Senate
18 December 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT
PAPERS
CONTRACT IMMIGRANTS BILL
ELECTORAL BILL
EXCISE (SUGAR) TARIFF BILL
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1903-4 AND 1904-5
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1903-4 AND 1904-5
IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION AMENDMENT BILL
QUESTION
- SENTRIES AT GOVERNMENT HOUSES
QUESTION
- THE CERBERUS
QUESTION
- NEW GUINEA: CASE OF MR. RICHMOND
QUESTION
- TRANSPORT OF MILITARY FROM QUEENSCLIFF
SUGAR BOUNTY BILL
COPYRIGHT BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

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

page 7181

QUESTION

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Senator CROFT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, how it is that the newspapers have been permittedto get the Auditors-General’s Report and comment upon it before members of the Senate have had an opportunity of seeing it?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– I understand that the reportwas laid upon the table of the other House on Saturday. As we did not meet on that day it could not be presented here.

Senator Croft:

-I did not know that the report had been laid upon the table of the other House.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have just received a copy of it.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Senators’ Steamer Fares.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– I rise to move that the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10 o’clock, in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the question of the travelling expenses of senators by steamer.

Four honorable senators having risen in their places,

Question proposed.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– In this morning’s newspapers I saw a report under the head of “ Senators’ travelling expenses,” in which the Auditor-General has taken exception to certain items. I am very glad that this matter has been brought up, because it will enable us, I think, to place upon a satisfactory basis the question as to whether senators should be allowed to visit other States, if the visit be connected with Federal politics, or be made with a view to ascertain their industrial conditions.

Senator Higgs:

– Hear, hear. The honorable senator is not challenging the AuditorGeneral’s right to draw attention to the items.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– So far from challenging his action, I think that the Auditor-General has been quite right in what he has done. He is to be commended for his action, because it is his duty to see that he has proper authority for passing accounts, and it is well for us to lay down, a rule by which he can be guided. Since the inception of the Commonwealth, it has been the invariable rule, indorsed by every Government, that if senators desired to travel to any State on matters of public importance,’ the Commonwealth should pay their fares to and fro, Whether by rail or. by boat. That is done, of course, with the object of enabling honorable senators to study the political conditions, and the varying industries of the territory which they are called upon to govern, and enable them to legislate with fuller knowledge. It is true that it does not include any trips which are taken for the purpose of pleasure or private business. It has also been the invariable rule in every State for every member of the State Parliament to have the opportunity of travelling on public business to any part of the territory which he, with* his fellow members, was called upon to govern. Honorable senators have travelled to Queensland to study the sugar industry, and other tropical industries therein, and have also travelled to Western Australia to study the local conditions. There has been no questioning of the right of honorable senators to have their fares paid, provided, of course, that the trip was being made, not for the purpose of party politics, or initiating a political propaganda, but for the purpose of acquiring information. It is, of course, true that although’ a senator represents only one State, he is called upon to legislate for every State. If we want good legislation, it is just as necessary for honorable senators to understand the conditions in each and every State, as it is for honorable senators to understand the conditions in their own State. I did not charge the Commonwealth anything in connexion with my first trip to New Guinea, and as regards the second trip, I’ only charged the Commonwealth a single fare from Samarai to the gold-fields, and from the gold-field’s to Sydney.

Senator Mulcahy:

– And the honorable senator gave the Government and Parliament information worth twenty times the amount of his expenses.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia, Minister of Defence · Protectionist

– In the first place I wish to say that I have not seen the article in this morning’s Argus. I saw the Age, but not the Argus. Therefore I did not know that the name of any senator had been mentioned. If the names were mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report, which waslaid on the table of another place on Saturday, of course the newspapers were perfectly justified in mentioning them. With regard to Senator Smith’s trip “to New Guinea, I may say at once that I am sure that he gave us full value in return for any expenses which he received, and was fully entitled to them.

Senator Givens:

– The information was worth twenty times more than he got.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I quite agree with the position taken up bv the late Ministry in bearing part of the cost so far as concerned the portion of his journey within that Territory. Of course, when he was travelling outside the Commonwealth Territory he was quite right in paying his own expenses. The charge that he made was exceedingly reasonable, and the information we received from him was of great value. With regard to ordinary travelling. Members o’f Parliament, of course, have their railway passes, which take them over all the railway lines of the Commonwealth ; inasmuch as nearly all the railways are in the hands of the various States. It is only when a Member of Parliament requires . to travel between Commonwealth ports, that there is any need to apply to the Government. If I wished to go to Brisbane, I should travel on my pass, and* should not need to ask the Government for any consideration. But if I wanted to go to New Guinea, which is a Possession of the Commonwealth, I should have to go by boat. If I wanted to go to Western Australia or Tasmania), it would also be necessary for me to apply for a steamer ticket.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Members of Parliament should not be required to ask for steamer tickets ; they are as necessary as are railway passes.

Senator PLAYFORD:

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not know. There may, of course, be some reference to instances and names in some other part of the report, which, as I say, is exceedingly voluminous. Paragraph 37 is as follows : -

In four instances it has been necessary to question the payment of passage money for conveyance by sea of members of Parliament, and it was sought to be ascertained whether the expense in each of the cases referred to Ead been sanctioned by the Right Honorable the Treasurer as expenditure incurred for travelling on Commonwealth business. Correspondence submitted disclosed that fhe Minister, directly controlling the vote, had sanctioned these payments under the Cabinet rules, framed for governing the expenditure under the vote, but the particular rule relied upon provides for the conveyance of Members “ travelling on Commonwealth business.” The Right Honorable fhe Treasurer had written a minute “that in similar matters he was not satisfied with “the explanations, but as the expenditure had been incurred he had no option but to allow the accounts to be certified. I Have, therefore,to report that the question raised by me with respect to the payments above mentioned has not been answered to my satisfaction.

It must be distinctly understood that I do not say there is no reference to names in some other part of the document.

Senator Higgs:

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH (Western Australia). - I am pleased that honorable senators have unanimously indorsed my action in charging a single fare for the two trips I made to British New Guinea. I have no objection to the mention of my nairne in the newspapers. I have never done anything in the course of my publiclife which I should not desire to see publicly referred to. If I travel from New Guinea to Sydney and charge the Commonwealth with the expense, I See nothing to be ashamed of in that, and I have no objection to any newspaper stating that I have done so. I ask leave to withdraw my motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

page 7188

PAPERS

The President laid on the table the following papers: -

Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure during the year ended 30th June, 1905, accompanied by the Report of the AuditorGeneral.

Report from the Joint Library Committee.

Senator PULSFORD:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

With reference to the clause in the Immigration Restriction Amendment Bill which sanctions arrangements being made with foreign countries whereby their subjects are exempted from the dictation tests -

Will the Department of External Affairs intimate to the Governments of India, Japan, and China that the Commonwealth of Australia is now prepared to consider such arrangements?

