View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
6 September 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL
CALL OF THE SENATE
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SENATE ELECTIONS) BILL
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Appropriation Bill - Order of Business

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

page 4022

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL

Debate resumed from 23rd August (vide page 3272), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Whatever views honorable senators may entertain regarding this measure, I think we can all welcome it as one which is likely to clear the ground in the forthcoming electioneering contest in which we must take part. I wish at once to say that I desire to compliment both Senator Pearce and his associates on the perfect candour with which they have presented the Bill for our consideration. We have heard it alleged of late that the cry of those who believe in individual enterprise as against State enterprise is a mere bogy, and that there is no such thing as Socialism, which need not concern us. But we now have a very frank and open declaration by Senator Pearce that this Bill is put forward as a definite socialistic proposal.

Senator McGregor:

– It is on our platform.

Senator MILLEN:

– I will come to the platform directly.

Senator Guthrie:

– Of which the honorable senator helped to lay the foundation.

Senator MILLEN:

– Senator Guthrie is absolutely mistaken there.

Senator Higgs:

– Did not the honorable senator represent the Bourke Carriers’ “Union ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I did, andI should be quite willing to represent them again in a matter which they intrusted to my keeping. I may ad’d that it would have been a good thing for my honorable friends opposite, and for those who are associated with them, ifthey had taken the advice that I then gave. It has been urged in support of the contention that the cry of Socialism is a mere bogy that the Constitution itself makes no provision by which the Commonwealth can nationalize anv industry. But Senator Pearce makes it clear that instead of being a bogy, it is something real and definite. He and his party now come forward, in a perfectly constitutional way, to get over the difficulty that stands between them and certain objects which they have in view. I would also, before passing from that point, draw attention to the fact that Senator Pearce, with’ the candour to which I have just referred, admitted last night, on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, that this was not merely his own personal Bill. It is a measure intrusted to him by his party . Therefore, it’ is made, perfectly clear that this matter of nationalization, which has hitherto been only upon the platform of his party, has now reached the stage at which, in the opinion of that party, it is deemed desirable to put it in the forefront of their legislative work. They are, therefore2 seeking from the electors authority for the nationalization of industries in order, we .may assume, that, if the electors give than a majority, they may proceed to give practical effect to the views embodied in this Bill. I can give to the Senate the assurance that I shall endeavour to discuss this matter without any warmth of feeling. It is a matter of enormous magnitude. It is one upon which I think both sides can admit that there are reasonable grounds for difference of opinion, and for conflicting arguments. And when I say, as I do most frankly, that I am prepared to concede to mv opponents opposite the fullest measure of sincerity in the position that they take up, I think I am not unreasonable in asking that they also shall believe in the sincerity of those who, like myself, think that if this Bill were passed, the Commonwealth would be taking not a progressive, but a retrograde step. I lav particular emphasis upon that point, because it will be necessary for me later on to show, as I think I shall be able to do, whilst in no sense impugning the bona fides and good intentions of my honorable friend. Senator Pearce, that he has allowed his zeal for the cause which he has at heart rather to outrun, not merely his discretion, but his sense of fairness, and certainly to undermine, to the greatest extent, the judicial faculty which, as Chairman of the recent Royal Commission, he was called upon to exercise. I must regret, too, that Senator Pearce absolutely ignored two important principles, which, to mv mind, are the main principles we have to consider. One is the great effect, the vital influence, which will be asserted upon the Constitution itself if this Bill becomes law; and the other is the great economic change he proposes to make. On neither of those points did Senator Pearce say anything. It is quite true that he made a casual reference to the responsibility attached to amending the Constitution; but that reference was made with respect to a minor matter - that which we were discussing yesterday. It is the sort of admission which any one could make, even in regard to the most trivial amendment of the Constitution. But so far as one can gather from his address, he has absolutely failed to grasp what the proposed amendment of the Constitution will mean. He also omitted to refer to the great and fundamental change in our economic system which he proposes to make. He alluded to certain businesses which he thought it desirable to nationalize, but in no case did he go to die root of the whole matter, or refer to the difficulties which would arise from the substitution of State for individual enterprise. In those matters the change which the honorable senator proposes to bring about is so great, so absolutely organic, that I think I am entitled to say that it would be not a. mere reform, but a constitutional and economic revolution. I wish first to deal with the constitutional aspect of the matter. I shall particularly invite the attention of honorable senators to this matter, because so far as I can see, if my view of it is” right, it will mean not merely an amendment of the Constitution, but will prove absolutely destructive of the basic principle upon which the Commonwealth Constitution was brought about. I need hardly remind honorable senators that when the question of bringing the Colonies of Australia into some form of union was under discussion, it was very clearly understood and definitely impressed upon every elector, that there was to be a federation and not an unification. I will show by means of a few quotations what I understand to be the basis of a Federal union. Burgess, a writer of considerable repute, says -

The test pf a Federal system lies in the principle that the central government cannot destroy nor modify .the local, nor the local government the central.

It was a government of that kind. which was offered to the people of the Commonwealth, and which they accepted - one” under which there was to be a sharp division of powers and functions, between the local and the central Government, each being absolutely sovereign in its own domain and independent of the other. I lay particular stress upon this point, because if this Bill is carried, it will be a breach of faith with any State the people of which do not declare for it. At the first Federal Convention, held in 1891, a series of resolutions was submitted. The preamble to those resolutions reads as follows: -

That in order to establish and secure an enduring foundation for the structure of a Federal Government, the principles embodied in the resolutions following be agreed ia.

The first of the resolutions referred to reads -

That the powers and privileges and territorial rights of the several existing Colonies shall remain intact, except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to the power and authority of the National Federal Government.

Speaking upon those resolutions Sir Henry Parkes said -

I, therefore, lay down certain conditions which seem to me imperative as a ground-work of anything we have to do, and I prefer stating that these first four resolutions simply lay down what appear to me the four most important conditions on which we must proceed. First : “ That the powers and privileges and territorial rights of the several existing Colonies shall remain intact, except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to the power and authority of the National Federal Government.” I think it is in the highest degree desirable that we should satisfy the mind of each of the Colonies that we have no intention to cripple their powers, to invade their rights, to diminish their authority, except so far as it is absolutely necessary in view of the great end to be accomplished, which, in point of fact, will not be material as diminishing the powers and privileges and rights of the existing Colonies. It is therefore proposed by this first condition of mine to satisfy them that neither their territorial rights nor their powers of legislation for the well-being of their own country will be interfered with in any way that can impair the security of those rights and the efficiency of their legislative, powers.

I say that that passage clearly outlines the basis of the union, the compact, the agreement, which was offered to the people of these several States, and which they accepted as a Federal as distinct from an unified form of government. I hold that this Bill is absolutely destructive of that idea. If the Bill were carried, it would mean an advance towards unification. I recognise at once that while the Constitution, based on the principles to which T have referred, does permit of amendment in certain ways, it is possible, by a reck- less use of that power, to take from the States rights and privileges which they would not give up voluntarily. Some stress has been laid by Senator Pearce upon the fact that the Bill can only be passed if it gain the approval of a majority of the people in a majority of the States. That, of course, is quite clear from the wording of the Constitution. But if a proposal were made to take all the lands away from the States, and hand them over to the Commonwealth, it might command the approval of four States, and the requisite popular majority. Yet it would be an act of injustice to the States which declined to fall in with the idea. In that way my honorable friends could secure something which they know perfectly well the States would not have given up prior to Federation. Therefore, it seems to me abundantly clear that we have no right to attempt to amend the Constitution, even although we have the power to do so, in order to make an encroachment upon rights of the States which they are not prepared to surrender. In introducing the measure, Senator Pearce threw it out as a sort of challenge that those who doubted the strength of the socialistic movement should agree to his Bill in order that it might’ be referred to the people for an expression of their opinion. But one of the strongest reasons why I object to his proposal is that it is possible to take from New South W.a:les, or any State, something which it would not voluntarily surrender, and which, if it had been made a condition of the original agreement, would have meant that it would have stayed outside the Union. Take, for instance, the Crown lands. Does any one suppose for a moment that New South Wales, or anyState, would have come into the Union if it had been made part of the bond originally that the lands and the mines should be handed over to the Federation? Not a State would have come into the Union on such a condition. Yet by amending the Constitution my honorable friends, I admit, cam take from the States what they would not voluntarily give up. Is it right to do that? Certainly the Constitution gives the power to take that step; but the mere possession of the power is, morally, no justification for exercising it. I wish now to show how great an encroachment the Bill, if carried, would make” upon the’ rights of the States, and to what an extent it would launch us on the road towards unification. Even if limited to the carrying on of industries, it would be a considerable encroachment on States rights. To-day the States possess the right to carry on the business of manufacture or production. It has already been exercised in New South Wales, where w.e have clothing factories and also docks. I am not aware whether Victoria has carried out its brick-making enterprise or not, but I think that the machinery is on the ground. In various directions the States, when circumstances rendered it desirable, have attempted certain enterprises of that kind. Therefore, by proposing to transfer to the Federation these powers, it is proposed to that extent to encroach on what is at present the domain of the States. But I do not regard that in anything like so serious a light as I do the effect which the Bill, if it became law, would have on the Constitution - the substitution, to a very great extent of the principle of unification for that of Federation. It may be said that I am taking an unnecessarily alarmist view when certain sections of the Constitution are considered. I ask honorable senators to turn for a moment to sections 128 and 123. I take it that there is no writer on Socialism - certainly none with whom I am familiar - who does not put forward the land as the first of all monopolies. I am not now saying whether it is right or not, but I assert that all socialistic authors have contended that the first and the greatest monopoly of all is the land. It seems to me that but for a provision in the Constitution, it would be possible under the Bill, if it became law, to nationalize the lands of the several States. That brings me to section 128 of the Constitution, which says -

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

Section 123 provides that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall not increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of a State except with the consent of the people of the State. According to those two sections, the ordinary majority - that is. a majority of the people in a majority of the States - would not be sufficient where the lands of the State were concerned. In view of that fact, it might seem that if there is a provision to prevent the Parliament from diminishing the area of a State bv taking away a portion of it, therefore we could not take the whole. But, in answer to that view, I turn to paragraph xxi. of section 51 -

Senator Stewart:

– But that cloes not contemplate taking the whole State?

Senator MILLEN:

– I hold that but for the Constitution it would be possible under this Bill, if passed, to nationalize any business. I take it that production from the land is the first business, and that manufacture and distribution follow. As regards this easy method of disposing of constitutional objections, when raised, may I remind my honorable friends in the Labour Party that when this proposal was before the Senate previously thev treated in exactlv the same way the objection which I raised that it was unconstitutional. Senator Pearce was very clear and emphatic on the point that it was absolutely constitutional, and although at considerable length I quoted several authorities my honorable friends still dissented from the view I expressed. But now we have them admitting that the position I then took up was perfectly right. The introduction of this Bill is proof that Senator Pearce now admits that in that occasion he was wrong, and thatthe view I put forward was sound. A similar result would follow in the present case. Paragraph xxxi. of section 51 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament of tne Commonwealth to legislate with respect to-

The acquisition of property on just terms from any Stale or person for anv purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws.

– The same condition would exist then as exists to-day. When the railway employes give their votes to elect their representatives in Parliament does their power end there? Not one bit. Quite recently they have managed to exercise such influence over their representatives in Parliament that the Government have placed upon the Estimates an item for the purpose of making a concession which the Railways Commisioners, who, by Act of Parliament1, are supposed to be outside political control, state that the railways cannot afford to bear. But the Government provided the money out of general revenue. That goes on where there is only a 1 inured section of the people engaged in State employment. If all were so engaged it would simply reduce the matter to a farce - to be taking money out of the pocket of A. to be placed in the pocket of B. and vice versa. I want now to say a few words as to the Bill. I ask the attention of Senator Pearce for a moment, because I am at a loss to understand what he means. It is a Bill to provide for’ the nationalization of monopolies. I should like him to define the word monopoly.

Senator Pearce:

– If the honorable senator will read my speech he will find that I started off with a definition.

Senator MILLEN:

– If I am to take that definition, then the Bill will absolutely fail to accomplish the object which the honorable senator has in view. It is a Bill to provide for -

The nationalization of monopolies with respect to production, manufacture, trade, and commerce.

If this alteration were engrafted on the Constitution, those persons who would have to construe the Constitution would not turn to the second-reading speech of the honorable senator in order to find out what he meant, but to other sources. They would ask, “What is a monopoly ?” According to the authorities I have been able to- consult, what is termed a monopoly is not what Senator Pearce means by the word. In his dictionary, Chambers defines a monopoly in this way -

Monopoly. - The sole power of dealing in anything; exclusive command or possession; (law) a grant from the Crown to an individual for the sole right to deal in anything.

Monopolise. - To obtain possession of anything so as to be the only seller or sharer of it ; to engross the whole of.

Speaking to that motion, Senator Pearce said -

I amsatisfied with the proof that a monopoly exists, and with the proof that a profit can be derived from carrying on the business. What I ask is that we should say by adopting my motion that it is advisable for the Commonwealth to take over this monopoly.

There is a directness of statement which admits of no doubt as to what was in the honorable senator’s mind, and it confirms what I have said, that before the Commission commenced their work the honorable senator and his colleagues were in favour of nationalization generally, and were agreed that the nationalization of the tobacco industry would make an excellent beginning. Senator Fearce, in dealing with the matter, said -

This would be a very goodand profitable commencement to make. . . The revenue which is being raised byit, and the enormous profits which are now Going into the pockets of foreign shareholders, . shall go into the Treasury of Australia. ,

– I take it upon myself, and the duty is no pleasure to me, to show that quotations made have ‘been torn from their context in such a way as to make the evidence quoted appear to be something quite different from what the witness intended. Senator Pearce, throughout his speech, led the Senate to believe that every statement he was making was based on evidence given before the Commission. I safeguard myself again by saying that I am not impugning the honorable senator’s good faith in any way. My contention simply is that he allowed his strong desire for the nationalization of the industry to warp his judgment, and I saythat in the extracts which he gave to the Senate he read into the evidence matter which is not there, he misread some of the evidence, and he selected some portions

And suppressed others.

Senator Pearce:

– I could not read the whole of the evidence.

Senator MILLEN:

– The Senate will recognise that in the selection of some evidence and the suppression of other evidence bearing on the same point the honorable senator was consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, misleading the Senate. I. say further that what Senator Pearce has done is this: He based his speech on evidence given by witnesses who f avoured his views, and where witnesses gave contrary evidence which he could not controvert, he immediately impugned their bona fides. Having made these statements, I propose to direct the attention of honorable senators to the quotations given by Senator Pearce, and the evidence appearing in the minutes attached to the report of the Commission.- I do not say that “the honorable senator did these things out of malice or wilfully, but there is evidence that the bias of his mind was such as to lead an honorable senator, usually fair and courteous in his treatment of others, to fall into grievous error. I have said that the honorable senator impugned the good faith of witnesses whose evidence did npt support his view.

Senator Pearce:

– Is the honorable sena-. tor going to prove the statements he has made?

Senator MILLEN:

– I propose to do so, and I take the last first. I do not ‘think that when I have finished my honorable friend will have any cause to complain ; that I have not supplied the Senate with’ abundant material, and with abundant justification for the statements I have made. I have charged the honorable senator that where witnesses differed from his views, and there appeared to be no possibility of getting away from their evidence, he impugned their veracity, their motives, or something else. I take the case of his reference to Mr. Davis, a representative of a tobacco company. Senator Pearce’s reference to this witness will be found at page 3265 of Hansard, and I read from the official report so that there may be no mistake about it. He said -

Mr. Davis is not to be regarded, either, as one who is opposed to the combine. His expressions of opinion were friendly to it - so much so, indeed, that I had suspicions as to whether he was not connected with it in some way.

To that statement I interjected -

Is his firm one of the associated firms?

And Senator Pearce replied -

So far as we were able to ascertain, he was not connected with the combine, although he was engaged in the same business.

Senator McGregor:

– That is what the Age did with George Reid.

Senator MILLEN:

– Probably the honorable senator would commend it in that case. In this case I am condemning such conduct. I come to the statement regarding payments to growers. On page 3264 of Hansard Senator Pearce is reported as having said -

The price of tobacco in European countries and in America is greater than it is in Australia, and the cost of manufacture in Australia, while it is higher than in the other countries I have named, is not so much higher as to account for the difference in the retail price. Therefore, the proportion of profit derived from the tobacco industry in Australia is greater than it is in the other countries mentioned.

The only evidence as to the prices paid in Regie countries and Australia for tobacco leaf was given : -

As regards France and Austria, by Mr. L. P. Jacobs, based upon the Reports for 1902 of the Regie in these countries, the correctness of the translation being certified to by the respective Consuls of these countries in Melbourne -

As to foreign tobacco, France, see p. 277.

As to French tobacco, France, see p. 277.

As to Algerian tobacco, France, see p. 277.

As to foreign leaf, Austria, see p. 276.

As to Austrian leaf, Austria, see p. 276.

By Wm. Cameron, as to proportions of the local and foreign tobacco used in France and the Commonwealth, on p. 249. - Q. 5388.

For Austria these are deduced from evidence on p. 276.

As to the price paid by Australian tobacco manufacturers, evidence was given by Mr. L. P. Jacobs and Wm. Cameron : -

On imported leaf.- Qs. 723 and 5388.

On locally grown leaf. - Qs. 801 and 5388.

The prices given are the average prices paid in France for 1902 ; in Austria for 1901 ; in Australia for 1904.

Senator Pearce:

Senator Pearce:

In the first portion of the Quotation, Senator Pearce denied the inferiority of the French tobacco, but later on he said -

To a Frenchman French tobacco is the best in the world.

It is generally admitted that the quality of French pipe tobacco is inferior. The reasons for this, as specially stated by Dr. Kruekl in the Austrian official report on the Paris Exhibition of 1867, and admitted by all experts, is to be found mainly in defective manufacturing processes - the raw material is excessively wetted and roasted. In spite of wholesale complaints, however, no change has so far been made in a single factory throughout Fiance. All progress in the manufacture of tobacco has thus been originated in countries where it is free, specially in Germany, Belgium, and Holland. Leading officials of tobacco Regies admit that the large private factories of Germany are up to date. These establishments are furnished with the latest machinery and appliances, many of which are not to be found in Regie factories.” Regie countries seek to obtain knowledge of progress in tobacco manufacture, bv sending officers to inspect the factories of those free countries, and by engaging workmen who have been trained there. France has even been obliged to transfer to private factories the manufacture of certain specialties in cigars.

Here is a further quotation from the same report : -

The enquiries of the French Committees of 1835 and ‘8/2 -

I draw attention to the wide difference in the dates, which shows that, although thirty-seven years had elapsed, the conditions were quite similar - reveal the fact that there exists in France a contraband trade of such enormous dimensions that its official description sounds like fairy tales. With regard to frontier districts towards Belgium, the report of the Vicomte de Bourbon, of 1S75, states : -

The contraband trade has taken the place of the Regie. . . . lt is notorious that the great smuggling enterprises now supply from 50 per cent, to 70 per cent, of ‘the consumption. . . This smuggle has its capitalists, insurances, and undertakers, who direct the operations.

This smuggle has its capitalists, insurances, and undertakers, who direct the operations. It has its dogs, its vehicles, and armed bands, who transport great quantities of tobacco.’ “ AH this in spite of the fact that the number of Customs officers in these districts is enormous. In addition, there is the secret manufacture. For instance, the report states that one district, Allauch, having 2,000 inhabitants, has scarcely any other industry than that of the clandestine manufacture of tobacco. The loss of the Regie from these causes, and the sale at reduced prices of its own products in the districts affected, is estimated by the Regie to amount to 20 per cent, of its net revenue.”

The points I make upon that are these : That the French tobacco is so inferior that people will incur all the risk of smuggling, and that in order to. get any sale for it at all the practice of the Government is to sell the tobacco on’ the border district at a lower price than is charged for it throughout the country generally. There is one other extract which confirms that which I have just rea’d, and it will be found on page 285 of the minutes ‘ of evidence attached to the report - “ ‘ Tn the provinces bordering on Germany, Belgium, and Switzerland, the French Regie charges specially low rates for common tobaccos, as the only method by which smuggling can be minimized. For instance, the lowest quality made, “ Talbac de Cantine,” which is sold to retailers at 7.20 francs per kilo, all over France, is sold as low as 2.60 francs per kilo, in the districts immediately adjoining those countries.’ “

It appears to me that if the French tobacco were not merely superior but equal to that to be obtained elsewhere, there would be no necessity for the French Government to quote specially low prices for their border districts. There is another source of information which may be resorted to to show the inferiority of French tobacco. I find that the export of tobacco from France, a country of 40,000,000 of people, is 645,000 lbs., valued at ,£93,000. The export from Austria amounts to 451,000 lbs;, valued at £79,000; from Italy, 88,000 lbs., valued at £11,000. The export from Germany, under the stimulus of private enterprise, amounts to 55,615,000 lbs., or something like one hundred times the export from France. Holland is not a big country, but the manufacture of tobacco there is conducted by private enterprise, and the value of the export from that country is given at £1,175,917, as against an export valued at £93,000 from France. The Commonwealth, with its limited community of 4,000,000 of people, or one- tenth of the population of France, exports £40,000 worth of tobacco, or nearly half the value of the export from France. It is well to ask to what countries France exports tobacco. If French tobacco were equal to the other tobaccoes placed on the markets of the world, we might reasonably expect that her exports would correspond to some extent in volume with those of her neighbours, but I have shown that her exports are too insignificant- comparatively to be entitled to the term. A further explanation is that her exports are largely to her own Possessions, and that in the markets of the world French .tobacco is practically unknown.

Senator Playford:

– It is very bad. I could not smoke it when I was there.

Senator MILLEN:

– I know that nothing but the honorable senator’s grand constitution pulled him through any effort he ever made to smoke it.

Senator Findley:

– It- all depends on the price you pay for it.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Most people who visit France take the tobacco they require with them. >

Senator MILLEN:

– Let me put these export figures in another way. The total production of France is 83,000,000 lbs., and of that she exports 645,000 lbs., or 7 - roughly, three-quarters of i- per cent. - of the quantity manufactured. Australia exports over 6 per cent, of her production. I present these figures for the consideration of my honorable friends.

Senator Findley:

– Are they official?

Senator MILLEN:

– The figures with respect to French production are taken from the Tobacco Commission’s report, and the other figures are supplied by the Statistician’s Office in Sydney. There is one extract which I wish to give from the official report of the French Regie for 1902. It will be found at page 386 of the Commission’s report -

The average wholesale price realized, according to the official report, of the French Regie for 1902 is -

The people living in France proper are thus taxed very much higher than those in Algeria and Corsica.

The French Commission had been appointed to inquire into the whole business, which apparently in the minds of a good many people, and certainly of the Government of the day, was in an unsatisfactory condition, and” the Commission found that complaints held a larger place than approvals. On that the German Commission add-

This is the judgment of the Regie manufacturers rendered in the best Regie country itself.

I have nothing to add to that. There is evidence from the finding of the French Commissioners, and the confirmation of the German Commission that French tobacco was. and is, inferior, and it was necessary to sell it in border districts at a lower price than in the country generally. It was necessary also to sell it in Corsica and Algeria at a lower price than in France. I have shown that the French export of tobacco, even as compared with that of Australia, is so small as to .show at once that the contention that French tobaccoes are equal to other tobaccoes sold in the markets of the world, is without any foundation. I come now to another statement made by Senator Pearce. The honorable senator said -

A Frenchman can get any tobacco he wants, because he is allowed to import it : in fact, the Government will import it for him if’ he likes. There are importers of tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes in France.

That was said’ in reply to an interjection I made. Having as a lad lived opposite to the coast of France, and having had frequent opportunities to visit that country, I knew something of the conditions under which the tobacco business was carried on, and I felt that that statement was absolutely incorrect.

Senator Pearce:

– Mr. Ferguson said in his evidence -

Unmanufactured tobacco, cigars, &c, are practically prohibited. But those who can afford something better than the State factories can produce are permitted to import, for personal use only, a quantity up to 22 lbs. per annum, on payment of about 13s. per lb. Foreign made cigars are imported by the Regie to a limited extent.

Senator MILLEN:

– I ask whether even that statement justifies the honorable senator’s statement that a Frenchman can get any tobacco he wants, that in fact the Government will import it for him if he likes, and that there are importers of tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes in France? I have here a certificate of the French ConsulGeneral in Sydney, dated 30th August, in which he says -

The following are the rates of duty at present in force in France : -

Leaf, for Regie, direct to a French port, francs (per 100 kilos.), free; via an European port, francs (per 100 kilos.), 6.00.

Leaf for private individuals, prohibited.

Manufactured cigars and cigarettes, for Regie, direct to a French port, francs (per 100 kilos.), free; via an European port, francs (per 100 kilos.),8.00.

Manufactured cigars and cigarettes, for personal use of importers, not more than 10 kilos., per head per annum, direct or otherwise, francs (per 100 kilos.) : -

the Regie does not permit the wholesale importation of any class of tobacco, cigars, or cigarettes, and trading in same.

I thus show -

That the Regie does not permit the wholesale importation of or trading in imported tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes.

It follows that (apart from smuggling) there are no importers of these goods in France.

That private persons may import up to 10 kilo. (22 lbs.) of foreign tobacco, cigars, or cigarettes, at the following rates of duty : -

For cigars and cigarettes, 3600 francs per 100 kilo., equal to 13s. 7¾d. per lb.

All smoking tobacco.

From Levant, 2500 francs per 100 kilo., equal to 9s.5¾d. per lb.

From other countries, 1500 francs per kilo., equal to 5s. 8¾d. per lb.

These duties largely exceed the Commonwealth duty, and are prohibitive.

It will then be seen that there is not the slightest justification for Senator Pearce’s statement that a Frenchman can get any tobacco he wants, that the Government will import it for him, or that he can import it for himself. It is idle to say that Frenchmen smoke French tobacco because he likes it, although he could get any other tobacco if he chose. The price at which he could get other tobacco is prohibitive, and he is thus compelled to use the local stuff or none at all.

Senator McGregor:

– I have heard Frenchmen say that our Australian tobacco was rubbish.

Senator MILLEN:

Senator MILLEN:

– They contended that nationalization was a good thing, and that the country ought to commence with this industry. If, instead of dealing with a big industry, and endeavouring to commit this country to a revolutionary proposal of this kind, the members of this Commission had been sworn on a jury to try a case involving a few pounds worth of property, would they have been willing to accept the position? Would they not have said, “ We ask to be excused because we have expressed such strong opinions that we do not feel qualified to try the case “ ?

Senator Findley:

– We did feel qualified to serve on this Commission, and the people will agree with us.

Senator MILLEN:

– But upon a question affecting a few pounds worth of private property, I venture to say that the honorable senator1 would have taken up quite a different attitude. Even if he were not challenged on the ground that he was prejudiced, he would ask the Judge to excuse him, as any right thinking mas would do under the circumstances. I come now to the statement of Senator Pearce that the tobacco combine has strenuously, continuously, and systematically made efforts to crush the growers. I am glad to hear the approving cheer of my honorable friends opposite, because it shows that I have not misunderstood Senator Pearce’s statements. In order that the Senate may fully recognise what he has said on the subject, I intend to quote a passage from his speech, pages 3267-8 of Hansard -

There was a time when Australia cultivated a fair acreage, and produced a large quantity of tobacco. The acreage and production reached their highest point in this country in1388, when 6,641 acres produced 7,868,112 lbs. of leaf. Since 1888 there has been a gradual drawing together of the factories, which have become fewer and fewer, until in the last three years we have seen the monopoly hy the tobacco combine.

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator does not seem to grasp the fact that since 1888 the factories have been becoming fewer, and that buyers have been disappearing and competition lessening, until, in 1900, the latter practically disappeared because there was only one buyer. Ever since 1888 there have been two movements in the tobacco trade of Australia - a gradual diminution of competition in the manufacture, and the elimination of the tobacco grower from amongst our farmers.

– It is a curious thing that the time when the factories were decreasing was the very time when the acreage was increasing. Take the case of New South Wales. In 1888 there were 4,883 acres under cultivation. With not a single factory less, it gradually fell from 4,883 acres in 1888 to 716 acres in 1894. That statement can be verified by reference to the Customs officials, who, of course, have issued licences to tobacco manufacturers. From 1888 to 1894 there was a rapid fall in the area under cultivation, and yet not a single factory had disappeared or ceased operations. Then there was an improvement for a period of two years, until, in 1897, the acreage had risen to 2,181 acres, when a factory was burnt down, and not rebuilt. Following on, there was a reduction during the next three years, and that brings us down to 1900, the year when Senator Pearce says the competition was practically confined to one buyer by the amalgamation of the factories. Yet. from the very date which he selected the acreage under cultivation had steadily increased. In 1900 it was 199 acres, whereas in 1903 it was 407 acres. The very opposite result ought to have happened. If the theory of Senator Pearce be correct, then from 1888 to 1897, when the number of factories remained the same, the acreage under cultivation ought also to have remained the same; but, instead of that, it fell enormously. Then it commenced to rise, and again it fell, and the only time when it began to make a steady advance was when all the factories had been brought into one combination, and the buying was confined to one person. In Victoria we get am even more extraordinary state of affairs. In 1888 there were 1,685 acres under cultivation. There was a steady decrease down to 1898, when the acreage had fallen to 78 acres. With such a big drop in the acreage under cultivation one would naturally expect to see, according to the theory of Senator Pearce, a considerable diminution in the number of factories. But what happened in that time? In 1891 a small factory was closed, and in 1896 a small factory was started. Ifthe theory of Senator Pearce be a good one, it means that the fall from 1,685 to 78 acres in a decade was entirely due to the fact that for four years one of the smallest factories in Melbourne had temporarily ceased operations. But, as a matter ‘ of fact,” the diminution in the acreage took place before it was closed, and it continued after the other factory was started. Therefore, it is idle to try to make a general statement of that kind when the figures absolutely disprove it. Here, again, since 1900 - the yeast when there was only one. buyer - we find that the acreage has steadily increased. It has increased from 109 acres in 1900 to 129 acres in 1903. In Queensland the acreage has remained at a steady level during the last few years. It was 745 acres in 1899, 665 acres in 1 goo - the year of the alleged combination - and 686 acres in 1903. The only evidence I can find to show that a number of factories were closed anywhere is as to factories that were closed before the year which Senator Pearce selected. On page 3

Mr. Ferguson gives a table which shows that from 1879 to 1888 the acreage increased from 531 to 685 acres. Yet those are the years in which, according to Senator Pearce, al number of factories were closed. Since the Commission concluded its labours, the figures for another year are available, showing that within a year there has been an increase of from 752 to 809 acres in New South Wales, from 106 to 169 acres in Victoria, and from 784 to 1,100 acres in Queensland. According to the theory of Senator Pearce, since 1900, when the tobacco growers were reduced to one market, there ought to have been a still further diminution in the acreage under cultivation ; but it has been during the existence of the combination that there has been a steady progress. It was during the years when there was no diminution in the number of factories that the rapid decline took place. While I say that the theory advanced by Senator Pearce in no sense accounts for the decreased acreage, there was an abundant quantity of evidence submitted by independent witnesses to show the real trouble with tobacco growing. Expert evidence was given, as regards New South Wales, by Mr. W. S. Campbell, the Director of Agriculture, and, as regards Victoria, by Mr. Ferguson. Chief Inspector of Excise. Referring to the Excise duty imposed in 1884, Mr. Campbell says, in reply to question 3686 -

That is what knocked tobacco growing on the head in New South Wales, to my mind.

On page 8, Mr. Ferguson attributes the decline in the growth to the imposition of the Excise duty, and a change ira the public taste favoring American leaf.

Senator Pearce:

– On page 4 he also says that the number of manufacturers has decreased.

Senator MILLEN:

– When the honorable senator makes that interjection he forces me tb read a lengthy extract.

Senator Pearce:

– On page 8?

Senator MILLEN:

– That is exactly what I am saying. Relying on Mr. Ferguson’s evidence, the honorable senator affirmed that from 1888 downwards, there had been a gradual lessening of the number of factories, and a gradual diminution in the acreage under cultivation; but he now refers me to Mr. Ferguson’s evidence on page 7, in which I do not find a word about the year to which he referred -

Just before the passing of the Act in 1880 - that is, eight years before the honorable senator brings the figures under review - there were twelve fairly large tobacco and cigar factories in Melbourne, and a number of small manufacturers in Melbourne and country. Those who formerly made tobacco or cigars had now to cease manufacturing unless a licence was taken out.

The very years to which Mr. Ferguson referred are those in which there was an increase in the acreage under cultivation, but the years I am dealing with are those which were specially selected by Senator Pearce, that is from 1888 downwards. From 1888 to 1900 - with the exception of the disappearance of a factory here and the appearance of a factory elsewhere - there was practically going on a gradual fall in the acreage under cultivation, side by side with the same number of factories. It was after the combine had been completed, or, according to Senator Pearce, the factories had come together, in 1900, that the acreage commenced to improve again. In his evidence, Mr. Ferguson gives abundant reasons for the increase in the acreage. He inno sense affirms that the combine had anything to do with that result. He shows that the American Civil War was a contributing factor to the development of the tobacco industry. He points out that the social development of that country had a big effect in that direction, because in a scattered community, small farmers manufactured their own tobacco when they were free to do so, but later on, when an Excise duty was introduced, and the larger factories were started, the small manufacturers did not find it profitable to pay the licence fee, and therefore ceased to manufacture. He deals with a multiplicity of matters of that kind, to which I do not propose to refer, except to say that there is not a single word in them to justify the statement that the drawing together of the factories, if it did take place, had the slightest effect upon the acreage under cultivation. Mr. Ferguson clearly affirms that the Excise duty was a big factor in that direction. In dealing with the evidence of the alleged combine on the local leaf, I am brought to the allegation made by Senator Pearce of unfair treatment against the growers with regard to the Tumut Prize Competition.

Senator Pearce:

– Why did not the honorable senator quote the following evidence by Mr. Ferguson on page 9 : -

Since the duty was imposed in 1880, those factories then in existence have died out except two? - Yes.

I have given figures showing that the acreage has increased since 1900, and what I have read indicates that the increase is continuing, and that the prospects for next year! are better than has been the case for some time. Now let me turn to the question of the Tumut tobacco leaf competition. I refer to this matter for a double reason ; first, because it lends confirmation to the statement I have made that Senator Pearce has allowed his zeal to altogether cloud his judgment. I shall show from a quotation from the honorable senator’s speech, when moving the second reading, how suspiciously he regards any action on the part of the tobacco combine. On that occasion, Senator Pearce said, as reported in Hansard -

After the treatment meted out to the growers, I can almost believe the combine capable of anything.

The honorable senator has made some very strong allegations against the tobacco manufacturers, and I ask honorable senators to bear with me while I trace the history of the Tumut competition, and show how far there is any justification fori the gross imputations and suspicions expressed. The report in Hansard continues -

The representative expert of the tobacco combine was present during the giving of evidence at Tumut, and when the winner of the first prize tobacco was being examined, a sample of the tobacco was placed upon the table. This grower is a native of America, and has followed the occupation of tobacco-grower all his life. He told the Commission .that the leaf then produced would, in America, be worth 8d. per lb.

Senator de Largie:

– Who brought the expert from America?

Senator PEARCE:

– He was brought out by the tobacco combine. This witness, on oath, gave his word that he would expect to realize in America 8d. per lb. for such leaf. The witness who followed was the expert buyer for the combine, and he, indicating the sample of tobacco, said) “ I venture to say that that tobacco sold in South Carolina would not realize more than 5d. per lb.”

There is more that I desire to quote, but I shall deal with the one point first.

Senator Givens:

– There is plenty of time. .

Senator MILLEN:

– I apologize sincerely for occupying so much time, and I can only justify my action, first, bv the stupendous importance of the subject, and next, by the fact that it is easy in a short space of time to make allegations which require many hours to refute. If I detain honorable senators, I can only say that Senator Pearce, brief though he was, covered so much ground, and made so many serious assertions that I feel compelled to take sufficient time in which to reply. The quotation I have read is an accusation of improper conduct on the part of the manufacturers. It is said that there was no one to watch the interests of the growers, who had no knowledge of what tobacco was sent to England, and, further, that one of the witnesses, who was originally an expert brought out by the manufacturers, swore that the tobacco which he produced would be worth 8d. per lb. in America. The first allegation is that the manufacturers broke faith with the growers in the matter of this competition. The evidence on -which I shall rely could have been obtained by anybody, either officially, or as it appeared in the public journals, or in the evidence given before the Commission. I have here the leaflet which advertised the competition, and laid down the conditions. I shall read one portion which Senator Pearce has made the ground of one of his charges, namely, that while the company paid 8d. per lb. for the quantity of tobacco which earned the first prize, it did not give 8d. per lb. for the balance of the winner’s crop. The leaflet shows that the company never undertook to pay for any more than the two ton lot which formed the entry to the competition, as the following condition will show : -

The company does not bind itself, at the competitor’s option, to purchase more or all of the prize-winner’s tobacco of the same quality at the same price.

Nothing could be clearer than that. The terms may be reasonable or unreasonable, but there is no breach of faith if people offer a prize on terms, and those terms are adhered to. What does Senator Pearce mean by saying: -

What happened was that the grower who won the first prize received Sd. per lb. for the quantity which was put into competition, but for the ‘ stock of leaf of the same quality which the grower had, he was not given 8d. per lb., or anything like that price.

What does Senator Pearce mean by that, except that that price ought to have been paid? From the circular it is clear that the company never undertook to pay more than 8d. for the prize tobacco. The company offered four sums of £40 each as prizes in different districts, and, in addition, offered to pay 8d. per lb. for the sample which won the prize. To say that they ought, therefore, to have paid the same price for the balance of the man’s crop would be not only absurd, but contrary to the terms and conditions under which the prize was advertized. Senator Pearce went on to quote from witnesses, and any one listening to the quotation I have just read, or reading through that portion of the honorable senator’s speech must necessarily come to the conclusion that the man ought to have received 8d. per lb. for the balance of his crop, because of the statement that a witness swore that that tobacco was worth 8d. per lb. in America. Now, the witness did not do anything of the kind.

Senator Pearce:

– I should have said 8 cents.

Senator MILLEN:

-No ; the honorable senator will pardon me; 16 cents was the price stated in the . evidence, and 8d. was the real price. Senator Pearce’s statement was first of all an affirmation that the company did not give the man 8d. per lb. for the balance of his crop. I have shown that they were not under any obligation to do so. In the terms of the competition, they expressly provided against that. Then the honorable senator went on to say that they ought to have paid 8d. per lb. quite apart from the terms of the competition, because a witness swore that the tobacco was worth it. The honorable senator said -

This grower is a native of America, and has followed the occupation of tobacco grower all his life, and he told the Commission that the leaf then produced would in America be worth 8d. per lb.

– I was absolutely fair.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator said -

The representative expert of the tobacco combine was present during the giving of evidence at Tumut, and when the winner of the first prize tobacco was being examined, a sample of the tobacco was placed upon the table.

That was a sample of the tobacco which Creasy grew and which he said was worth 8d. per lb. in South Carolina. Was not the honorable senator in the previous part of his speech referring to the fact that the grower did not get 8d. per lb., or. anything like it, for the balance of his crop. He was dealing with that right through. He said that for leaf of the same quality as that shown, the grower did not get 8d. per lb., oranything like it. He went on to say -

The trust, in order, as it was said, to prove that it did . 1 fair thing, offered to purchase a barrel of the tobacco of the first prize quality, and send it to England for sale in the open market. As a matter of fact the growers had no representative to look after their interests, and were not aware what leaf was sent to England.

To that statement Senator Gray made the interjection -

Does the honorable senator infer that the manufacturers in this connexion did what was wrong ? and Senator Pearce replied -

From my experience of the manufacturers, I should think they are capable of anything, and I shall tell the honorable senator why.

Then he went on to say why, and the statement he made in telling, Senator Gray why he had that opinion of the combine was -

The representative expert of the tobacco combine was present during the giving of evidence at Tumut, and when the winner of the first prize tobacco was being examined, a sample of the tobacco was, placed upon the table. This grower is a native of America, and has followed the occupation of tobacco grower all his life, and he told the Commission that the leaf then produced would in America be worth 8d. per lb.

I say that from the beginning to the end of that portion of the honorable senator’s speech, it was clear that he was making an accusation against the combine. When he was asked by Senator Gray if he thought that they did anything wrong, he said, “ Yes, I do, and I will tell you why,” and then he brought up all this evidence of Creasy’s, in which he put forward the sample of tobacco, which he said was worth 8d. perlb, and for which he did not get 8d. per lb.

Senator Pearce:

– I pointed out that on Currin’s own showing, owing to the duty, the tobacco should have realized1s. 4d. per lb., and that showed that even at 8d. per lb., they were paid 8d. per lb. less than it was worth.

Senator MILLEN:

-I am dealing now with the statement that Creasy did not get 8d. per lb. for the balance of his crop, or anything like if, and with the further statement in reply to Senator Gray’s interjection that Senator Pearce thought the combine would be capable of doing what was wrong from his experience of manufacturers, and because this man Creasy, who had been a tobacco-grower all his life, and a native of America, had said that the tobacco was worth 8d. per lb., and he did not get 8d. per lb. for it. I say that when he was recalled on the next day, Creasy told the Commission, what I think Senator Pearce should have fold the Senate, that the sample he produced was not a fair sample of his crop, and was only brought forward for the purpose of showing, what could be grown in the Tumut district.

Senator Pearce:

– The point at issue was the price of tobacco of that quality, and the question whether that was a true sample of his crop did not arise.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator made the point that the man did not get 8d. per lb. for the balance of his crop. The question then arose whether the sample wnich was said to be worth 8d. per lb. was a fair sample of the balance of the crop. If it was, it should have realized 8d. per lb., but if it was not, there was no reason why 8d. per lb. should be paid for the balance of the crop. When Creasy was recalled by the Commission he honestly told them that it was not a fair sample, but merely a picked’ piece which he brought forward, with the natural pride which any man might have in the district in which he resided, as showing what the Tumut district could produce.

Now I come to the second point. One witness deposed that the sample of tobacco would not be worth more than 5d. per lb. Senator Pearce took that valuation, and he went on to say -

I then pointed out to him that in Australia there was a duty of1s. per lb.

My honorable friend was incorrect in that statement, because the duty is1s. 6d.

Senator Pearce:

– I was speaking then from memory.

Senator MILLEN:

– I assume that the honorable senator made the error inadvertently. He went on to say -

I then pointed out to him that in Australia there was a duty of1s. per lb., and therefore, on his own showing, that tobacco should be worth 1s. 5d. per lb. in Sydney, without considering freight, although the combine had given only 8d. per lb. for a small parcel. That was the evidence of the expert buyer of the tobacco combine. If there is anything in the” statement of honorabte senators opposite that a duty raises the price of the article, especially when there is not sufficient local production to satisfy the demand, then that leaf should be worth at least1s. 5d. per lb. duty paid in Sydney.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 7.45. p.m.

Motion, (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Nationalization of Monopolies) Bill, interrupted by the suspension of the sitting, be resumed this day fortnight.

page 4062

CALL OF THE SENATE

Motion (bv Senator Keating) agreed to-

That Notice of Motion No. 1 (Call of the Senate) be made an Order of the Day for tomorrow.

page 4062

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SENATE ELECTIONS) BILL

Motion (by Senator Keating) pro posed -

That the Order of the Day No. 1 (consideration of reported Bill) be an Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I should like to ask Senator Keating whether he will explain the connexion between this motion and that which has just been carried, relating to the call of the Senate ? In view of the fact that the motion for the call of the Senate has been made an Order of the Day for to-morrow, would it not be well to make the consideration of the report on this Bill an Order of the Day for the same day ?

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– There is some force in what Senator Clemons has urged. An order for a call of the Senate, under the Standing Orders, has to be for a specific purpose ; and is it possible for us to-morrow to order a call of the Senate to consider the third reading of a Bill the report on which has not yet been adopted ? That is the point.

Senator Keating:

– I think we can.

Senator MILLEN:

– Senator Clemons has raised this point to prevent a mistake being made. It seems to me to be possible that to-morrow we mav be asked to do something which we shall not be in a position to do if the consideration of the reported Bill is not to be taken until Tuesday.

Senator BEST:
Victoria

.- I felt somewhat concerned when Senator Keating submitted his motion. I conceive the position’ to be this: The report stage of the Bill would have to be disposed of before a call of the Senate was made, so that we might be ready for the third reading. Standing order 233 reauires that -

Before the third reading of any Bill by which an alteration of the Constitution is proposed, there shall be a call of the Senate.

Then it says that -

If the third reading of any such Bill shall not have been carried by an absolute majority of the Senate, the Bill shall be forthwith laid aside without question put, and shall not be revived during the same session.

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 5th September, vide page 3964) :

Schedule.

Postmaster-General’s Department : Wireless Telegraphy.

Division 5(Postmaster -General’ s Department) £217,722.

Upon which Senator Pulsford had moved, by way of amendment -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the item “Wireless Telegraphy, £10,000,” by£5,000.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– When I ventured to address a few remarks to the Committee on the subject of wireless telegraphy last night, my honorable friend, the Minister of Defence, evinced a very lively anxiety lest I should make a speech of some duration. He seemed to think that when I commenced to discuss the large subject of the “All Red Line,” my prolixity would be such that I should take at least two hours to do justice to it. I can assure my “honorable friend that I had no intention to speak for more than ten minutes.

I did not intend to pursue the course followed by my honorable friend Senator Millen this afternoon in his very able speech on Senator Pearce’s Bill. The anxiety of the Minister was not justified by the facts, nor will it be justified by results. I was saying, when the adjournment took place last night, that when the PostmasterGeneral returned from the Postal Conference at Rome, he announced that negotiations were being carried on with Sir Joseph Ward, the Postmaster-General of New Zealand, with a view to establish wireless telegraphy between Australia and New Zealand. After stating that inquiries were being made, the subject was suddenly dropped by the Minister. Now, however, I find that Mr. Walker, the representative of the Marconi Company is in New Zealand conducting negotiations with reference to wireless telegraphy. The conjunction of those facts leads us to the conclusion - in view of the absence of any information by the Government - that it is intended to establish a system of wireless telegraphy between this country and New Zealand. Honorable senators will also remember that it was mentioned as probable that the Government would instal a system of wireless telegraphy between Queenscliff, in Victoria, and Tasmania.

Senator Dobson:

Senator Turley:

– At one time that system used to exist in the States.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.Yes. The control of the purse is a great privilege. One of our most important duties is to see that the money of the taxpayers is expended in a way of which we approve. We ought not to be asked to vote a sum for any works without a definite statement as to what they are. If the Government propose to spend £10,000 on installing a wireless telegraphy system without giving anv information to Parliament, they should put on the Estimates an item of £20,000 for making general investigations, and, after it has been voted by the Senate without any information as to how it would be spent, to use the money in making a survey of the transcontinental railway. The value of the information which would thus be obtained would redeem such an item from the reproach of being somewhat nebulous in its presentment. The only information concerning this item which has yet been presented to us is a minute by the Postmaster-General, as follows -

Wireless Telegraphy,£10,000. - This amount has been placed on the Estimates as a first instalment of the cost of introducing the wireless telegraph system into the Commonwealth.

It has not yet been determined in which part of the Commonwealth the system will be introduced, but full inquiries will be made into a number of proposals which have been submitted to the Department, and when a decision has been arrived at lenders will be invited instal the system.

Would it not have been well for the Government to make those inquiries before they came down and asked Parliament to vote the money?. In view of the fact that it willbe sitting within six or nine months there is no desperate hurry in regard to the introduction of wireless telegraphy. No doubt it would be valuable from the point of view of shipping signals. Beyond that, it appears to be a sort of tov. Honorable senators seem fascinated with the idea of experimenting with a new tov which, if brought into competition with submarine telegraphy, would not be nearly so efficient and reliable. According to the second paragraph of the minute, the Department are making full inquiries into a number of proposals which have been submitted. Will the Minister of Defence indicate the nature of the proposals so that we may have an idea as to the direction which the investigations would take? We are not justified in voting a sum of money without knowing for what purpose it will be expended. If we were to say to the Government, “We will vote the money, and you can spend it as you like,” the Ministry would be practically taking the place of Parliament. If we vote this money it will mean that we permit the Government, instead of Parliament, to decide what public works shall be carried out. That is a right which is claimed by Parliament itself ; and we are often told about the continued growth of the power of the Executive. The principle involved, as well as the proposal itself, is important ; and if we vote this money in the absence of the slightest information, we shall not be doing our duty to our constituents. We have the power of the purse, and we ought to see that the taxes, which are necessary for certain services and public works, are expended for the advantage’ of the public generally. If we abrogate our functions and hand them over to the Executive, we shall adopt a system which is altogether wrong. If the Government have no idea how this money is to be spent, we ought to defer the vote until they have further pursued their investigations, and are in a position to bring before us some definite proposals. If the item be withdrawn until Parliament meets again next year, there will have been in the meantime the Imperial Conference; and we shall then have the benefit of the knowledge of experts as to the best methods of wireless telegraphy, and, possibly, as to the best company with which to enter into negotiations. Sir John Forrest has made a proposal that wireless telegraphy should be installed between some portion of Queensland and Papua. My own opinion is th’at £10,000 spent in other ways in Papua would give a much better return; but if there is a desire to spend money on wireless telegraphy, other than in connexion with the signalling of ships,’ and so forth, I honestly think that it could not be undertaken with greater advantage than as between Australia and New Guinea. At- the present time, we have sometimes to wait for two months before we receive replies to communications from New Guinea; and wireless telegraphy would put us, in direct touch, and enable information to be obtained, possibly in two hours. The Government ought to be able to tell us whether it is intended to instal a system with New Guinea, New Zealand, or Tasmania, or whether the idea is simply the signalling of ships?

Senator McGregor:

– Does the honorable senator think he is talking out a railway survey Bill ?

Senator Playford:

– Senator Smith said he would occupyten minutes, and he has now been sneaking for half-an-hour.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.Senator McGregor made no objection to the long and able speech to which we listened this afternoon ; and I certainly refuse to be cowed into sitting down by the leader of the Senile. I am not responsible to any one but my constituents ; and I propose to speak as long as I think is needful on a subject of such importance. There are many competing systems of wireless telegraphy ; and the Government appear to have given a certain company a sort of preference.

Senator Playford:

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– Inquiries could be made without money. The up-keep of an installation to New Guinea would be at least £1,000 a year. An engineer, an operator, and an attendant would be required at each station, and when honorable senators are prepared lightlv to vote £10,000 for the purpose of making certain installations, they ought to remember that it will involve a continual recurring cost to the people.

Senator McGregor:

Senator MULCAHY:

– That is so; the expenditure has been gladly undertaken by those who hold the rights to particular systems of wireless telegraphy, and up to the presenttheir work has been satisfactory.

Senator Turley:

– It is their place to demonstrate the practicability of the system.

Senator MULCAHY:

– They have done so. There are places where cables have been laid, and have been damaged several times; for instance, between Swan Island, where there is an important lighthouse, and the mainland of Tasmania. There are other places similarly situated where it might be a matter of urgency, ‘when the cables have parted, to establish more permanent communication such as that afforded by wireless telegraphy. It will be seen, therefore, that there are some reasons for intrusting the Postmaster-General with a sum of money for purposes of the kind, which cannot be definitely described without further expert knowledge. The criticism which the Government have received on this matter is thoroughly well deserved. The Minister of Defence is in the habit of bringing important questions before the Senate in a most slipshod manner. After placing on the table proposals for usto worry at without proper explanation, he later obtains information which he ought to have had at hand at first. The honorable gentleman now contends that we ought to pass the motion, because he has been “brutally frank” enough to say that he knows nothing about the matter. Had it not been for the speech of Senator Guthrie, we should have been justified in throwing the item out ; but under the circumstances I shall support the reduced vote of £5,000.

Question - That the item, “ Wireless Telegraphy, £10,000,” be reduced by £5,000 - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 16

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question; - That the item, “ Wireless telegraphy, £10,000,” stand part of the Schedule - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 9

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

– We find the type apparently.

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Playford:

– There is such an arrangement.

Senator FINDLEY:

– There is no doubt a reciprocal arrangement between the two

Governments, but the first duty of the Government Printer is to his State and the Government that employs him. The Commonwealth work is to him and to all the employes in the office a secondary consideration. I do not say that thev are not concerned about Commonwealth work, but they are responsible to the State Government, and not to the Commonwealth Government. There is no inventory taken of our property, and there is no Commonwealth employe in charge of the type or machinery.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– How are the wages paid?

Senator FINDLEY:

– By time. The employes get a docket for the time they are employed on State work and on Commonwealth work. There are computers who make up the time, and when the accounts are sent iii the Commonwealth pays for the amount with which it is charged, and the State Government for the amount charged for State printing. In all the circumstances, I say that it is almost impossible that under such a system the time occupied on State and Common wealth work respectively can be estimated with absolute accuracy, or in such a way as to give satisfaction.

Senator Playford:

– If the work is being done fairly, a mistake on one side on one day may be balanced by a mistake on the other side the next day.

Senator Millen:

– The Minister agrees with Senator Findley that the system adopted is a happy-go-lucky one.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It “ could not be otherwise. Is it not about time that the way in which property, which cost the Commonwealth over £30,000, is being utilized should be looked into, and that we should put an ‘end to the present confused1 system bv establishing a printing office for the printing work of the ‘Commonwealth? Who is responsible for the performance of Commonwealth work at the printing office? If mistakes are made, who is called to account for them? Who is called to account for any damage which may take place to machinery, type, or other property belonging to the Commonwealth in the State Government Printing Office?

Senator Playford:

– There is a “Commonwealth officer there, who looks after our interests.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That officer is in charge of the linotype machines, which are operated in a building apart from the main printing office. His time is fully occupied in the performance of his duties in that building, and the Minister must be aware that in the main building there is Commonwealth machinery worth thousands of pounds which this Commonwealth officer may not see more than once in a month.

Senator de Largie:

– It is mostly State machinery.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is not.

Senator Trenwith:

– Undoubtedly most of the machinery in the main building is State machinery.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In the small building the linotype and monotype machines are kept, but in the main building there are Commonwealth printing presses’, machines, and type. The Minister does not know what amount of type there is there, nor how it is being utilized. I suppose that if the Ministry or any of the Commonwealth Departments have printing to be done, they do not send the order to the Commonwealth officer, and instruct him to carry it out ?

Senator Playford:

– No, it is sent to the State Government Printer.

Senator FINDLEY:

– He is recognised as the principal, and the Commonwealth officer is recognised as his subordinate.

Senator Playford:

– We pay something towards the salary of the State Government Printer.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I find no fault with that. If we give him work to do, he is entitled to some payment for it Let us have a printing office of our own, with machinery and plant of our own under the control of our own officers. If that is not to be done, let an inventory be taken of the property which we now possess, what it cost originally, and what it is worth to-day. I hope that other honorable senators will have something to say on this matter, because I consider that the present method of conducting our business is highly unsatisfactory.

Senator CROFT:
Western Australia

– Last year and the year before I brought this matter under the notice of the Senate. In supporting what Senator Findley has said, I point out that, in addition to the value of the machinery which the Commonwealth has lying in the small building close to the Government Printing Office, we have scattered all over the office itself a large number of costly modern machines, which have become so valuable to the State that they are in constant use. But we have no one to supervise the working of them, no one to see that they are not damaged, and no one to act as a Commonwealth computer to check the State computer as to the amount of work done by the State for us. When these new Commonwealth machines were brought out and set up it naturally took a considerable amount of time to teach men to work them. Before they had learned to manipulate them properly, some damage was done to the machines. I have tried to find out whether under our system of bookkeeping any arrangement has been made whereby an amount for depreciation is annually written off the value of the machines. But I cannot ascertain whether there is or is not such an arrangement. As these machines are being worked by members of the State staff, we should find ourselves in this peculiar position, if it became necessary to set up an office of our own : That the machines were more or less worn out, that parts were broken, and that we had no men of our own to work them. It is obvious that the members of the State staff, some of ‘them being entitled to pensions and other privileges, would not be likely to transfer their services to the Commonwealth. We have paid for teaching these men to work our machines.

Senator Trenwith:

– And to do our work.

Senator CROFT:

– But the greater part of the work done by the machines is, as a matter of fact, done for the State. We have no check on the State in respect to what it charges us for the work done. I do not for a moment suggest that it would wilfully treat us badly, but I complain that the present system is not businesslike. We have no check over the material used, and no allowance is made to the Commonwealth for the new labour-saving machinery which it has purchased to do its work, and wh’ich is used to do the State work also. The amount of money spent by the Commonwealth on printing machinery, according to a return supplied at my request last year, may be stated as follows: - Sixteen linotype machines cost ,£14,004 7s. 9d. ; three monotpye machines, £[2,633 I3S- 2d. ; four printing presses, £3,260; four book-bind: ing machines, £[771 ; general printing plant, ,£11,000. Almost as much money has been spent in general printing plant as in the linotype, monotype, and bookbinding machines. The expenditure includes a large number of modern machines, some small and some large.

Senator Millen:

– What is the total amount ?

Senator CROFT:

– £31,6690s.11d.

Senator Millen:

– Does that include type ?

Senator CROFT:

– I think not ; type is purchased from time to time as required. In addition to that unsatisfactory state of things, I wish to point out that at the time the Commonwealth proposed to purchase printing machinery of its own, the Government Printer advertised in the chief cities of the States for linotype operators. He mentioned the rate of wages that they would receive. It was announced, I think rightly, that applications would be received from linotype operators in all the States. Consequently, a number of men came over from the other States to work in the office. I know that some men came over from Western Australia. That was a very fair arrangement. But the first time there was any difficulty in connexion with their work, they approached the Federal Treasurer, in whose Department they were. But they were told that they were not Commonwealth employes. Consequently thev went to the State Government Printer, from whom they learnt that they were not wholly State employe’s either. In fact, the position became so acute, that, although the wages were fairly good, the feeling of unrest was so great that the men who came over from Western Australia, with the exception of two, have returned. Several to my knowledge have gone back to Queensland. In my opinion, there ought to be an understanding that if they show ability, there will be some chance of their receiving permanent appointments. If we do not have some arrangement of the kind there will be a danger that, if at any time we desire to establish an office of our own, we shall experience considerable difficulty in obtaining the services of good operators. That may easily happen in the printing trade as it has happened in other trades through the demand for first-class men becoming great.

Senator Clemons:

– Have they not yet been definitely allocated either to the Commonwealth or to the State service?

Senator CROFT:

– No. They work, perhaps, for three or four hours on State work, and then for a couple of hours on Commonwealth work. At the end of each fortnight, each man receives a State docket and a Commonwealth docket with two par cels of money ; and they have to sign the two pay dockets for the money received.

Senator Dobson:

– Is there anything wrong in that?

Senator CROFT:

– But is it a businesslike method?

Senator Playford:

– They are paid by results.

Senator CROFT:

– If a better arrangement is not made, the Senate ought to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the work of the Government Printing Office, and to furnish a report, in order that steps may be taken to put our work upon a proper business-like footing.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– While we shall all agree that there ought to be sufficient Commonwealth officers to look after our printing plant, and to see that it is kept in good order, I think that it is also fair for us to agree that the State shall use our machinery. Honorable senators will, I think, assent to that proposition when they remember that long before we had any plant of our own, we made use of the State plant to do Commonwealth work. It would be very ungracious on our part if any objection were made to the State using our plant now. Apart from that, I am under the impression that, in spite of the modern machinery which the Commonwealth has purchased, the State has, perhaps, more plant than we have.

Senator Trenwith:

– Considerably more.

Senator Clemons:

– Who is to know?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am assuming that both the Commonwealth and the State have valuable plant in the printing office. But for us to say that the State shall not use our plant, seeing that we have used theirs, would, in my opinion, be a oneeyed way to look at the matter.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Does the Commonwealth Government pay rent for the office which it occupies?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I understand that it pays no rent. It merely pays for the work done. Of course, I quite agree that we should have sufficient Commonwealth officers to supervise and to see that the work done for us is charged for fairly. That is only reasonable. But to find fault with the State officers for making use of our plant, seeing that we had the use of theirs, wou;ld be most unreasonable, especially in view of the fact that probablv a portion of the State plant is requisite for doing our work.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

.- Senator Findley has urged that the present arrangements in connexion with the Government Printing Office are unsatisfactory, and lead to confusion, and that the Commonwealth has no inventory of the plant which it has purchased. Senator Croft has argued that the machinery which the Commonwealth has purchased is scattered all over the office, and that there is no one to look after it. If there is any irregularity, and our plant is not being looked after as it should be, we have to thank Senator Findley for bringing the matter under our notice. But 1 am totally opposed to the idea that we should establish a. printing office of our own. One of the most monstrous things I have heard in this Parliament was the statement made two or three years ago by a Minister that the Commonwealth and the States could not work together for the purpose of carrying out public works. The people of the States and of the Commonwealth are the same people, and our expenses are borne practically out of the same revenue, although a certain portion of it is earmarked for State, and a certain portion for Commonwealth, purposes. We have been told that £31,000 has been spent on printing machinery. But we have not been told what is the value of the machinery owned bv the Slate.

Senator de Largie:

– It is worth double that amount.

Senator Styles:

– We have not been told what the buildings cost either.

Senator Findley:

– What has that got to do with the question?

Senator DOBSON:

– I venture to characterize some of the remarks which we have heard as most ungenerous.

Senator Findley:

– Most business-like, though.

Senator DOBSON:

– Let me give an illustration. I recollect that some time ago Sir William Lyne declared that he would have nothing to do with public works - that lie would not even consent to the building of a post-office - unless his own officers were responsible. After a great deal of discussion. Parliament consented to the appointment of an Inspector-General of Public Works, and a number of other officers. In fact, Sir William Lyne insisted upon creating a Federal Department. But only a fortnight ago Sir William Lyne - I forget in connexion with what matter - said that Stale officers might be trusted to look after and protect Commonwealth interests. That was the same Minister who, a few years ago, had insisted upon the necessity of appointing Commonwealth Public Works officers. It appears to me that my honorable friends, Senator Croft and Senator Findley, are arguing in the same direction. I should like to know what Senator Croft means by saying that our machines are’ “ scattered about “ the Government Printing Office. Would not they be scattered over various rooms if we had a Federal Department? Again and again during the past six years in the Senate, and the other House, members of Parliament .have expressed unbounded satisfaction at the way in which the Hansard staff has done its work, and at the way in which that publication, and other printing, have been produced by the State Government Printing Office.

Senator Findley:

– Hear, hear ! We make no complaint on that score.

Senator DOBSON:

-We ought, in my opinion, to do everything we can to work in co-operation with the State’s. We ought to keep down the cost of the Federal government. It seems to me a monstrous idea to suggest that we cannot trust a printing office, almost next door to this Parliament, to do all our printing, without having a spy there in the form of a Federal officer to see that the time is properly kept. If it is difficult to keep the time, there might be an officer employed to check the work, but if we cannot trust the Victorian Government Printer - an old and experienced officer, who I suppose gets a salary of £800 - to divide the work between the State and the Commonwealth, then what is he fit for? Is it not offering an insult to him to say he is not fit to do that? Would it not be folly to .appoint an officer at a cost of £4 or £5 per week to check a simple thing of that sort.

Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator does not understand it or he would not say that it is a simple thing.

Senator DOBSON:

– I am astonished at the views I have heard expressed here tonight.

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable senator has not heard the views to which he refers expressed to-night.

Senator DOBSON:

– I am founding my remarks upon what I heard from Senators Croft and Findley.

Senator Clemons:

– No one else heard anything of what the honorable senator is saying.

Senator DOBSON:

– I think that my honorable friend must have heard those honorable senators use the words “ confusion,” and “unsatisfactory,” and talk about the instruments being scattered about and of no inventory having been made. I urge honorable senators not to listen to stupid worthless arguments in favour of creating a new Federal Department.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– There is only one way out of the alleged confusion, and that is to establish a Commonwealth Printing Office. I think it must be admitted that if we were permanent ly located anywhere the composite system which now prevails would be unsatisfactory. But it must be borne in mind that we are only here tentatively. The argument for establishing a permanent Department in co-operation with the State points to what at Jeast one of the States is verv much afraid of, and what would be very wrong in itself, and that is the fixing of the Federal Parliament in Melbourne. We ought to have all our arrangements as easily transferable as possible, in order that whenever the time came to permanently locate the Federal Capital - either100 miles or further from Sydney, or at Sydney, it might be - we could do that with , as little expense as possible, and obviouslv the more complete the Departments we created in Melbourne, the more difficult that operation would be. With reference to the printing for the Commonwealth, it will be remembered that in the early stages the whole of our work was done under very high pressure with the machinery that the State had. It had a very ample supply of machinery for its own requirements, but it had not provided machinery to meet the necessities of two distinctGovernments, the other rapidly becoming bigger than itself so far as printing was concerned. When it was necessary, as it soon became necessary, to largely augment the plant it could not be expected that the State would undertake all the extra cost, knowing that in the ordinary course of events the Federal Parliament would be removing to some other place, and would require the additional plant for its purposes. Therefore, it was necessary that the Commonwealth should undertake some responsibility in connexion with the enlargement of the concern, which it did in the purchase of a considerable quantity of necessary machinery.

Senator Guthrie:

– To the amount of

Senator TRENWITH:

– That, I venture to say, is a very small sum compared with the aggregate cost of the plant and machinery in the Government Printing Office.

Senator Findley:

– I doubt that.

Senator TRENWITH:

– Without knowing the facts, I should say that the aggregate cost was more than three times that sum.

Senator Croft:

– Oh, no; it is nearly all obsolete.

Senator TRENWITH:

– That is a very rash statement. I agree with Senator Dobson that the work done for us at the Printing Office is admirable, and it is absurd to say that it could be performed with obsolete machinery.

Senator Millen:

– On what machinery is it performed ?

Senator TRENWITH:

– On the two sets, but the State has very much the larger proportion, according to the statement of Senator Findley. I agree, in fact we must all agree, that a separate Department, if it were possible without unduly burdening the Commonwealth in this transition stage, would be a better thing, but of the two evils, the establishment of a complete and separate printing office for the Commonwealth would be the greater.

Senator McGregor:

– We ought to find out which is the cheaper.

Senator TRENWITH:

– I quite agree with the honorable se’nator, if there is any doubt on that point, but that cannot be done on these Estimates. If the abuses are as great and widespread as Senator Findley has alleged the only way to ascertain the facts is by instituting an inquiry. That cannot be accomplished either by a discussion or by omitting the item. The better course would be to submit a specific motion, and bring up concrete facts more definite and complete than those we have had. I am not in a position to saythat there may not be great cause for complaint.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Surely we do not want any huckstering with the Victorian Parliament ?

Senator TRENWITH:

– No. Speaking not as a Victorian, but as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament, I admit that we are necessarily under a very great obligation to the Victorian Government. They met us in a most gracious and generous manner, when, if I may so express it, we came as a necessity of the Constitution to Victoria to live. Some persons said they did so with the view of fixing us here. I do not think that there is any justification for that remark. I think that the action of the State Government has been prompted by a truly generous Federal spirit. I deprecate any suggestion that the State is imposing upon the Commonwealth.

Senator Mulcahy:

– It is all the other way.

Senator TRENWITH:

– I will not say that it is all the other way, but I dare say that by this time arrangements have been so completed that each party to the composite work which is carried on meets fairly its own obligations. I do not think that the Commonwealth is now under any particular obligation financially to the State. I am not aware that there is any charge for housing the plant or for such supervision as the State provides.

Senator Millen:

– The trouble is that we are not aware of many things.

Senator TRENWITH:

– That is true ; and this is not the way to get the information desired.

Senator Dobson:

– I suppose that the Minister can give us the details.

Senator TRENWITH:

– Without reflecting upon the Minister, I think it is somewhat unreasonable for Senator Dobson to assume that he can. The Executive enjoys the confidence of Parliament, and we have a right to assume until proof to the contrary is presented that this Department, with others, is being administered with care, watchfulness, and necessary supervision. If a question were presented to the Minister in the Senate, I dare say that it would elicit most complete information. We cannot expect any one Minister to know the business of all the Departments. All we have a reasonable right to expect is that when difficulties are presented, the leader of the Senate will obtain information for us.

Senator Dobson:

– Did not the Minister read a statement last year explaining the position ?

Senator Playford:

– Yes; and it can all be seen in Hansard. The question was discussed here for hours, and a complete explanation was given.

Senator TRENWITH:

– The objections which have been raised seem to me to be unfairly exacting. I do not say that everything in the Printing Office is as it should be. It is reasonable that under existing circumstances there should be some uncertainty as to the exact use and application of each machine where two complete sets are employed conjointly to do the work of two Governments. If the State were to say, “ We are sorry that you are dissatisfied ; but for the future you can do your own work on your own machines,” we should immediately be placed in a difficulty. Of course, we should place ourselves in a position to get our work done, but the immediate result would be that we would not be able to do our work for some time, and to equip ourselves for that purpose would entail an expenditure of probably twice as much as we have already5 incurred.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I rise to corroborate every word which has fallen from Senator Trenwith. I think it is well that a representative of another State should say that we quite appreciate the generosity with which we have been treated by the Government of Victoria. This discussion suggests that we should hasten the establishment of a Federal Capital as much as possible, in order that we may have our own printing office. It must be remembered that we are not charged rent for the use of the Victorian Printing Office. Probably Senator Findley knows a great deal more about the state of the printing plant than any one in the chamber. I do not find fault with what he has said, but I think that the time has come for us to pass the item without further delay, and to admit, as I believe we all do that the Victorian Government have done everything which could reasonably be expected.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania.

– Before the question is put, I desire to remind the Committee that the only thing we have heard from the Minister of Defence is that he believes he is correct in saying that a sum of £100 has been expended either on type or in printing. All we know is that we are asked to vote £1,500, and the Minister justifies the requestby saying that £100 has been, or is, going to be spent. Did Senator Playford not mention £100?

Senator Playford:

– I mentioned other items of expenditure as well. The honorable senator has not paid sufficient attention.

Senator CLEMONS:

– We get so little information from the Minister that I can assure him that I never miss any that he gives. The only expenditure that the Minister mentioned was that of £100.

Senator Playford:

– I started by mentioning the sum of £1,500.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is the sum mentioned in the item ; and, as an instance of the expenditure, Senator Playford mentioned the £100, leaving unexplained the destination of the remaining £1,400.

Senator Playford:

– I did nothing of the sort.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Senator Findley is to be congratulated on having placed before the Seriate the state of confusion that exists in the Government Printing Office. I am not going to vote this £1,500, and thus add to the confusion, and to the difficulty in the way of identifying the machinery or type which belongs to the Commonwealth.

Senator Trenwith:

– There is, probably, three times as much State type as there is Commonwealth type used in conjunction.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Neither the Commonwealth nor the State desires to have the best or the worst of the bargain, and I am only calling attention to the state of confusion into which affairs have fallen. I shall oppose the item, simply because Senator Findley has made out a good case, and because we ought not to perpetuate such an unsatisfactory system.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– In spite of the explanation which the Minister has given - I think he termed it an explanation - we are entitled to some information in order to allay the doubts which have been created bv the pertinent criticism addressed to the Committee by Senator Findley and Senator Croft. The statements which have been made raise many questions ; and I expected the Minister to attempt to give, at least, some explanation which is. necessary to determine whether or not this is a vote which ought properly to be passed. I am entirely with Senator Dobson in his desire for economy, but it has not been proved that the present system is the most economical.

Senator Dobson:

– Surely it does not need any proof?

Senator MILLEN:

– Senator Dobson expressed the opinion that it is only reasonable that the State and the Commonwealth should co-operate. We all indorse that sentiment: but the statements of Senator Findlev show that, as a matter of fact, there is’ no’ system of co-operation. On the contrary, there appears to be no definite organization; and that view was confirmed by the Minister when he interjected that the whole thing is a sort of “ goasyouplease “ arrangement. Sufficient has been said, in the absence of any answer from the Minister, to justify a call for inquiry. I do not know enough to affirm that the time has arrived to start a Commonwealth printing office, or to say whether that would necessarily be the more expensive course. But if the Minister is not in a position to give any information, it is, I think, incumbent on the Senate to take steps to obtain information by some other means.

Senator Dobson:

– Give us one statement that requires answering.

Senator MILLEN:

– The whole of Senator Findley ‘s statements require answering. I do not claim the intimate knowledge which Senator Findley possesses of the technical working of a printing office, but I do know what happens when one font of type gets mixed up with another.

Senator Dobson:

– Who says the type is mixed up?

Senator MILLEN:

– Senator Findley said so.

Senator Dobson:

– Senator Findley does not know.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am entitled to assume that Senator Findley, when he rose, had, or thought he had, some substantial ground for the statements he intended to make ; and if the picture the honorable senator drew is correct, the type is being mixed up in a most hopeless fashion.

Senator Dobson:

– Is there any Commonwealth type there at all?

Senator MILLEN:

– In view of that question, I need not go any further. Is the Committee prepared to go on voting sums of money for we know not what? Senator Dobson, that staunch apostle of economy, says that economy is to be conserved by voting any sum the Minister asks for, without our knowing what plant or machinery we have now, or what is going to be done with the money. The statement has been made that the Commonwealth makes no payment for the use of the machinery in the State printing office; but I should like to know whether, when Commonwealth work is done on State plant, a percentage is not added to the cost for the use of that plant. I do not know whether there is such a practice or not.

Senator Playford:

– No, nothing of the sort. The machines are used partly for Commonwealth work and partly for State work, and no charge is made on either side for their use.

Senator MILLEN:

– That is one point, at any rate, on which I have succeeded in getting a definite statement from the Minister.

Senator Playford:

– I told honorable senators all about the printing office last year.

Senator MILLEN:

– Surely the Minister cannot expect us to remember even his valuable words for twelve months.

Senator Playford:

– The honorable senator will have another opportunity to discuss the matter on the Estimates

Senator MILLEN:

– After the £1,500 has been spent ?

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Cannot the honorable senator trust the Ministry ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Not if the Ministry carry on their business in the way described.

Senator Playford:

– The honorable senator is only wasting time.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is my business to see that the Ministry do not waste money. I am sent here to devote my time, as far as possible, to stopping wasteful expenditure, and I desire to know what this item is for.

Senator Findley:

– According to the Minister, most of the money is to be spent on metal.

Senator MILLEN:

– Senator Clemons asked whether there is a corresponding vote on the State Estimates. Linotype machines use up a considerable quantity of metal, and I should like to know whether the Commonwealth is finding the whole of the metal used for the State work.

Senator Findley:

– Nobody knows.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am certain that the State does not desire that the Commonwealth should be continually providing plant, unless there is a reciprocal arrangement.

Senator Playford:

– There is a reciprocal arrangement, under which we use each other’s type, and charge the cost of labour and material.

Senator MILLEN:

– Under that arrangement, when fresh metal is required, who supplies it?

Senator Playford:

– I think it is a case df about half and half, though I do not know exactly.

Senator MILLEN:

– That answer confirms everything Senator Findley has said as to the absolute confusion which prevails.

Senator Trenwith:

– No, it only shows that the Minister, as is natural, ‘ does not know all the details.

Senator MILLEN:

– If the linotypes are used for both State and Commonwealthwork, does the Commonwealth find the whole of the raw material ?

Senator Playford:

– The honorable senator cannot expect me to answer questions as to every little detail.

Senator MILLEN:

– I have reached the stage when I do not expect the Minister to answer anything. We have never yet had a satisfactory explanation of the item from the honorable gentleman, who has practically told us with great candour, as he told me on another occasion, “ I have told you all I know, and Iknow nothing.” We cannot, of course, have an inquiry at this stage, but I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that some investigation will be made into the many statements which have been made here, so that he may be enabled, at a short date, to offer some explanation to honorable senators. If the Minister does not do so, I suggest that honorable senators who think with me, should take steps to have a committee appointed, or to ask the Printing Committee to inquire and report. At present 1 can only regard the position as exceedingly unsatisfactory.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

. -In answer to questions raised by Senator Givens and Senator Croft last year, I went fully into this question, and honorable senators appeared to be perfectly satisfied with the explanation I gave. All the criticism that has been offered to-night simply amounts to an allegation that present and past Treasurers, including Sir George Turner, have failed to look after the interests of the Commonwealth as they should have done, and have allowed the business in the Government Printing Office to get into such a fearful state of confusion as to occasion loss. I had to go and see Sir George Turner on the subject, and he expressed the opinion, with which I agree, that it would be much preferable to have our own printing office, managed bv our own officers. But at the same time, Sir George Turner assured me that the expense of such an undertaking was prohibitive, and that the arrangement, which he made at the inauguration of the Commonwealth withthe

– Is all this material in the- Commonwealth now? Senator PLAYFORD. - No ; it has not even been ordered, and will not be ordered until this vote is passed.

Schedule agreed to.

Postponed clauses 2 and 3 and Utile agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

– With the consent of the Senate, I should like to move the suspension of the Standing Orders, to enable us to. pass the Bill through its remaining stages.

Senator Clemons:

– Is it urgent?

Senator Keating:

– It is necessary that the work should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Senator Clemons:

– It is always objectionable, where it can be avoided, to suspend the Standing Orders.

page 4086

ADJOURNMENT

Appropriation Bill - Order of Business

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– We are now getting well into September, and have been to-day discussing the Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill. I should be g’ad if the Minister of Defence could give the Senate some indication _ as to when it is likely we shall be discussing the Appropriation ‘ Bill ? It is only fair that I should tell the honorable senator that when that measure is before the Senate, it will tie freely discussed.

Senator Playford:

– The honorable senator refers to- the Estimates proper?

Senator CLEMONS:

– Yes. I remind Senator Playford that before he occupied his present exalted position he frequently contended that it was the right of the Senate to be given time for a fair and reasonable discussion of the very important matter pf the Estimates. I should like the honorable senator to say now whether he will bring the Appropriation Bill before the Senate at such a time that it will- not be, necessary for him to ask honorable senators to rush it through after all-night sittings in the last two or three days of the session.

Senator Turley:

– Perhaps the Minister, in reply, would say what business will be taken to-morrow?

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

– I have asked the Treasurer to endeavour to get the Appropriation Bill through another place’ as early as possible, because I recognise the force of what Senator Clemons has said. It is only fair that the Senate should be given a reasonable time to- discuss the Estimates for the year. With respect to the business to_ be taken to-morrow, we shall deal first with Senator Keating’s motion for a call of the Senate. We shall take afterwards the Constitution Alteration (Senate Elections) Bill, and then we shall go on with the Kalgoorlie-Port Augusta Railway Survey Bill, and possibly the Audit Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.43 P m-

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 September 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1906/19060906_senate_2_34/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 6 September 1906

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Higgs:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Henderson:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Best:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator McGregor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senate
6 September 1906

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT