View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
2 August 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- TARIFF COMMISSION’S REPORTS
TOBACCOMONOPOLY COMMISSION :
QUESTION
- PUNISHMENT OF A WITNESS
QUESTION
- MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE
QUESTION
- MAIL SERVICE : TASMANIA
QUESTION
- PENNY POSTAGE
METEOROLOGY BILL
PAPERS
QUESTION
- MR. C. V. BEILBY
QUESTION
- COMMERCE ACT REGULATIONS
JUDICIARY ACT AMENDMENT BILL
EASTERN AND WESTERN STATES RAILWAY COMMUNICATION
QUESTION
- DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE
CANTEEN BILL
- Second Reading
AUDIT BILL
MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE
- In Committee :
- Article 2 -
ADJOURNMENT
- Federal Capital Sites

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2185

QUESTION

TARIFF COMMISSION’S REPORTS

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

– I desire to ask theMinister of Defence, without notice -

If, to use his own language, the Government consider the interval between the 16th May last and the present date a proper, time afforded them to properly consider the reports presented on the first-mentioned date by the Tariff Commission relating to the distilling and other industries, and whether they will submit such reports for consideration of Parliament this session?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– I think I can say that we shall submit the reports this session, but I would ask the honorable senator to give notice of the question, so that I can write out a proper answer after consultation: withmy honorable colleagues.

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, without notice, if he is prepared to lay upon the table of- the Senate the cablegram giving-Mr. W. H. Croker authority to sign the mail contract on behalf of Sir James Laing and Sons Limited ?

Senator KEATING:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– I would ask the honorable senator to give notice of the question.

Senator GUTHRIE:

-I beg to give notice of the same question for to-morrow, but at the same time I desire to remind the Minister of the promise which he made yesterday to bring the matter before his colleagues, so that we could see the cablegram before the debate on his motion was closed.

page 2185

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE : TASMANIA

Senator CLEMONS:

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, without notice, whether the Government have any intention of altering the port of arrival for the mail steamers running between the mainland and Tasmania from Launceston to any other port?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– The Government have no definite intention with regard to the matter at present. Alternative tenders have been called for, and the determination of the port for landing and embarking mails will be governed very largely, if not entirely, by the responses to that call.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Arising out of the answer, I wish to ask the Minister whether it is possible that the tenders that will be submitted to the Government can’ under any circumstances, induce them to alter the port of arrival for the mail boats from Launceston to any other . port? I hope that I have mademy question intelligible. I want to know if it is within the consideration of the Government to prevent mail boats from going to Launceston.

Senator KEATING:

– I cannot say because the circumstances are purely hypothetical at! this juncture. The PostmasterGeneral has called for tenders for a mail service. The conditions of tender are specified, and the Minister will necessarily regard the whole of the circumstances in any particular tenders, and do his duty.

– I regret that the honorable senator should! consider my remarks evasive. I think that, on the spur of the moment, . I gave a great deal more information than any honorable senator could expect to extract from any Minister. If my honorable friend wants further information, I would ask him to give notice of the question..

page 2186

QUESTION

PENNY POSTAGE

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, without notice, if he will cause the paper which contains a report on the proposed penny postage by the PostmasterGeneral, and which I may say was distributed in the other House a few days ago, to be distributed amongst the members of the Senate?

The PRESIDENT:

– I understand that all papers laid upon the table of the other House have been distributed.

Senator PULSFORD:

– We have not received this paper, and the Budget paperswere only distributed last night.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorablesenator cannot fairly expect papers to bedistributed much more quickly.

page 2186

METEOROLOGY BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment.

page 2186

PAPERS

Senator PLAYFORD laid upon the table the following papers : -

Provisional regulations under the Commerce Act, Statutory Rules 1906, No. 52.

Military Forces, addition toparagraph 224. (medical officers) of the financial and allowance regulations, Statutory Rules 1906, No. 53.

page 2186

QUESTION

MR. C. V. BEILBY

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is it true that Mr. Victor Beilby, a 5th class clerk, formerly in the Central Office, Melbourne, has been appointed 4th class clerk in the Records Office of the Post and Telegraph service, Perth?
Is it a fact that there were over 30 applicants for this position, every one or nearly every one of whom was senior to Mr. Beilby?
Did the Deputy Postmaster-General of Western Australia recommend some one else for the position?
Did the Commissioner certify that all these senior officials were incompetent to fill the position ?
Can senior officers be1 passed over unless the Commissioner issues a certificate to the effect that they are incompetent?
Will the Minister lay all the papers connected with this appointment on the table of the House ?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

This matter comes within the province of the Public Service Commissioner,who has furnished the following answers to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 : -

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No. The Commissioner certified that there was no available senior officer as capable of satisfactorily performing the duties of the position.

No certificate as to incompetency of applicants is required, but the Act provides that relative efficiency must be considered in making promotions, and that when a junior officer is recommended, a certificate must be issued as mentioned in question 4.

The papers are in Western Australia, but they will be obtained, and laid upon the table of the Library as early as possible.

page 2187

QUESTION

COMMERCE ACT REGULATIONS

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

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

. Why the regulations under the Commerce Act have not yet been laid upon the table of the Senate ?
Whether it is his intention to give the Senate an opportunity of considering and discussing such regulations within the time allowed by the Customs Act, section 271, sub-section iii. ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– I laid these regulations upon the table a moment ago. The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow: -

A copy of the regulations will be laid on the table. It is pointed out that except as to Part II., they will come ‘into operation on the 1st October. Part II., relating to imports, will come into operation on the 1st January, 1907.
Yes.

Senator Mulcahy:

– When shall we have an opportunity?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– If the honorable senator will turn to the Customs Act, he will find that there is a provision to the effect that regulations shall be published in the Gazette, and shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament ; and, if either House passes a resolution within fifteen days disallowing any regulation, it will not come into operation. The honorable senator has only to give notice of motion to disallow any regulation to which he objects.

page 2187

JUDICIARY ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Senator Col. NEILD (New South Wales) [2.46]. - I move -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Judiciary Act 1903, so as to extend the right of appeal in connexion with indictable offences.

It is customary - almost invariably - when application is made to introduce a Bill for it to be allowed to go as formal. But I suppose it is necessary for me to say a few words of explanation on this occasion. I cannot produce a copy of my Bill, because I have not obtained leave to introduce it. The object that I desire to achieve is to follow the course of procedure now being taken in the Imperial Parliament, to allow appeals against conviction on matters of fact as well as on matters of law. Of course, there is a right of appeal on matters of law, but on matters of fact - no matter how transparently wrong a verdict may. prove to be on the production of further evidence - at present, there is nothing to be done but to seek the Royal pardon for an offence that has not been committed. While it is possible ‘to litigate over a matter of or £10, having appeal after appeal - while in respect of a bank note or a trifling matter of property, it is possible for a litigant to pursue his case through Court after Court - there is no right of appeal except on a bare question of law where a man’s life or liberty is at stake. This Commonwealth has, in the course of five years, created an abnormal number of new offences. We have created them by the score in one Act after another. I simply ask leave for permission to bring in a Bill which will more adequately specify all that I desire to achieve, than I can possibly explain it at the present time. I hope that leave will be given. The Bill will then .be introduced, and honorable senators will understand precisely what I desire to do. That will be more satisfactory than debating the Bill in advance.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [2.50]. - There ought not to be a moment’s hesitation in granting to my honorable friend, Senator Neild1, the leave that he desires. As he has pointed out, it is the invariable parliamentary custom for motions of this kind to be treated as formal. The honorable senator would be at a considerable disadvantage in attempting to explain the provisions of such a Bill as he has indicated1 before copies of it were in the hands of honorable senators. But I should like to say that my honorable friend is undertaking - I knew that his sense of responsibility is very keen - a large matter. In the first place his real object seems to be to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal in relation, I take it, to Commonwealth offences.

Question resolved in. the affirmative.

page 2188

EASTERN AND WESTERN STATES RAILWAY COMMUNICATION

Senator Col. NEILD (New South Wales) [2.55]. - When notice of motion was given on my behalf by mv colleague, Senator Gould, in regard to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the desirability of constructing a railway between the Eastern and Western States of the Commonwealth, I was not aware of the intention of the Governmentto bring in a Bill dealing with the same subject. I was in New South Wales when Senator Gould was kind enough to give the notice for me. But I found yesterday that a Bill had been introduced in another place, and has now been sent up to the Senate, and the second reading is down on the paper for to-morrow. It would be wasting the time of the Senate and trifling with the public interest for me to submit this motion this afternoon when the whole subject will be discussed to-morrow. Therefore. I propose not to go on with mv motion ; but I wish to indicate that, shouldby any chance the second reading of the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Survey Bill be carried, I will then, under the

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I move -

That, in the opinion of this Senate, the true Federal spirit will not be created among the people of Australia until the present unfederal system of dealing with Commonwealth revenue and expenditure is abolished.
In pursuance of such purpose, all revenue and all expenditure should be shared by all the peopleof Australia on the basis of populationand under section 93 of the Constitutionthe bookkeeping system should terminate at theend of five years from the passing of the UniformTariff.