Have tne Government prepared any draft indicating in any general way the main features or clauses of such arrangements ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

This matter is receiving consideration.
Informal communications upon this question were exchanged with the Consul-General of Japan earlier in the year.

page 7188

QUESTION

SENTRIES AT GOVERNMENT HOUSES

Senator GUTHRIE:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

What is the total cost of maintaining the sentry at Government House in Melbourne, including cost of providing for men whilst in Melbourne and their transit to and from Queenscliff?
What are the costs for the same duties at Government House, Sydney?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

The cost of one non-commissioned officer and three men who constitute the guard daily is about £365 per annum, but it does not en’taii extra cost, beyond that those provided are not available for their regimental duties. The guard is only mounted when His Excellency the GovernorGeneral is in Melbourne.

This guard is furnished from the detachment’ of men stationed at Victoria Barracks. The only extra cost of transit is involved when guards of honour are required. The cost of providing for men stationed in Melbourne is, approximately, the same as if stationed at the Heads.

The information given in No. 1 applies equally in this case, except that guard is mounted only when His Excellency the Governor-General is in Sydney.

page 7189

QUESTION

THE CERBERUS

Senator GUTHRIE:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

What are the number of officers (stating their respective ranks) and men attached to the. condemned warship Cerberus?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

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

The Cerberus requires 6 officers and 64 men or the Permanent Force for mobilization. The officers are - Captain, commander, fleet engineer, paymaster, chief gunner, and gunner. There are required, for torpedo craft and other services, 11 officers and 72 men.

The total, however, of the Permanent Force is only 14 officers and 93 men. These are required as instructional staff and nucleus crews for the Cerberus, five torpedo craft, the Naval Depots at Williamstown and Swan Island, the Examination Services, and Signal Stations.

page 7189

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA: CASE OF MR. RICHMOND

Senator HIGGS:

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

How many meetings have been held by the Board appointed to investigate the “ Case of Mr. Richmond, Chief of the Lands Department, New’ Guinea, and the charges made by that officer against Captain Barton, Acting Administrator in New Guinea”?
On what dates were the said meetings held ?
What was the duration of each meeting ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

The following information has been furnished by the Chairman of the Board : -

One meeting was held to finally discuss the matter, but considerable time was given by each member of the Board to perusing the papers and evidence before the actual meeting was held.
5th October, 1905.
Abouttwo hours.

page 7189

QUESTION

TRANSPORT OF MILITARY FROM QUEENSCLIFF

Senator GUTHRIE:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

What is the cost to the Commonwealth of the transit of military officers and men to and from Queenscliff by rail?
What would be the saving in time and money if the journeys were made by steamer?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

Cost of transit between Queenscliff and Melbourne for the year - £165. This amount includes guards of honour and other duties.
The saving in time by sending men by steamer would be about one hour per trip, and the saving in money would be about10d. per man, but as the steamers run only five months in the year, and leave in the afternoon, the men could not all be sent by steamer.

I may inform the honorable senator that I intend to inquire into the matter, and see whether I cannot save some little expense. I have not been able to consult Captain Creswell on the point, but it appears to me that we should be able to use our own craft to bring up some of these men, and so avoid incurring any expense of this kind.

page 7189

SUGAR BOUNTY BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 15th December, 1905, vide page 7083) :

Clause 2 -

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears : - “Black labour” includes all forms of colourea labour whether half-caste’ or of full blood. “ White-grown cane or beet “ means sugarcane or beet produced on a white planta- tion and in the production of which white labour only has been employed after the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seven, or for a period of twelve months immediately pre. ceding the delivery thereof for manufacture or (in respect of the cane crop which will be cut in the year 1906) from the commencement of this Act to the delivery of the cane crop for manufacture. “White plantation” means a plantation particularized in a notice of intention to claim bounty whether given in pursuance of the regulations in force under this Act or the Sugar Bounty Act 1903.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

– Honorable senators are aware that the Bill will come into operation only in 1907, and the Customs Department has furnished me with the following estimates, giving the figures with which I promised on Friday to supply the Committee : -

Of course this estimate is a pure piece of guesswork. It will be noticed that the Customs Department estimates that the consumption, of sugar in 1907 and 191 1 will be 200,000 tons. But in the interval there will be an increase in population, and of course that will mean a larger consumption of sugar. I have no doubt that the estimate is approximately correct, but at the same time we cannot pretend for a moment that it will be absolutely accurate, because the production of white sugar is estimated to jump from 107,000 tons in 1907 to 169,000 tons in 191 1 - that is to within 31,000 tons of the estimated consumption. Everything will depend upon the seasons. These are the best figures which the Department can supply. We shall start with a considerable increase in revenue from Excise duty, and also from Customs duty, and we expect to get a net revenue of ,£479,000 from the Excise duty less the bounty.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– For the purpose of saving time, I would suggest that the expediency and wisdom of enacting this Bill could be better discussed on clause 3 than on this definition clause. I am prepared to state the case on behalf of those who are growing sugar by white labour when we reach a vital provision in the Bill.

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - I’ agree with Senator Givens that it would be a great deal better to debate the principle of the Bill on clause 3. It will be remembered that the second reading of the Bill was agreed to on the understanding that the principle should be discussed on the first really debatable clause which was reached. I only took advantage of this opportunity to supply certain figures for which I was asked when I was moving the second reading of the Bill, but which I could not furnish at the moment.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the word “ Black,” line 3, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “Coloured’.”

The Bounty Act of 1903 speaks of “labour other than white,” which is a very much nicer expression that “ black labour.” It is very much to be regretted that at a time when we are trying to remove offensive words from our Acts, we should adopt the word “ black “ in defining what is meant by coloured labour under this Bill. I notice that in his report, Dr. Maxwell invariably uses the expression “coloured labour.”

Senator Playford:

– It is used in contradistinction to white labour.

Senator PULSFORD:

– At a time when we are trying to make our legislation less offensive, it is needless to adopt an offensive word. A -number of the persons engaged in the sugar industry are not black, and, therefore, my amendment ought to be accepted by. the Government.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I hope the leader of the Government will agree to the amendment. The fact that some persons speak of the Chinese as “ yellow labour,” is an additional reason why the expression “ coloured labour “ should be used in this definition clause.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I do not know that any one can fairly oppose the amendment. We have been inclined to soften down our expressions, and, therefore, why should we use the term “ black labour “ which does not apply to all nations, when the phrase “coloured” could be used?

Senator GIVENS (Queensland). - I would urge the ‘Minister to accept the amendment, because after the end of 1906. when all the kanakas shall have returned to their islands, the coloured labour in the industry will not be so much black labour as copper or other coloured labour. As the amendment does not affect a vital principle of the Bill, and expresses the views of honorable senators on the other side, it might be accepted.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I always like to call a thing by its proper name. I really think that the term “ black labour “ is better than the term “coloured labour,” because when we get to coloured labour conditions, it will then mean coloured labour. The point is not worth fighting about, and under the circumstances, I am willing to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I move -

That all the words from the word “ in,” line 14, to the word “ manufacture,” line 17, inclusive, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ (c) in the case of cane cut in the year 1906, after the expiration of one month after the commencement of this Act.”

The only principle involved in this amendment, which otherwise is a drafting one, is that we propose to insert words to give the sugar-growers a month’s grace in which to decide whether they will produce their cane by white labour or not.

Senator Fraser:

– Is a month’s grace sufficient ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The Minister of Trade and Customs, who has studied this question, thinks that it is quite sufficient.

Senator Givens:

– They will really have eighteen months’ grace, because the Act will not come into force until the end of 1906.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I shall be glad if Senator Playford can tell us whether it is clearly, arranged that wherever the new bounty is paid, the new Excise duty shall be paid.

Senator Playford:

– When the Act comes into operation, in 1907, the new Excise duty will come into operation.

Senator PULSFORD:

– That does not quite answer my question. In 1906 there will be a quantity of sugar grown which will be consumed in 1907, and I wish to know whether in regard to that sugar when the bounty of is paid, the Excise duty of £4. will be paid?

Senator PLAYFORD (South AustraliaMinister of Defence). - I understand Senator Pulsford to say that in 1906. a certain quantity of sugar will be produced, and that the Bill will not come into force until 1907. The present bounty willbe paid until then. After 1907, the new Excise duty will be charged, and the increased bounty paid; but certainly not on the previous crop.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland). - I can give Senator Pulsford the assurance that he requires. All the sugar produced in 1:906, although it may not have paid Excise during the year 1906, will pay only the Excise payable in that year. That is to say, that sugar will be in bond and will be allowed to go into consumption on payment of per ton. This Bill does not come into force till 1907. Therefore, the effect will be that on any cane delivered at the mills in 1906 the bounty will be paid at the old rate. There is not the slightest danger that the increased bounty will be paid on sugar which has paid the old Excise.

Senator . PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I direct attention to the words which Senator Playford proposes to insert : “ after the commencement of this Act.” I assume that the measure comes into force when the Governor-General gives his assent. It is possible that the amendment proposed will cause trouble. The

Bill will be in force in January next year. It appears to me that, in order to avoid risk, we should put in the words, “on the expiration of one month after this Act comes into operation.” It is, of course, entirely a legal point, and if the legal members of the Senate are quite satisfied, I shall not persist.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia - Minister of Defence). - I cannot see what Senator Pulsford is driving at. This clause defines what white-grown cane or beet shall mean. In addition to that, we give the growers a month’ after the commencement of the measure to get readv.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I am satisfied that the wording I Have suggested would be an improvement, but ‘I shall not occupy further time over the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3-

After the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and seven there shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, which is hereby appropriated accordingly, to every grower of white-grown cane or beet within the Commonwealth a bounty at the rates provided by this Act on all such cane or beet delivered for manufacture after that date and before the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and twelve.

Senator GIVENS:

– The cost is not greater than that in connexion with other protected industries in the Commonwealth.

Senator Fraser:

To the latter planter the protection was altogether too high; it was a direct encouragement to him to continue to use coloured labour, and that was a bar to the success of our White Australia legislation. Under this Bill, the grower by white labour will get a protection of only £2 a ton, and a bonus of £3 a ton, amounting to £5, being exactly the same as he had before, but the grower by coloured labour will get a protection of £,2, instead of £3. That will mean so much less encouragement to a grower to continue to use coloured labour, and so much more encouragement to a planter to go on growing sugar by white labour. I believe that the effect of the Bill will be that a very much’ larger number of men will go in for growing sugar with white labour than have done so in the past, especially when they realize that by the enactment of its provisions, the Australian Parliament will have indicated its determination not to reverse its original decision. Let us now consider what effect the measure may have upon the revenue of the States. From that stand-point I. believe that it will have a very beneficial effect, because the sugar produced by white labour will not get any more protection from the revenue of the States than it has been getting, while the sugar produced by coloured labour will pay more to the State revenue than it has been paying. Instead of paying only £3 a ton as Excise duty, it will have to pay -£4. a ton, and if anything like, or nearly like, the same proportions of white and coloured sugar be produced in the future, then the States will benefit very considerably by this alteration in the law. In my opinion, sugar is not a proper article of taxation. I should not support the imposition of an Excise duty on sugar, were it not for the fact that it is necessary to differentiate between white and coloured labour. In England it is recognised that sugar is one of the necessaries of life, and, therefore, is not a fit subject for taxation. But they tax nearly everything which is not an absolute necessary of life, in order to raise revenue.

Senator de LARGIE:

– Does the honorable senator say that in England almost everything is taxed?

Senator GIVENS:

-In England they tax almost everything which is regarded as a luxury. Sugar is admitted duty free.

Senator de Largie:

– And so are most food commodities !

Senator GIVENS:

– Most food’s which are recognised as necessaries of life are admitted duty free, but where they suspect that an article is a luxury it is taxed. Freetrade England, for instance, derives a very considerable revenue from a duty on tea, because they have an idea that that article is a luxury. For these reasons, I believe that the Bill will commend itself to the representatives of the States more than does the present Act. It is much more welcome to me, as a Queenslander, than would be a. continuation of that Act, although it gives that State less protection than it has, inasmuch as it reduces by £i a ton the protection enjoyed by coloured labour. I do not want any protection for the users of coloured labour. I desire all the protection that Parliament can afford to give to every industry in Australia which can be successfully carried on by white labour, “but I do not want any protection for an industry which can only be conducted by coloured labour. Apart from the manufacture of spirits or narcotics, the sugar industry is the only_ one which is subject to an .Excise d!uty, and that duty is only necessary in order to enable a differentiation to be made. Therefore, those who advocate the substitution of white for coloured labour should support this Bill. Of course, I do not expect my arguments to appeal to those who believe in absolute free-trade, and especially in the right of every man to employ whomsoever he may please, black, coloured, white, or brindle. I believe that this legislation will have the effect of establishing in Queensland, and ultimately, I hope in other parts of the Commonwealth, an industry which will be of immense advantage to Australia. There is no reason why it should not produce an immensely larger quantity of sugar than is now produced. By-and-by, when the Commonwealth is populated by its tens of millions, I hope that enough sugar will be produced in order to supply the local demand. As the Bill wilh I believe, have the effect^ of firmly establishing the industry on a White Australia basis, and making it as prosperous, if not more prosperous, than ever, it has my cordial support. I believe that the Government are to_ be commended for its introduction, and I nope that honorable senators on both sides will agree to its enactment as being a continuation, in a more effective form, of the beneficial, policy of establishing industries on a White Australia basis, which was initiated by the first Parliament.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– It is my intention to move an addition to clause 6, which’, if carried1, would make a radical alteration in the spirit and intention of this clause. I propose to move the addition to clause 6 of the following words : - but on all such cane or beet delivered for manufacture during the years 1908, 1909, 1910, and 191 1 respectively, four-fifths, three-fifths, two-fifths, and one-fifth of the aforesaid rates.

In other words, I propose that the bounty shall diminish at the rate of one-fifth or 20 per cent, during each year, until it disappears at the end of the period.

Senator Fraser:

Senator de Largie:

-If our legislation were satisfactory I should not mind how often we were called upon to renew it.

Senator FRASER:

– I agree that it is not satisfactory. Why should we be giving a bonus to producers of sugar in the southern districts? Honorable senators are aware that, prior to Federation.. Queensland sugar was sold in Melbourne in competition with sugar grown elsewhere, and it was sold in London at an advance of a few shillings for freight. It was selling in Sydney in competition with Mauritius, and other sugars, and in Tasmania with sugars imported from all parts of the world. It was competing successfully with outside sugars, and was making great headway, until we created an artificial state of things by declaring that white men could work in the sugar-fields of the north.

Senator Playford:

– We had upon our statute-book an act which allowed the importation of Hindoos into the Northern Territory, and I went to India to inquire whether we could get men. It does not follow that I approved of thelaw ; I voted against their introduction.

Senator FRASER:

– In 1892 the honorable senator wrote -

On the 6th of April I visited the Chinamen’s gardens on my way to. Mount Hayward Copper Mine. This garden consists of at least ten acres, all under cultivation, cropped with sweet potatoes; yams, ground-nuts, sugar cane, maize, plantains, bananas, pineapples and a few vegetables such as Chinese turnips, cucumbers, &c.

He praised them up to the very skies.

Senator Playford:

– Why should I not ?

Senator FRASER:

– The honorable senator continued in this strain -

It will be much cheaper and befter for the ‘Government to assist a pioneer company, or individual, who will locate on a really good piece of land in the Territory, to the extent of paying all the expenses of the first, say, fifty or a hundred coolies required, give the land and a bonus in addition, than it will be to give effect to the motion passed in the House of Assembly. Or the Government might establish an experimental plantation on their own account, working on the same lines as a planter would have to do, with regard to coolie labour - that is, engaging them for a term of years, and at the end of the term returning them to their own native land.

It is one thing to have European planters employing coolies, who return to their country after their term of service has expired ; but it is quite another thing to settle a number of Indians permanently in the Territory.

That is the policy which I have always said we should adopt. I heartily indorse every wordwhich Senator Playford used in that report. Previously he wrote -

European labour is not cheap; therefore, if Europeans could stand the climate, tropical products could not be produced at a profit by them. It is generally admitted that Europeans cannot stand field-work in tropical countries ; therefore, first, on the ground that European labour is not cheap, and secondly, on the ground that the labourers cannot stand the climate, it is not possible to employ Europeans at tropical agriculture.

I also heartily indorse that statement. There are many other passages to the same effect. The honorable senator agrees that that is the policy which we should have adopted in regard to the sugar grown in the north. I have contended all along that the climate of Cairns is worse than the climate of Mauritius. It is very likely, I know, that Chinamen, Japanese, and others might go up and take over large plantations, now owned by white men, and worked by blacks, and that possibly, in odd cases the whites might be working for blacks - a deplorable result to bring about. I do not see any use; in debating the question at this period of the session, because if we do not pass the Bill in some form or other, we shall certainly imperil a great and growing industry, which is very suitable to Queensland, and which could be extended indefinitely. There are still left millions of acres of land which are suitable for sugar production. It is very, likely that before the expiration of the period mentioned in the Bill the production of sugar will overtake the consumption, and when that event takes place, the sugar-growers will have to submit to lower prices. I have not yet made up my mind as to whether I shall support the proposed sliding scale. I know that this legislation imposes a very heavy tax upon the greater part of New South Wales consumers, a tremendous tax upon the people of Victoria, and a very great tax upon the people of Tasmania and Western Australia.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– As there has been no objection offered to the Customs, duty on sugar, this proposal will carry us forward for the next six years. I do not see why an industry which draws all its wealth directly from the soil should not be protected equally with a secondary industry. I voted for the imposition of the duty, and I think that a large majority in each House voted in that direction because we were establishing new conditions in the sugar industry. We knew that it had been carried on in Queensland exclusively by coloured labour. We decided, and we decided rightly, to bring about a condition of affairs which would make it, at any rate, difficult for the industry to be carried on with coloured labour. It was part of our White Australia policy to impose the duties. In view of the fact that the various States have decided to have that policy, no State should shrink from bearing its proportion of the cost.

Senator Dobson:

Senator TURLEY:

– This is going to be a good year, but years ago more sugar was produced than at present. In 1897 there was the heaviest production, but the quantity decreased by thousands of tons, owing to bad seasons.

Senator de Largie:

– There was no proposal to give a bounty.

Senator TURLEY:

– No.

– I hold in my hand the evidence of men who pay 5s. 6d. a ton, 6s. a ton, and 27s. 6d. a week and rations, that they could not, and do not, get the men. I do not care what evidence the honorable senator has, he cannot get rid of the whole of the evidence I hold in my hand. It all goes to show that, while a few healthy young farmers from Bundaberg may be got, the casual white labourer in the northern part cannot do the work, or, if he can, he will not do it.

Senator Turley:

– Does Mr’. Carr say that ?

Senator DOBSON:

– I am not picking out the evidence of a particular man. Mr. Buchanan gives this evidence -

During igo2 ig farmers registered for rebate on white-grown sugar; of these 10 forfeited their claims before the cane was harvested rather than undertake the risk of having their crop left.

Fancy ten men out of nineteen giving up their claim to the bounty in order to make certain of getting their crop into the mill ! Whatever evidence Senator de Largie may be able to submit, he cannot get rid of that fact. I am willing to admit that everything will depend upon the wages paid. Whether the men are paid 27 s. 6d. or 30s. a week and rations, they ought to be well paid. One man stated at the conference that they paid 6s. ai ton for cutting cane, which was 2s. more than the industry could afford, but that even then he had the greatest trouble to get the labour. The great object in granting the bounty is to encourage the employment in the industry of white labour, and eventually to place it on a “ white “ basis, but I am in dread that when we have paid the whole of the money away it will not have been put on that basis. I should think that Senators Smith and Turley really share that view. In my opinion, both of them argued very unfairly, but Senator

Pearce quickly demolished their arguments. Quite apart from the kanakas, there are 3,500 coloured men on the plantations in Queensland. I assume that in twelve years there willi be about 2,500 coloured men available for the planters. If we are to consider these men we might just as well, as Senator Pearce said, give a bonus to every white man in the furniture trade in Melbourne, because there are twice as many Chinese as white men engaged therein. The same remark would apply to every other industry. That would be taking an unfair advantage of Parliament. We all desire to make up to the sugarplanter for the ‘withdrawal of his kanaka labour. But after the withdrawal of the kanaka and the grant of a bounty for ten years, it would be unfair to continue to bolster up the White Australia policy simply because there were 2,500 coloured aliens in Queensland. An entirely new question has been raised. I was exceedingly astonished to hear Senator Smith say that he would vote against the amend ment of Senator O’Keefe, and that he had no better ground than that for taking that course. If he desires to do what is right, and to confine this policy to the original intention, my honorable friend should not act upon those reasons. Mr. Donnelly made this statement at the Conference -

He himself had tried it, and found it a failure.

To illustrate the unreliableness of white labour he pointed out that out of 60 men employed at the Mossman mill in one shift a week ago-, 15, or 25 per cent.,, knocked off. The percentage would naturally be greater in the fields. And yet this was the labour for which some people were desirous,of sacrificing the sugar industry.

What did Mr. Draper say? He said -

There was no disputing the fact that white men were not fitted for labour in the canefields of tropical Queensland. To emphasize this fact he instanced the case of a number of Indian coolies who had to knock off after four days’ work owing to the heat being too trying. White men would not do the work, and those who advocated bringing them down to the level of the kanakas had a false conception of what white men could and should do. He quoted from Dr. Maxwell’s report to show the injurious effects of work in the tropics on the constitutions of men and women.

Mr. Waller wrote as follows:

His experience in cane cultivation dated back to 1870, and he had been interested in the industry during the whole of the time since then. He had tried both white and coloured labour. Reliable white labour for field work had not been available for the past few years. There were very few men available, and if there had been no kanakas there would have been difficulty in getting the crops off. His experience with white labour for the past two years had been attended with unsatisfactory results, and gangs employed by him had become disorganized through drink’ and quarrels amongst themselves ; in some cases they had thrown up their contracts, and he had been left in a hole. He had last year secured the services of Hood’s gang, and they must be given the credit for doing well, but they were all young men and Bundaberg farmers. This year he had not been so fortunate, and he had had fresh difficulty in getting men to do the necessary work, although a higher rate of wages was being paid, viz., 5s. 6d. per ton.

– Would ihe honorable senator favour an Excise duty without a bounty ?

Senator MILLEN:

– That would depend entirely upon the financial condition, not of the Federation, but of those States which, like Queensland, had their finances disturbed by the inauguration of the Commonwealth. The necessity for the sugar duty was not the situation of the Com/monwealth as a whole. It was a necessity arising out of the financial position of certain States. The sugar duty was one of the duties by means of which it was proposed to enable some States to tide over the early years of Federation. Senator Pearce, in a most telling speech, has shown the wide departure which is now being made from the original claims. He pointed out that the original bonus was asked for as compensation to the growers for the sudden wrench given to the business by the abstraction of some thousands of kanaka labourers. Now, as he points out, the basis of the demand is changed, and we are asked to continue the bonus, in order to give the white people engaged in the industry some measure of protection against the Asiatic labourers who are scattered about Australia. Whatever value that argument may have is, I think; disposed of by the fact that other industries are at the present time employing coloured labour. If coloured labour is attracted to the sugar industry, and we endeavour to prevent it from entering that industry, we have to do one of two things - we must either take upon ourselves the maintenance of these aliens, and find free board and lodging for them, or they must be sent out of the country. These people, however, are now in the country, and common humanity prevents our bundling them into the sea or executing them wholesale. We must either keep them gratuitously, or allow them to work for their living. What particular reason is there why the sugar industry should be put on a different footing from that of any other industry? Why should sugar-growers have special treatment as against the growers of cabbages?

Both alike are citizens of the country, and, to my mind, one citizen has no more right to protection, bonus, concession, or favour than has any other citizen similarly situated. For that reason I view the present proposals with a considerable amount of suspicion. Then., again, whenever we grant a concession to an industry, it is not long before that concession is made the basis of further demands. It is pointed out that the industry has been built up under the concession, that vested interests have gathered, and that the withdrawal of the measure of assistance is in the nature of an injustice. We see that idea already developing in connexion with the sugar industry. The bonus when first asked for was, as I have said, in compensation for the deportation of the kanakas, as is shown by the fact that it runs concurrently with their presence in the country.

Senator TURLEY (Queensland). - I should like to say a few words in reply to Senator Dobson. The honorable senator referred to the report of a Conference held at Cairns, and quoted the opinions of two or three members of that Conference. I wish to quote for honorable senators the opinions of a couple of men who had experience in sugar-growing, and whose remarks Senator Dobson must have overlooked. Those men stated that they had been more successful after they ceased to employ coloured labour than they ever had been before. Senator Dobson quoted A J. Draper, Buchanan, and others who have not been actually engaged in the industry ; but I quote the opinion of Mr. Shannon, who said that he had employed white labour and found it infinitely better than black. He went on to say -

He was one of the largest growers in the Mackay district, and drew, he thought, the largest bounty in the whole of Queensland. His experience in that respect had been satisfactory. If men were treated fairly, good hands would be got. He found the produce from his land more satis- factory with white labour than with black.

Senator Dobson:

– There were two or three on that side to twenty on the other.

Senator TURLEY:

– I remind honorable senators that some of those who spoke on the other side were not growers of cane, but men who have for years been running the local newspapers, which are at the beck and call of the planters who have been working might and main to keep black labour in the district. One to whom I may refer, Mr. Chataway, of Mackay, was running the local newspaper, and lighting for years for black labour, no matter what happened. Another gentleman quoted by Senator Dobson, Mr. A. J. Draper, runs the black labour journal in Cairns at the present time. I refer honorable senators to the remarks made by another member of the Conference. Mr. Carr: a man who has been employed in sugar-growing for a number of years, and whose evidence has been quite overlooked by Senator Dobson. He says : -

I will give you my experience, which is identical with that of ten other fanners in my vicinity. In August, 1902, my kanakas’ time expired, so I decided to try white labour, and registered the whole of my farm. I grow about seventy acres of cane per annum. I had made nothing at cane growing for some years previous owing to the price obtainable for the cane, viz., 13s. per ton, being insufficient. The first thing to be done was to arrange with a good gang of men for the trashing and Harvesting of the 1903 crop; we came to terms with a gang that had been canecutting in 1902. They finished their contract satisfactorily, and were the second gang out of eight to finish.

In another place he says: -

With regard to the mills, there is no difficulty in getting enough white labour to work them, the applications for work Being largely in excess of the requirements. As to the field labour, I have found no difficulty in getting all the labour I want. My farm is in a better state of cultivation than it has been’ for years, and I have forty acres of young plant cane looking very well for next season’s cutting. All wages have been paid, and I am free from debt, and hardly a day passes without my having applications from white men for work.

– I am not particularly concerned about that class of alien. It has been pointed out very clearly that, with this large number of coloured aliens within the Commonwealth, the payment of the bounty might go on for the next halfcentury, and then we should find ourselves no nearer our goal. It is quite probable that the people of the Commonwealth, with the exception of those engaged in the Queensland sugar industry, may, with a great deal of justice, enter a strong protest against the burden which the bounty involves. There may be a burst of indignation at what is regarded as the application of an unfair principle, inasmuch as the sugar industry is assisted to the exclusion of other industries which might be enumerated. For four years we have been endeavouring to -lessen the production of sugar by coloured labour, and, to our amazement, we find that the sugar produced by that class of labour is actually increasing at almost the same ratio as the production by white labour. We see no prospect of any betterment in the conditions, but rather a strong possibility that, for generations to come, this bounty will have to be continued. Senator McGregor, in answer to an interjection by Senator Gray, presented a simile of a broken leg. That, however, in my opinion, was not a correct simile, because, even if Senator O’ Keefe’ s amendment be agreed to, the bounty will not expire, and the splints will remain. The industry ought to be able to stand alone in the course of five years; if not, and the bounty has to be handed down from generation to generation, we ought to turn our. attention to almost every other industry in the Commonwealth, with a view to rendering similar assistance. Of course, in that event, every industry would soon be reduced to its own level. I shall oppose the Bill, and support the suggested amendment of SenatorO’ Keefe, believing that the Commonwealth has been exceedingly generous to this industry. I am by no means arguing in opposition to -a White Australia. I am as much in favour of that policy as any honorable senator, or any man outside Parliament House. Indeed, I sometimes think I feel too strongly in regard to coloured humanity; but that only applies when it is a case of personal contact. There is ample room for coloured people elsewhere, and they, like the white people, ought to live with their own kind. I admit that the Queensland sugar consumers pay equally per head with the other citizens of the Commonwealth ; but, in my opinion, an industry that cannot be established by the expenditure of nearly a million of money is an absolute failure, and the sooner we recognise the fact the better. Why, with a million of money, we might establish any industry ! We may be asked to continue this bounty., and spend two or three millions more, and then find that we are no nearer the establishment of a substantial industry.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– It is a pity that honorable senators have not considered, as I think they ought, the exceptional circumstances of this industry. One of the first acts of the Federal Parliament - an act which I think almost every man in Australia agreed1 with - was to declare that this continent was not only to be reserved for the white man, but was to be purged of the black man. That was the policy distinctly laid down by the people and Parliament of Australia ; and the measure we are now considering is brought forward with that end in view. This industry was founded with black labour, and has existed for a period of thirty years. At the inauguration of Federation we proposed to remedy the evil of black labour, and, simply because our efforts have not been crowned with success in the short period of four years, there seems a disposition to abandon the attempt in despair. If a man, by a course of dissipation, reduced himself to a condition of ill -health, would he expect, when he called in a physician, to be immediately told to take up his bed andwalk?’

Senator de Largie:

– If he were ill for four years, he would think that he might as well be dead.

Senator STEWART:

– I do not think thafhe would. I remind Senator de Largie that the age of miracles is passed. We cannot cure a nation of a serious industrial and social disorder in a few years any more than we can cure an individual of a serious disease in a few weeks or months. The thing must be done patiently, gradually, and in a spirit of self-sacrifice.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Can the honorable senator suggest a better system?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It is a very good “ system ; but those in whose interests it was enacted have not reciprocated as they should have done. What is the present position? The planters are clearly saying to the Parliament : “ You have declared for a White

Australia; you have decreed that the kanakas shall go, and either you must continue to pay us a bonus for another term of years, or we shall frustrate your White Australia legislation by employing, instead Of kanakas, all aliens df other races who are already within the Commonwealth.” That is the position, and it is not ‘a fair one in which to place the representatives of other States. What, arguments were addressed to -the Senate in the first Parliament by those who were opposed to the abolition of kanakas? It was argued here, as well as in the press, that the sugar industry was a coloured labour industry, and could not be worked with white men.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honorable senator did not believe that?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I did not.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Does the honorable senator believe it now?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– No; and the action I am taking shows that I do not. The effort to continue the bonus for a period of five years simply strengthens the position taken up by those who opposed1 the abolition of the kanakas. The effect of this measure, ff passed, will be to make it appear that this is not a white man’s industry, and cannot stand without the aid of a continuous bonus. I sincerely hope that if the representatives of Queensland will look at the question in that light. It is ali very well for Senator Stewart to talk about members of the Labour Party taking a peculiar stand; but this will be a burning question in several States, so long as we do not commence to discontinue the bonus or name a period at which it shall begin to disappear. The argument is used by the supporters of alien labour that this, is not a white man’s industry, that it will continue to cost the Commonwealth an enormous sum in order to make it a white man’s industry, and, consequently, that we were wrong when we said that the plantations could be cultivated by means of white, labour. We framed our legislation in a generous spirit, and if my amendment to continue the bonus for two years from the present date, and thereafter for four years, but to diminish by 20 per cent, each year, be carried, I believe we shall have treated the sugar industry very generously.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I believe that I was one of those who opposed the discrimination between white and black labour in the sugar industry. When the bonus was granted for five years, it was distinctly understood that at the end of that term the discrimination would cease.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– No.

Senator WALKER:

– At any rate, I was under that impression. As a free-trader, I think that any bonus granted should be established on a sliding scale, in order to give a helping hand to an industry in the early stages of its development. It will be my duty, therefore, to support an amendment in favour of adopting a sliding scale. Should Senator O’Keefe’s amendment be not carried1, possibly another amendment on similar lines may be submitted. At the present time, the difference in favour of white-grown sugar as against black-grown sugar is £2 a ton, and under .1 this Bill it will be increased to ^3 a ton. It seems to me that, in fair play, we should endeavour to keep up the same proportion as now exists between the two kinds of labour. Let it then be continued upon a graduated scale. It seems to me that the Treasurer wants to increase his revenue, and, therefore, I do not disapprove of the Excise being raised by £1 per ton. If, however, it is impracticable at the present time to carry out a sliding scale on the lines I desire, we might do worse than accept such a- proposal as was made in the other House, carrying on the ^3 bonus for whitegrown sugar for two or three years, after which we might impose a sliding scale extending over five or seven years. I should not object to seven years, because I recognise that it is more easy to reduce such payments gradually than by too large in,stalments. Dr. Maxwell’s report satisfies me that for a long time to come sugar will be grown by black labour in the northern parts of Queensland, and unless we have a sliding scale those who are in favour of white labour production will naturally wish it to be continued until the use of black labour ceases altogether. I am satisfied that the use of black labour will be continued for an indefinite time. . The figures quoted by Senator Pulsford are simply alarming to one who wishes to protect the revenue of Australia. The amount that we are paying as a bounty to one industry would be sufficient to establish some new industries altogether. I am one of those who think that a great part of Australia is naturally a black man’s country. The aboriginals are black, and some persons allege that Australians are beginning to have a dark appearance in some parts of the country. Dr. Maxwell’s last report contains a very interesting passage, which I should like to quote. He says -

The situation io the North includes a. further condition and problem. So far, these considerations have dealt with, first - White cane-growers, producing with white labour and earning bonus; and second - White farmers producing with coloured labour and not earning bonus. But a third class of cane-growers exists, comprised of alien occupiers and growers, who are producing by the aid of alien labour, and this class is confined almost wholly to the localities of the Northern District. The question essentially arises, whether protection should be extended to this class of producers; and, if so, what proportion of the amount that is being given to those white farmers, who, although they have not yet adopted, are eligible to, and are in part preparing to adopt those conditions that are required to place the sugar industry upon a permanent white basis. Alien producers are outside, and must remain outside, the conditions of white production. The existence of this class of producers not only allows of competition to the immediate injury of white labour; it threatens the position of the white farmers by producing upon terms that European standards of living and civilization are not prepared to accept. It presents a most acute form

Of opposition, where it exists, to the progress of exclusive white production.

Senator Fraser:

– I should not object to that, nor even to having a sliding scale also, which would be an intimation that the sugar-planters must expecta termination of the present arrangement.

Senator MULCAHY:

– Personally, I am willing to vote for the proposed bounty, if limited to three years, as has been suggested ; but the Bill ought not to leave this Chamber until we know something about the Excise.

Senator Playford:

– The Excise Bill has now come to us.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I should like to test the feeling of the Committee on the question of limiting the duration of the bonus for three years instead of five. At the end of the session we have a Bill introduced which is extremely interesting to Queensland senators as producers, and to senators from the other States as consumers. The Bill presents to us am exceedingly complicated question. Who is going to pay the extra £200,000 a year - the producer or the consumer? It is difficult to ascertain ; but as I understand the Commonwealth has decided to try this experiment, and the trial ought to be a fair one, even though it involves some . little extra cost to individual States, I move -

That the word “ twelve,” line9, be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ ten.”

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 consequentially amended and agreed to.

Clause 6 -

The rates of bounty payable under this Act shall be as follows : -

In the case of sugar-cane - six shillings per ton calculated on cane giving ten per centum of sugar, to be increased or decreased proportionately according to any variation from this standard ; and
In the case of beet - sixty shillings per ton on the sugar-giving contents of the beet.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– A verbal amendment is necessary in this clause. I move -

That after the word “ the,” first occurring line 9, the word “ actual “ be inserted.

The rate of the bounty on beet sugar is 60s. per ton, calculated on the cane giving 10 per cent. of sugar. The meaning of that is, that the cane must actually give that percentage - that it must not be a mere assay. There is no similar provision in regard to the beet-sugar, so that beet, assaying 30 per cent, of sugar, would have to be paid a bounty whether that amount was actually extracted ornot. It is only fair that the bounty should be paid on the actual sugar obtained.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator de Largie:

– Does the honorable senator say that in Europe sugar is produced with coloured labour?

Senator GIVENS:

– I am quite prepared to accept the assurance of the Minister of Defence, not merely as an intimation of what he will do personally, but as an intimation that he will endeavour to press his view upon his colleagues.

Senator O’KEEFE (Tasmania).- I do not think that the Minister has made a very reasonable effort to meet the views of many honorable senators. If he had wished to make a reasonable compromise, he might have offered the continuation of the bounty for three years, and a sliding - scale for the next two years. But I recognise that it is of no use for me 10 fight for the entire position that I have taken up. But the main principle for which we have been fighting is the recognition of a sliding scale, and the intimation to the planters that a period must be put to the bounty. I am willing to take his assurance - on behalf of the Government - that the suggested amendment will be accepted in another place.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South 4 Wales

– In agreeing to this amendment, we shall practically agree to a further payment to the sugar industry of something like £5>°°°>°°° sterling. I hope that fact will be recognised, especially in Queensland, as an exceedingly liberal and generous gift.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I must take exception to Senator Pulsford’s statement. He says that, in agreeing to the compromise, we are practically making a present of £5,000,000 to the people of Queensland. That is a deliberate misrepresentation. The honorable senator does not propose to abolish the duty. If he did, there would be some reason in his statement. What he ought to have said was that this proposal will be the means of diverting about £500,000 to ‘ Queensland and New South’ Wales. That is a fact. The remaining portion will go to the Treasurers of the various States.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland).- What does the Minister propose to do in regard to the Excise during the two years when the sliding-scale will be in operation? The Excise and the bounty must be considered together. This is a very important point.

Senator Playford:

– There is no necessity to consider the Excise until this measure ‘is dealt with.

Senator GIVENS:

– We ought to recognise what the effect on the Excise will be. If we reduce it proportionately during the two years when the sliding scale is in operation, we shall increase the protection to the employer of black labour, whilst reducing it to the employer of white labour.

Senator Playford:

– We certainly do not propose to play into the hands of those who employ black labour.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– My colleague has asked me to draw an amendment to give effect to the understanding that has been arrived at. Honorable senators are aware that .the bounty is paid with respect of the cane at the time ir is delivered for manufacture. And, of course, unless that is made clear arid” distinct on the face of the Bill, it is quite possible that a man may bring his cane to the mill at a date when the lower rate of bounty is prevailing, and a dispute might arise as to whether he was entitled to the’ then’ rate, or to the higher rate prevailing previously. I think the intention of honorable senators can be met! bv making paragraph a read as follows: -

In the case of sugar cane - 6Y per ton on such cane delivered for manufacture before the first day of January, 191 1, and thereafter 4s. per ton on all cane delivered before the first day of January, 1912, and thereafter 2s. per ton on all cane so delivered before the first day of January, 1913; the bounty in all cases shall be calculated on cane giving 10 per cent, of sugar to be increased or decreased proportionately according to any variation from this standard.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).I recognise that there is a difficulty in preparing an amendment of this character at the table, but I think the object can be attained by adding words to the end of the clause. I move -

That the following words be added : - “ on all such cane or beet delivered for manufacture during the years 1911 and 1912 respectively two-thirds and one-third of the aforesaid rates.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. 0

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– 1 move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - “ Sa. Every grower of white-grown sugar who claims the bounty payable under this Act shall, in making such claim, certify, to the Minister the rate of wages paid to any labour employed by him, other than the labour of members of his family. If the Minister finds that such rate of wag’es is below the standard rate, paid in the district in which the sugar is grown, to similar white labour engaged in that industry ; (hen the Minister may withhold the whole or any part of the bounty payable.”

– What is the kanaka doing all the rest of the year?

Senator TURLEY:

– He is compelled to be employed all the time under contract, and the white labourer will be required chiefly during the crushing season. I may mention that the State Government has been doing something in the direction suggested by the clause. They have endeavoured to improve the conditions affecting accommodation and rations. A promise has been made that an Arbitration Bill ‘shall be passed by the Queensland Legislature, and under such a measure this matter can be dealt with better than by the clause now proposed. I repeat that I have no objection to it, but I believe that it will be absolutely ineffective.

Proposed new clause agreed’ to.

Clauses 9 to 12 and title agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 6 reconsidered, verbally and consequentially amended, and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

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

Report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 7242

COPYRIGHT BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the message being at once considered, and all consequent action being taken.

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives message) :

Clause 17 (Term of copyright, performing right, and lecturing right).

House of Representatives’ Amendments. - Omit all the words after “years” in line 15 to end of sub-clause 2 ; omit “ and no “ in line 22, and insert “ whichever shall last the.”

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

On these amendments, perhaps, it would be convenient for me to indicate to honorable senators the general effect of the amendments contained in the schedule to the message. The first amendment to which we are asked to agree is contained in clause 17, which defines the term of copyright, performing right, and lecturing right. It will be remembered that when the Bill was first introduced here, the term given the author of these rights was the life of the author, plus thirty years afterwards. After a very long debate, the term was altered to a period of forty-two years, or the author’s life, and seven years, whichever of those two periods should last the longer. Having made that amendment, it was necessary that some verbal and consequential alterations should take place in sub-clause 2 of clause 17. These verbal or consequential alterations were not done at the table, but were left to be carried out in the ordinary course by the Clerk, and were not correctly entered. It was noticed when the Bill was going to the other House that they had nol been correctly entered, because the clause read -

The copyright, performing right, or lecturing right, as the case may be, shall subsist for the term of forty-two years, or for the author’s life and sevenyears, whichever shall last the longer, after the end of the year in which such first publication or performance or delivery took place, and no longer.

In the light of the amendment we had made, all those words were absolutely surplusage, and have been struck out in the other House. In sub-clause 3 of the same clause, it was provided that in. the case of joint authors -

The copyright and the performing right shall subsist for the- term of forty-two years or their joint lives and the life of the survivor of them, and seven years, and no longer.

In order to be in conformity with the period which we had adopted, it should have read - for their joint lives and the life of the survivor of them, and seven years, whichever shall last the longer.

The third amendment to which we are asked to agree is a more important one, and that is to omit clause 34, in which we proposed to give protection to newspapers in the enjoyment of an exclusive right to certain cables, and to which was added here a number of conditions under which alone the proprietor of newspapers in these circumstances could enjoy these exclusive rights. It will be remembered that the clause as amended was reconsidered, and that there was considerable debate on each side. My honorable colleague and myself, while expressing the belief that there ought to be, at any rate, some consideration given to the representations made by those -who insisted on those conditions, advised the Committee that it was not the correct place in which to insert such legislative provisions. In the other House the clause has not been considered. It has been thought there that it should be dealt with separately, and should not embarrass the passage of a Bill such as this, ‘containing very important provisions. Therefore it has been struck out. The fourth amendment relates to clause 42, which reads- -

When the owner of the copyright in any artistic work, being a painting, or a statute, bust, or other like work, disposes of such work for valuable consideration, but does not assign the copyright therein, the owner of the copyright (except in this section mentioned) shall not make a replica of such work, without the consent in writing of the owner of the original work.

The House of Representatives made two amendments in the clause, in order to provide that, in the absence of any agreement in writing to the contrary, the owner may make a replica of such work. It simply shifts the responsibility of providing the writing; in other words, the artist parts with the artistic work, but not with the copyright in it. As the Bill left the Senate he had not the power to make a. replica of the work without the consent, in writing, to the person to whom it was sold. But under the amendment “ of the House of Representatives he can make a replica of the work, unless he is barred from doing so by an agreement, in writing, made with the purchaser. One other amendment does not appear on the schedule. It is consequential upon the omission of clause 34, and is contained in clause 7-5. Sub-clause 3 of that clause reads -

This section shall not affect the right of the owner of the lecturing right in a lecture to bring actions or suits or institute proceedings for infringements of his lecturing right -

The sub-clause should now stop there, in consequence of clause 34 being omitted. 1 am going to ask the Committee to strike out the following words : -

Nor the right of the proprietor of a newspaper or news agency to bring actions or suits or institute proceedings for infringements or the exclusive right con f erred upon him by section 34 of this Act.

We have given a great deal of attention to this Bill here in all its details, and it is no little tribute to our work that the other House, after dealing with the Bill very exhaustively, have made so few amendments. In regard to, the one important amendment, they take an attitude which I took when the Bill was first considered, and when it was recommitted. I think that there were other honorable senators who voted with me, and who also thought -that there were evils which ought to be remedied, but that the way in which it was sought to be done was not the correct one. Outside that amendment, the others are unimportant, verbal, and do not, in spirit, affect our work.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 34 (Protection of Newspapers). -

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit clause.

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the amendment be agree? to.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– -Did I understand Senator Keating to say. that it is the intention of the Government to deal with this subject in some other way than that in which it is dealt with in this clause.

Senator Keating:

– I did not say that. I said that the better way was to deal with it separately.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– There is rio promise made.

Senator Keating:

– I am not in a position to do that.’

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The clause received full consideration at our hands, and whether it embodies the right method or not it is within the scope of the Bill. It will prevent the starting of new newspapers if the Government take the responsibility of bolstering up a syndicate, which is unmerciful in its terms, and do so without promising to provide a remedy, although the Senate has expressed a very strong opinion or* the subject. If the Government wish the S’enate to1 withdraw from its position, either they ought to say that they do not agree with the clause, or that, if it happens to have been inserted in the wrong measure, they will pay some little attention to the strong opinions which have been expressed here. I feel inclined to insist upon the retention of the clause, unless we get a more definite statement from the Government.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia).T trust that during the recess the Government will take into consideration the ad’ visability of bringing in a measure to meed the genuine difficulties which have been pointed out in this connexion. I take it that they recognise that the Senate has 6trong grounds for taking up- the position -which it did’. We now revert to the original position. I hope that Senator Guthrie will not attempt to carry the matter farther al the present juncture. The Senate has everything to gain by refraining from doing so. It can be dealt with much more satisfactorily on an occasion when a measure like the Copyright Bill does not hinge upon it. The press has no additional rights, and Parliament has not committed itself. At the tail-end of the session it is advisable to postpone the matter.

Motion agreed to.

Amendments in clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 75 consequentially amended.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

page 7244

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That the Senile at its rising adjourn until half-post 10 o’clock to-morrow.

Senate adjourned at 10.36 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 December 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1905/19051218_senate_2_30/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate18 December 1905

QUESTION

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Senator CROFT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator Croft:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:Western Australia

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

Senator Higgs:

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator Guthrie:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Fraser:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Givens:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator DE LARGIE:Western Australia

Senator Givens:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator PLAYFORD:South Australia, Minister of Defence · Protectionist

Senator Givens:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator Fraser:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Fraser:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Fraser:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Fraser:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Story:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Givens:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Givens:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Givens:

Senator STEWART:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Playford:

Senator STEWART:

Senator de Largie:

Senator STEWART:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator STEWART:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator STEWART:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator STEWART:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Givens:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Higgs:

Senator MULCAHY:Tasmania

Senator de Largie:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Givens:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Keating:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

PAPERS

Senate
18 December 1905

Senator CROFT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia, Minister of Defence · Protectionist

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland