. I wish to quote from the award of the Court. It provides- that -
The master may discharge any seaman at his home port if he give him not less than 24. hours’ notice on a day other than Saturday, and. if the notice be not less than ‘24 hours beforethe ship leaves the home port.
– Read on.
– The award also says -
Any member of the crew may end his engagement at his home port if he give notice as aforesaid.. If the ship be -laid up in any port other thanhis home port any seaman may be discharged’ on 24 hours’ notice. But in that case the seaman, shall be provided by the employer with a free passage to his home port with wages up to thetime at which in due course he should arrivethereat.
– That is in this agreement as well.
– But under this amendment the master would be able to keep the seamen until the cargo was discharged.
– No; that matter is. provided for in other clauses of the Bill.
– I know pf no provision of the kind.
– Was the point about thedischarge of cargo raised before the Arbitration Court?
– Yes, it was raised; but the Judge’s award made no allusion tothe discharge of cargo. It simply provided for the twenty-four hours’ notice onreaching the home port. I hope that , theamendment will be rejected.
– SenatorGuthrie is quite wrong in saying that no provision is made in the Bill in regard to ment having a right to their discharge, quite apart from the discharge of cargo- Sub-clause 2 of clause 48 contains the words-
Provided further that when a ship, the crew of which have been engaged under a running agreement which has been in force more than six months, reaches a port other than the port of destination, and the ship is not then on her way back to the port of discharge mentioned in the agreement, the crew shall be entitled to claim their discharge, and the master or owner shall be liable to provide them with a passage to the port of discharge or to such other port as is mutually agreed to with the approval of the superintendent.
The agreement from which I have already quoted embodies the paragraph about the discharge of the cargo. It states -
These articles, so far as the master and officers, and the deck and stoke-hold hands, and the galley and the steward’s staff are concerned are subject to the conditions of the agreement and awards of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration dated31st December, 1910, 1st December,1911, 27th November, 1908, and 10th May,1910, respectively.
There follows a number of paragraphs, including the paragraph which Senator Guthrie read, and which I maintain does not conflict with the provision of the Bill which I have quoted. The two are not in conflict at all, as is shown by the fact that in this same agreement is included the part of the award of the Arbitration Court Which Senator Guthrie read.
– It is not the same paragraph ; it leaves out a material condition.
– I will read it. It is paragraph 9, which is as follows : - ‘
In one port only, viz., Melbourne, but not elsewhere, the master may discharge any seaman if he give hia) not less than 24 hours’ notice on a day other than Saturday, and if the notice bc not less than 24 hours before the vessel sails. Any seaman may end his engagement at the port aforesaid if he give such notice as aforesaid. If the ship be laid up in any port other than the port where- the articles were drawn up, the seamen shall accept their discharge with wages then due, and shall be entitled to a free passage back to the port where the articles were drawn up.
If any honorable senator can distinguish a difference between that and the paragraph which Senator Guthrie read I shall be glad to have it pointed out.
– Would that paragraph allow a seaman to leave’ within twentyfour hours?
– If the engagement were terminated. If it were not terminated the seaman, in my opinion, could not leave until the cargo was discharged ; and the reason for that is that during that time there would be certain duties to be performed, such as going on watch, cleaning the ship, &c. My point, however, is that this is the present practice.
– No, it is not.
– I have established that by quoting from the agreement ; and the amendment which I am asking the Committee to accept does not vary the existing agreement which has been arrived at, and under which members of the Seamen’s Union are to-dav working amicably.
– The members of the Seamen’s Union to-day are working under an award of the Court, and not under articles drawn up by any shipping master. I believe that honorable senators will support the award of the Court, which does not make any provision for a seaman being unable to get his discharge until the cargo is discharged. If we are going to put into this Bill something which the Court has not included in its award we shall be overriding the award.
– Surely we cannot do that?
– We can override the award of the Court if we choose, but I do not want, to do so. As a rule, the ship-owners prepare a printed slip to put into the articles and, in addition to that, they state that as between the Seamen’s Union and themselves, between the Merchant Service Guild and themselves, and between the Engineers and themselves, the awards of the Court will be binding.
– How would it do to postpone the clause?
– I think that we might as well drop the clause as postpone it, because it is useless. Our men will never obey the provision, but will stick to the award of the Court.
– Do they not obey the agreement ?
– The award of the Court is our agreement with’ the shipowners, not an agreement which is signed in a shipping office.
– In order to clear up this point, I move -
That the amendment be postponed.
– There is an omission in this clause, I think. The second proviso contains these words -
The crew shall be entitled to claim their discharge, and the master or owner shall be liable to provide them with a passage to the port of discharge.
In the case I cited the Court not only gave the men a passage, but wages. I hope thatthe Minister- will see his -way to insert the word “ wages ‘’ after’ the word “ passage.” I wish to put honorable senators in possession of the Court’s decision -
If the ship be laid up in any port other thanhis home port any seaman . may. be discharged on 24 hours’ notice. But in that case the seaman shall be provided by the employer with a free passage to his home port with wages up to the time at which in due course he should arrive thereat.
That is what the Court decided is a- fair thing, but it is omitted from the Bill. I hope that the Minister will see his way to repair the omission.
– I shall give that point consideration with the other.
– I think that on the whole the Minister has done well, because Senator Guthrie is certainly fighting a strong case. He is basing his contention now on a very important principle, to which I beg to direct attention. He has quoted the award of a Court, and practically taken up the position that we must take the law from the Court. That is, I think, a principle which we should avoid. I hope that the Minister will not allow the decision of any Court to coerce our judgment. I hope that within its powers Parliament will always legislate for the Courts and the people of the country.
Motion agreed to ; amendment postponed.
House ofRep re sentatives’ Amendment. - Omit “ superintendent,” insert “ proper -authority.”
– A definition of “ proper authority “ has been inserted in clause 5. It will be seen from the definition that where there is a superintendent - and there will be one at every port in Australia - he is the proper authority. Where there is no superintendent, as in foreign ports, it will be the British Consul, and where there is no British Consul it will be any reputable British merchant. This amendment will bring the clauses into agreement in that respect with the Act.It seems to me that it is the best arrangement that can be made, because it is obvious that we cannot appoint superintendents in foreign countries. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 50 - (1.) The master of every ship shall, before leaving any port, sign and send to the superintendent, on the prescribed form, a full and accurate statement of every change which takes place in his crew up to the time of sailing.
Penalty : Five pounds. (a:) ‘ Such statement . shall be admissible in evidence.
House of Representatives’ Amendment.-Omit sub-clause1 and insert the following new subclause : - “ (1.) The master of every foreign-going ship shall, before finally leaving Australia, sign and send to the nearest superintendent, on the prescribed form, a full and accurate statement of every change which takes place in his crew before finally leaving Australia.
Penalty : Five pounds.”
– The clause imposes a most unnecessary burden upon the masters of coasting ships. The Bill elsewhere requires that a change of crew shall, whenever possible, be made before a superintendent, and that returns shall be sent in of any substitutes engaged at the last moment, so that full information will be made available in regard to -these matters. We can safely make the amendment, and relieve ship-masters of an unnecessary hardship, because we shall have in the Bill the necessary safeguards on behalf of the seamen.
– Suppose that the master of a foreign-going ship does not comply with the provision, but sails away some fine morning, how shall we be able to catch him and enforce the penalty? I have in my mind the case of tbe Papanui, which left this port without saying so much as “by your leave.” She left in a very cheeky way, and the captain snapped his fingers at the authorities.
-She was on a foreign register.
– But this provision specially deals with foreign-going ships. I shall be only too pleased if it can be enforced against a master who slips away without giving this necessary information. It seems rather a light fine, though, to provide for, in the event of his return.
– There was no sneaking away in the case of the Papanui, because the authorities had a week’s notice of her intention to leave this port.
– They ought to have blown her up.’
– If this measure had been in force then, the Papanui could not have got away ; that was the trouble.
– I am getting the information in driblets. Further, why should there not be a proviso, similar to that which appeared- in . the original Bill, as to ships engaged in the coasting trade? Take the case of a vessel which leaves Melbourne for New Zealand. If changes are made in the crew, and a wreck occurs afterwards, with loss of lives, the relatives of those who shipped on the vessel - perhaps at the. last moment - will, seeing that no record is kept, be at a loss to know what has become of them. It is not right, I think, to deprive any persons of the possibility of identifying those who have gone to sea in a ship, no matter how small she may be.
– That would.be an Australian-trade ship, not a foreign-going ship.
– I cannot gather from the Minister’s explanation why the proviso should be confined to foreign-going ships only.
– The same remark applies to the passengers in a ship.
– The names of the pas- sengers, unless they are trying to get away incognito, are recorded in books, and sometimes published in the press.
– If Senator Rae will read clauses 44, 45, and 46, he will see the exact process which is adopted in regard to all ships. He will find that an agreement has to be signed before the superintendent, and a record kept. And if he will refer to clause51, he will find that the agreement has to be exhibited, and that under clause 52, the master of a foreign-going ship is required, within 48 hours of his arrival in an Australian port, or upon the discharge of his crew, whichever first happens, to deliver the agreement of the superintendent, including any alterations which may have been made. Frequently changes occur just before a ship leaves on a foreign voyage. A desertion may occur, perhaps, when the tug is going off ; and then the information can be sent to the superintendent by the pilot. But if a ship clears out without her master furnishing the information, the ship can only be dealt with when she comes back. Like the provision in the Customs Act requiring the lockers on a ship to be sealed while she is within our jurisdiction, this provision cannot be enforced if the master of a ship breaks it just when he leaves port and never comes back.
Senator ST. LEDGER (Queensland) planation is fairly satisfactory. The provision reminds me of the position1 of- Dick Swiveller and the roads to the cookshops: Sometimes criminals escape, and that, ‘ of course, is regrettable.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 51 - (1.) The master of every ship shall, at the beginning of every voyage, cause a legible copy of the agreement (omitting signatures) to be posted up in some part of the ship . which is accessible to the” crew, and shall use all reasonable precautions to keep it so posted during the voyage. (2.) No person shall wilfully deface or de stroy any such copy.
Penalty : Five pounds.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After “ voyage,” insert “ or engagement.”
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Under the clause as it stands, it will be necessary for the master to post up a copy of the agreement at the beginning of the voyage. In the case of the coast-trade ships, a voyage seldom lasts more than a few weeks, perhaps only a few days. Sub-clause 2 makes provision, to prevent any copy of the agreement being defaced.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 52 -
The master of every, foreign-going ship shall, within forty-eight hours after arrival in any port in Australia or upon the discharge of his crew, whichever first happens, deliver the agreement to the superintendent ….
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit “ in any port,” insert “ at her final port of destination.”
Sentaor PEARCE (Western AustraliaMinister of Defence) [5.52]. - I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
As the Bill left the Senate there was considerable overlapping in this matter. In clauses 52, 164, and 168, the master was required to deposit with the superintendent all documents relating to his crew ; but different periods were provided for. Under this clause the term allowed was forty-eight hours after arrival in any port. Under clause 164 the time was twenty-four hours, and under clause 168 it had to be done immediately. In the amendments which are being considered a uniform practice is provided for.
Motion agreed to.
Amendments to clauses 56 and 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 - (1.) A seaman not shipped in Australia shall not be discharged (except at the end of his service at the time specified in his agreement)un- less, the master has previously obtained the sanction of the superintendent indorsed on theagreement. (3.) A master of a ship not complying with this section shall be. guilty of an indictable offence, and in any legal proceeding for the offence it shalllie on the master to prove that the sanction was obtained or could not be obtained or was unreasonably withheld.
House of Representatives’ Amendments. - Omit “or could not be obtained” and add to clause “ and it shall bc a good defence if the master proves that under the circumstances it was not reasonably practicable for him to apply for the sanction.”
– I move-
That the amendments be agreed to.
It would be a good defence, under tbe clause as it left the Senate, . for the master to prove that the sanction of the superintendent could not be obtained. But if the superintendent refused his sanction, it would still be true that it could not be obtained. To Temove any ambiguity, it is proposed to omit the words “ or could not be obtained “ and provide that it shall be a good defence if the master proves that, in the circumstances, it was not reasonably practicable for him to apply for the sanction of the superintendent. This will put in plain language the real intention of the words proposed to be omitted.
Motion . agreed to.
Clause 61 -
No person shall give to any seaman a discharge which falsely indicates the capacity in which the seaman actually served…..
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After “served” insert “or the time during which he served in that capacity.”
.- I move-
That the amendment be agreed to.
The clause, as it stands, provides against false discharges in respect of the capacity in which a seaman has actually served but it is equally important that the discharge should be correct in regard to the time he has actually served. The amendment is intended to provide that that shall also be correctly stated.
Motion agreed to.
Amendments to clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 68 - (1.) A seaman engaged in Australia on a foreign-going ship for a voyage calculated to exceed two months may, before the commencement of the voyage, make stipulations, subject to the approval of the superintendent as to terms and conditions, for the allotment, during his absence, by means of an allotment note - of any portion (not exceeding one-half) of the wages which he may earn on the voyage.
House of Representatives’ Amendments. - Omit “ (not exceeding one-half) “ ; insert the following new sub-clause : - (1a) Except by agreement with the master an allotment note shall not provide for payment of a greater sum than onehalf of the seaman’s wages.
– I move -
That the amendments be agreed to.
By the first amendment we provide that by mutual agreement between master and seaman the whole of the seaman’s wages may be allotted. The new sub-clause proposed will give the seaman a right to the allotment of one-half of his wages, and so will place him in a better position. It is. in conformity with the most recent Imperial legislation on the point.
– I see no necessity for this clause or the proposed new sub-clause. If the master can make an agreement with a seaman for the allotment of the whole of his wages, it is unnecessary to put a provision to that effect in the Bill. The point is that the Bill will not compel the master to do so. If it did I should have no objection to it. It may be that a master will not agree to make any such allotment. A seaman may be engaged for a voyage which will occupy six months or twelve months, and if the master does not consent to make an allotment of his wages, his wife and family will have to wait for his money until his return.
– Does not clause 68 make an allotment obligatory?
– Yes, it does in respect to one-half of the wages.
– But that is only with respect to an allotment, to the sea, man’s grandparents, parents, wife, brothers, sisters, children, or grandchildren.
– Or to a Savings Bank, which would be his own account.
– I think that it should be absolutely obligatory upon the master to grant an allotment if it is required. It should nob be left to the master to say whether he will grant it or not. Why should a ship-owner have the use of a seaman’s money for twelve months for nothing when he might be getting interest on it in a Savings Bank?
– Senator Guthrie does not appear to realize that the amendment will give a seaman the right to an allotment of one-half of, his wages, and’ by agreement with the master he may secure an allotment of the whole of his wages.
– One-half “of the wages every month ?
– That is so. Senator Guthrie is entirely wrong in saying that the ship-owner will have the benefit of the whole of the seaman’s money until the termination of the voyage, because he will be able’ to stipulate for an allotment of onehalf, of his wages to be paid every month to his own account in a Savings Bank, or to any of his relatives he may name. I take it that half of the seaman’s wages is retained as a security that his agreement will be carried out, but under the clause it will be optional for the master to consent to an allotment of the whole of the seaman’s wages.
– There is no provision in the Bill to compel a seaman to provide for the support of his wife and family by securing the payment to them of one-half of his wages.
Motion agreed to.
Amendment to clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 74 - (3.) The master shall during the voyage enter in a book as they occur, the various matters in respect of which any deductions from wages are made and the amounts of the respective deductions, and no deduction shall be allowed unless so entered.
House of Representatives’ Amendments. - After “ book “ insert “ to be kept for that purpose;” after “deductions” insert “which shall be initialed or signed by the ‘seaman.”
– I move -
That the amendments be agreed to.
These amendments are designed to protect seamen in regard to deductions on account of moneys advanced and goods sold by the master. ‘ Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that unscrupulous ship-masters have sometimes practically forced men to desert, leaving a considerable amount in wages due to them. The masters have then manipulated the stores’ accounts and advance notes in such a way as to divert the wages due to the seamen into their own pockets. The ‘ amendments are calculated to prevent a continuance of such practices.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 75 (Time for payment of wages on foreign-going ships).
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Insert the following new sub-clause : - (1a) In cases where the seamen are engaged on time or running agreement on an Australian-trade or limited coasttrade ship, all wages earned shall be paid monthly not later than the first day of each month, or thereafter within twenty-four hours after the ship first arrives at any port in Australia at which there is a bank.
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
The object of this and the following amendment is to make our intention more clear. Clause 76 is being omitted and inserted as a sub-clause of clause 75, to which it properly belongs- It is recognised that the various capitals of Australia are connected by telegraph, and banking facilities are available at many ports, and there is no reason why provision should not be made for the regular payment of wages on ships going round the coast.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [6.10].- I find that wages are to be paid, monthly, and not later than’ the first day of each month. Under the clause which it is proposed to omit, provision was made for the payment of wages not later than the first or second day of each month. It is doubtful whether it is desirable to make the proposed amendment A ship may arrive at a port on the afternoon of the first day of themonth, and there may be no opportunity for the master to obtain money to pay wages-
– “ Or thereafter within twenty-four hours after the ship first arrives at any port in Australia at which there is a bank.”
-If a ship is at sea on the first day of the month, is the master supposed to pay his men on that day, or can he wait until the ship gets into port, and pay within twenty-four hours of her arrival ?
– The Arbitration Court fixed the first day of the month as the day ‘ on which wages are to bepaid.
– Say that she arrives at 12 o’clock on Saturday, and that the banks have closed. Twenty-four hours after that would bring us up to noon on Sunday.
– Sunday is recognised’ as a dies non.
.- The ship might leave on the
Sunday, and there would be no opportunity of paying the seamen until she arrived at another port. I would sooner see provision made for paying the men not later than the second day of each month. It would be fair to insert “ second “ instead of “ first.”
– I do not see any necessity for an alteration in this amendment, which embodies what has been the custom for years.
– When we dealt with the Navigation Bill originally, why did we provide for payment before the second day of the month?
– I was not here at the time, and do not know. Under the award of the Court, wages are due on the first day of each month. All other workmen that I know of, except seamen, are paid weekly. Seamen are paid monthly, and it is only just that they should get what is due to them on the first day after the month has expired. I hope that the present custom will not be disturbed.
– I do not altogether agree with the suggestion of Senator Gould, but it seems to me that we might meet the case easily. Suppose that a ship arrives in port just after banking hours on Saturday, and leaves at 5 o’clock on the Monday morning. The seamen might not then be able to get their wages.
– There has been no trouble in that direction in the past.
– I think that we ought to insert some such words as “ all wages earned shall be paid monthly, not later than the nearest banking day to the end of each month.”
– Some date must be mentioned.
– I do not know why. 1 move -
That the word “first” be left out of the amendment, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “nearest banking.”
– I am afraid that Senators Chataway and Gould misunderstand the intention of the amendment. It simply prescribes the time within which wages may run. It is not a question of fixing a payday so much as fixing a period between one pay-day and another. It is usual on the Australian coast to pay seamen’s wages monthly, and sub-clause 2 provides a reasonable time after the first of the month.
The clause is sufficiently elastic to provide that if a ship arrives late on Saturday night, and wages are then due, there need not be payment before the Monday morning.
– She may leave early on Monday morning.
– The longest voyage on our coasting trade is about four days. If this clause were intended for foreign-going ships, there would be something in the honorable senator’s contention.
– An Australian-trade ship would take longer than four days in going from Western Australia to Fiji.
– Take the case of a ship going from Sydney to Port Moresby, and from there to Samarai, Suva; and, possibly, Noumea.
– I should say that it would be possible for the seamen to be paid at any of those ports.
– Are there banks there ?
– I should think there are; and, if there is not- a bank,” the ship would have an agent. I see no need for an alteration.
– I remind the Committee that the Acts Interpretation Act, which governs all Commonwealth legislation, provides, in section 36, that -
Where the last day of any period prescribed or allowed by an Act for the doing of anything falls on a Sunday, ,or on any day which is a public or a bank holiday throughout the Commonwealth, or throughout a State or part of the Commonwealth in which the thing is to be or may be done, the thing may be done on the first day following which is not a Sunday or such public or bank holiday.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [6.22].- On the first day of the month a ship may be at sea, and she may arrive in port on the second day. Suppose that there is no bank at the port.
– The ship’s agent would have money. ‘
– This sub-clause says that the money shall be paid on the first day after the end of each month. I understand from the Minister that it is not proposed to pay seamen at sea on the first day of the month. Suppose a ship arrives at a port on the second or third day of the month, and that there is no bank there.
– At what port is there no bank?
– In such a case, the seamen would have to wait for their wages until the ship came to a port where there was a bank. That practically means that a sailor is not entitled to be paid except at a port where there is a bank.
– That is so.
– The clause might have been so worded as to make the meaning quite clear. It requires the Minister’s explanation, and a statement of the practice that has been pursued hitherto, in order to arrive at what he says is the meaning.
– I do not think that the Acts Interpretation Act, which the Minister has quoted, applies to Territories of the Commonwealth; and it certainly does not apply to places outside our territorial waters, and which we cannot reach by our law.
– It applies to the interpretation of all Commonwealth Acts, and, therefore, affects the interpretation of this Bill.
Progress reported.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to8p.m.
page 4910
Debate resumed from 25th July(vide page 1269), on motion by Senator Chataway -
That, in the opinion of the Senate, it is desirable to amend the Old-age and Invalid Pensions Act,with a view to authorizing the Government to render assistance to beneficiaries under the Act.
.- It is a little over two months since this motion was moved by Senator Chataway, and during the day I have read the speeches made by himself and Senator Findley. My idea is that not enough precautions are taken in distributing the oldage pensions, especially in the larger towns. It is not so much the case in the bush. I do not blame the Government, but the system under which the money is handed over to the individuals, or to some persons whom they have selected for the purpose. There is no supervision as to the expenditure. It is the business of no one to see that the best use is made of the money. A great many of the pensioners are practically too old to be able to look after themselves. They have no friends or relatives, and very likely before the close of the day the money is gone, and they are in as bad a state as they were when it was paid to them. I suggest that the Government should inaugurate a system under which pensioners who are old or infirm could be assisted to look after themselves. Some pensioners are either broken down in health or their minds are not too strong, and the pension is wasted. Very often pensioners are found lying dead. It would not cost the country much to inaugurate a system under which a person would, upon the payment of the pension, undertake to provide the pensioner with food and look after him.
– Is not that being done under the Act to a certain extent?
– No. In the press I read a report as to a publican who was brought before the Court. The evidence showed that the old-age pensioner used to hand over his money to the publican as soon as he received it, and drink in the hotel until the money was exhausted, and he was left without a shilling to look after himself. That is not what we want to occur.
– The Commissioner can take action now.
– But it is not done.
– In some cases it is.
– I know of scores of cases where it is not done. Under the Amending Act I believe that some reformation can be made, and the old people can be looked after better than they have been hitherto. The Government should, I think, take an interest in the old-age pensioners, and see that the money is really spent to their best advantage. It would be a boon to many recipients of a pension if my suggestion were adopted. I have read a report, I believe by the Commissioner of Police in Melbourne, in which it was stated that a number of old-age pensioners had been picked up dead, or dying, in the streets. My suggestion, if adopted, must tend to reduce the number of such occurrences, which really are a blot on the present system. Many old-age pensioners do not get value for the money, because they lack the ability to do so. I do not blame the Government for an unwise expenditure of the money in many cases, because they cannot foresee everything, but we have all seen proof of the folly of letting many old- age pensioners do what they like with the money. Many persons between seventy and eighty years of age are of weak mind, and cannot look after themselvess. At Dunwich Benevolent Asylum, in Queensland, there are generally from 1,200 to 1,500 persons. If they were let out and handed 10s. a week, what use could they make of the money?
– How do you know that they would make a bad use of it?
Senators SAYERS. - A great many of them could not help doing so. I know of many cases of the kind. I do not suggest that these persons intend to make bad use of the money ; but they have not the will or the ability to spend it wisely. I have filled in the forms of many persons who cannot get the pensions simply because the police have reported that they have some means of subsistence. In one case, a man, whom I knew, brought me letters from the Mayor of the town, and -several persons who had known him for years, stating that because the old man still possessed an old rattledown buggy and a horse be could not receive an old-age pension.I do not think that that was the intention of the Government. It is the administration that is faulty; all these matters, however, could be rectified. The Government could possibly make an arrangement, preferably with some people outside, or, if necessary, with some institution, where an old man or an old woman could be looked after, well clothed, and given decent food. I believe that every member of Parliament would be pleased if old people, who have borne the heat and burden of the day, were granted the boon of entering either a private home or a well-managed institution.
– Do you intend that where a pensioner elects to go to a particular place the person in charge should be given the 10s. a week?
– Yes. If a couple not quite so old, or some institution, agreed to look after an old-age pensioner, the Government should hand them the pension, and take steps, through the agency of the police, to see that the money is spent in the pensioner’s interests. If a suspicion that the money was not being wisely spent should arise, the police could make an inquiry, and the Government could, if needed, direct a change of the arrangement. I believe that the method I have suggested would meet with the approval of the people of the Commonwealth, and every member of Parliament.
– It is already provided for in the Act.
– But the provision is not put into operation.
– I have seen it in operation.
– An old-age pensioner should, I consider, be allowed a certain amount of discretion, but a man who is not able to judge for himself -
– He provides a difficult problem.
– I know of cases where an official has asked that the money should be paid into an institution, but that is not done. There is a sort of clashing. Prior to the enactment of this principle, every State was provided with an institution to which persons could be sent, but they were not allowed to stray away and return when they liked. A good many old people did not care to go into the institutions. I feel satisfied that if the Government will carry out my suggestion, they will fill a long- felt want, certainly in Queensland. I do not think that any one could . object to the inauguration of such a system.
– There is not one member of the Senate who would offer a word, against the main idea underlying this motion, but certain considerations lead me to think that even if carried it would be practically useless. The Act contains some very wise provisions for the pensioners. Where pensioners have relatives, those persons are naturally regarded as their guardians. I know of a good many cases where the old-age pensioner is very well looked after indeed; but in the case of a pensioner without relatives we are up against another set of circumstances. Many men do not like to go into an institution, and feel quite vigorous enough to look after themselves outside. They believe that they are fully justified in using the pension just as Senator Sayers and I consider that we are entitled to use our monthly allowance. I think that the pensioners have a right to feel that the money is theirs, and that they are at liberty to use it as they choose. Senator Sayers desires that incapable pensioners should be cared for. We all desire that. The first step to take in caring for them is to see that they secure their pensions. If they are unfitted to be at large by themselves the Commonwealth is not in a position to enforce the law upon them, because the police are servants of the States. The State authority is the one to set the police in motion.
– The police report in all cases to the Commonwealth authorities.
– If a policeman saw an old-age pensioner incapable on the street he would not report the matter to the Commonwealth authorities before he took steps to place the pensioner in safe custody.
– When ‘ people apply for ola-age pensions the police report upon their applications, and at the same time report upon the capacity of the applicants.
– In thousands of cases the police know nothing whatever of the applicants for old-age pensions. There are thousands of people receiving old-age pensions to-day with whom the. police have never come in contact until they have made their appearance in a Court to get their pensions.
– I think the honorable senator is in error. I know hundreds of cases in which reports have been received from the police.
– That may be so, but there are a very great many people who go to the Courts to make their own applications. I know of cases in which lawyers have appeared to present the claims of applicants for old-age pensions. It would be well if that course were more often followed, as it would prevent applicants very often from being put to a great deal of trouble.
– Where would they get the money to PaY a lawyer?
– I may inform the honorable senator that I have paid for scores of them myself, and I am not the only person who has done so. If an incapable is found in any State the State authorities will look after him. How should we differentiate in this matter? Who is to decide whether an old-age pensioner is unfit to be at large? That is my difficulty in connexion with the motion. I really do not see how the carrying of this motion would alter the existing position in the slightest degree.
– Senator Sayers, in speaking to the motion, has claimed that the Government should do certain things under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. I sympathize with the desire expressed by Senators Chataway and Sayers to protect improvident persons in receipt of invalid or old-age pensions. If provision had not been made in such cases under the Act the motion would have been more worthy of attention. I suggest to Senators Sayers and Chataway that they should read the Act. If there has been any laxity in connexion with this matter it is not the fault of the Act, because it sets out in the clearest of language what should be done in such cases. If Senators Sayers and Chataway are aware of any laxity of administration it would be better that they should direct the attention of the authorities to it, ‘‘o that the provisions of the law may be fully enforced. Section 43 of the Act provides - (1.) Whenever the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that, having regard to the age, infirmity, or improvidence of a pensioner or any other special circumstances, it is expedient that payment of any instalments of the pension be made to any other person, a warrant to that effect shall be issued by the Deputy Commissioner, and transmitted to the person authorized therein lo receive payment. (2.) Subject to the regulations and to the directions and limitations, if any, contained in the warrant, the person named therein shall be entitled on its production to receive payment of the pension.
– How many old people looking for pensions are able to fill in the application form? Many must get some one else to fill in the forms for them.
– That question has nothing whatever to do with the motion before the Senate. I am aware that there are old people who are unable to fill in the form of application for a pension, and they have to get assistance to do it. But. I understand that Senator Sayers’ complaint is that some improvident pensioners spend their pensions in a way in which they should not spend them. Some protection should certainly be provided for such persons, and it may be provided under the section of the Act which I have quoted.
– The honorable senator’s argument would be all right if people applying for old-age pensions could discuss the matter as he is doing.
– That is not the question. The honorable senator has asked that the Government should provide means to prevent a pensioner spending his pension improvidently.
– The honorable senator would not object to that?
– No, I am in sympathy with the idea of the motion, but I say that it is entirely unnecessary. I have shown that there is a section of the Act providing all the machinery necessary for the protection of the interests of improvident or incapable pensioners. The Deputy Commissioners in each State are vested with the necessary authority to deal with such cases.
– They may be thousands of miles away from where the pensioners reside. What can the Deputy Commissioner for Queensland, who resides in Brisbane, do for old-age pensioners in Charters Towers and Townsville?
– I can inform the honorable senator that the Deputy Commissioner in Perth has the same powers as the Commissioner of Pensions in Melbourne. The powers are delegated to him.
– The Deputy Commissioner at Brisbane told me that, in certain circumstances, he could give pensions; and, in other circumstances, the matter would have to be remitted to Melbourne.
– The honorable senator is again getting away from the subject-matter of the motion. We are not discussing the merits of an application for an old-age pension. That is a question to be determined by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. The object of the motion is to secure protection for the improvident or incapable pensioner, and I say that there is machinery provided for the purpose in the Act.
– I wish it to be enforced, and it is not enforced.
– I believe that it is enforced. I have had considerable experience in connexion with the matter in Western Australia, and I know that pensioners have nominated other persons to receive their pensions for them in order that the money may be judiciously and wisely expended for the benefit of the pensioners. If the Act is not working well in Queensland, it would have been better for Senator Sayers to make representations to that effect direct to the Commissioner in Melbourne. The Act is not as perfect, perhaps, as we could desire; but under section 43, provision is certainly made for the protection of improvident -and incapable pensioners.
Debate (on motion by Senator St. Ledger) adjourned.
page 4913
Debate resumed from 24th October (vide page 4624), on motion by Senator St. Ledger - _ That, in the opinion of the Senate, it is desirable that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire into the best ways and means of consolidating and converting the State debts.
– The motion introduced by Senator St. Ledger last Thursday was to many of us like an old friend, because similar motions made their appearance in the Senate very frequently some time ago. In the early years of Federation, there was no more fruitful subject of discussion than the question of how we should deal with the State debts, and a number of interesting schemes for the purpose were proposed. We were accustomed to go into figures to estimate the savings that might be made by the consolidation of the State debts, lt was estimated that by a saving of 1 per cent, we should be able to wipe out the whole of the debt of Australia in a given number of years. We indulged in these fanciful pictures for a long time; but it has remained for Senator St. Ledger to paint even a brighter picture than any which has heretofore been presented to the Senate by schemers, if I may so call them, because quite a number of schemes were brought under our notice. Notwithstanding the terms of his motion, and the reference to State debts which it contains, the honorable senator commenced with a declaration to the effect that there is no such thing as State debts in Australia. He quoted as an authority for that remarkable statement the present Premier of Victoria, Mr. Watt.
– Is not Mr. Watt a Napoleon of finance?
– He must be something more than that if he can cause the debts of the States to vanish entirely. We are told that it is nonsense to say that the various States of Australia have borrowed something like ^250,000,000, and are paying between ^8,000,000 and ^9,000,000 in interest upon them. It is all moonshine to say that the State of Victoria, in fifty years of self-government, has borrowed ^50,000,000, and has paid something like ^50,000,000 in interest upon’ that money.
– She must have paid it all back.
– Notwithstanding the fact that Victoria has paid about £50,000,000 in interest upon borrowed capital amounting to about£50,000,000, the whole of the principal is still remaining, and she must go on paying interest upon it in the years to come. Senator St. Ledger entirely ignored the debts of the States.
– I did not speak in a universal sense.
– The honorable senator’s reference to the matter may have been simply a little bit of legerdemain that he was playing on us, but he certainly painted a rosy picture - one, indeed, almost as rosy as his own complexion ! There is no getting away from the reality of the debts question. It is a very substantial one. . I regret that more has not been done towards the consolidation of these obligations. But we have to remember that the fault does not lie with the Federal Parliament. The Commonwealth is but one of two parties in this affair, and before a scheme can be propounded the other party will have to consent. Until the States move, and show an earnest desire to solve the problem, the Federal Parliament can do no more than has been done. If we turn to the reports of Conferences of State Premiers, we shall find that the matter of the State debts, if referred to at all, was mentioned in such a way as to put it into >the background of the proceedings, and to leave it there. At the Brisbane Conference in 1907, the Premiers objected to the State debts question being dealt with at all.
– Not absolutely, I think.
– What they said was that the question should not be dealt with until the matter of distribution of the Customs and Excise revenue was settled. Accordingly, they refused to negotiate on the question.
– There were strong reasons for that.
– If there were strong reasons, I fail to understand what they were. Certainly, those reasons do not exist to-day, because the Customs and Excise revenue matter has been settled pretty well for all time - at all events, for such a time that we may very well say that there is now plenty of opportunity for giving attention to other financial issues. In 1909, a Premiers’ Conference was held in Hobart, when the State debts matter was not even mentioned. Towards the end of the same year there was another remarkable Conference held in Melbourne - a Conference which will go down to history as, perhaps, the most remarkable that has ever taken place in any country. Certainly, it - was the -most peculiar Conference ever held in Australia.. The Fusion party was the outcome of it. Not only did it bring the Fusion party into existence, but I think it was responsible for raising a question which was one of the factors in -driving the Fusion out of office. I am unable to say with certainty what was done regarding the State debts question at that Conference, for the simple reason that the proceedings took place behind closed doors.
– The honorable senator knows that the 87 th section of the Constitution was the main matter at that Conference.
– I am unable to say what was done. We were afterwards told that certain arrangements were arrived at, and I have no doubt that section 87 was dealt with. But, in regard to other subjects, we were totally in the dark.. The public were informed that the records were burned. Even the blotting pads were destroyed, in order that not the slightest atom of information should leak out to the public.
– There was no more secrecy there than there is at the Labour Conferences.
– There is no destroying of records or sitting behind closed doors at ‘our Conferences. We publish reports, and at some of our Conferences even the reporters of the press of our opponents are permitted to be present. At all events, there is no getting away from the fact that at these Premiers’ Conferences the State debts matter was riot dealt with seriously. The next Conference was held at the beginning of this year, in Melbourne. The question was not even touched on that occasion. Nothing, therefore, has been done by the Premiers to bring this question forward. That being so, we must conclude that the Premiers had no desire to do anything to bring about a settlement.
– A State cannot deal with any debts but its own. My motion speaks of the consolidation of the whole of the Australian debts.
– I think it is fairly well understood to-day that we cannot very well deal with a particular portion of the . debts. We must be prepared to deal with the whole of them.
– Why?
– Because we have already as good as decided that it would be foolish to take over a portion of the debts of the States and leave another portion standing over. In order that we may be in a position to deal with the matter comprehensively, we have had a referendum question submitted to the people.
– How would the honorable senator tackle a portion of the debts ?
– I did not say that I would tackle a portion of them. I would deal with the whole question.
– We have power to do that now.
– We have, as far as the Constitution can give us that power, but a great deal more than that is required before a satisfactory settlement can be effected. Surely the honorable senator would not say that, because we have power to take over the debts, we should proceed to do so without taking some power over the assets which the debts represent. These are considerations which can only be resolved upon by the people who owe the money, and who are responsible for paying it. They have the assets which the debts represent; and until they are agreeable to meet the Commonwealth and come to an understanding as to what assets we are to control to represent the debts for which we assume responsibility it is impossible for us to attempt to settle the question.
– That means that the honorable senator would not touch the debts question until the Commonwealth secured control of the railways?
– Certainly the railways represent the principal asset. Senator St. Ledger himself was too bashful to offer a suggestion as to how the task was to be accomplished.
– I did.
– Let me point out what the honorable senator did in that remarkable- speech of his ; and it was one of the most remarkable addresses that even he has delivered. Towards the end of it, notwithstanding that he- had been adversely criticising the present Government for having done nothing towards the settlement of the question, he said that the present was not an opportune time to undertake the consolidation and conversion of our State debts.
– I said that, by reason of the difficulties in front of us, the present is the proper time to consider the question.
– The honorable senator means that we are to “ consider,” but do nothing. Well, we are “ considering.” But the honorable senator certainly did assert that the present was not an opportune time for taking any practical steps towards the consolidating of the debts.
– The money market is against us.
– And because the money market is tightening the whole question should be hung up. Why, then, did the honorable senator introduce the subject at all?
– Because this is the very time for considering the best way of proceeding.
– But do nothing. That attitude seems to turn logic upside down.
– Does the honorable senator know how long it took Mr.. Goschen to effect his conversion scheme?
– We heard a good dear in the honorable senator’s speech about Mr. Goschen, but I have yet to be informed that even that great financier was quite the equal of Senator St. Ledger. The honorable Senator claimed credit for his’ party for some extraordinary things in regard to Australian finance. He asserted that -
It was the Liberal Government that made the suggestion for removing that fetter and wiping out section 87. It was the Liberal Government that proposed to pay to the States 25s. per capita. Our Government made such an arrangement with the States and submitted the proposition at a referendum to the people.
– That is so; the statement is absolutely correct.
– It is a claim that the honorable senator was in no way entitled to make. It was not his party that suggested the per capita arrangement. That proposition emanated from the Labour Conference held in Brisbane in 1908. I was present.
– I said that our Government submitted the proposition to the people.
– The honorable senator claimed that his Government put the proposal forward as a means of settling the financial question. As a matter _ of fact, it had been made time after time by the Labour party before the Fusion Government stole our thunder.
– I do not think so.
– The honorable Senator said that it was the Liberal Government which submitted this new financial scheme. It was not a new financial scheme as far as they were concerned. It was not originally proposed by them. It was proposed by the Labour Conference at Brisbane. A number of financial schemes were submitted to Parliament before that. Indeed, there was hardly a man in this Parliament laying claim to some knowledge of finance who did not propound a scheme. Proposals were put forward by Sir George Turner, Sir William Lyne, Sir John Forrest, Mr. Harper, Mr. King O’Malley, and Mr. Knox, amongst others. But the only scheme propounded on the per capita basis, and worked out clearly, was the scheme of the Brisbane Conference.
– The per capita method of dealing with the subject was referred to in the Convention over and over again.
– Every one of the previous schemes which were condemned differed from the scheme ultimately laid before the people, and I repeat that it was the Labour Conference that propounded the per capita scheme, and even went to the length of mentioning the sum of 25s. per head, which was ultimately adopted. The Premiers’ Conference, at Hobart, a few months later, adopted the Labour Conference scheme practically holus bolus. Really Senator St. Ledger should be more cautious in the claims which he makes for his party. He has no right to claim for them schemes which were put forward by others. It is true that his party was in office long enough. Some of its members posed as being great financiers. They used to lecture the unfortunate Labour party, and to refer to us as knowing nothing of finance. We could not, they said, be expected to propound a financial scheme for the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, I must insist, it was our party which brought forward the scheme which settled the question that has been referred to to-night. In submitting this motion Senator St. Ledger has occupied the time of the Senate to no very good purpose.
– Why did the Government mention the subject in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech at the commencement of the session if it was not to be considered ?
– It was mentioned to remind the State Governments that the question was awaiting their attention. It is they, and not the Federal Parliament, who block “the way and prevent a settlement. Until they move, neither the present Federal Government nor any other Government that may succeed us can do anything. It is only right and proper that the State Governments should from time to time be reminded that the debts question is not settled, and awaits their attention.
– Is that the interpretation which the honorable senator puts upon the reference in the Governor- General’s Speech?
– That is an interpretation which may be put upon the reference. It was a reminder to the States. Until Senator St. Ledger, or some one else who presumes to submit a motion on this subject, has a scheme better than any that has yet been formulated, and one which will move the States to face the music and tackle the question, we shall be merely beating the air by discussing it.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.58].- The latter portion of the speech of Senator de Largie was rather remarkable. He tells us that the question of the consolidation of the State debts, although mentioned in the Governor- General’s Speech at the commencement of the session, cannot be dealt with until the States take action. Consequently, the reference in the Speech meant nothing. I have always been under the impression that when a Government submits its programme at the opening of a Parliament, the matters mentioned therein are considered to be subjects for legislation with which the Government is prepared to deal if time and opportunity permit. They are not supposed to be merely placards - things put in the shop windows - for the purpose of attracting attention. Apparently, however, the Government only included the paragraph in the Governor- General’s Speech for the purpose of reminding somebody else of a power which exists in the Constitution. I do not know that Senator St. Ledger need be called upon to apologize for directing at- tention to the matter in what is practically the only way within the competency of one in his position. We know perfectly well that it would not be possible to deal with the question effectively by means of a Bill, and it is not within the competency of a private senator to submit a measure that would have any effect whatever.
– There is nothing to prevent him from introducing a measure or making suggestions.
– The only course open to an honorable senator who feels that a matter calls for immediate attention is to place a motion on the notice-paper, and have it discussed. He may, for instance, give notice of a motion that, in the opinion of the Senate, it is desirable that the Government should take the matter in hnd ; but, instead of resorting to that course, Senator St. Ledger has proposed that, in the opinion of the Senate, a Royal Commission should be appointed to consider and deal with this subject. We have had projects by individuals considered one after another. I believe that a proposal was made by a ‘Labour Conference. Proposals have been submitted, first by one person, and then by another - with what effect? They have been submitted with no effect. Simply because not one of them has been regarded as a practicable proposal. What more reasonable, then, than that an honorable senator, in attempting to set forth his own scheme for the consolidation of the State debts, should say, “ Let a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and deal with the mass of valuable material which is now available”?
– In the present state of the money market, you would not advise that the Commonwealth should take over the State debts, or convert them ?
– The honorable senator raises another question when he asks what advice 1 would give. When the acceptance of the Constitution Bill was under consideration there was much argument used to the effect that, by consolidating the State debts, a great deal of money would be saved to the States in the way of payment of interest. If that saving will be effected, then a consolidation of the debts ‘must be beneficial to every State.
– We were told that South Australia would save ^10,000 a. year.
– No doubt that statement was made. I have heard honorable senators talk of the Commonwealth consolidating the State debts and getting the whole of the money at 3 per cent. ; but, in my opinion, that is a dream; it is not practicable. We all know that to-day there would be very little chance of consolidating the debts on anything like favorable terms to the States. It was only the other day that a State found, when it went into the market, that it could not’ get the money it wanted under 4 per cent. I know of a “ great municipality which, quite recently, found itself compelled, when it attempted to raise a loan, to pay over 5 per cent. The States find that, at present, they cannot borrow money on anything like as good terms as those on which the existing debts were incurred. We know that in the past States have borrowed at 3§ , 31, and 3^ per cent. One can buy British consols to-day at such a rate as will give him from 31 to 4 per cent, on the money which he outlays. When we find that the British Government, with a first class security, cannot borrow money at a low percentage, we may depend upon it that the Australian States, whether they consolidate their debts or not, will not be able to borrow money on more favorable terms. We shall always have to pay a higher rate of interest than the British Government have to pay on their first-rate security.
– It is only fair for the honorable senator to say that those who made the calculations were correct at that time, when, as he knows,’ money was very much cheaper than it is to-day.
– Yes; but my contention is that money has never been so cheap that there has been an opportunity to consolidate the State debts on a 3 per cent, basis. When the British consols were brought down to a 21 per cent, basis, it was not long before an investor could get £100 for his consol, which, at that time, was, possibly, a much’ more favored investment than it is in existing circumstances, because it belonged to a very limited list of securities in which trustmoneys could be invested. The alteration of the law, and the consequent enlargement of this list, has been the means of deteriorating the value of British consols. I know that a dear old friend in the Senate has talked about Australian stock on a 3 per cent, basis; but my opinion is that if we attempted to convert at present any of the State debts into 3 per cent. Australian consols they would be found to sell at a very low price indeed ; and, instead of having to raise about ^250,000,000, we should probably have to raise about ^300,000,000. In such circumstances, there is no opportunity to do anything practical or valuable in the way of conversion. Another point to be considered is what debts is it proposed to convert. Originally the Constitution only empowered Parliament to take over from the States their public debts as existing at the establishment of the Commonwealth, and, consequently, debts subsequently incurred could not be taken over. But, as honorable senators will remember, the Constitution has been amended to enable the Parliament to deal with an additional amount of the State debts. Large Bums have been borrowed since that time, and I cannot say, off-hand, whether the Constitution would permit us to deal with those borrowings.
– There is no limit now in. the Constitution.
– Assuming that we are going to consolidate State debts to the amount of ^250,000,000, what is intended to be done with regard to future debts? Is it proposed to say to the States : “ In the future you shall not be permitted to borrow without the permission of this Parliament”? Or are we going to say to them, “Although we have consolidated the whole of your old debts,, and accepted the responsibility for the payment, ‘ you are free to borrow as much or as little as you please, without consulting the Commonwealth at all”? One idea of the friends of consolidation was that we would have only one Australian debt; but, apparently, we are to have, not only one Australian debt, but a number of minor debts. Again, are we to take over any of the securities for the debts, or to say to the States, ‘ ‘ You have spent the money in building railways and in effecting large public improvements ; you keep these things, and we will take over your debts “ ? Now, what means shall we have to pay the debts eventually? We are now making a per capita allowance to the States, and it is suggested that that allowance will, provide more than suf ficient money to pay the interest on the debts which we are supposed to have con-: solidated. If we have a pay-day fixed ata future time, we shall have not only to> make provision for the payment of interest,, but to establish a sinking fund, by meansof which the debts will ultimately be extinguished. The whole subject bristles1 with difficulties, but I by no means suggest that my criticisms cannot be met or dealt,with on a satisfactory basis. It willi not be done, however, by. the efforts of any individual. The subject calls for the close attention of the keenest financial intellects in . the Parliaments of Australia,, and even they will have to be assisted byexpert advice. Possibly some Treasurermay consider that he has sufficient knowledge to enable him to deal with thewhole subject, and may submit a Bill toParliament ; but, so far, we have not found’ any man in a position to do that. We havefound men, however, in a position to offerideas and make suggestions as to the best-.’ way of working out a scheme; always assuming that the consolidation of the Statedebts is desirable in the interests of theCommonwealth. But even these personsadmit that theirs are by no means schemes-, which are unassailable, and will not require very great consideration before theycan be adopted. It is a wise proceeding on« the part of Senator St. Ledger, if he regards the” consolidation of the State debtsas a proper work to be taken in hand, tosubmit this motion to the Senate. A Royal Commission, if appointed, could formulatea scheme, or come to some conclusion ; but the subject bristles with so many difficulties that I think it will be very many years?before it is tackled in an effective manner by the Commonwealth, whatever we or theStates may think. It should be remembered, too, that, eventually, we shall haveto meet the investors, and consider thescheme which they are willing to accept. We cannot force any scheme upon, them.On the contrary, we shall have to persuadethem that our scheme will conserve, not only their interests, but also the interests of the Commonwealth and the States. I am quite willing to vote for the motion,-, leaving it to either the present or a succeeding Government to make up their minds. as to whether they will act upon the suggestion or not.
Debate (on motion by Senator Lynch)* adjourned.
Senate adjourned at 9.17 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 October 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1912/19121031_senate_4_67/>.