- Sir John Downer , regarded the book-keeping system as objectionable, and Mr. Deakin, the present Prime Minister, in that debate said that the financial position of the States should be made secure, and he was in favour of the per capita system after five years. A clause was first drafted providing that after five years there should be a per capita system of distribution, and Sir Edmund Barton submitted :in amendment providing

That after the first word of clause 93 the following words-“ Five years from the imposition of uniform duties of Customs, all surplus revenue over the expenditure of the Commonwealth, shall be distributed month by month amongst the several States on the bas’is which the Parliament deems fair,” be inserted.

Tn the debate that followed, Sir George Turner spoke as powerfully as he could in favour of the per ‘capita system, and Sir William Lyne said that he would like to see that system adopted as soon as Federation was an accomplished fact. Senator Eraser pointed out that the federation of Canada was begun with a per capita system ; and it is interesting to quote the following remarks of this gentleman on that occasion : -

The sooner the distribution is madeper capita the better, and we have only departed from that principle because of the serious difficulties that seem to confront us. In Canada the per capita system of distribution was adopted at the very start, and it has not caused any dissatisfaction. If this matter is left to the Federal Parliament, that may be an inducement to some of the States to be extravagant ; they, may waste their money, get into financial difficulties, and appeal to the Commonwealth Parliament to rescue them. If the per capita system of distribution is adopted, each State will know what its position is, and the sooner that is done, in my opinion, the better.

Sir William Lyne, in the course of the debate, said: -

I agree with what has fallen from the Right Honorable the Treasurer of Victoria. I should like to see the per capita distribution applied as soon as possible.

Sir John Forrest. You can’t get it.

Mr.LYNE. - I would like it to take place the moment Federation is accomplished. I have heard some say that it could not take place until twelve ‘months, but I hope the Convention will not agree to extending the period to ten years. Five years is a long time - a great deal longer time than a State should be called on to be bound, and go cap in hand to the Federal Treasurer.

Then Senator Walker spoke in approval of the application of a sliding scale to the distribution of the revenue after the first five years ; and Sir George Turner, when he saw that he could not get his way, moved that the difference between the revenue collected in each State under their Tariff before Federation, and the amount they would receive under the Federal Tariff, should be made up to the State concerned. This was to guarantee the State Treasurers against any loss. Mr. Deakin then suggested a special Tariff for Western Australia for the first five years, and1 Mr. Isaacs, the present Attorney-General, contributed to the debate the following: -

Then we come- to the proposal of Mr. Deakin. But before we consider that, or any proposal, I think that all we ought to do - the position is difficult enough - is to see that each State does obtain some guarantee on the face of the Constitution that it will not suffer any diminution of its revenue from what it received immediately “before the imposition of the Customs duties.

– I am not asking for a special donation for Tasmania. If the representatives of Western Australia will only remember how the discrepancy in consuming power has been disappearing, they may come to the conclusion that it will continue to disappear at the rate of about twenty per cent, in each year during the next five years. Possibly, if it has disappeared by the end of that term, Western Australia will have nothing to complain about. What we do. contend is that we should end the present unfortunate system of dividing the revenue in one manner and the expen- diture in another. If any method can be devised or any suggestion thrown out during the debate which would be acceptable to the majority of honorable senators from other States, and would not work injustice to Western Australia, the discussion will not have been in vain. I ask honorable senators to remember that the State which I represent has been struck at both ends. Her Treasurer and her Governments have, for the last five years, been considerably inconvenienced - perhaps more inconvenienced than the Government of any other State except Queensland. We shall never have a real and true Federation until a true system of dealing with finance is adopted. I am a Federalist, and always have been. I am as sincere a Federalist to-day as ever I was. But I recognise that, until the present system is altered, it will be impossible to create a better Federal feeling in the minds of the Tasmanian electorsthat is there to-day. Wherever a Federal member goes on to the platform, in any portion of Tasmania - even in the remotest parts of the State, where one might think that the people would not take much interest in politics, and especially in financial questions - he invariably meets with an expression of the feeling that Tasmania is not receiving fair treatment. I always reply to such criticism : “ It is simply constitutional ; it cannot be altered, and you cannot, strictly speaking, call it unfair treatment.” Then the argument used is, “ The system should be altered in fairness to this State.” It is impossible to make any elector in Tasmania see the fairness of a financial system which adopts two methods of distribution for revenue and expenditure. I hope that those honorable senators who address themselves to the motion will do so in the same spirit as I have endeavoured to maintain. I trust that those who think their States would be disadvantaged or unfairly treated if my motion were carried, even with the suggestion which I have thrown out, will try to look at the subject from the point of view of the people of a State where the disarrangement of the finances has caused so much trouble and complaint, and has prevented the growth of that Federal spirit which I am sure we all wish to see nourished.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Dobson:

– Does the memorandum suggest that we should never have a per capita distribution ?

Senator Mulcahy:

– There is no other logical interpretation of the honorable senator’s speech.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I cannot go on indefinitely trying to knock things into people’s heads. I may give them reasons, but I cannot give them something else.

Debate (on motion by Senator Pulsford) adjourned.

page 2201

CANTEEN BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26th July (vide page 1848), on motion by Senator Pulsford -

That the Bill be row read a second time.

Senator Col. NEILD (New South Wales) [4.29]. - In resuming the debate on the ^second reading of this Bill, I should like, first of all, to direct the attention of honorable senators to the great difference in the attitude of the supporters and of the opponents of the measure. I do not do so in any unkindly spirit, but I think that I am justified and required to draw attention to something that was said by Senator Pulsford, in moving. the second reading of this Bill, last week -

The very fact that the honorable senator who was moving the second reading of the Bill made such a statement - 110 doubt in good faith, believing that he was advocating sobriety, while I was an advocate of drunkenness - indicates that he, equally with many of its supporters, are most unfortunately unacquainted with the subject with which they undertook to deal.

SenatorCol. NEILD. - My honorable friend may be quite sure that the teetotal bodies would make every representation they possibly could n opposition, and I do not suppose that the Commonwealth authorities would have any locus standi in a magistrates’ Licensing Court. In respect of any such affair, what right would they have to go there?

The purpose of the canteen, as officially announced, is to supply troops with goods at a low rate of profit and to afford rational recreation and amusement to all enlisted men. The sale of ardent spirits is strictly prohibited therein, but commanding officers are authorized to permit light beer and wine to be sold by the drink, on week days, in a room set apar for the purpose, when in their opinion such action is promotive of temperance. Gambling of any character is forbidden. Each canteen is managed by an officer selected by the jjost commander for his fitness for the position, he being allowed one or more enlisted men as assistants; under recent orders civilians only being allowed to serve as bar keepers. As showing the favour with which the canteen system was received by troops, it is only necessary to say that in 1894, five years after ils inauguration, there were seventy-five canteens in successful operation in our service, and that during that year the total receipts were $1,417,079.62 ; of which sum no less than $304,649.91 were returned to the men as dividend profits, or about one dollar per month per man. During the year ending 30th June, 1898, the aggregate receipts of the exchanges in operation in the army amounted to $1,621,398.67, and there was received as money on deposit $189,258.81 ; making the total amount of money received $1,810,657.48. There was expended for merchandise purchased, rent, fixtures and repairs, and expenses of operation, $1,297,737.16- which, less deposits, gave a profit of $323,661.51- From this amount donations to the funds of the several regimental bands aggregated the sum of $9,154.51 ; to the maintenance of post gardens, $1,559.17; to post libraries, $640.06; the gymnasia, $2,913.75; as prizes for the encouragement of athletic sports, $3,336.41 ; and, after selling aside the sum of $60,877.58 as a reserve fund to meet the anticipated expenses foi at least one month, the sum of $254,890.93 was returned to the members in the form of dividends. The effect of the introduction of the canteen system upon sick rates with respect to alcoholism, as shown by the reports of the surgeon-general, was prompt and marked. For the decade 1878-87, the average number of admissions for alcoholism and its direct results amounted to 64.28 per thousand of white troops. This rate diminished during the next ten years, in proportion, as canteens were gradually established at various posts, omitting fractions, in the following ratio : - 44, 46, 44, 44, 4’, 37, 34. 32, 31, 3°-

Those figures show a reduction of considerably more than one-half in cases of alcoholism. Surely that fact is of value. Surely it indicates that canteens do not make “for insobriety. I will quote another passage -

On observing the admissions for alcoholism for the seven years, 1885-91, which immediately preceded the general establishment of the canteen system upon a satisfactory basis throughout the army, it is found that a yearly average ot 1,214.8 men found it necessary to apply for treatment from this cause; while for the six years, 1892-97, after canteens had been generally established throughout the army, an average of only 928.4 men required medical care as the result of alcoholism - a reduction amounting to 23.6 per cent.

Then, there is a paragraph of more general character, which, as applying to tropical countries, will be of interest in view of the remarks of some speakers -

In 1890, there were 17 posts, at which the admission r.ite for alcoholism exceeded 10 per cent, of the strength. In 1891, the number of such posts had decreased to 11, and in the six subsequent years diminished at the following rate - 10, 7i 4, 5. 2> 2- ‘J-‘u’s favorable showing for the army at large was duplicated in the case of each individual post; the introduction of the canteen, at a military station, in no instance failing to be promptly followed by a diminution of alcoholism. For certain stations this improvement was extraordinary. In 1889, Willet’s Point had an admission rate for alcoholism of 222.97 Per thousand. For 1890, the year during which the canteen was established at that post, it fell to i57-5°i and in the next year was reduced to only 70.46. At Fort Spokane, the amount of sickness resulting from intoxicants was reported by the surgeon as having diminished 50 per cent, during the six months following the institution of the canteen. At Fort Douglas, in 1888 and 1889, the total number of admissions attributed to alcoholism amounted to about 85 per thousand strength; while during the period 1892-94, this rate fell to 52.95 per thousand strength - and such instances might be largely multiplied.

I may state that this is a quotation from The Theory and Practice of Military Hygiene, by Edward L. Munson, Captain, Medical Department, United States Army.

The cases of delirium tremens will be accepted by all as furnishing reliable data by which the gravity u.f the admissions for alcoholism may be determined.

This book, and another that I have here., published bv the British Medical Institute, were sent to me by one of the very highest military medical authorities in Australia - a gentleman who has not only seen service under the British flag, but, before he became a naturalized subject, had seen service on the Continent of Europe.

It is, therefore, of interest 1.0 observe that for the seven year period above noted, pr or to the complete adoption of the canteen system, the average annual admissions for this cause, actual numbers, was 23.8; while for the six year period following the general establishment of this system, the average number of men admitted yearly for delirium tremens was 16.6 - a reduction of 31.3 per cent, in this serious class of cases.

Surely a system that reduces alcoholism in so remarkable a manner, and reduces the number of cases of delirium tremens to the extent of 31 per cent., must have some of the merits claimed for it by those who think that the consumption of liquor, under discipline and responsibility, is much more likely to make for sobriety and good order than is indiscriminate consumption.

Tt can scarcely be doubted that this remarkable decrease was chiefly influenced bv the genera1 substitution of beer, a milder beverage, which rarely produces delirium tremens, for distilled liquors the free use of which is well known to result in mental excitement and nervous exhaustion.

Now, as to some other results of the canteen system -

The canteen, for the maintenance of good order, in which a commissioned officer is held responsible, is as aid to discipline as well as to the health and morals of troops. It provides a resort which, while under thorough military control, offers inducements to the men to remain at home, and spend their idle time within the limits of the post; this condition obviously being far preferable to the one formerly existing, when the nearest and generally patronized places of amusement and refreshment were the grog shops, usually the gambling room and brothel annexes, which marked the limits of each military reservation. Except with the most dissolute class of men, the soldier is well satisfied to patronize the canteen to the exclusion of outside saloons; knowing, as he does, that he receives good value for his money in articles of excellent quality, and fully appreciating that the profits of the institution ultimately accrue entirely to his benefit, and are not, as with the case of outside establishments, diverted to the advantage of others.

As to the matter of good order amongst the troops, I think the figures relating to desertion would surely prove something. In the six years before the canteen system was established in the United States, the percentage of desertions was 9.18, while the six years following, the percentage was 4-53-

From the above table, it is observed that during the first year after the canteen system was officially established, the rate of desertions fell 30 per cent., while in the next year the rate was further reduced to 48 per cent. For the five years previous to the establishment of the first officially recognised canteen, the number of men annually deserting from the service, per thousand strength, amounted to 101 ; while for the eight years immediately subsequent to the institution of this system, the annual number of desertions was reduced to 50 per thousand strength.

The writer goes on -

Drunkenness is certainly prevented by the constant military supervision to which the canteen is. subjected. The men themselves are usually careful not to indulge in alcoholics to the point of” inebriety ; while such few individuals as are inclined to be forgetful of the dangers of excess, will usually be restrained by companions, or by those connected with the establishment - who have no personal interest in promoting the sale of liquor, as does the saloon keeper of civil life - from passing the bounds of actual intoxication.

There is one other table to which I propose to refer, as showing the total number of trials and convictions in the Army for all causes, and the number of trails and convictions for drunkenness, and conditions arising therefrom. The table showsthat for the six years before the canteen> period the total number of trials and conviction of all kinds was 1,838, as compared with 1,605, or a reduction of 233, after the establishment of canteens. The total number of trials and convictions for drunkenness for the same periods were- 372.5 and 160.6 respectively, a reductionof materially more than one-half. Thistable is of importance, as showing that the reduction was greater in reference tocases of< drunkenness than in reference togeneral crime; and the fact is signally pertinent to this Bill. There was quite a moderate reduction in general crime, but an enormous reduction in drunkenness. I desire to occupy as little time as possible,, but. I hope that honorable senators recognise that I am speaking on a subject of which I have some knowledge, and in which I take some interest, and that I am no longer sufficiently actively connected? with the Military Forces to have any personal interest in the outcome of this Bill. I do not think there are many, either inside or outside the Chamber, who would* regard me as an advocate of either looseliving or loose drinking, and. therefore, if” I take a strong view, it is not because I believe in reckless consumption of liquor, but in the belief that what is proposed* will be injurious rather than beneficial. Had I the least idea that the Bill’ would have the good effects that some honorable senators claim for it,. I should give it mv strongest support. But I am convinced that it will not dogood, and that, on. the contrary, it Wil do harm. It is for this reason I am adopting an attitude, which, no doubt, will get one into hot water with a considerable number of very worthy people, who, knowing nothing whatever about the subject, will very much resent my action. I propose now to quote from a work from the pen -of “Robert Caldwell, F.R.S., D.P.H., Lieutenant-Colonel, Royal Army Medical Corps. Formerly Medical Officer in Charge, District Laboratory, Meerut; Member of Committee On Field Sanitation in connexion with Surgeon-General’s Report on South African Campaign; Medi>cal Officer in Charge, District Laboratory and Isolation Hospital, First Army Corps.” It cannot be claimed that this work is not of a recent date, since it bears the date 1905, and it was sent out to Australia, as is shown by a piece of paper pasted in it, in order that it might be reviewed by the distinguished gentleman who has lent me the volume so that I may make use of it here. The writer says -

Whether universal teetotalism is or is not desirable is too vast a subject to be entered on “here. Whatever individual views may be entertained, there is no getting over the fact that the average man, whether soldier or citizen, will partake of alcohol as a beverage, and, this being the case, it is better to make the habit as little deleterious as possible, instead of violently reprobating a custom which, even if undesirable, is, nevertheless, indulged in by an enormous number of self-respecting people of both sexes, whose lives and conduct are absolutely above reproach. If the soldier has an uncomfortable canteen in barracks he will drink in the town, where the chances are he will consume bad liquor in company of corresponding quality, and where’, being free from military control, he can indulge in libations and in a style of behaviour which would be impossible, or, at any rate, promptly followed by unpleasant consequences, within the precincts of an institution under official management.

Many canteens are the reverse of comfortable, being cold, bare, and often detestably lighted. To maintain uncomfortable and cheerless regimental institutes is the surest way to drive men into the town, and to drive men into the town invariably means an increase of drunkenness and -crime.

Here is something with reference to the abolition of canteens, during the last three years, in the American Army. I propose to quote, as does Colonel “Caldwell from - The Military Medical Condition in Pekin China, by Captain Frederick M. Hartsock, United States Army Journal of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, October, 1904.

In the United States Army the absence of canteens has made itself seriously felt, and, at the same time, their good is fully appreciated.

The habits of the men depend largely on the nationality. I am sorry to say that although the Americans preserve most excellent discipline, drunkenness is more prevalent among them than the other nationalities. *

That is of some consequence, seeing that this Bill is based upon alleged American experience.

Possibly this is due to the lack of the canteen system with us. The British have a well-estab lished post exchange where light beer is sold, and in connexion a club-room, which tends to keep the soldier in barracks and preserve sobriety. The French give a ration of wine ; likewise the Italians and Austrians. The Japanese sell beer and sake in their compound, but never have a case of drunkenness. The Germans have a home like Rathskeller where beer and German foods are sold, and their drunkenness is nil. The Russians have no post exchange as the sol- dier only gets about 20 cents per month, and therefore has little to spend in liquor; but often the soldiers convive with other nationalities, and there is likely to be drunkenness if the liquor is obtainable.

I direct the special attention of honorable senators to what follows, because it describes the condition of affairs in America since the canteen has been done away with -

The American soldier, however, is forced to the low groggeries and dives, dozens of which exist on the outskirts of the legation quarter, and the result is he either imbibes an extra quantity of alcohol to last until he reaches the barracks or buys cheap whisky in bottles and secretes it for use in the garrison. The American soldier is the most sought after, as he has far more pay to spend than the other nationalities, and the result is the extra tendency to fall into the hands of these brothel and saloon keepers who especially cater to encourage this trade. I believe this accounts for the extra large venereal rate among our soldiers.

I make one other quotation, which, I think, will be the last, although there is very much in this volume I should like to read -

From the reports of the Surgeon-General of the United States Army, for the past twenty years it is found that alcoholism is not nearly so great an evil in the Army as it was prior to the establishment of the post exchange allowing the sale of beer and light wines to the soldier. From 18S3 to 1888 the annual admission rate from alcoholism varied from 69 to 40 per 1,000. When the last figure was reached, the SurgeonGeneral reported in 1889 - “ There is here manifested a gratifying temperance movement which it is hoped the canteen system may render more actively progressive.”

