View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
27 November 1912

4^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- OLD-AGE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- STATE SAVINGS BANK
QUESTION
- STATISTICS : ENROLMENT
PAPERS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH LAND TAX
QUESTION
- LIGHTHOUSES ACT
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN GRANT : TAXATION
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
NORTHERN TERRITORY
- Crown Lands Ordinance
NAVIGATION BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Conduct of Business - Tuesday Sittings

The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 5945

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Reward for Gold-field Discovery : Appointment of Mining Inspector.

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

– Seeing that the Government have decided to offer a reward for the discovery of phosphates in the Northern Territory, I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, whether they will also offer a reward for the discovery of a payable gold or mineral field in accordance with the resolution of the Senate?

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I have heard nothing about the offer of a reward for the discovery of phosphates in the Northern Territory.

Senator Sayers:

-It has been mentioned in the press.

Senator McGREGOR:

-The question of offering a reward for the discovery of gold will receive consideration.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

-I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, as representing the Minister of External Affairs, whether the appointment of Mr. C. T. Oliver as mining inspector and assistant Government Geologist to the Northern Territory was the result of a call for applications for appointment to the position, or was he merely selected without other persons having an opportunity of applying ?

Senator McGREGOR:

-I understand that the appointment was the result of a call for applications, but if there is any doubt about the matter the honorable senator might give notice of a question, and I shall get the information to-morrow.

page 5945

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the VicePresident of the Executive Council now in a position to reply to a question I asked some time ago as to the number of warrants which had been issued in connexion with the Old-age Pensions Act?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

-I have been supplied with the following answer -

In continuation of the reply furnished on the 7th of November,1912, it has now been ascertained that the number of warrants issued, under section 43 of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions

Act, as regards pensions, during the last two financial years was : -

page 5945

QUESTION

STATE SAVINGS BANK

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– With reference to his answer of the 22nd instant, as to the negotiations regarding the absorption or amalgamation of the State Savings Banks, will the Vice-President of the Executive Council inform the Senate whether such negotiations were undertaken, not merely with the approval, but at the instance of the Government, or whether they were undertaken by the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank on his own responsibility ?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– The negotiations were undertaken by the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank with the approval of the Government.

Senator MILLEN:

-Mr. President, I again direct your attention to the fact that that is not an answer to my question. I asked specifically - and if the Minister does not appreciate the point, I will repeat it - whether the negotiations were undertaken, not merely with the approval of the Government, but at the instigation of the Government?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I have already answered that question ; they were undertaken not at the instigation, but with the approval, of the Government.

Senator MILLEN:

-That is all I want to know.

page 5945

QUESTION

STATISTICS : ENROLMENT

Senator MILLEN:

-an the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs give the Senate any idea as to when the promised report as to the inquiry into the alleged discrepancy between the electoral rolls and the statistics of New South Wales and Tasmania may be expected ?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-On Friday last I received from the Home Affairs Department a letter stating that the Chief Electoral Officer had recently inquired into the method by which the Commonwealth roll had been compiled, that he had ascertained that it was compiled by the police, who, for a number of years had been specially trained to this work, and that; the investigation led him to believe that the Commonwealth roll was substantially correct. The letter also stated that the conference between the State Statisticians and the Commonwealth Statistician as to the discrepancy in the population returns had not yet com- ‘ pleted its inquiry, but that it was believed that the discrepancy arose from the faulty method of checking the migration by railway, and that a further report would be forwarded to me in respect of that matter when the conference had completed its labours.

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

-Arising out of the answer, is there any means by which the various electoral officers are able to compare their rolls? Perhaps I may be permitted to explain that my wife has been threatened with a fine of£2 if she does not put her name on a Queensland roll, when as a matter of fact she is already enrolled in Victoria. I should like to ask the Government whether they are seeing that the rolls are properly compared.

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator has asked a general question and a specific question. I should like him to give notice of the questions.

Senator CHATAWAY:

-Very good. I shall think the matter out and give notice.

page 5946

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Defence Act1903-1912. -Regulations amended. &c. (Provisional) -

Universal Training. -Statutory Rules 1912, No. 233.

Military Forces - Financial and Allowance. - Statutory Rules 1912, No. 220.

Naval Defence Act 1910-1911. Regulations (Provisional) forH.M.A. Training ship Tingira. -Statutory Rules 1912, No. 221.

Federal Capital City : Report of the Board appointed to investigate and report as to the suitability of certain Designs for adoption in connexion with lay-out.

Lighting of the South Coast of Australia (South Australia), Cape Northumberland to the Great Australian Bight. -Preliminary Report, with Recommendations as to Existing and Additional Lights, by Commander C. R. W.Brewis, R.N., dated October, 1912.

The Clerk laid upon the table the following return : -

Return to Order of the Senate of 2nd August, 1912-

Old-age Pensioners - Destitution and Mortality amongst.

page 5946

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LAND TAX

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice-

Has the Minister’s attention been called to a cable appearing in the morning newspapers which reports Mr. Lloyd George as having said, in reply to Mr. R. L. Outhwaite, that£21,000,000 worth of land was cut up as a result of the Federal Land Tax during the year ending 30th June,1911, while the area under cultivation was increased by more than 2,000,000 acres eighteen months after the tax was levied ? Was that information supplied to Mr. Lloyd George direct from the Governmentor through the High Commissioner?
If by either, will the Government supply this House with the same information as supplied to Mr. Lloyd George, and on which the answer to the question mentioned in (1) was based ?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

-The answers to the questions are -

The Minister for External Affairs has seen the cable referred to. He is not aware from whom Mr. Lloyd George obtained the information.
See reply to No.1.

Senator ST LEDGER:

-Arising out of the answer, will the Minister ask the High Commissioner, by cablegram, if he has any knowledge of how the information came into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ?

Senator McGREGOR:

– It is not customary to do these things. All this information is embodied in papers which have been laid upon the table of both Houses of this Parliament. I would point out to Senator St. Ledger that Mr. Lloyd George is a Liberal, and that if he is deficient of any information it ought to be supplied by the leaders of the Liberal party.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Arising out of the answer, will the Vice-President of the Executive Council consult the Prime Minister upon the desirability of asking, through the High Commissioner, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Imperial Parliament where and how he derived the information which was reported in the cablegram on Friday last?

Senator McGREGOR:

– As the information is substantially correct, I am not going to have any consultations about the matter with anybody.

page 5946

QUESTION

LIGHTHOUSES ACT

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What are the reasons why the Lighthouses Act 1911, assented to on the22nd day of December, 1911, has not been proclaimed and brought into force ?

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

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

Before proclaiming the Act, it was found indispensably necessary to have a complete investigation of the condition and suitability of existing lights, the requirements as to coast lighting generally, and expert report as to what lights may properly be taken over by the Commonwealth. This is in progress, and is nearing completion.

page 5947

QUESTION

TASMANIAN GRANT : TAXATION

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the State Government of

Tasmania has raised the exemption and reduced the rate of income tax since the special grant to that State was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament?

If so, is the Government of opinion that using a special grant as a means to reduce the taxation of the wealthier classes of citizens is calculated to promote settlement and further the welfareand prosperity of the State?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

-I have to say, in answer to the honorable senator’s question, that the Government have no official information with respect to the matter referred to. In answer to the second question, I have to say that it is not customary for one Government to criticise another; but it would seem to me to be poor statesmanship to relieve the wealthier citizens of any State of taxation on account of any grant such as the one referred to.

Senator Clemons:

– Is the honorable senator speaking personally, or on behalf of the Government ?

Senator McGREGOR:

-I am speaking personally.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

– Arising out of the answer to the question, I wish to ask whether the Vice-President of the Executive Council is aware that the Government of Tasmania have outlined a scheme by which certain developmental works which are stated to have been held up for a certain number of years, shall be carried out in that State out of the Federal grant?

Senator McGREGOR:

-I am not aware of anything of that kind; and it would be more appropriate for the honorable senator to ask that question of Senator Givens.

Senator CLEMONS:

-Also arising out of the answer given to Senator Given’s questions, I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, and, incidentally, of the President, by what authority or par liamentary practice the honorable senator, when asked a question as Vice-President of the Executive Council, and as a member of the Government, chooses to answer it personally, disclaiming at the same time that he answers on behalf of the Government?

Senator McGREGOR:

– Circumstances a.rising in connexion with a question, and the manner in which it is framed, sometimes render necessary an immediate reply. Consequently, in this case I took it upon myself to reply as I have done.

page 5947

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator CHATAWAY:

asked the Minis ter of Defence, upon notice -

Is the booklet entitled How to join the

Royal Australian Navy issued under the authority of the Defence Department?

If so, what number was issued, what was the cost, and by whom was the booklet printed?
Was the Department consulted before the cover was printed in four colours, and the whole issue done on heavy art paper?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answers to the questions are -

Yes.
10,000 copies were issued.

The cost was£150.

The booklet was printed by the Government Printer, Melbourne.

Yes.

page 5947

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Crown Lands Ordinance

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

. -I move -

That the Ordinance No. 8 of1912 relating to Crown lands in the Northern Territory be disagreed with.

In submitting this motion, I should like to remind honorable senators of the circumstances surrounding a somewhat similar motion which I submitted to the Senatea little while ago. It will be remembered that, althoughthere was some hostile criticism from the ranks of the Government supporters, the Senate decided, so far as its vote could do so, to inflict the original Ordinance upon the Northern Territory. Owing to an exhibition of a little greater independence elsewhere, we have been afforded a further opportunity to consider what is, to all intents and purposes, a land Act for that new Province. When the Vice-President of the Executive Council replied to my speech on the previous motion, he expressed this opinion, to use his own words-

I do not think that any human ingenuity could devise anything which would conduce more to the possibility of settlement than will this Ordinance.

I refer to that for this reason : I point out that the Senate accepted the Vice-President of the Executive Council and the Government as its guide in this regard, only to find that they have abandoned . the original Ordinance, admitting its imperfections, and now come down with a new one. In the circumstances, I am justified in asking honorable senators, seeing that the Government have abandoned their party in the matter, and have made this an open question, to, on this occasion, disregard the party element, and address themselves to the merits or demerits of the provisions of the new Ordinance, to which I direct their attention. I should like to repeat the appeal which I previously made - that this is a matter which ought not, in any circumstances, to be made the subject of a purely party vote. We all have to recognise the tremendous effects for good or evil which must flow from a correct or faulty start in the administration of the Northern Territory. I point out, as evidence of my bona fides in the matter, that I recently invited the Vice-President of the Executive Council to relieve me of the responsibility of taking action by submitting the new Ordinance in such a way that we might debate it in some form other than that which I have had to choose. I recognise that, to some extent, my motion is a challenge to the Government. But I am not responsible for that. 1 not only invited the VicePresident of the Executive Council to bring the matter forward in such a way that we could discuss it without reference to party attitude, but I repeat the invitation now. I ask him to consider the advisability, when I have concluded my speech”, of moving an amendment upon the motion to refer the Ordinance to a Committee of the whole, in order that we may deal with each specific provision, and submit such amendments as will enable a report to be made to the Senate which will place the Government in possession of the mind of honorable senators on the matter. That is a practical proposal, and would give honorable senators the best opportunity they could have to consider the Ordinance thoroughly, and, at the same time, to record no vote which would have any purely party significance. I trust the VicePresident of the Executive Council will accept that suggestion. In the meantime I repeat that this Ordinance is particularly a matter requiring consideration in Committee. It contains between fifty and sixty separate clauses, and a number of schedules, each one of which might properly be the subject of debate, and the Ordinance can really only be properly discussed in Committee. One is surprised, after the rebuff which the Government received in this matter, that they did not learn from experience, and decide to proceed by Bill. I do not suppose that honorable senators for one moment believed, when they agreed to the passing of the Northern Territory Administration^ Act, giving power to issue Ordinances, that the power would be interpreted as giving the Government the right to construct a Land Act for the Northern Territory. Quite recently we dealt in the form of a Bill with a proposal for a railway survey in the Territory, a matter which was absolutely insignificant when compared with the matters provided for in this Ordinance. We have here the foundation of the land policy of the Northern Territory, and, so far as the Government are concerned, they have not merely such a contemptuous regard for Parliament, but for their own followers, as to legislate behind the doors of the Minister’s office rather than submit so important a matter for the criticism and approval of Parliament. As showing the desirability of this view, I might remind the Vice-President of the Executive Council that in the previous discussion of this subject he said in reply to the suggestion then made that the Government ought to proceed by Bill -

After having a little experience, no doubt a Land Bill will be brought in.

If it is thought desirable that a Land Bill should ultimately take the place of this Land Ordinance, why should it not take its place in the first instance? It does seem to me to be altogether a misuse of the power to issue Ordinances for the Government to take upon themselves the legislative work of constructing a Land Act for the Northern Territory.

I propose to deal with the various clauses of this Ordinance very much as though we were in Committee. I do not intend to raise the question of leasehold versus freehold. The arguments I have to use will be rather as to details of the Ordinance which I consider important. While I recognise that I shall be to some extent at a disadvantage in doing this, for the convenience of honorable senators who will pay me the compliment of following me, I propose to take the Ordinance clause by clause, and to address my criticisms to the various clauses in the order in which they appeared in the Ordinance. The first to which I direct attention is clause 6. I do not know that I could refer to any clause in the Ordinance which would more clearly demonstrate my statement that the discussion of the matter should take place in Committee. The clause provides -

Subject to sub-section 2 of this section, Crown lands will not be alienated from the Crown otherwise than by way of lease in pursuance of this Ordinance.

That is a very necessary provision, but a complication arises in the next sub-clause, which provides that the sub-clause which I have just read shall not affect -

The granting of any land in pursuance of any agreement or right in existence at the commencement of this Ordinance; or
the granting of any lease in pursuance of any such agreement or right ; or (c) the granting of any lease in pursuance of any Ordinance.

I wish now to know where we stand. What is the meaning of that sub-clause? We have first of all a statement that leases may be granted subject to this Ordinance, but it is provided that this shall not affect ‘ the granting of any lease in pursuance of any Ordinance.”

Senator McGregor:

-In pursuance of any covenant already entered into.

Senator MILLEN:

– No; that is dealt with in paragraph a of sub-clause 2 -

The granting of any land in pursuance of any agreement or right in existence at the commencement of this Ordinance.

But paragraph c reads - the granting of any lease in pursuance of any Ordinance.

But we have only just said that leases are only to be granted under this Ordinance. I venture to suggest that there has been some confusion between paragraphs c and e. Paragraph d reads -

The granting of any lease in pursuance of any Act relating to mining or dredging for metals, minerals, or precious stones.

Senator McGregor:

– There may have been timber leases let, or something of that kind.

Senator MILLEN:

– No; I am inclined to believe that it was intended that paragraphs c and d should form parts of one paragraph, and that the last words of paragraph d qualify paragraph c, and the two paragraphs should be made to read - the granting of any lease in pursuance of any Ordinance or any Act relating to mining or dredging for metals, minerals, or precious stones.

It isa matter for the draughtsman to consider, but I point out that if the last words I have read qualify paragraphs c as well as paragraph d, then they also qualify paragraphs a and b, and are clearly out of place. If they are not intended to qualify paragraph c, they nullify subclause1 of the clause.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– In any event, what is the use of paragraph d?

Senator MILLEN:

– I am only showing that the clause as it stands is an absurdity. There are many provisions contained in this Ordinance which no doubt were excellent provisions in the Act of which they formerly formed a part. It would appear that the sections of Land Acts in force in the various States have been brought together by scissors-and-paste business to form this Land Ordinance, with a result that is absolutely grotesque and dangerous. I shall show how great the danger is later on. I come now to clause 7 of the Ordinance. It reads -

The Classification Board shall classify Crown lands in accordance with this Ordinance.

– The same applies to freehold in the States already.

Senator MILLEN:

– It does not apply to freehold anywhere, nor to leasehold in any of the States. The Vice-President of the Executive Council will not gain anything by trying to prejudice those who are in favour of leasehold as against freehold. These restrictions do not find a counterpart in any law in any State of Australia. Not only does this matter of reclassification affect pastoral leases, but it also affects the smaller holdings. A man can apply for and obtain a holding for mixed farming. He may obtain an area of 38,400 acres, upon which his primary industry would be grazing. He takes it up, probably, with the condition that some small proportion of it - 1 or 2 per cent, at the outside - will be cultivated. But no sooner does he get that land than a Government officer corneaalong and decides to reclassify it in such a way that, instead of having to cultivate 200 or 300 acres, the holder will have to cultivate the major portion of the area. Probably the Government will turn round and say that if the land is suitable for cultivation purposes, why should it not be devoted to them? That is all very well, but look at the position in which the holder will be placed. At any moment his land may be reclassified, and the effect of the reclassification operates immediately. So that a man taking up an area under those conditions may suddenly find himself faced with the position that the whole of his prospects are destroyed, that the occupation for which he has qualified is changed, and that he is called upon to cultivate an enormous area, which he is quite incapable of cultivating, and which, in fact, no man could cultivate unless possessed of a great amount of capital. The result would be that the holder would have no alternative but to vacate the land.

I come back now to clause 8, which deals with areas. These areas have been considerably reduced with regard to pastoral land since we discussed the matter before. In connexion with this, I should like to point out thai it is a cause of very great Satisfaction, not merely to honorable members on this side of the Chamber, but also, I should think, ro honorable senators opposite, in spite of their votes, that we have been able, in consequence of the protest raised before - more particularly in another Chamber - to save Australia and the Northern Territory from the tremendous evil which would have been inflicted had perpetual leases been granted for these enormous pastoral areas. The areas have been considerably reduced. Not that the area held is of much importance, providing the State retains in its hands the :right to recover possession at a later period. For many years to come we need nol: be alarmed at the size of the holdings in the Territory. A much moTe serious cause for alarm would be the prospect of its remaining without any occupation at all. I am not particularly concerned as to the extent of land which will be in one man’s hands, always providing that he holds it only by a terminable lease. But when you come to holdings in regard to agricultural lands, another set of arguments presents itself. Holdings for pastoral-lease purposes are taken for temporary occupation only. But when you are dealing wilh agricultural land, I want to ask honorable senators whether they think it is right to provide for permanent holdings to the extent of 38,400 acres?, I admit that the area has been reduced from 64,000 acres, but to grant 38,400 acres under the title of mixed farming and grazing land is an absurdity on the face of it. Any one who takes up 34,000 acres is not going to employ any large proportion of it for farming purposes. Nowhere in Australia is it usual for a man with 38,000 acres to devote any considerable portion of it to farming. It is not going to be so in the Northern Territory. If you find a man with such an area, partly suitable for farming, and a portion of it is farmed, it is under the system known as sharefarming. That is to say, the holder has become a landlord. But, generally speaking, a. man with such a holding has a sufficient area by which he can make a living by grazing; and, under such circumstances, he will confine himself to grazing, and neglect the plough. Honorable senators, by a majority, have recently passed a Bill for the imposition of a land tax, one of the avowed objects of which was to break up big holdings. What was the value of the holdings which they desired to break up? It was holdings above .£5,000 in value. It is very poor farming land that is not worth or £4 an acre. At an acre, 1,700 acres of this land would exceed that value. Yet the party opposite come forward with a proposal to grant areas in perpetuity to the extent of 38,400 acres, land which, if granted under terminable lease, would come back to the Crown. Do honorable senators understand what 38,000 acres mean ? It means no less than 60 square miles of country. This is land, which, if in any decent district, ought to be capable of supporting sixty homes, and not merely one. To put it in another way, it would take 32 miles to go round the boundary of this block, and yet these blocks are ultimately designed for the permanent settlers of this country. I cannot help but think that this matter has slipped in here, as many other provisions have done, without a due regard for the future, but merely looking to the present. It has been recognised by those who drafted this Ordinance that for the present we have to offer inducements to men to go to the Northern Territory. The people who can get small holdings here will not go to the Northern Territory for small holdings there. I admit that. I think that in dealing with the Northern Territory, the correct course is to grant blocks as reasonably large as will be attractive, but to make a provision that, at the end of a long lease - I do not care how long - these blocks shall revert to the Crown, except that the holders shall have a preferental right to secure for permanent occupation areas out of them.

Senator Fraser:

– You are dealing with agricultural lands.

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes-

Senator McGregor:

– You are not dealing with agricultural lands, but with pastoral.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am dealing with, what are called mixed farming and grazing lands, and when it is proposed to grant blocks of 38,000 acres in perpetuity of land that will some day be fit for farming, I say that you are again creating immense holdings, such as it has been the whole trend of legislation in the settled States to destroy. I have just obtained a return from the State Statistician showing that there are in Australia to-day 20,750,000 acres of land held in just such holdings as these, so far as size is concerned, that is, areas ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 acres, from 15,000 to 20,000 acres, and from 20,000 acres to 50,000 acres, and held by 1,065 people. These are figures that have been used to show that Australia is suffering from a land monopoly, and also as a justification for the imposition of a land tax, which we are told has been the cause of the dismemberment and breaking up of the large estates. Yet we have a proposition to create such holdings again. Apart from the contradiction in the attitude of the Government in this regard, may I ask what is the advantage to be gained? What I submit to the Government as the correct course to adopt in dealing with these lands is simply to grant leases for forty or fifty years, giving the lessees, at the end of that time, a preferential right to take a portion of them under perpetual lease, or, as I should prefer - freehold. If they did that, the immediate attraction of a large area would be there, but, in course of time, as the land became more valuable, it would come back to Parliament, who would deal with it as it liked, in the interests of the people.

Now let me pass on to another clause. I come to clause T7, sub-section e. This deals with leases generally, not merely with larger pastoral holdings. It provides that each lease shall contain, among other things - a covenant by the lessee that he will use the land only for the purposes for which it is leased.

There were in the original Ordinance two clauses, numbers 23 and 24, which specifically prohibited a pastoral lessee from cultivating any portion of his land except with the permission of the Administrator. Now there was some criticism- directed to that proposition, and I myself asked what harm there could be in any lessee so disposed putting his plough into a part of his land. Those two clauses distinctly prohibited the pastoralist from cultivating his land. I was in hopes that that criticism had told its tale, and that the Government were now prepared to permit any pastoralist to use his land, not merely for an inferior, but for a higher, purpose. But while clauses 23 and 24 directly prohibiting the use of the land have disappeared, this provision is made in the covenant itself. I would ask whether that is an oversight. It does seem to me that, clauses 23 and 24 being struck out, this provision in the covenant lease has been overlooked. In clause 16 there is a further provision that the lessee shall use the land only for the purpose for which it is leased. I do not want to labour the question, but it does seem to me that, as that provision specifically applies to pastoral leases, there can be no earthly objection to saying to any pastoralist: “ If you want to use your land so as to turn it from grazing to cultivation, you are at liberty to do so.” One would think it an offence in this country for ‘the grazier to become a cultivator. Under the Ordinance a pastoralist who is inclined to experiment, in order to ascertain whether farming will be profitable or not, is compelled to suffer the annoyance and delay of making an application to the Administrator at Port Darwin. Let me point out the different way in which the same’ class of lease is dealt with in South Australia. Each of these Ordinances professes to be copied from the South Australian Act; but in the copying many important details have been left out, and other features introduced, the result being that, on the whole, there is not only no improve ment, but a retrogression, as compared with South Australia’s effort. The South Australian Act provides -

No lease granted under this Act shall authorize the lessee to carry on mining operations of any description whatever upon the lease or any part thereof.

That is a prohibition we can all understand and approve; but it goes on to say -

But the lessee shall be at liberty to utilize the surface of the land, or any part thereof, for pastoral purposes, or for any purpose, he thinks fit.

I would urge upon the Government, seeing that they have struck out of the original Ordinance clauses 23 and 24, that they should also strike out the condition in the covenant lease which restrains a pastoralist from utilizing his land for a higher purpose than grazing. I shall now deal with clause 17, sub-clause i. This comes under a general provision that the lease shall contain, among other things - any other reservations, covenants, conditions, and provisions which are prescribed or which are specified in the Gazette notice that the lands are available for leasing -

Up to that point I find no objection to the sub-clause, because the lessee has an opportunity of knowing the conditions under which the land is to be leased, but I object to the following words: - or which are considered by the Classification Board to be necessary under the circumstances of any particular case.

Those words mean that the lessee is not only to be bound by any reservations which are prescribed in the Gazette notice, but also by any which the Classification Board might consider necessary, after they have advertised the land for leasing. That would be unjust, and would prevent people from applying for these lands. Any conditions that it is thought desirable to attach to any lease ought to be gazetted at the time that the land is gazetted as available for leasing. Unless the land is withdrawn in the meantime, there ought to be no attempt made by officials to superimpose conditions of which the lessee had no prior notice.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The lessee would be a slave to the officials.

Senator MILLEN:

– Either we shall have to make some business arrangement in this Ordinance, or, if we do not, we shall create in the Northern Territory exactly that atmosphere and procedure which have caused nearly every Lands Department in the country to be the centre of some scandal or other.

I will now turn to clause 19. Here is a mistake; it is an incongruity, anyhow, which arises from the fact that there are four sub-clauses, and all of them were originally dovetailed one into the other. Because, however, of the Government having abandoned perpetual leases for pastoral holdings, it was necessary to alter the first of these sub-clauses. But for all that, no consequential amendment was made in numbers 2, 3, and 4, and the effect is that they are not now in harmony. Let me explain. The first sub-section originally read -

The lessee under a perpetual lease may, subject to the consent of the Administrator, assign, transfer, or sub-let the land included in the lease or any portion of it.

– Under clause 49 -

The Administrator or any person authorized by him may, under and subject to the regulations, grant licences to persons to graze stock -

Senator MILLEN:

– That is so; but Senator Lynch, will see that we are dealing, with pastoral areas, that money will be required to develop them, and that peoplewill not advance money upon pastoral areaswith all these harassing restrictions. Thehonorable senator will agree that unless, money is freely invested in the Northern” Territory, its condition at the end of the century will be about what we find it at thebeginning of the century. Nothing but the investment of money will transform theNorthern Territory from its present condition to the condition , of advanced development and settlement that we all desire tosee brought about. The conditions will bemuch the same as in the remote districtsof Queensland, the western division of NewSouth Wales, and some portions of Souths Australia. I can speak with more familiarity of the conditions existing in thewestern division of New South Wales; andi I know that it was, not long ago, quiteimpossible to sell property in that divisionfor periods running up to seven ornine years. It is only a few yearsago that that division of New South Wales was brought to such a condition that it was impossible to sell anything-; in connexion with a station but the stockthat could be walked off it. To tell a mortgagee, who is forced by foreclosure totake possession of a property in such country that he must sell within three years, is practically to tell him that he must forfeit his security. We wantto encourage people to invest money - in the Northern Territory, and we must- give those who advance money upon properties there some guarantee that if they are compelled later on to realize, they will have a reasonable opportunity to turn round and find some one to take the security off their hands.

I now come to clause 23, which is probably the most curious clause in the whole of this Ordinance. As I read it, it would prevent a son occupying a block of land left to him by his father upon the death of the latter. That, of course, was never intended. It is absurd to suppose that it was contemplated that if a father left a block of land to his son the son should be compelled to sell it to .some one else. Yet that is exactly what clause 23 means. It reads -

Where any pastoral or agricultural lease granted in pursuance of this Ordinance devolves upon any person by operation of law, the person on whom the lease devolves may (subject to the term of the lease) continue to hold the lease for a period of three years, and for such further period as the Administrator thinks fit to permit.

Let me cut out some of these words while retaining the substance of the provision. It means that where any lease devolves upon any person by operation of law - by will, for instance-

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– That would not be by operation of law; but in case of insolvency, the honorable senator’s objection would apply.

Senator MILLEN:

– I think that the defect in the clause arises from the fact that it is taken from the New South Wales Act ; but certain words in the New South Wales provision have been omitted from this clause. The New South Wale’s section reads -

Where any agricultural lease granted in pursuance of this Act devolves upon any person ineligible to hold under this Act -

Senator MILLEN:

-Whatwould Senator Barker say if I allowed him to build a house on a piece of land belonging to me, and retained the right to come along and re-appraise his ground rental whenever I chose? Neither the President nor the Standing Orders would allow me to mention what the honorable senator would say if I submitted such a proposal to him. If any private landlord attempted to do here what the Government are attempting to do in the Northern Territory, Senator Barker would go on to the first platform that was available to him and denounce it.

Senator Barker:

-Ihave always advocated that the unearned increment should go to the State.

SenatorMILLEN. -I am not arguing whether the community-created increment should go to the Government ; but when any individual goes on to a block of land in the Northern Territory, and spends his money there, he has a right to look for fixity of tenure. It is not proposed under this Ordinance to do in regard to pastoral and agricultural lands what is to be done in the case of town lands. We leave the holder of agricultural and pastoral lands in undisturbed possession for twenty-one years. But, in the case of the rentals of town lands, that is not done. The Ordinance says, first of all, that the values shall be re-appraised every fourteen years, and, next, that they may bere-appraised in between the fourteen years.

– To talk of appeal at all is to admit that there is something harassing against which the appeal is made. I simply leave it at that. Are not honorable senators pushing this theory of taking the community-created value too far, when they will not give a fourteen years’ lease? If they still think that this right of re-appraisement at will is a good one, let them show their belief in their own theory by applying it to all the lands in the Northern Territory. Now I want to say a word or two on clause 27, sub-clause c, which reads - a covenant by the lessee that he will within three years after the date of the lease stock the land to the extent prescribed by the regulations, and keep the land so stocked during the continuance of the lease ;

– There is no reason why we should pass a provision which, in the language of Senator Rae, if literally observed, will mean great injury and hardship to settlers in the Northern Territory.

– That is so, but that does not get over the power taken here to vary the regulations as to fencing from time to time. It is quite possible that what the Minister says regarding a common boundary fence may be correct. I shall come later to a clause which revives and continues South Australian laws, and to which I take the strongest possible objection for reasons which I shall set out. On the assumption that the State law is sufficient, I shall not say any more about a common’ boundary fence, but, judging from the amount of trouble which has been experienced in, 1 suppose, all the States regarding this matter, the sooner we have our own law on the subject, . rather than rely on any other, and a definite announcement in each lease as to what the law is to be, the better it will be for all parties concerned.

Clauses 28 to 37 are new, and their appearance is due to the fact that for pastoral lands terminable leases have been substituted for perpetual leases. Here is a remarkable change of front displayed by the advocates of perpetual leases. Originally prepared to grant perpetual leases for pastoral areas, they have now come down to leases for twenty-one years, in some cases, and forty-two years in other cases. A forty-two-years’ lease is the tenure which has prevailed in the Northern Territory for some time. It does, to my mind, suggest a much more likely proposition than a twenty-one years’ lease. I know of no pastoral land anywhere in Australia which was originally offered for such a short term as twenty-one years. Queensland started with leases for twenty-one years in comparatively settled country, and I think I am right in saying that leases in that State now range from twenty-eight to thirty and forty years. In New South Wales, in earlier times, we have had leases which run up to twenty-one years, with the tight of renewal or an extension for a portion of the area. In the more particularly pastoral country in the Western Division a lease for forty years was given to the men who were in possession.

Senator Rae:

– With the right of resumption of a portion.

Senator MILLEN:

– One-eighth. We are, I think, overlooking the practical requirements of the case when we propose to grant hese definite leases - originally to be perpetual, but now to be for forty-two years - without providing for some resumption other than is contemplated by the Ordinance. Instead of putting a limit on the area which may be held in big pastoral leases, it would have been very much better for the Government to have said to these men, “ You shall have a definite period under settled conditions, but at the end of half of the term of lease we shall claim the right to take a portion of your run should it be required for smaller settlement. “ That would continually make available for the Crown land which might be required for other settlers, and the lessee would know the half which he would hold for the longer period ; he would mass improvements as far as he could on that portion, and that would save a lot of trouble later. No outgoing lessee has ever yet been satisfied with the amount of compensation which he has received from the incoming tenant, nor has the latter ever been “satisfied with the amount which he was called upon to pay. The result of experience in New South Wales brought us to a very wise provision in regard to improvements. It was stipulated that improvements were to be valued at their value to the incoming tenant, and that, of course, had relation to the area of land which the incoming tenant would take. The experience of many of the States seems to have been entirely ignored. All the problems with which we are confronted in the Northern Territory have presented themselves elsewhere. I shall not say that they have been satisfactorily settled, but the keen edge has been taken off them. So far as I know, we have met difficulties which, apparently, in the Territory we are asked to deal with de novo. I cannot help thinking that twenty-one years is too short a term for a lease if it is to be confined to purely pastoral lands. The leases for the comparatively smaller blocks - the 38,000- acre blocks, which represent the smaller pastoralists - are to be perpetual leases. They will provide for many years to come for what I would regard as a very desirable class of settlers, but when we come to deal with purely pastoral areas a twenty-one years’ lease does not appear to me to be quite sufficient. I wish to direct attention to two errors - probably typographical - in clauses 29 and 31. Clause 29 reads -

If a new pastoral lease of any land in class A is gazetted -

There is no class A, and it is clearly intended to be class 1. Near the end of clause 31 there is a provision which would make the outgoing lessee continue to pay the “ rent received by and observe and perform the terms and conditions of the new lease.” The word “ received “ is evidently a misprint or a mistake. The term should be “ reserved “ or “ due by.” The clause is, I assume, taken from the South Australian Act, in which the term employed is “ reserved.” In this clause there is a strange provision, and the only justification, apparently, is that it finds a place in the State Act ; and that is a provision requiring an outgoing lessee, before he hands over his property, and before he is paid .for his improvements, to pay 5 per cent, interest oh the value of his own improvements in that interim period. An outgoing tenant has some improvements upon his land, and has perhaps in six months to hand them over to the incoming tenant; he does not get paid for them until the incoming tenant takes possession, but in the meantime he is required to pay interest on his own improvements. I do not see any point or justification in that; but I can quite understand how the difficulty has arisen. If the improvements were paid for before the new tenant went into possession, it is only fair and right that the old tenant who continued in occupation should pay rent; but until he receives the capital value he surely has no right to_ be called upon to pay interest on his own improvements. Probably the mistake has occurred in the State Act in confusing the amount which has been paid with the amount which is to be paid.

I now ask honorable senators to look at a rather serious omission, in these leases. In Division III., dealing with agricultural leases, are set out the covenants and reservations which shall figure in agricultural leases, and which are six in number. If they will turn to the corresponding clause dealing with pastoral leases, they will find that certain conditions are omitted from the agricultural leases and provisions which, I think, ought to find a place in them. In clause 27, dealing with pastoral leases - they will find that there are ten conditions set out as against six in connexion with these leases. The omitted conditions are as follow -

A reservation of all timber and timber trees and of all trees producing bark, resin, or valuable substances.

A covenant by the lessee that he will comply with the laws in force relating to the destruction of vermin and noxious weeds.

A covenant by the lessee that he will not, without the consent of the Director of Lands, cut any timber trees on the leased land, except for use on or in connexion with the land.

A covenant by the lessee that he will not in clearing the land destroy any timber or timber trees or trees producing any valuable bark, resin, or other valuable substances, except as allowed by the regulation.

A covenant by the lessee that he will not obstruct any public roads, parks, or ways, or interfere with the use thereof by any person, and will not interfere with travelling stock lawfully passing through the leased land.

A covenant by the lessee that he will not pollute, divert, or obstruct any water Sowing in a denned natural channel, unless by consent of the Director of Lands.

– If my honorable friend wishes to know, I may tell him that my share in the matter was to point out what, in my view, was the reading of the Act. Under this clause, a man can abandon his lease at any time on payment of the rent up to date, and if there be no provision to prevent the destruction of the timber, there will be nothing to prevent lessees in the Northern Territory doing what has been done elsewhere. They may take up leases, cut all the timber, which is doubly valuable in a country where timber is so scarce, and the Government will have the blocks thrown back upon them at a later date when they will be of very much less value. I trust that reasonable precautions will be taken to see that these lands are not entirely denuded of timber which, sooner or later, the country will need.

I wish to deal now for a moment with the miscellaneous leases in Division V. of this Ordinance. The clauses dealing with them have been taken from existing laws in the various States ; but there is this great difference always to be considered : In each of the States, there are provisions by which men may obtain freeholds, whilst there are no provisions of that kind in this Ordinance. These miscellaneous leases will be the only tenures which men will be able to obtain in order to carry on business occupations in country districts, and, in the circumstances, I submit, for the consideration of Ministers, that a twenty-one years’” lease is not a sufficiently long lease to provide for. What I have in mind is the possibility of graziers in the Northern Territory, as graziers did some years ago inQueensland and in New South Wales, acting in co-operation for the establishment of meat works to deal with their surplus stock. They will be unable to do that, under the terms of the leases upon which they can take up pastoral lands under this Ordinance, because those, leases will permit the use of the lands only for the purposes of the lease. If a company were formed1 for the establishment of meat- works, thecompany would not desire to bund upon the lease held by one member of the company, but, very naturally, such a company would desire to secure the title to its= property. The blocks required for the purpose would be small, and there is noreason why power should not be taken togrant leases for such areas for very much longer periods than are here provided for. The Administrator should, of course, have the right to say that, in particular instances, a lease for a shorter period than the maximum shall be granted; but he should be in a position to grant leases for such purposes for a longer period than is provided for in this Ordinance.

I have a word or two to say on Part IV. of the Ordinance dealing with resumptions. I have not only thought the matter over myself, but I took the opportunity of conferring with a number of people who are associated with the pastoral industry in the drier portions of Australia.

put the Ordinance in their hands and asked them to give me their opinions upon it. Those opinions varied, one portion of the Ordinance attracting one man more than it attracted another. But it is a curious thing that, in the seventeen personal communications I have had from gentlemen so placed without any conference between themselves, they have been unanimous in regarding as one serious objection to these resumption clauses, the right of resumption after a lapse of two years. One gentleman who has pastoral holdings in South Australia and in Queensland, and to whom I am very much indebted, has drawn my attention to a provision in the South Australian law that no resumption shall take place until after a lapse of ten years. That seems to me to be a notunreasonable provision. It is not unreasonable to ask that a man should have ten years’ possession of his lease without the possibility of being disturbed by any resumption) except that provided for under sub-clause 2 of clause 48, where land is resumed for public purposes, such as railways, tramways, roads, water conservation works, sites for towns, recreation grounds, cemeteries, and so on. A resumption for any such purpose should, of course, be possible at any time, but the ordinary resumption contemplated is a resumption for the purpose of subdivision ; and it seems to me that such a resumption should not take place within two years or, really, before the lessee has made himself properly at home on his lease. I do not suppose that the matter would be of much importance to the Government, as it is not likely that the power will be exercised within the time specified, but the provision may very well be regarded detrimental by those whom we are inviting to settle in the Territory. There is another matter which should be provided for in the Ordinance, and is not, and which has been referred to by the gentlemen with whom I have communicated. Where a resumption is decided upon, the tenant should have the right to demand that the Government shall take the lot. Where the portion of a lease to be resumed is small, the matter is not material, but I take the case of a man who has a holding which absorbs the whole of his capital. He has settled down, and is carrying on the business’ of a grazier, and if the Government step in and resume half of his holding, he will be placed in a very awkward position. He is left with a holding that requires only half his capital. What is he to do with the other half? Is he to invest it in land elsewhere, which he must intrust to a manager, or run the risk of having to sell out his reduced holding at a reduced price? It would not be unreasonable to provide that where the Crown decides to resume a portion of a man’s lease, he should have the right to say, “ If you want to resume a portion of my lease, you must take the lot.” I commend that as a suggestion from people who have a practical acquaintance with this class of pastoral settlement.

Senator Rae:

– Provision is made in case of resumption for compensation in respect of the decreased value of the balance of the leasehold.

Senator MILLEN:

– That is so, but that does not wholly meet the difficulty. The gentleman who first drew my attention to the matter put it in this way, “ I held a lease in New South Wales, and the Government had the right to resume a portion of it. The property is not a big one, running only 7,000 or 8,000 sheep. The Government resumed half the property, and what am I now to do with half my capital? “ The resumption of half a man’s leasehold might place him in a very awkward predicament, and where a resumption is decided upon, the lessee should have the right to demand the resumption of his whole block.

I wish now to point out a serious defect in connexion with sub-clauses 6, 7, and 8 of clause 48. Whilst the Ordinance provides that the outgoing lessee shall be paid, the method of paying him is left entirely to regulation. I do not think that a similar provision can be found in any Land Act. In our Lands Acquisition Act, and in the Lands Acts of New South Wales and South Australia, there are special provisions as to the method of making compensation for resumption.

In South Australia, clauses 59 to 61 provide for arbitration, and set out the terms under which the arbitrators are to be appointed. They tell a man the conditions under which he will be compensated. It is the same in New South Wales, and also under the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act. But in this case the compensation is to be provided in a manner “ prescribed by the regulations.” Whilst one may have an abounding faith in both the capacity and integrity of Government officers to deal with these matters, I submit that we are now face to face with a business proposition, and that it is not a business proposition to tell a man who is claiming the right to compensation that his case will be dealt with under regulations to be framed at some future time. I sugges’t that we ought to have some definite provisions inserted in the Ordinance - preferably those which are contained in the South Australian Act: I also direct attention to paragraph c of clause 18, which takes power, not merely to resume the whole or any portion of the land a8 prescribed by this Ordinance, but also to resume under any future regulation. The power might, therefore, be varied from time to time. I suggest that the Government would be well advised to introduce some definite proposal which would in no sense jeopardize the public interest, but would give a measure of confidence and assurance to those who are invited to occupy these lands. Sub-clause 8 of clause 48 defines “ improvements “ as meaning - improvements of a permanent nature reasonably adapted to the use of the leased lands for the purposes of the lease, and which, in the case of improvements on pastoral leases, have been erected with the approval of the Director of Lands.

The next matter I have to mention concerns the drafting of the Ordinance. I find that, in connexion with the Gazette, three terms are employed. In clauses 17, 22, 23, 38, 55, and the regulations, the word “ Gazette “ is used. In clause 13, there is a provision that certain matters are to be published in the Northern Territory Gazette, and the Commonwealth Gazette. Further on, in clause ss, the term “ Gazette of the Northern Territory “ is used. Three terms are used. Some matters are to be published both in the Northern Territory Gazette and in the Commonwealth Gazette; some are to be published only in one; and as to that one, there appears to be a doubt whether publication is to be in the Northern Territory Gazette or in the Commonwealth Gazette. I think that that doubt ought to be set at rest, otherwise somebody, when a resumption is decided upon, may take the point that he was entitled to have the matter gazetted in the Commonwealth Gazette as well as in the Northern

Territory Gazette. The employment of the three terms leaves a doubt as to what is intended.

I come now to the regulations, and with these will conclude my observations. The first to which I direct attention is No. 9. It is the one requiring a medical certificate of fitness. I did hope that the Department was going to strike out that provision. If a man makes an application for land, the Director of Lands may ask him to produce a certificate that he is medically fit. There is, of course, a great deal to be said as to the desirableness of having a suitable class of settlers in the Northern Territory. But( I want honorable senators to be practical in this matter. We are not dealing now with immigrants, because the Department responsible for the exclusion of undesirable immigrants can well be left to deal with people under that head. We are now dealing with applicants for land ; and if immigrants have passed through the test provided by the Department of Trade and Customs, why is it necessary to have this provision in regard to a man who desires to go to the Northern Territory? The Minister, on a former occasion, said that this certificate of fitness would only be necessary when it was asked for, suggesting that there would be differentiation, and that the Minister is going to ask for a certificate from John Smith, whereas he would not dream of asking for it from William Brown. That makes the matter worse. If any -certificate is required, the provision ought to apply all round. The idea of asking for medical certificates of fitness, however, is here carried to a dangerous extent. If it is desirable to have medical certificates regarding the men who go out there to take up land, it was equally desirable to have medical certificates in regard to the Government officials. Did the Minister insist upon medical certificates being produced before the officers were sent to the Northern Territory? I cannot imagine where this provision had its origin, unless it has arisen from an ever-present tendency on the part of Government officials. When they are placed in the position of administering ‘ a Department unrestrained by the active control of Parliament, they seem to think that they are called upon to do everything in regard to every individual. I can imagine the Administrator saying that where the land carries a residential condition it is necessary to have people out there whose health would permit them to reside, but if that is the argument which is used, it is a much stronger ground for asking for a medical certificate as to the fitness of a man’s wife. I do not believe that a medical certificate will be effective, even if it is insisted upon, but it introduces an element of absurdity into our proceedings to say that a man cannot apply for land in the Northern Territory, where we are anxious to get settlers, although he can apply for land in any State without a medical certificate, until he has first demonstrated his physical fitness for the terrors of that life. Regulation10 is a much more serious proposition; that is the invitation to slander to which I directed attention last time - (1.) Any information supplied by an applicant to the Classification Board or to an authorized person shall, if the applicant so desire, be treated by the Classification Board as confidential. (2.) Any information supplied by any persons, other than the applicant, to the Classification Board or any authorized persons, at the request of the Classification Board or authorized person, shall be privileged, and shall be treated by the Classification Board as confidential.

That is a Paul Pry sort of business, a sneaking, un-British, underhand method of obtaining tittle-tattle, which a number of gossiping or venomous people may be inclined to circulate regarding an applicant. I have never heard of such a proposal before. I cannot understand how it came to be in an Ordinance submitted by a Government which is responsible to Parliament. I do not believe that there is an honorable senator who will seriously contend that it is a decent, healthy proposition, ‘that the Classification Board may say to the people of the world, “ Any of you who like to tell us what you please about an applicant can do so with impunity, and, what is more, it will be a privileged communication, and, therefore, free from the law of slander or libel.” I ask honorable senators to contrast that with the practice which generally prevails, and that is that if a man has anything to say against an applicant he goes into open Court, where the applicant has an opportunity of rebutting his statement.

Senator Blakey:

– The Classification Board are not bound to take his statement as Gospel truth.

SenatorMILLEN.-What has that to do with the matter ? The point is : Ought a man to be allowed to make a statement of that kind ?

Senator Blakey:

-The other man ought to have rebutting evidence.

SenatorMILLEN. -The other man is not told of the statement. I do not suppose that the Government are responsible for this provision. They may father it or defend it, but I do not believe for a moment that it found its origin in the mind of any Minister, because it is too repugnant to our general sense of fair play and justice. It is, I think, traceable to the Administrator, a man who may be conscious of his own integrity, and thinks that, for that reason, he can take extraordinary powers and establish a sort of benevolent despotism. I. venture to say that this Parliament would not sanction such a proposal were it submitted in a Bill. I do hope that honorable senators, if they will not speak publicly, will at least tell the Ministers what they think of this regulation, in order to remove that which, if allowed to remain, will be a blot on the legislative efforts of this Parliament. Regulation 12 requires the Classification Board to send a notice to each successful applicant as to the grant of his application. Seeing that many of these applications will come from various parts of Australia, there ought to be a provisionfor doing more than sending a notice to a successful applicant. It would save a great deal of time and trouble if an answer were sent to every applicant. That is what an ordinary business firm would do. The Minister might convey to the Administrator a suggestion that every applicant should receive an answer. In regulation14, with regard to town lands, there is a provision which I regard as almost dangerous-

Provided that in the case of town lands which have been offered for sale by public auction before the commencement of the Ordinance, applications may be received and dealt with as if the land had been offered under the Ordinance.

There is generally a provision that town lands are to be offered first by public auction at an upset rental, and if they are not then purchased, the Administrator may deal privately with people for the sale of the leases at the upset rental. That is all right, but the proviso says that where freehold land has been offered for sale, perhaps ten or twenty years ago, the Minister can, without going through any preliminaries, privately sell a lease of that land. I do not think that we ought to sanction a provision of that kind. There is a safeguard in insisting that all lands shall be offered first at public auction. I suggest that the proviso should be struck out, and that town lands should be first offered by public auction. I come now to the last regulation, which is almost as serious as the one dealing with secret information. Regulation 21 contains the procedure on breach ofa covenant by a lessee. If honorable senators will take the trouble to read the regulation, I think that they will be staggered at the amount of power which is vested in one individual. I do not know of any individual or Court having thesame power as that which is sought to be placed in the Director of Lands. If he is satisfied that a lessee hasfailed to comply with any of the covenants of the lease he may consider any explanation offered, but finally he may forfeit the lease, and the lessee will have no right of appeal against this arbitrary act. After the lease is forfeited, but not before, the Administrator may, if he likes, step in and reverse the forfeiture. It is ridiculous to provide that the Administrator cannot act until a lease has been forfeited. If the Director of Lands thinks that there has been such a breach of the covenants of the lease as to render forfeiture justifiable, surely he ought to intimate that opinion, and give the lessee an opportunity there and then to appeal to the Administrator, and not wait until the forfeiture has taken place. It seems to me to be a case of putting the cart before the horse. I ask honorable senators to consider the vast powers which are put in the hands of the Director of Lands. Sitting in his own office, he is to have the power of saying whether he will forfeit a man’s holding, and with that all that the man possesses in the world. That is not a fair or business-like method. In the States, an opportunity is given to a lessee to state his case before a Court openly. In New South Wales, the Land Board is the original tribunal. When a man is charged with a breach of covenant, he is cited before the Land Board, which hears the evidence on oath. The lessee has an opportunity of putting forward his defence, and if the verdict is against him, he can go to the Appeal Court, consisting of three individuals, and state his case fairly and openly. The Land Board is composed of three members, two of whom are local residents, who are either interested in land matters, or possess some land knowledge. They are supposed to be the practical members of the Board. In contrast with that system, this Ordinance puts the whole power in the hands of a Government official. There is not a man holding land under the Crown in Queensland or New South Wales, who would be satisfied to leave the determination of his interests in the hands of a single public official, no matter who he might be. True it is that the Ordinance allows an appeal from the Director of Lands to the Administrator, but that is merely an appeal from one official to another, both being closely in touch with each other. I regard the regulation as tyrannical. Surely there is something wrong when it is provided that an appeal cannot be entertained until after the forfeiture of the lease. I must apologize for having spoken at this length, but I am rather the victim of circumstances than responsible for the demand I have made upon the time of the Senate. I have directed attention to defects in the Ordinance, and I feel confident that honorable senators will admit that it does contain defects.In abandoning one Ordinance, the Ministry admitted that they are not infallible. I ask honorable senators to exercise a greater independence than they did on a previous occasion, and to do here what their brethren did elsewhere, and that is, to make their opinion known, in order that we may, as far as possible, give to the Northern Territory the most perfect Ordinance we are capable of constructing, seeing that it is to form the very basis of the land system there for years to come.

Debate (on motion by Senator McGregor) adjourned.

page 5971

NAVIGATION BILL

In Committee (Consideration of House ‘ of Representatives’ amendments resumed from22nd November, vide page5867) :

Clause 349 - (1.) The master of any ship requiring the services of a pilot shall receive on board the first pilot offering himself, and shall on demand by that pilot give the ship into his charge. (a.) The master of any such ship shall not quit his station or anchorage within any port proclaimed as above without first receiving a pilot on board.

Penalty : Twenty pounds. (3.) The penalty under this section shall be in addition to the amount due for pilotage.

– Senator St. Ledger has a very short memory. I have answered his questions half-a-dozen times when previously discussing the clause, but for his special benefit, I shall answer them again. As I understand the honorable senator, he asks why we propose to adopt compulsory pilotage in some ports and not in others. I have pointed out that where compulsory pilotage is enforced, the work will be carried out by pilots who will be Government servants. This has been decided upon because, in these ports, the shipping traffic will be great, and navigation difficult. There will be sufficient work to employ the whole of a pilot’s time, and pilots employed in these ports willbe required to possess higher qualifications than will be deemed necessary for pilots employed under licence where navigation is not so difficult. Now, as to the question of liability, the shipmaster will be liable in both cases for the whole of the liability and the liability of the Commonwealth, and there will be no liability on the Commonwealth or upon the pilot. The honorable senator will see that under the next amendment of the House of Representatives provision is made that the Commonwealth shall not be liable for any loss or damage occasioned by the neglect or want of skill of any pilot.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 351 (Liability for neglect of pilots).

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -Omit the clause, and insert the following new clause : - 351. - (1.) No pilot shall be personally liable in pecuniary damages for any damage or loss occasioned by his neglect or want of skill. (2.) The Commonwealth shall not be liable for any damage or loss occasioned by the neglect or want of skill of any pilot.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

-Would you set a penalty of £100 up for£100,00 worth of damages?

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Pearce:

– I am not aware of any.

Senator MILLEN:

We do not object to it, but we cannot see what good it is. Of what use is £100 in the ase of the loss of a ship like the Australia? It is only harassing to the pilot to make provision for these penalties. Some ship-owners are inclined to make a somewhat unfair use of them, as they are aware that pilots are very much averse to going to law. . . The provision, by its harassing effect, will probably do more harm than good.

Then we have Mr. J. R. Thompson, pilot in Sydney Harbor. He says on question 8026 (page 308) -

And you also believe that no further exemption certificates should be issued to foreigngoing ships. Do you wish to make any other remarks on the Bill ?- I desire to draw the attention of the Commission to clause 260, which says -

No pilot shall personally be liable in pecuniary damages beyond the extent of one hundred pounds for any damage or loss occasioned by his neglect or want of skill.

The Commonwealth shall not be liable for any damage or loss occasioned by the neglect or want of skill of any pilot.

As we are employed as Government servants on a salary, such a provision would be pretty hard on us.

That was his opinion. Now there is Mr. J. E. Morris, a sea pilot, also of Sydney, questions 8333, 8334-

The only penalties I see are penalties which I should think you would be very slow to imagine would ever be inflicted. Clause 360 says, “ No pilot shall personally be liable in pecuniary damages beyond the extent of one hundred pounds for any damage or loss occasioned by his neglect or want of skill.” You know there is ,£20,000 received. How many pilots are there in the port of Sydney? - Ten. ‘

There are ^20,000 received from pilotage dues. That is ,£2,000 per man ; allowing that you get £1,000 per man, you have £10,000 to put away to meet all claims. £100 is the only penalty inflicted under this Bill, so far as I see, and here you have ,£10,000, and you will increase your salary from £300 to £1,000 and then have enough to meet everything? - We would only be too willing to undertake the upkeep of pilot establishment. We say, as Government servants, that it is undesirable and unfair that the pilot should be held pecuniarily responsible at nil ; we derive no profits from it. A man might be held guilty of a slight error of judgment ; he might, with years of experience as a pilot, say to himself, “Well, I can get through that “ in order to facilitate despatch to vessels, and there might be a little accident. If we had three like that, we would have no salary left.

I come now to question 8338 asked by the Chairman, and the answer to it -

I understand you to say that you object to clause 360? - Yes.

Then we have Mr. J. McCorquodale, Government pilot at Newcastle, question 20272 -

I see nothing in the Act of 1901 of New South Wales that takes away from any person whose property is being damaged the right to sue for the whole amount? - I do not know that it is there; I have not had a look through that Act. In the Victorian Marine Act the pilots are liable for one hundred pounds, and I know one pilot who was sued for a paltry- amount. He is since - deceased. As State servants we should not be made liable.

Further, there is Mr. Fergus Cumming, senior pilot at the port of Newcastle, who was asked - question 24091 - if he had read the- Bill, and answered “Yes.” In answer to an invitation by the Chairman for his criticism upon it, he said -

I think the Bill itself in that respect is perfect, and a fair thing will be done all round. I have also come up here to appeal to you about this £100 penalty. I am talking about Newcastle pilotage now. I do not know anything about other pilots of the Commonwealth ; they have their difficulties, I suppose, the same as we have. I think it is a dreadful thing to make a pilot liable to pay damages up to £100 when you think of the peculiar conditions of this port.

So far as the other pilots are concerned, I have not been able to find any one of them defending this pecuniary penalty. I can only say, as regards the proposal to make the Commonwealth liable, the Commonwealth, in this particular case, is not a common carrier. It is not in the position of a State, the owner of a railway. If the Commonwealth were the owner of a ship, there would be some force in the argument ; but the Commonwealth merely supplies, for the assistance of a ship-owner, a trained pilot to navigate his ship. Wherever there is a common carrier, the liability is upon the owner, and the common carrier in this case is not the Government, who supplies a skilled pilot, but the ship-owner and his servant, the ship-master. There is no foundation for the statement that the pilots are in favour of this, and by the sweeping proposal to make the Commonwealth shoulder the liability of the owner, honorable senators are endeavouring to introduce a state of things which does not exist under any other law in respect to a common carrier.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.7].- With all this evidence in1905 before the Minister, he took possession of this Bill, continuing the liability of £100 against the pilots; and now he is arguing thatin1905 there was evidence before the Commission showing that certain pilots were opposed to the liability. He is urging that as a reason why we should accept the alteration. The Government are blowing hot and cold. In1905, the Minister had all these facts before him, and he did not consider then that they should weigh with him so far as to cut out this liability. The other Chamber made an alteration in the Bill, and in stead of giving us some real reasons for that, he falls back on something which happened six years ago, before he took charge of the Bill, six years before he passed the Bill in this Chamber, and persuaded honorable senators to retain that liability. His position is absolutely untenable from any ordinary point of view. Now let me say a word with regard to Senator Guthrie, who was very urgent and insistent upon the unfairness of allowing the pilots to be made responsible for every accident that might happen in a crowded port. To listen to the speech of that honorable senator, one would imagine that this was an attempt to put the responsibility upon the pilots under all circumstances. Nothing of the kind. For an accident that happens through no fault of the pilot, the pilot is not, and never was, liable. It is just the same with the master of a ship. If an accident happens, and it is not through his negligence or want of skill, he is not responsible; and, similarly, the ship-owner and pilot are not responsible either. If it had been proposed that the pilot should be liable to pecuniary damages to the extent of£100 for any damage occasioned while the ship was in his charge, there would have been strong reasons against anything of that kind ; but here it is laid down clearly and distinctly that, before he is liable for any damage at all, it must be by reason of his neglect or want of skill. The pilot has the same right to shoulder responsibility for anything that happens through his negligence or want of skill as anybody else. The honorable senator, speaking of my own profession, spoke as if we had no liability. The law, the medical profession, and every profession has this liability, that, where any damage is caused in consequence of the neglect or want of ordinary skill, care, and attention of the individual, that individual is liable for the damage.

Senator Lynch:

-Did you ever knowof a lawyer who was made liable?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

-Yes; I know of many cases. Mistakes have been made by lawyers’ clerks, and their employers have recognised that the mistakes were such as to show a want of skill or want of care, and have made the damage good. I know of cases in which it has been done, and it has been pretty hard on the principal, when he has been away, and has had practically no control over the clerk who has made the mistake.

Senator Guthrie:

-But he was not liable.

SenatorLt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - Yes, he was; and if he had been brought before the Courts he would have been made to pay up. I say, therefore, that when you are dealing only with a question of neglect or want of skill, that you may fairly place pecuniary liability on the people concerned.

Senator Lynch:

– Are not all the cases you are speaking of covered by insurance?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The honorable senator is raising another question. As to the question of putting the responsibility on to the Commonweatlh, I have not argued in favour of that. Under the common law, the Com- monwealth would possibly be responsible unless it made a provision by Act of Parliament to save it from such liability. There is no serious proposal to throw that liability upon the Commonwealth. Senator Millen said that he wanted to find out where the liability should rest when any person suffered injury from the wrongful act of another, and that, when he looked around, he could not see who could be made responsible except the Commonwealth. From a practical stand-point, such a responsibility would perhaps be very undesirable. I am not advocating it, but do strongly object to the position taken up by the Minister, and the illogical way in which he has attempted to bolster up a very wrong, rotten case.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 352 (Non-immunity of owner when pilotage is compulsory).

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Insert the following new sub-clause (1.) and figure : - “(1.) The duty of a pilot in compulsory charge shall be to pilot the ship subject to the authority of the master, but the master shall not be relieved, by reason of the ship being under compulsory pilotage, from responsibility for the conduct and navigation of the ship.”

“(2.)”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the amendment be amended by leaving out the words “ in compulsory charge.”

We want the responsibility of the pilot to apply both to compulsory and licensed pilots. If a licensed pilot is taken on board a ship it is his duty to pilot the ship subject to the responsibility pf the master. Up to the time of the recent Maritime Convention in regard to collisions and salvage, ships crossing the seas came under twenty laws, often totally in conflict. This was regarded as a monstrous state of affairs.^ Hence the Convention. The parties to the Convention included Great Britain, United States of America, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Norway, Holland, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, Brazil, and a number of smaller powers. Article 5 of the Convention reads -

The liability of the preceding articles - that is to say, the articles fixing the liability for damages in collision upon the ship in fault - attaches in cases where the collision is caused by the fault of a pilot, even when the pilot is carried by compulsion of law.

Clause 352 of this Bill is in agreement with that principle. The Departmental Committee on pilotage, in their report, page 78, paragraph 260, says -

We cannot look with favour upon what prac’tically amounts to the total supersession of the master by the pilot when the vessel is in compulsory pilotage waters. We therefore recommend that the master shall’ at all times be legally responsible for the steering and safe conduct of the ship, and that the pilot, whether he actually handles the ship or not, should be the master’s expert assistant. It should, in our opinion, be the positive duty of the master to interfere in cases where he is of opinion that -the pHot through ignorance or inability is endangering life or property. There must be, in our opinion, at all times and under all conditions one supreme authority on board, and that authority must be the master.

The amendment now under discussion is declaratory of this principle, that at all times the pilot must be regarded as acting under and subject to the authority of the master, and that the latter, notwithstanding the presence of the pilot, still remains in enarge of the ship. It is true that up to the present Great Britain has not given legislative effect to this article of the Convention. She has, however, become a party to the Convention, and is under a moral obligation to bring her laws on the subject into conformity with it. I think we can say that we have fully discussed this question, which really arose on the previous amendment. I do not propose, therefore, to enter into it more fully.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.17]. - I recognise that the proposal of the Minister is quite logical, having regard to the. attitude we previously took up concerning, the piloting of a ship where piloting is not compulsory. If a master of a vessel chooses to secure the services of a pilot he should be in the same position as where a pilot is compelled to be taken on board. But the weakness of the position withregard to the clause we have dealt with is that the master is compelled to receive the first, pilot offering himself. In Great Britain if the master of a ship takes on board a pilot in waters where he is not compelled to do so the pilot is in the same position as any other employ^, and the master therefore is responsible for any mistake which may occur. The master may please himself whether he engages the pilot or not. If the master could exercise a choice in regard to the pilot taken on board there would not be somuch objection to allowing his responsibility to stand.

Senator Henderson:

– It would be im. possible for the master to choose his pilot when coming into a port from sea-

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

.- The first pilot who offers himself may be, to the master’s own knowledge, inefficient. He may not desire tohand his ship over to that pilot. But he has to do so by virtue of clause 349. Senator Pearce has referred to the Maritime Convention and its recommendations. He told us quite correctly that the British Government has not yet given effect to those recommendations. They have had an opportunity of doing so, but have deliberately abstained from passing a law such as Senator Pearce recommends to us..

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Those whohave been advising me on this matter havemade a note of Senator Gould’s remark with respect to the master of a ship being compelled to take the first licensed pilot who offers his services. I propose to give a promise to recommit clause 349, with aview to considering that point. We propose to see whether it is not possible to’ re-! strict the obligation to take the first pilot who offers to compulsory pilotage.

Senator Guthrie:

– It would be absolutely unworkable.

Senator PEARCE:

– At any rate, ‘ the matter may as well be looked into. We can, if we think it desirable, make a consequential amendment upon the amendment of the House of Representatives. The recommittal will give Senator Gould and others an opportunity of discussing the matter.

Motion agreed to.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.27].- Honorable senators are not in a position to realize, from clause 352 as it stands, what the law is a’t the present time in regard to pilotage. Under sub-clause 2, as the Bill left the Senate, the master or owner of a ship was not exempt from liability for any loss or damage occasioned! by the fault or want of capacity of a pilot by reason of the fact that the employment -of the’ pilot was compulsory. A side-note to the clause refers us to section 633 of the Merchant Shipping Act; but honorable senators who refer to that section will see that it places the master or owner in an entirely different position. The section reads -

An owner or master of a ship shall not bc answerable to any person whatever for any loss -or damage occasioned by the fault or incapacity of any qualified pilot acting in charge of that -ship within any district where the employment of a qualified pilot is compulsory by law.

Under this Bill, the owner is to be responsible. That is a reversal of the existing law, which provides that, where the employment of a qualified pilot is compulsory, the owner or master “ shall not be answerable for any loss or damage.” We are turning our back upon that provision. What I am now complaining about is that honorable senators, reading the Bill, would be under the impression, having regard to the side-note, that clause 352 was a transcript of section 633 of the Merchant Shipping Act. As a matter of fact, it is not a copy of that section. Instead of saying that the master or owner “shall not be answerable,” it says that the master or owner “ shall not be exempt from liability.” It is unfair that honorable senators should be confronted with statements that are calculated to mislead. The clause reverses the whole position. No doubt, that is the reason why honorable members of another place were asked to make this amendment. We are deliberately adopting a principle which will throw the whole liability on the ship-owner when he faas been obliged to put the ship in charge of a, pilot/ who’ will be a public servant, but for whose conduct the Commonwealth is to accept no responsibility. Further, the pilot himself is to have no responsibility; but we are saying that the master shall be responsible, and that therefore his ern. ployer shall be responsible. That is a moat unfair position in “which to put’ shipowners. It is all very well to say that the master can put the pilot on one side whenever he thinks fit, but that is a big responsibility for a master to take, especially when he finds himself and his ship in strange waters. It is absolutely unrighteous to make the master responsible for the acts of a person where he has practically no control.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– 1 under-‘ stand that the English law at present is that if a ship has on board a compulsory pilot, and collides with a ship lying at anchor, the master or owner of a ship which has not a compulsory pilot has no resource against the ship which has, even if the latter is to blame. Supplementing what I said just now as ‘to the International Maritime Convention, I wish to mention that the Departmental Committee which I referred to before recommended the abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage -

There is, however, no provision in the present Pilotage Bill ra.12, to this effect. Upon the question of the defence of compulsory pilotage, Sir Norman Hall, speaking on behalf of the Ship-owners’ Parliamentary Committee, pointed out that the Liverpool Steamship Owners’ Association had made their assent to the principle of the abolition of that defence dependent entirely upon a satisfactory international agreement being arrived at on the subject of the limitation of the ship-owners’ liability.

That quotation is taken from the Shipping Gazette of 26th July of this year. It will be seen that in this respect, at any rate, we are following the latest agreement - practically an international agreement - which has been arrived at, and we have the authority of the gentleman whom I have quoted, and who represented one of the biggest shipping associations in the United Kingdom, that they gave their assent to it subject to an international agreement. It seems to me that we are on perfectly safe lines in making this alteration, and that before long other nations will make this alteration in their shipping laws, which has been practically agreed upon by ‘ their representatives, and only awaits- legislative action.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

. - I assume that the only reason which the Minister can have for using the words “under compulsory pilotage” in this amendment is that, in his opinion, the law as it is to-day, does not relieve the master from the responsibility that attaches to his position if the ship is under that kind of pilotage which is not compulsory. I understand that he is leaving in the words “under compulsory pilotage,” because he considers that it is quite safe not to strike them out.

Senator Pearce:

– That is so.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I would sooner see the words struck out. If they were omitted, it would make no difference in law or result, but the provision would read a little more clearly -

The duty of a pilot shall be to pilot a ship subject to the authority of the master, but the master shall not be relieved by reason of the ship being under pilotage from responsibility for the conduct and navigation of the ship.

I think that he ought to be.

Senator Pearce:

– I am informed that the other is the established law, and that we only need to make this exemption. This is the only case in which he is personally exempt.

Senator CLEMONS:

– If we leave out “ compulsory,” we shall recognise the established law. We should say that the master shall not be relieved from responsibility if the ship is under pilotage. I see no reason for retaining the words, and their omission cannot do any harm.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

. -I understand that as it has been the established law and practice of all countries that where a ship is under compulsory pilotage that relieves her from liability for damages, it was thought advisable to expressly state that exemption no longer exists under this law, but as Senator Clemons says, it is apparent that if the word “ compulsory “ were left out, it would not make any difference in the effect of the law. I move -

That the amendment be further amended by leaving out the word “ compulsory,” line 5.

Senator Sir JO SI AH SYMON (South Australia) [9.41]. -I am afraid that we are getting into rather a tangle on this question of compulsory pilotage. I think it was a mistake to eliminate the words “ in compulsory charge “ in the first line of the sub-clause.

Senator -Clemons. - That amendment has been carried.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

-My honorable friend now suggests the omission of the other word “ compulsory,” because we have eliminated the words “ in compulsory charge “ in the first line. I am not sure that there might not be some logical reason for doing that, but 1 think that the whole sub-clause ought to be reconsidered. It involves an alteration of the law. If it is intended to alter the law in that respect by retaining the liability of the master, although the ship is in the compulsory charge of the pilot, then it is quite right to express it as it was in the unamended subclause -

The duty of a pilot in compulsory charge shall be to pilot a ship subject to the authority of the master -

Because the law before that was that the pilot was not under the authority of the master.

Senator Guthrie:

– Merely an adviser.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– That is all. Where pilotage is compulsory, the master has no authority over the pilot, subject to a certain qualification, which is not very material. It is proposed here to say that the liability of the master or the ship shall remain, notwithstanding compulsory pilotage. Then this is a very proper amendment, because it places the pilot under the authority of the master. If a ship is coming into a port where pilotage is not compulsory, and the master chooses, for his own convenience, or because he is not familiar with the port, to take a pilot the pilot is his servant, and the master remains liable for any error which the pilot may commit, or any damage which may ensue. But where pilotage is compulsory, the master is relieved of all responsibility for the pilot. And that is the foundation of the exemption of the liability of the master. The motive of the amendment seems to be overlooked, and the result will be that we shall negative what is intended.

Senator Pearce:

– No; we are including it.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The present law is, as the Minister pointed out, that where pilotage is compulsory in a port, a ship which, under that compulsory law, takes a pilot, is exempt from liability for accident, although the pilot may be to blame. The corollary of that is that the master has no responsibility for the pilot, and no right to interfere with him. That is the essence of the liability from which a ship in charge of a compulsory pilot is exempt. That is going to be altered by saying that, even if the ship is in charge of a compulsory pilot, the master will be liable for any damage which may result. If we make that provision in sub-clause 1, the amendment is essential. If the master is to be liable for damages resulting from the negligence of the pilot, he should have some control over the pilot. It is for that reason the first sub-clause says -

The duty of a pilot in compulsory charge shall be to pilot the ship subject to the authority of the master.

All that we are legislating for in this case is compulsory pilotage. It is entirely superfluous to say, as we shall say if we omit the word “compulsory,” that the pilot shall be subject to the authority of the master in ordinary circumstances.

Senator Pearce:

– There is no harm in saying it.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

. -I find that Dundas White in his work on the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1884-1897 has a foot-note to this clause, in which he states -

The exemption contained in this section is founded on the commonlaw, and notwithstanding section 572 the same principle applies to similar cases of damage done abroad, provided that a pilot was compulsorily in charge of the ship. But it does not apply where though the employment of a pilot was compulsory he was not himself in charge but only in the position of adviser to the master.

Where pilotage is compulsory the exemption applies, but it does not apply where’ the pilot is not absolutely in charge, but merely acts as an adviser to the master.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments of clause 356 agreed to.

Clause 377 (Cancellation or suspension of certificate).

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit the clause.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

. -I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

This clause has been the subject of lengthy correspondence with the Imperial authorities, who strongly objected to it, as honorable senators will see if they refer to the printed memorandum on the Board of Trade objections. We have been given what really amounts to an assurance that the Board of Trade will not in future return to a master or officer any certificate which has been cancelled or suspended by a Commonwealth Court of Marine Inquiry without first communicating with us on the matter. That is really all that we desire, and it is, therefore, proposed to omit the clause.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment of clause 378 agreed to.

Clause 392-

Upon complaint on oath by the master of a ship in port that any person belonging to or employed on or being about or upon the ship -

is insubordinate ; or

refuses to work; or

is inciting any other person to commit an offence against this Act, any police stipendiary magistrate of the Commonwealth or of a State may cause such person to be apprehended by any police officer and brought before him, and on proof of the complaint he may commit the offender to prison for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit the words “ and on proof of the complaint he may commit the offender to prison for a term riot exceeding three months with or without hard labour.”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move-

That the amendment be agreed to.

The words proposed to be omitted are in direct conflict with the penalties already provided in clause 99 for the particular offences specified.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.56].- If no alternative to a money penalty is provided for it will become necessary in the event of a fine imposed not being paid to take further proceedings for the punishment of the offender by imprisonment. No alternative is being provided for here, and it, might be well to make an amendment providing an alternative of imprisonment, in default of the payment of the penalty.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– It is unnecessary to provide an alternative, because under the Acts Interpretation Act where a pecuniary penalty is provided for, in default of payment, imprisonment for a certain period in proportion to the penalty is laid down.

Senator -Lt.Colonel Sir Albert Gould. -I wasunder the impression that where afine in such cases was not paid it was necessaryto take further proceedings before the alternative penalty could be imposed.

Senator PEARCE:

– I think that is not so.

Motion agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 5986

ADJOURNMENT

Conduct of Business - Tuesday Sittings

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

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

In submitting this motion I should like to call the attention of honorable senators to the very slow progress we have been making, and also to the fact that we ought to be nearing the end of the session. If we desire to avoid sitting late, and prob ably all night on one or two occasions in the near future, and also sitting after Christmas, some alteration of our arrangements must be made. We shall have to take into consideration the advisableness of sitting on Tuesdays, and I should like to give honorable senators timely notice, not as a threat, because there is no necessity for threats at this stage of the session, and I have to admit that honorable senators have been very reasonable. I do not think that they have abused their privileges in any way, and up to the present our debates have always been of a friendly character. But we must get the business through, and if we cannot make more progress within the next couple of days, we shall have to sit next Tuesday. I hope, however, that that will not be necessary. If it is, I shall be prepared to submit a motion before the end of the week.

Senator Millen:

– Hasthe VicePresident of the Executive Council considered the advisableness of taking Thursday evening for Government business?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I have given an assurance to honorable senators in charge of private business that they shall have a day, and I shall not object to giving them Tuesday. As long as there was a quorum present we could go on with private business, and those who were not interested in it need not come.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The statement made by the VicePresident of the Executive Council cannot have occasioned any surprise, because we must all recognise that, as the session draws to its close, extra time will be required by the Government. I suggest tothe VicePresident of the Executive Council, however, the advisableness of utilizing the time now occupied with the very interesting discussions on private business. Those who wish to discuss the questions to which I have referred might arrange with the President for the occupancy of another room in this building in which to carry on a debating club, and I have no doubt that the Chairman of Committees would undertake to preside over them on such an occasion. The attitude of most of us with regard to private business is well illustrated by the suggestion which the Vice-President of the Executive Council has made, that those who wish to take part in such discussions might help to form a quorum on Tuesday. I suggest that to deal with private business. in that way is making a farce of it. Whilst the debates may be very interesting, they have no practical effect on the course of legislation. If the Minister is called upon to alter the ordinary arrangements for next week’s sittings, I trust that he will not ask us to come a day sooner than is necessary except to deal with public business.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

: -I shall do all I can to expedite the passage of the Navigation Bill with which we have been dealing, and to assist the Government in other respects. But I do not agree with whathas been said with regard to. private business. . Honorable senators are entitled to more liberaltreatment than the Vice-President of the Executive Council has suggested’. There are some important matters that certainlycannot be disposed of in one afternoon. If I were to be egotistical, I might suggestcertain motions standing inmy name, and there are otherhonorable senatorsless egotistical than myself ‘ who mighthold similar opinions with regard to their business. But we shall certainly do. all we can to help forward Government business.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Speaking entirely for myself, I deplore the possibility of the Senate being driven to sit all night, and hope that we. shall not have such sittings during the remainder of this session. May I offer a. suggestion that I intend to be helpful to the Minister? If he had intimated to-night that it was his desire that we should finish a certain amount of business by to-morrow at 6.30, I have not the slightest doubt that honorable senators would do all they could to assist him. For instance,he might have intimated a wish that we should finish the Navigation Billbefore private business is called on to-morrow. If he made a suggestion of that kind, it would help forward business considerably, and give us a full knowledge of what was expected of us, and of what was likely to happen. I certainly hope that we shall not be called upon to come here on Tuesday to deal with private business. In the first place, I do not think that Tuesday should be a sitting day for the Senate, and, secondly, I think it must be admitted, after the remarks of the Leader of the Senate tonight, that private business may as well be written off as a perfect farce. If itbe necessary for us to come on Tuesday next, let it be to deal with public business.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.7 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 November 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1912/19121127_SENATE_4_68/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate27 November 1912

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator SAYERS:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Sayers:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator McGREGOR:

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

STATE SAVINGS BANK

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator MILLEN:

QUESTION

STATISTICS : ENROLMENT

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

Senator PEARCE:

Senator CHATAWAY:

PAPERS

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LAND TAX

Senator ST LEDGER:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator McGREGOR:

QUESTION

LIGHTHOUSES ACT

Senator GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator FINDLEY:Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

TASMANIAN GRANT : TAXATION

Senator GIVENS:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

Senator Clemons:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator O’KEEFE:TASMANIA

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator McGREGOR:

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Crown Lands Ordinance

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Rae:

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Fraser:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lynch:

Senator MILLEN:

Senate
27 November 1912

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917