Surely we can place some reliance on the opinion of a Surgeon-General of an Army ? Such an officer cannot be concerned in promoting the miscellaneous consumption of liquor. The quotation proceeds -

And in 1890 prohibition on the military reservation has been suggested and tried, but this has immediately invited the establishment of dens of dissipation and disease just beyond the jurisdiction of the commanding officer.

I wish Senator Best were here to listen to that statement.

Licence on the reservation, in the opinion of our medical officers, is infinitely preferable to unbridled licence outside of it. It is believed that the canteen system will have a greater effect in reducing the statistics of alcoholism than any measure that has yet been tried.

I feel that I cannot trespass upon the time of honorable senators bv a further quotation from these two very valuable works, but their temperate phraseology, and the sources of the information from which they are drawn, are of such a character as must commend the extracts 1 have made .to the acceptance of those who have heard them.

I do not propose to give the names of those who have sent these answers to my question. I shall give the names of the writers of some letters I have received, but I have no authority to use the. names of the gentlemen who sent these wires. If. However, it is considered desirable, I am prepared to submit the actual telegrams to Senator Pulsford, in order that he may check my statements. These are the answers I have received. From a colonel -

Bill most objectionable for camps. Hardship on men more than officers, particularly permanent men.

From another colonel -

Against Bill. Unpopular. Create more crime.

From a lieut. -colonel -

Every man in regiment violently opposed, grounds of discipline, efficiency, and comfort.

From another lieut. -colonel -

Military canteens preferable to drinking in neighbouring public-houses.

From another lieut. -colonel -

No. Entirely opposed to it. Letter posted.

From a major - -

No. Consider it will be responsible for more crime than ever anticipated.

From a lieut. -colonel -

Emphatically, no.

This gentleman is a total abstainer. From another lieut. -colonel -

Strongly disapprove Canteen Bill. Will be extremely harmful.

From another lieut. -colonel -

Strongly disapprove Canteen Bill. Will indirectly seriously affect good order.

From another lieut. -colonel -

Disapprove abolition of canteens.

From -the sergeants’ mess of a very wellknown and prominent regiment of the militia I received this telegram -

Strongly opposed to Canteen Bill.

From another sergeants’ mess came this telegram -

Mess strongly opposed to Bill.

Here is an opinion from two colonels -

No; think canteens absolutely necessary.

Another colonel wires -

I think it will be a big mistake to do away with canteens, for reasons which must be obvious to every officer.

No doubt it will be convenient if I read a fairly long letter from a lieutenantcolonel, who, as he1 says, has had over twenty years’ experience in the Permanent Military Forces. He is on the retired list under the age regulation. I know that he has been intimately .connected with the military service, and has had a very extensive knowledge of the working of ‘ the canteen business. I allude to Lieutenant-Colonel Murray, late of the Royal Australian Artillery, who writes as follows : -

Military canteens - referring especially to the Liquor Department - are established for the purpose of enabling the rank and file (sergeants having, of course, the accommodation of their mess), to obtain the best possible quality at the lowest possible charge, in comfortable quarters, and in the congenial society of their own class.

Intoxication is guarded against bv limiting the hours of sale by the strict injunction upon the canteen steward not to serve any man beyond a certain margin ; and by the circumstances that a non-commissioned officer, called the “canteen orderly,” is detailed daily to attend the canteen to see that there is no irregularity or drinking to excess. No inducement is held out to the soldier beyond those stated ; he is in no way tempted or solicited to patronize the canteen.

The liquor canteen is only open from 12 to 1 p.m., and 4 to 9.30 p.m.

The profits, which are cut down to the lowest possible margin, after payment of working expenses, are devoted to the benefit of the soldier either in the purchase of sport materials, such as cricket and football gear, &c, indoor games, newspapers and periodicals for the recreation room, or otherwise as may be suitable. Occasionally prizes are awarded for athletic contests, military sports, &c.

Writing after 26 years in the regular military service, during which I have been actively concerned in the administration of canteens, I am perfectly satisfied that such institutions are for the benefit of the men - that no young soldier was ever led into intemperance in a military canteen, for the reasons already staled, viz.’, strict supervision, no solicitation to drink, prevention of excessive drinking, limited hours.

If the canteen is closed the effect will be that the soldier, instead of obtaining wholesome liquor at tha minimum price in a private establishment, conducted upon reputable lines, will go to a public house, where he will be served with inferior liquor at a higher charge, and where there will be every incentive upon him to drink to intoxication.

The inducement to remain in barracks will be removed, and he will have a direct temptation to loaf about the town. Drinking will be increased, not diminished, and the soldier will become liable to the evil effects which flow from such excess.

With regard to camp canteens, depriving men of the accommodation which the canteen affords, amounts to treating respectable citizen soldiers upon the assumption that they are unable to exercise any restraint over themselves, and that if they are provided with a canteen they will necessarily drink to excess.

To abolish camp canteens would be a step which I am quite sure will be resented in the highest degree by all except fanatic prohibition lsts -

If a town or village were handy, they would go off there, whenever they could, and probably, when “ happy and glorious,” proceed to “ paint it red.”

Again, it is to be remembered that very frequently inclement weather prevails during camps, when a little stimulant becomes almost a necessity.

It is stated - (but of course I cannot say with what truth) - that it ‘is the publicans themselves who are behind this movement, and that for obvious reasons they are extremely desirous that there shall be no establishment to minister to the soldier beyond themselves.

For all these reasons I am quite satisfied that the Canteen Bill is distinctly a step in the wrong direction, inasmuch as it is entirely uncalled for; it will not in the least degree promote the cause of temperance; it will play into the hands of the publicans; and in camps will promote sotting in the tents, and absence from the lines.

That gives a description of how the canteen is managed, as well as an opinion with reference to the system.’

That the Regimental Sergeant-Major, theBattery SergeantMajor, and the Company SergeantsMajor be elected as representatives of this meeking to bring the following matters under the notice of the Officer Commanding Artillery at as early a date as can be arranged : -

That this meeting of Warrant Officers and Sergeants of the Royal Australian Artillery view with much concern the proposal to prohibit thesale of spirituous liquor in the military barracksand camps of the Commonwealth, and respectfully ask that the Officer Commanding Artillerymay see his way to forward this respectful protest through the official channel to the Minister for Defence.

As the effect of the Bill under consideration, if approved by the Senate, would be to close upthe sergeants’ mess premises, the same being almost wholly maintained from the profits derived from the liquor bar, it is felt that the well-being of the members of the mess will be seriously affected thereby, as explained hereunder : -

That the status and dignity of the sergeants will be considerably lowered ; sergeants’ messes being established all over the British Empire for the purpose of maintaining the position and’ dignity of the sergeants, and to place them above the ordinary barracks-room life.

That the senior non-commissioned officers of” the Regiment look with dread on the task before them in the matter of prevention of crime, which must arise if this measure becomes law. Therecords of crime are at the present practicallynonexistent.

That this measure places soldiers living in (barracks on the same footing as criminals and lunatics, and below that of paupers.

That the present sergeants’ mess premises (the home of the single sergeant), established on the formation of the Regiment nearly 35 years ago, and which have cost the members a considerable sum, will have to be broken up.

The following resolution was passed by a sergeants’ mess in the militia branch of the Military Forces: -

That a protest be entered by the mess against the Bill passed in the House of Representatives abolishing canteens, and prohibiting the sale of liquors in military camps or barracks.

The letter which covers the resolution, and which is signed by the chairman, who is a warrant officer, and the secretary, who is a quartermaster-sergeant, both being of the highest rank of the non-commissioned service, explains -

The objects of a mess are to bring its members more frequently together, thereby forming a bond of union, and the establishment of a school of instruction. We would, therefore, strongly point out that the abolition of canteens in military encampments would eventually mean the ^abolition of all sergeants’ messes. We would -also point out that throughout the British Empire -sergeants’ messes and canteens exist and are encouraged.

I have a further letter from the same noncommissioned source. Necessarily, I must omit reading some of the matter that I possess, and therefore I cannot find time to quote that letter.

Senator- Dobson. - Do I understand that the profits derived from the sale of the drink keep the sergeants’ mess going?

My Dear Neild,

I received your telegram on Thursday and your letter of 26th inst. re the Canteen Bill. I at once replied to your telegram, and am thankful that you are interesting yourself in this important matter. The Bill is a gross insult to the citizen soldiers and permanent force too. It means imposing on them the disabilities imposed on lunatics, aborginals, and convicts.

At a meeting of commanding officers on Thursday all were very indignant when I mentioned the subject.

I submit that there cannot be any suspicion that a .number of gentlemen charged with maintaining discipline and good order in their regiments would be found unanimously acting in a direction that would be calculated to produce disorder. It is not credible 5 that regimental commanders would seek to advance the cause of intemperance in their commands. The idea is absolutely beyond the possibility of acceptance. This officer continues -

And passed a unanimous resolution that such legislation would seriously injure the force, and General Gordon was asked to make their views known to the Minister.

As I said in my telegram, stopping canteens would be a greater hardship on the men than the officers, for the officers are better able to provide for themselves. There is no need for such a law, and instead of preventing crime it would create it. At our last camp near Liverpool we had a canteen run by the brigade, and in the whole 2,000 men there was no drunkenness or crime, but if the men had to go outside of camp and get bad grog at the hotels without the restraint of camp discipline, then there would be crime. Men will not come into camp for several days training if they are to be treated in the way proposed. When cold and wet a glass of grog is a necessity to many men. I hope yon will put the case strongly and prevent this proposed gross injustice being carried out. At the meeting of commanding officers referred to (all being present), even the teetotaller was against the Bill. I fear if the Bill is carried there W 11 be no camp next year. I believe the force in all the States are .unanimous in their opposition to the Bill.

Dear Colonel Neild,

I duly received your telegram dated 27th inst. asking whether I approved of the Canteen Bill now before the House of Representatives.

You will possibly have learnt ‘that at a large meeting of nearly all the military officers in Sydney last week, this Canteen Bill was mentioned, and the whole were unanimous in condemning it. They looked on it ‘as a strong and unnecessary interference with rights which they have always possessed, and there is not the slightest occasion, to my mind, for bringing in such a Bill.

I understood General Gordon was telegraphing privately to the Minister of Defence, stating that if such a Bill were passed it would do in calculable injury to the Commonwealth military. I can only indorse this view, and think that the whole of the officers in New South Wales are unanimous in thinking similarly.

Here is another letter from an officer, who has likewise authorized me to use his. name - 2Sth July, 1906.

Dear Senator Neild,

You will have earned the gratitude of all who wish well to the soldier, who is in arms to defend the Commonwealth.

You are perhaps aware that I am an abstainer, and therefore have no personal need for canteens, but, having had over twenty years’ ex- 1perience of soldiering as a citizen, I unhesitatingly say that the removal of canteens from camps of training would have a most pernicious effect on discipline.

The work of the soldier is much more trying physically than those who have not experienced’ it can believe, and men used to stimulants will have them. They will either march to publichouses in the nearest town or have it brought tothem and stored in their tents. The senators, knowing what human nature is, cm easily picturethe effect on discipline. The canteen is always under observation. A steady reliable noncommissioned officer is always on duty there with it small picket, and acts as a restraint on overindulgence.

In three camps I can only remember one case of drunkenness in the regiment under my command. On investigation, I found that it resulted from the man hearing bad news from home, and his comrades showed their sympathy by invitations 10 liquid refreshment.

There is nothing unreasonable in that. If a man is in trouble and meets a friend, it is generally a case of “ Come and have :r. drink, old fellow.” We all know it. It is; of no use, because we are sitting in a stately chamber,- to put from our thoughts the common attributes of humanity, with its weaknesses and its sympathies. It isone of the commonest ‘ features of social1 life for a man who meets a friend who is; in trouble to invite him to have a drink. E am not saying whether it is right or wrong, desirable or undesirable. We are not discussing that point of view. We are discussing the probabilities of doing away with military canteens.

Its effect on the non-commissioned officers of the regiments would be no better than on the men, and not unlikely lead to it being more difficult to get a desirable stamp of man for the post.

Remember that I am quoting from a letter by a teetotal officer -

It is a wise rule to leave “well enough”’ alone, and it should cause us to pause when weremember “ that the consequences of any course of action that can be foreseen are infinitely smaller than those which cannot be foreseen.”

That letter is from the commanding officer of the second regiment. I have next a letter from the colonel commanding a militia regiment. He is a gentleman who has served on both sides of the equator. He writes to me - 28th July, 1906.

Re Canteens.

My Dear Colonel,

At a meeting of brigadiers and commanding officers, held on the 26th inst., it was unanimously resolved to ask the General to wire to Minister saying that we were of opinion the passage of the Bill would prove detrimental to the best interests of the forces, was a reflection on the men in the ranks, and instead of doing good would lead to an increase of crime and drunkennessboth in camp and barracks.

I understand the General wired this, same evening.

The non-commissioned officers and men all through the force are expressing their objection in no unmeasured terms, and threaten to resign rather than submit to the indignity.

The next letter before me is one from which I shall quote only a portion, because the writer does not authorize me to mention his name. I may say, however, that he is a gentleman ofvery great experience, who has served in South Africa more than once I think. He is a member of a military order by reason of his services. He says -

Encampments, as a matter of convenience, are, as a rule, held fairly close to populated centres, alongside a railway line. If the men after, say, a long day’s march or exercise, cannot get the refreshment they require in the camp, where, too, the consumption of liquor is under strict supervision by the Military authorities, and no man is allowed to be served with more than is good for him, they will go off to the publichouses in the town, where they can drink without supervision, the resultbeing that an increase of liquor consumption generally, and probably, drunkenness will ensue, to the detriment of the discipline of the camp and the good name of the forces.

Take, for instance, the camp at Liverpool this year. Speaking of my own regiment, I took 514 men into camp, and during the whole period of the training, not one single case of crime or misdemeanor of any sort was brought under my notice. Yet there was a canteen, controlled directly by the brigade, in the camp.

As a result of the canteen this year being in our own hands, the right not being leased to an outside person as formerly, we were enabled to pay over to each officer commanding infantry regiments no less a sum than about£19 profits, which was utilized, in the case of my regiment, for the purpose of gymnastic appliances and extra rations, and in other ways it contributed to the comfort of the troops in camp and afterwards. If military canteens are abolished, there will be more drinking - considerably more drinking, instead of less, and the profits will go into the pockets of the publicans, instead of being devoted to the benefit of the men themselves.

It wouldappear that this movement for the abolition of military canteens has emanated from the teetotal party,” but I am inclined to think that this is not so, but is the work of the licensed victuallers, who, I know, this year are grieved that the canteens have been kept in our own hands and run by a’ committee of our own officers, which experiment has proved, in every sense of the word, successful.

I hope that my honorable friend, Senator Styles, will not think that what occurred at a certain place a few milesfrom Melbourne is common at military canteens. As far as my knowledge goes, that is by no means the case. I was never more shocked than I was by the production of two pricelists, one for officers and’ one for men. It was the most disgraceful thing I ever heard of in connexion with the Commonwealth Military Forces - a shameful thing. I shall next quote a letter from a colonel of artillery, of at least thiry years’ service. He says - 28th July, 1906.

Dear Col. Neild,

In reply to your wire of yesterday re the Canteen Bill, I am of opinion that this Bill should not become law, the freedom and manhood of the soldier would almost be reduced to that of serfdom. Why should the soldier be’ denied the privilege of having a glass of beer with a comrade in his own home, “ the barracks,” where he is under the eyes and control of his officers?

I consider it necessary, in the interest of the militia and volunteer troops, to establish a canteen at the Easter encampments.

During my thirty-eight years experience in the Militia Force in this State, a very limited number of cases of drunkenness have come under my notice, none of which being caused by the men getting the drink in camp, but probably by obtaining drink of a worse quality outside of the camp lines, and not under the supervision of their officers. I am strongly of opinion that the militia troops, “ as free men,” will resent this encroachment on their right to have a glass of beer on returning to camp after a long march or after a heavy day’s work; should this be denied them it may probably be the means of preventing a large numberof men from attending camp who may consider that their liberty and freedom has been unduly curtailed.

That letter is from Colonel Kircaldie of Newcastle. I have very little else to read, and I shall be glad to complete my speech, the length of which I regret for some, though not for other, reasons. Here is a letter I received from a lieutenant-colonel commanding, who has had a very large experience in more States than one -

There is an overwhelming mass of uncontrovertable testimony in favour of the retention of canteens in the Service. To give headings : -

The actual consumption of alcohol is ridiculously small, infinitesimal, in fact.

What is sold is of excellent quality.

The prices are 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. less than those ruling outside.

Drinking is under the supervision of a noncommissioned officer on duty always, who is responsible for order and good conduct - although I have not found that such supervision was rendered necessary, still it is a safeguard, and is not in any way resented by the men.

Men can and do regularly sit in the canteen rooms for hours nightly, and do not call for, or obtain drink of any kind.

The whole of the accessories for sports and games are purchased from canteen funds, and many other benefits accrue from the same source for the general good.

I shall now read the opinion of LieutenantColonel Baynes, a very old and experienced officer of the Permanent Artillery, who is now on the retired list -

In my opinion, having had many years experience, if the Bill passes, it will mean increased drunkenness, and discipline will be a thing of the past.

Another regimental commander writes as follows : -

I do not know a single officer of the Forces who approves of the proposal to abolish the canteen. The discipline of the Forces must be affected injuriously if the men are compelled to frequent public houses for the purpose of obtaining such liquor as they may desire. Further, at the Easter Encampment, as you well know, it has happened that the troops have had to camp during rainy weather, and under conditions which make the use of stimulants necessary, even from a medical point of view.

It seems to me that the proposal is of the wild cat order, and would have the effect of treating the troops as children, lunatics, or aboriginals.

Re Canteen Bill. I am an abstainer, but am strongly opposed to the ill-advised interference of the powers with the rights of the citizen soldiers. They cannot make us all abstainers, nor yet moderate drinkers, and if grog cannot be purchased in camps or barracks, it will be got elsewhere of inferior quality, dearer and under no supervision. Large annual meeting of Commanding Officers on Thursday last gave unanimous -vote against the abolition of canteens.

I shall conclude these quotations with a letter from a very well known and distinguished officer, who has had English training, Indian training, and long service in Australia, and who has been at least twice on service in South Africa -

It appears that the proposition is to take away the officers’ and sergeants’ messes, and the canteen. These institutions are part and parcel of the Army of every country in the world, and have stood the test of lime. They ,are practically the home of the officer and noncommissioned officer after his work is done. All he gets there is the best and most wholesome of its kind, and supplied at moderate cost. There he gets a substitute for the comforts of the domestic hearth he forfeits to join the service. The canteen gives him his groceries and necessaries at a price far below what he would pay outside, better quality, and the place is under rigid supervision.

The profits supply the soldier with his sole perquisites and luxuries. The Government give him none. Without these he will have no gymnasium, cricket, football, recreation room, and the hundred and one other small things he enjoys, and for which he himself contributes.

Take these away, and you drive him outside to. get them of worse quality, and more expensive, and his home is robbed of the only semblance of domestic comfort the soldier has the means of supplying.

I also believe sobriety and temperance are more possible when the soldier is under his superior officers’ supervision. In barracks he cannot spread himself. I have seen soldiers in and out of barracks, and in various parts of the world. I am altogether opposed to the limitations it is proposed to place upon his privileges, seeing that they work for his improvement rather than for his deterioration.

I, as a Commanding Officer, have always encouraged my men, and assisted them to a mess, modest, perhaps, but the far reaching effects of keeping your men together, cannot be apparent to an outsider. ,

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the debate be now adjourned.

In doing so, I wish to ask the Minister of Defence whether he will let us have the information he promised to get, and when he can supply it.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of’ Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I promised no information to anybody.

Senator Dobson:

– I wrote out some questions for the Minister, and he promised to supply answers to them.

The PRESIDENT:

– This motion cannot be debated.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I should like to be allowed to say that I am endeavouring to secure all the information possible from officers of the Defence Forces in all the States on this very important subject. When I have received the information, I shall be only too pleased to lay it before honorable senators, but I shall certainly reserve it for my own use when speaking on the measure.

Motion ‘ agreed to ; debate adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Pulsford) proposed -

That the resumption of the debate be an order of the day for this day fortnight.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

.- The Minister of Defence admitted that this Bill was not very fully considered :n another place. When some honorable senators .asked for. certain information, he said that he would get it. The honorable senator asked me what information I desired, and I wrote out two or three long questions, that he might be able to secure answers to them. The Minister now states that he is getting information from all the States, but will not give honorable senators the benefit of it until he speaks himself. The honorable senator may be perfectly right in that ; but, in view of the fact that the information, will be of no use after the matter has been dealt with, I should like to ask if the honorable senator will continue the. debate when it is resumed ?

Senator Playford:

– - I will give the honorable senator some powder to fire off, but I propose to keep a little for myself.

Senator DOBSON:

– Are we to understand that before the debate is resumed the information will be supplied by the Minister?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia^ [6.25]. - I understand that Senator Dobson is urging that the Minister shall carry out his promise to supply the Senate with information on this subject before the debate is resumed. No one desires to poach upon the Minister’s preserves,, or to obtain information which he desires to keep up his sleeve for his own speech; but, if there is information which can be laid before the Senate before the debate is resumed, I hope that the Minister will furnish it.

Senator Playford:

– I will furnish certain information, but not all the information I obtain.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Nobody has asked for that. But if there is any information which is not specially required for the Minister’s speech, I hope he will enable honorable senators to get the benefit of it.

Senator Playford:

– I will give Senator Dobson a great deal of information - enough to enable him to make a very good speech.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.26 to J. 4.5 p.m.

page 2217

AUDIT BILL

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

page 2217

MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE

Order of the day for the resumption of the debate, on motion by Senator Keating (vide page 2077), in reference to Mail Service to Europe read - 1

Motion (by Senator Clemons) agreed to-

That the Senate forthwith resolve itself into a Committee of the whole for the consideration qf the motion in reference to the agreement between the Postmaster-General and Sir James Laing and Sons Limited.

– What is it that the honorable senator proposes to do?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– If the honorable senator will refer to the contingent notices, he will see that my contention is that no contract should’ receive’ theapproval of the Senate unless it provides for a certain amount of cool storage on each ship, the maximum freight to be charged on produce, and the use of a self-register ing thermometer in order to assure producers that a temperature low enough topreserve their produce to the port of discharge shall be maintained.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The plan of procedure which I propose to adopt is that the Minister shall first move his motion. It is his intention to move afterwards a proviso to article 3 of the agreement, but if any honorable senator desires to move a proviso to article 1, I suggest that as soon as the Minister has submitted his motion that proviso should be moved, and similarly any proposed amendment to article 2 can be submitted. The Minister willthen propose his proviso to article 3, and theCommittee can pass on to the other articlesof the contract.

Senator BEST:
Victoria

.- I desire to suggest that if the Minister would move his motion down to the word “ Brindisi,” with the addition of the words “asset forth in the schedule hereto,” we could then go through the agreement article by article, and if the Committee saw fit tomake any alterations or amendments that could be done. The effect of adopting my suggestion would be that the agreement, asprinted, would be definitely placed beforethe Committee.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (SouthAustralia) [7.56]. - I would suggest to theMinister that he should move his motion down to the word “Brindisi,” with the addition of the words “ as set forth ire parliamentary paper No. 7.”

Senator Best:

– So long as the paper isidentified that is all I desire to secure.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– It is for the Minister to say which suggestion’ he prefers to adopt. Of course, it might be more complete if he were to follow the suggestion of Senator Best. It seems to- me that the plan of procedure which hasbeen suggested by the Chairman is an effective and business-like one.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If that course isacceptable to the Committee, I shall call upon Senator Keating to move his motion.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Committee approves the agreement made and entered into on the 7th day of July, 1906, between the Postmaster-General, in and” for the Commonwealth, and Sir James Laing and Sons Ltd., for the carriage of mails between Adelaide and Brindisi, as per schedule, with the following modifications : -

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Of course, the Minister does not include the provisos to articles 3 and 15 of the agreement, but intends to move them afterwards? Otherwise some amendments might be shut out.

Senator KEATING:

– I do not wish to embarrass the consideration of the matter by the Committee. We submit the motion in a form which will enable honorable senators to fully discuss the terms of the agreement. But I think it will meet the general wish if I do not attempt, at any rate at this stage, to repeat any of the’ arguments I advanced yesterday when submitting the motion in the Senate. I would say now that after having listened to the expression of opinion from various honorable senators, certain action has been takenby the Government. Honorable senators are, of course, very well aware that this contract, embodying as it does articles of agreement and general conditions of tender, has been signed by Mr. Croker as the representative of the contractors. Since the discussion yesterday, Mr. Croker has been communicated with by the Government, and he himself has communicated with his principals. I am in a position to state to the Committee now that so far as article 6 is concerned’., we shall be in a position to amend it by striking out the last two lines of the article with the exception of the word “ shall.” That is to say, we shall delete the words -

Failing mutual agreement be determined by arbitration in the manner provided in the said “ general conditions of tender.”

It is proposed to insert after “shall “ the following words : -

Be determined by mutual agreement, subject to the approval , of Parliament by resolution.

I might as well say at this juncture that in order that I might be able to make this statement, it has been necessary for Mr. Croker to communicate by cable with his principals, and he is authorized on their behalf to vary the contract to that extent; and to that extent the contract when ratified will be acceptable to the other parties to it. and may be proceeded with at once.

Senator Pearce:

– What about article

11?

Senator KEATING:

– That is all that I can say.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I move -

That all the words after “ That “ be left out. -with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ in the interests of the producers, no mail-ships’ contract should be let by the Commonwealth Government until there is a guarantee as to the cool storage to be provided, the maximum freight to be charged, and a guarantee as to maximum temperature, so as to insure the effective preservation of produce shipped.”

– I hesitate to interrupt the honorable senator, but it appears to me that his amendment is, at this stage, contrary to the understanding at which we have arrived - that we should take the motion of the Minister, and make in the articles under consideration, in their proper order, any amendment that it was desired to introduce. If Senator Guthrie wishes to provide that accommodation shall be furnished for cool storage, he can at a convenient stage move to that effect. But if I allow the honorable senator to move the amendment to which he has been addressing himself as an amendment to the motion of the Minister, I shall also have to permit a number of other amendments. That would lead to a departure from the plan which has been suggested and adopted by the Committee. I urge the honorable senator to accept mv suggestion that we should deal with article 1. If no honorable senator has any amendment to submit we shall pass the article, and proceed with others, until we come to that stage when

Senator Guthrie wishes to insert an amendment providing for cool storage.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am prepared toaccept your suggestion, Mr. Chairman. I do not care where the amendment is made, as long as I get it in. The last paragraph in article 1 of the general conditions of tender reads as follows: -

The term “Adelaide” shall mean the signalling station (known as “ Adelaide Semaphore “) at or off the port of the city of Adelaide in South Australia, until the outer harbor is completed and available.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We shall deal first with article 1 of the articles of agreement, not with article 1 of the general conditions of tender.

Senator BEST:
Victoria

.- I desire to point out that if Senator Guthrie wishes to make an amendment relating to the paragraph which he has quoted, he might lose his chance if he allowed article 1 of the articles of agreement to pass. It seems to me that he has, to take advantage of his opportunity now. Consequently, he will have to move art amendment at this particular stage, or the article will have to be postponed.

Article 1 postponed.

Article 2 -

For a period of ten years, from and after the first day of February,1908, the contractors shall in the manner and subject to the conditions specified in the said “ general conditions of tender “ by means of mail ships between theports of Adelaide and Brindisi (which port of Brindisi is hereby substituted for Naples mentioned in the said “general conditions of tender,” and shall be deemed to be “ the approved port in Southern Europe “ therein referred to), and between the ports of Brindisi and Adelaideand between all other ports from which the said mail ships shall start or at which they shall call or arrive under the provisions of this agreement convey all mails which the Postmaster-General or any of his officers or agents shall from timeto time, and at any time or times, require tobe conveyed.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I move -

That there be added to the motion -

Proviso to article 2 -

On line 7, after the word “between,” whereit occurs a second time, to insert, “ the ports of Melbourne, . Sydney, Brisbane, and Hobart, and.”

The report goes on further to say, quotingthe words of the Queensland Premier: -

Mr. Deakin offered to negotiate on behalf of” Queensland if she wished the steamers to comeon to Brisbane. The only thing we could do was to say that if the company had any offer tomake we would be very pleased to get it, and” we .would consider what seemed best to do in the interest of Queensland.

Further on in the same report Mr. Kidston is stated to have used these words: -

The only thing that would have justified us in complaining of the action of the Federal Government would have arisen if they had provided in the contract for other States to get an advantage from the service, in which Queensland was not sharing. So faT as I understand at present, that has not been done. The Federal Government have simply completed what seemed to them a desirable postal contract; and although the arrangement may not suit us so well as if we had been included in the service, I cannot see that any intentional injustice has been done.

Senator Millen:

– In other words, Mr. Kidston says that so long as we adopt Senator Stewart’s earlier advice, we shall be all right.

Senator KEATING:

– I rom the opinions he expressed we might assume that Mr. Kidston was satisfied that Senator Stewart’s suggestion had been adopted. On the same day - the 20th July last - an article appeared in the Brisbane Daily Mail commenting on Mr. Kidston’s views. I do not propose to read the whole of that article, but I shall make one or two extracts from it which serve to indicate that there must be in Queensland some opinions on this matter which do not coincide with those to which Senator Stewart has just given utterance. The writer of the article in the Daily Mail says: -

When the Commonwealth Government came to renew the service two or three years ago, it stipulated for cold storage, which gave Queensland an undoubted claim to an extension of the service to Brisbane. The people had a distinct and unanswerable grievance. But they have no grievance now that the subsidy is paid for a service purely for mail purposes, with Adelaide as the Australian terminus, in so far as oversea transport is concerned.

In the concluding passage of the article it is stated : -

Let us hope for the credit of our mercantile community that hysterical denunciations, such as have disfigured the press for some weeks past, will now cease. If the new service starts and is maintained as proposed, it will be a splendid thing for Queensland. She will get a full share of the postal benefit, and if she does not become the terminus of the line it will be the fault of her Government.

Senator Stewart:

– Let the honorable and learned senator read the Courier’s comments.

Senator KEATING:

– I ‘have not the Courier’s comments before rae. but I have read from the report of the interview with Mr. Kidston which appeared in that newspaper. Honorable senators will see that the suggestion that this is more than a mail contract has no more foundation than Sena tor Stewart’s personal suspicion, if I may say so without offence to the honorable senator. Honorable senators must see that there is a feeling on the part of the State Government of Queensland that the grievance, from which Queensland suffered, or thought she suffered, under the provisions of the previous contract, does not arise under the provisions of this contract. I hope that >the Committee will not accept Senator Stewart’s amendment, and that the honorable senator will be minded1, as he was last year after hearing the expressions of opinion from other honorable senators, and will not press the amendment.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [8.41]. - I hope that Senator Stewart will not press his amendment to a division. It is perfectly plain, as the Minister has pointed out, that this is a mail contract. In the article in which Senator Stewart proposes to introduce his amendment, only the terminal ports in relation to the carriage and delivery of mails are mentioned - Brindisi at one end and Adelaide at the other. The moment one of these vessels leaves Adelaide the duties and responsibilities of the contractors under this contract will be at an end. Senator Stewart will find in sub-cla,use 2 of clause 5 of the general conditions of tender attached to the contract that permission is given to the contractors to go to other ports beyond Adelaide. The intention of the contract clearly is that the terminal port shall be Brindisi at one end, and Adelaide at the other. The only mention of other ports is the reference to Col.lombo and Fremantle.

Senator Best:

– En route.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– As ports of call, as Senator Best says, en route. There is, of course, the idea that these ships will come here not merely to carry our mails, but also to carry our produce for the sake of trade. Does any one suppose that, lovely as Adelaide is, and beautiful and commodious as her harbor is, these vessels would remain there if they were given the opportunity to go on to Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane, “for the purposes of securing trade? The desire of human nature for business and profit is no weaker amongst persons forming shipping companies than amongst other human beings, and I therefore submit that we may take it for granted that if the attractions of Queensland in the way of trade are sufficiently great, these vessels will go to Brisbane, as well as to Melbourne and Sydney, in which case the object which Senator Stewart has in view will be sufficiently served bv allowing these ordinary human motives to come into play. In the circumstances, we might very well leave the contract as it is, a purely mail contract, fixing the termini at Brindisi and Adelaide.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I should like to ask the Minister what arrangements have been, or will be made for the conveyance of the heavier mail matter from Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane?

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– There is the railway service.

Senator MILLEN:

– That is so, but I understood the Minister to say that there was a serious objection to the cost of carrying the heavier mail matter from the terminal port in Southern Europe across that Continent. I imagine that the same drawback would operate in the transport of the heavier mail matter from Adelaide to Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. At all events. I ask the Minister what arrangement is to be made for the conveyance of the heavier portion of the mails eastward from Adelaide?

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– As was pointed out by Senator Symon and by others previously, it is only reasonable to expect that these ships will not confine themselves simply to the earning of the subsidy they will be entitled to receive under this contract. And, as he also pointed out, the general conditions of tender contemplate the possibility of the ships going beyond Adelaide, in which event they will be bound, without getting further remuneration, to carry mail matter.

Senator Fraser:

– Under what provision ?

Senator KEATING:

– Under paragraph 3 of clause 4 of the general conditions of tender -

The contractor shall be at liberty at his own option to continue the inward voyage (that is from the United Kingdom) of any mail shin beyond Adelaide after calling at Adelaide and to commence the outward voyage (that is to the United Kingdom) of the said mail ship from any port provided she calls at Adelaide.

If the contractor for any reason continue the voyage of any mail ship employed under the contract to any port in Australia other than those provided for (Fremantle and Adelaide) he shall without being entitled to any further or additional payment convey any. mails which the Post master-General tenders to him or his agents for conveyance to or from any and all such ports.

Senator Millen:

– Failing that?

Senator KEATING:

– An arrangement, I presume, would have to be made with the railways, or with a shipping company.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I intend to support the amendment. That this is more than a mail contract alone is shown by the fact that the Government insist that the company shall provide. 11, 000-ton boats. To carry our mails from Brindisi to Adelaide there is no necessity to have boats of that tonnage. Clearly. the boats are intended to carry something more than mails. The Commonwealth Government converted the Butter Commission, which had been created by the Government of Victoria, into a Federal Royal ‘ Commission, and it made two reports to the Governor-General. Regarding ocean freights, it said -

After much deliberation upon the evidence regarding ocean freights, we are of opinion that this is one of the most pressing questions concerning the butter industry. It is also a ques tion of vital importance to the Commonwealth, inasmuch as the majority of our rural producers are interested in the export of butter. This trade, therefore, may now be recognised as one of the most important to the people of Australia.

The argument of the Minister was that the States Governments are not prepared to take up this question, but a Commonwealth Royal Commission reported in those terms to the Governor-General. Further, it said -

Since the inception of the export trade in butter, the carriage of this product has been practically in the hands of the mail companies. Whilst readily acknowledging the fact that the facilities offered by the mail companies assisted the butter industry at its inception, the present action of these companies in endeavouring to secure a contract for a number of years at a trivial reduction on the existing high rates, must be looked upon in the light of the evidence, as an attempt to monopolize the trade.

Senator BEST:

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

– When speaking yesterday I certainly felt a little alarm about some of the articles of the contract. I am glad that the Minister has cleared away one of my difficulties. I feel very much relieved in that regard. I should have preferred to see an article in the contract as to the vessels being compelled to call at Melbourne and Sydney. I should also be glad if there had been an article providing for cool storage. The Orient Steam Navigation Company at the present time is complying with the conditions that I have mentioned. The company is under contract to supply cool storage, and to call at Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. I believe that the contract under consideration would not be affected to the extent of a one-pound note if the company were asked to do the same as the Orient Steam Navigation Company are doing now. But I see the difficulty that the Government has had. The Premiers of the States were communicated with, and asked if they would do anything in regard to the carriage of produce. I am very sorry that they did not do something, even if it was only to contribute a sum between them. But, that not having,been done, the Commonwealth Government was relieved of responsibility to a great extent.

Senator Guthrie:

Senator McGREGOR:

– Another line of steamers would run once a fortnight, and the competition would guarantee fairly low freights and regular transport to-

That is exactly what I contended last night.

Tonnage under deck means the total measurement under the weather deck. To arrive at the net tonnage you must deduct (1) the measurement of the houses on deck and the superstructure ; and (2) the space taken up below deck by machinery, accommodation for the crew, and the bunkers.

Let us take an example. The Moldavia is one of the new 10,000-tonners’ of the P. and O. Company’s fleet. Lloyd’s Register gives her gross registered tonnage as 9,500 tons, her ion.nage under deck at 7,202 tons, and her net tonnage as 4,92s tons. So you see, her net tonnage is only about half of the gross tonnage. Without doubt Sir James Laing and Sons referred to the gross registered tonnage when they contracted to supply steamers of 11,000 tons registered tonnage. The tonnage is measured by a formula. When shipping people speak of registered tonnage they always mean the gross registered tonnage.

Senator Mulcahy:

– That is rubbish.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– We can stand Senator Guthrie posing as an authority on shipping questions, but I think it does not become an ex-draper to question that statement.

Senator Mulcahy:

– He is also an exshipwright.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– This gentleman goes on to say -

As a matter of fact, all three classes of tonnage are registered. A steamer to have 11,000 tons net register, and r6-knot power, would require to be at least 20,000 tons gross register - a mammoth vessel.

I have taken the trouble to look up the definition of the word “ registered tonnage “ in some leading dictionaries. After explaining the method of measuring ships in order to arrive at the registered tonnage, The Century Dictionary goes on to say -

These, together, give the gross register tonnage -

I may mention that the words “ gross register tonnage” are underlined. each ton (called a register ton) containing 100 cubic feet.

Webster’s Dictionary says -

There are in use the following terms relating to tonnage : - (a) displacement; (i) register tonnage, gross and net, and &c.

There is another dictionary which confirms my contention -

Gross tonnage expresses the total cubical interior space of a vessel ; net tonnage, the cubical space actually available for freight carrying purposes.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Which is her proper registered tonnage.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Hear. hear.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– When Senator Mulcahy is backed up by Senator Macfarlane on this question, Webster and all the other authorities ought to take a back seat. I am quite prepared, however, to abideby the definitions in these dictionaries. I am satisfied that the registered tonnage referred to in the contract is the gross registered tonnage, and, as the shipping authority whom I quoted says, shipping people always refer to the gross registered tonnage. It now remains for Senator Mulcahy to disprove what I said, and to make good his contention.

Senator Mulcahy:

– To put up a Better man.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am afraid that it will need a better man than the honorable senator to refute these authorities.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

There are two kinds of tonnage under the Act, viz., gross tonnage, which is the full measurement of the ship, and register tonnage, which is the net result after the deductions authorized by section 79 have been made from the primary or gross tonnage. Dues and charges are based on net or register tonnage, showing that net and registered tonnage are one and the same thing.

The statement made that either the letter or the spirit of the new mail contract provides for Adelaide being the terminal port of call for the mail steamers received a flat contradiction from the Prime Minister’s own explanation, as given in the House of Representatives. One need not question that it may, as he says, be the best mail contract - for the southern States - that has yet been entered into; but, so far as Queensland is concerned, no advantage whatever has been gained. The vessels, remarked Mr. Deakin, were to” be constructed according to plans submitted to the Government, with a provision for more than three times the cold storage of the present liners. Here, then, is the assumption that the purpose of the contract is, not only the speedy and regular delivery of mail matter, but also the regular and speedy carriage of refrigerated produce from Australian ports to the markets of the United Kingdom. If the only question to be considered was the saving of time between Brindisi and Adelaide, the two terminal ports for the receipt of the mail bags, why should it have been deemed necessary to submit plans of the steamers to the Federal Government, and why should there have been any reference to the fact that the new steamers will have more than three times the frozen space of the present steamers? From first to last, within and outside the terms of the mail contract, there is a clear understanding that it has as much to do with the carriage of produce as with the regular delivery of letters; and the boast made about increase of space has no meaning unless. there isa definite assurance that the mail steamers wilt call at other ports as well as Adelaide. Thesame conclusion is reached by other lines of argument.

I ask honorable senators to pay particular attention to this part of the article.

Suppose, for example, that there has been> any uncertainty as to whether the mail steamerswould call at Melbourne or Sydney there would1 have been no meaning in the Prime Minister’sreference to greater facilities for the carriageof Australian produce, as South Australia has not developed at such a rate as to require threetimes the frozen space for her products, and it is certain that the shippers of Melbourne and’ Sydney would not send the produce of their ownStates by subsidiary steamers for transshipment at Adelaide. It is only a quibble to say that thetwo southern ports were not specifically mentioned’ in the mail contract, when its general terms imply the inclusion of these ports in any contract that might be accepted, and when Mr. Deakinhas been given the private assurance of the agentsof the new company that for commercial reasonsthe steamers would continue their voyage to Melbourne and Sydney. Another consideration must be duly weighed in connexion with the comparatively high subsidy to be paid. The only justification for such a subsidy is found in increased1 speed and better accommodation for frozen produce. There never yet has been a mail contract in which the two things have not been associated ;. and supreme folly would be shown’ in their dissociation. Where a subsidy has to be paid for the carriage of the mails it is surely cheaper and more efficient to arrange that the steamerswhich carry the mails shall also be thoroughly equipped for the carriage of frozen produce, asthe same canal and port dues have to be paid, and there is practically the same cost of working the steamers.

Senator Millen:

– Is the honorable senator reading this in support of or irc opposition to his own views?

Senator STEWART:

– Partly in support of them. The writer of the articlecontinues -

– The honorable senator will have an. opportunity of making those remarks when he is asking leave for the Committee to sit again.

Progress reported.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Committee have leave to sit again to-morrow.

The consideration of this contract was begun at the earliest opportunity this week, and, of course, to-morrow will be our last day of sitting in this week. Tor some time the terms of the contract have been under the consideration of the members of each House, if not legislatively, at any rate privately. The contractors are at some distance from the scene of our deliberations, and they can only receive information by cablegram. From communications which have been received from the contractors, I have every reason to assume that they are informed to the effect that their capacity .to fulfil the terms of this contract has been, very seriously canvassed both inside and outside the Parliament of Australia. With regard to the amendments which it was indicated would be made in the Senate, arid the amendments which have been made elsewhere, the Government have taken the precaution in each instance of securing in advance the signature of the representative of the contractors thereto, so that under no circumstances could it be said afterwards that the adoption of the amendments was a ground for them to abandon the contract.

Senator Dobson:

– Are we to make no amendment’s of which Mr. Croker does not approve ?

Senator KEATING:

– I donotsay that. So far the policy of the Government has been to get an indorsement of any amendment before it has been approved, because it is quite possible that, upon the adoption of certain amendments, it might be open to the contractors to retire from the position they have taken up.

Senator Dobson:

– Let them retire, if they want to do so.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– It might be a very good thing for them to retire.

Senator KEATING:

– And it might be very bad for us. I am pointing out these natters for the consideration of honorable senators.

Senator Clemons:

– That suggests an inquiry into the nature of the bond.

Senator KEATING:

– The Government instructed its representative in London to make certain inquiries, and the result of them is most satisfactory.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [10.53]. - I think that we all reciprocate the Minister’s desire that the consideration of this contract should be pushed on with, and I am quite sure that be will have no reason to complain in that respect. He must take a lenient view if he is in a critical humour, because, although . the contract was under consideration elsewhere for a good long while, it has only been under active consideration here since yesterday afternoon. I think that a little consideration must be given to the Senate.

Senator Keating:

– We should like to get the contract dealt with in, this week.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2240

ADJOURNMENT

Federal Capital Sites

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I desire to inform honorable senators who have received from the Minister of Home Affairs an intimation that arrangements were being made for visiting the proposed Capital Sites, at the invitation of the Government of New South Wales, that some alteration has been made in the itineraries. Instead of Canberra being visited on the second occasion in conjunction with Dalgety, it will be visited on the first occasion in conjunction with Mahkoolma and Molonglo, and on the second occasion Lake George will be visited in conjunction, with. Dalgety, and not, as originally intended, on the first occasion in conjunction, with Mahkoolma and Molonglo.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– Will amended itineraries be sent out ?

Senator KEATING:

– I presume so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.55p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 2 August 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1906/19060802_senate_2_32/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 2 August 1906

QUESTION

TARIFF COMMISSION’S REPORTS

Senator CLEMONS:TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

TOBACCOMONOPOLY COMMISSION :

QUESTION

PUNISHMENT OF A WITNESS

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator PLAYFORD:

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE

Senator GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator GUTHRIE:

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE : TASMANIA

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator KEATING:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Keating:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Keating:

Senator CLEMONS:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator CLEMONS:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator KEATING:

QUESTION

PENNY POSTAGE

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PULSFORD:

The PRESIDENT:

METEOROLOGY BILL

PAPERS

QUESTION

MR. C. V. BEILBY

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

COMMERCE ACT REGULATIONS

Senator MULCAHY:TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PLAYFORD:

JUDICIARY ACT AMENDMENT BILL

EASTERN AND WESTERN STATES RAILWAY COMMUNICATION

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Col NEILD:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Col NEILD:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Col NEILD:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE

Senator O’KEEFE:Tasmania

Senator Clemons:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Clemons:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Walker:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Clemons:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Millen:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Millen:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Pearce:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senate
2 August 1906

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist