Senate
4 October 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- WAGES ON THE POCAHONTAS
TARIFF AGREEMENT:
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH AND NEW ZEALAND
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE
QUESTION
- NEW HEBRIDES
LANDS ACQUISITION BILL
REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL
EXCISE TARIFF (SUGAR) AMENDMENT BILL
CON ST ITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL.
- Second Reading
EXCISE TARIFF (SUGAR) AMENDMENT BILL
PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS BILL
SPIRITS BILL
EXCISE TARIFF (SPIRITS) BILL
EXCISE TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) BILL
- Second Reading

The President took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 6018

QUESTION

WAGES ON THE POCAHONTAS

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I desire to ask the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, without notice, if he is yet in a position to reply to the question which I asked last week relative to the Wages of the men on the Pocahontas, andwhich he then said had been referred to the AttorneyGeneral, but would at a later date be answered.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– I have not yet received a reply to the question.

page 6019

TARIFF AGREEMENT:

page 6019

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND NEW ZEALAND

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, whether the Government have yet received from New Zealand any further communication about the provisional agreement entered into between the Commonwealth and that Colony in regard to their Tariffs.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– I believe that we have received a communication, but I do not know its contents. I shall make inquiry and give the information.-

Senator Clemons:

– Will the honorable senator do so later on in the day ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I am quite willing to lay the communication upon the table if it is asked for.

page 6019

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

Postponement of Business

Senator MILLEN:

– Under standing order 93, sir, I desire to ask Senator Neild a question. ‘

The PRESIDENT:

– It must relate to some business of which he has charge.

Senator MILLEN:

– It does. In view of the congested state of the notice-paper, what course does Senator Neild propose to take in regard to the Order of the Day standing in his name and relating to the site for the Federal Capital ?

Senator Col NEILD:

– I have already intimated to Senator Playford, the leader of the Senate, that, as evidence of. my sincerity to see public ‘business transacted, I was prepared to agree to a postponement of the business standing in my name. In pursuance of that promise, I wish to inform Senator Millen that at the proper time I shall ask the Senate to agree to its postponement.

Later

Motion (by Senator Col. Neild) put -

That the consideration of Older of the Day No. 1, private business, be postponed until this day week.

The Senate divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 10

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

page 6019

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

What, if any, definite progress has been made through correspondence or negotiations with the home authorities respecting the British claims to the New Hebrides?
Does the Government propose, by a Bill this session, to afford British subjects in the New Hebrides relief from the duties on their exports to the Commonwealth so as to counteract, at least to some extent, the preference given by the Government of New Caledonia to the produce of French settlers in the New Hebrides?
Has it come to the knowledge of the Government that, owing to the important advantages extended by the Government of New Caledonia to French settlers in the New Hebrides who trade with New Caledonia, British settlers in the New Hebrides find themselves so disadvantageous! situated in regard to trade, owing largely to Commonwealth import duties, that several are reported to be seriously considering whether they should not become naturalized subjects of the French Republic?
Will the Government be good enough to lay on the table of this House a phis of all correspondence that has taken place relative to the New Hebridesquestion and the surrounding trade complications?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

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

The Prime Minister regrets to state that he is unable to show that any definite progress has been made in this matter. Repeated representations have been made, and the interests of Australia have been fully set forth!
No. Pending the proposed convention be tween Great Britain and France, it is proposed to render assistance in another manner, and a vote appears on the Estimates for that purpose.
Statements to that effect have been made.
The correspondence being confidential, it will not be possible to comply with this request.

page 6019

LANDS ACQUISITION BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

Motion (by Senator Keating) agreed to-

That the’ message be printed and taken into consideration at a later hour of the day.

page 6020

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL

Message reported from the House of Representatives stating that it had agreed to the amendments madeby the Senate in the Bill.

page 6020

EXCISE TARIFF (SUGAR) AMENDMENT BILL

Conduct of Business.

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

– I had perhaps better move -

That the message be printed and taken into consideration at a later hour of theday.

The PRESIDENT:

– This is a new Bill.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Then I will move -

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Playford:

– It concerns Queensland.

Senator STEWART:

Senator Playford:

– Thehonorable senator seems to think that a Minister of Defence should not have parliamentary duties to attend to.

Senator Col NEILD:

– He should have time to do at least part of the Ministerial work for which he is paid.

Senator Playford:

– My work is not the least in arrear.

Senator Col NEILD:

– At all events, the honorable gentleman has not had time to take us into his confidence in regard to Defence matters, and we have to be content with the information which leaks out through the press. At present all his energies seem to be devoted to assisting the “ bul locking through” - to use a phrase which promises to become historical - of measures in respect of which I say “ God help the country !” Fully two months ago I urged that, for the expedition of Government business, the time usually set aside for private members should be taken ; but Ministers themselves opposed that suggestion, and demanded that Senator Pearce should go on with his Bill for the nationalization of industries, although there was no chance of it becoming law. To show my bona fides in the matter, I have postponed, until next week, business which I had on the notice-paper. No fewer than twelve afternoons have been deliberately wasted by the Government during the last three months in connexion with a proposal which all who knew anything of parliamentary procedure were aware could not be passed, and one of the results is that at the end of the session we find men who have recently been marching in procession,bedlight with coloured ribbons, and speaking at a banquet, in glorification of the Eight Hours God. working the officials and attendants of Parliament for, on some ocasions. as long asthirty-six or forty hours at a stretch. Is not that the apotheosis of humbug?

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

page 6031

CON ST ITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL.

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27th September (vide page 5621), on motion by Senator Pearce,

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- When my speech was interrupted last Thursday, because the time allotted to the consideration of private business had expired, I was endeavouring to point out the peculiar position in which the manufacturers of tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes are circumstanced to-day as contrasted with their position prior to the creation of the monopolistic institution known as the combine. When, towards the end of 1903, those persons operated as separate firms, the workmen and workwomen, if they felt dissatisfied with the conditions of work, had an opportunity of obtaining employment in other independent factories. But that state of things has been completely changed, and the position to-day is that the great bulk of the operatives are confined to one employer, and that is the combine. When workmen and workwomen are circumstanced in that way, we know what follows. We know what has happened in the United States, where the tobacco combine has set its face against all industrial organizations, and will not employ any man or woman connected with a trade union, and where the employes who are nonunionists are paid about half the wages that are paid in places where combines do not exist and trade unionists are employed. They are not only notorious in regard to their opposition to industrial organization, but they extensively employ child labour. Further than that, when a workman in the employ of the tobacco or otherhuge combinations in America arouses the hostility of his employers, he has little or no hope of obtaining employment, unless he adopts a different name and absolutely disguises himself. Instances are on record where men, although they had disguised themselves and adopted different names, have been forced to leave that country. In Australia we do not want to see those evils multiplied. It is true that they do not exist to the extent that is noticeable in the United States. But the men connected with the tobacco combine here are no different from the men connected with similar combinesin the United States and Great Britain. We know the hostility of the tobacco trust, even in Great Britain, tounionistic organization. Fortunately, the women folk in the tobacco and. cigar factories in Great Britain were well organized two years ago. Prior to becoming strong trade unionists, the women were considered to be thoroughly competent employes, but with their growing power as a trade organization, the manager of the trust found fault with their work, and so exasperated the women that they had no alternative but to resent such treatment. They were immediately locked out, and a notice was posted on the factory that no longer would trade unionism be recognised on the part of either males or females. In Australia, we have had instances of men who have taken a prominent part in focussing public attention on the manifold evils in connexion with the huge tobacco monopoly. It is a fact that the men who have been most prominent in their desire to right wrongs in connexion with working conditions have been “ marked,” and if they have not been sacked the time is not far distant when their services will be dispensed with if the industry is not nationalized. But there are on record cases of men who have been sacked. What can be said in regard to male and female employes of the combine can also be said with equal force in regard to the growers, of tobacco leaf. Both here and outside the combine have exercised a very strong influence. We know the influence they exercised in connexion with the growers by handing them about , £400 after they had said that they had been sufficiently paid for the quality of leaf produced. Because of the agitation, and the discontent amongst the growers, owing to unfair treatment, the combine, in order to save their skin, and placate the growers, distributed . £400 amongst them. Not only did they do that, but this, year they gave the growers11/2d. more per lb. for the leaf than they did previously. Last Thursday a letter in regard to the combine appeared in both the Age and the Argus.

Senator Pearce:

– It appeared in every daily newspaper in Australia.

Senator O’Keefe:

– And in Tasmania.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I know something about daily newspaperdom. I know that no daily newspaper of any importance in any part of Australia would gratuitously devote one and a half or two columns of its space tothe publication of a letter of the kind which appeared in the daily morning papers throughout Australia last Thursday.

Senator O’Keefe:

– It was well paid for, no doubt.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Men conversant with the ways of newspaperdom know that letters addressed to the editor appear invariably with small headlines, and not with bold sensational headlines. In the Age and the Argus - in all the daily newspapers - last Thursday appeared this very large star heading -

TOBACCO INDUSTRY,

with these sub-headings -

THE NATIONALIZATION QUESTION.

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

COUNSEL’S OPINION TAKEN.

It was paid for, I suppose, at the rate of 10s. per inch, because usually double price is charged for advertisements when they appear in the ordinary news column. (To the. Editor of the Age.)

Sir, - You are aware that in December last a

– The Bill has nothing to do with Sir William Lyne.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I think what I have stated has as much to do with* the question before the Senate as Senator Neld’s reference to Sir William Lyne had to do with matters that were before us this morning. I have said that the tobacco combine has been exercising an influence in this Chamber as well as outside. When I saw the bulky brief of typewritten matter in Senator Neild’s hands when he made his speech on this subject, and saw him afterwards in . serious consultation with members of the combine, I at once came to the conclusion that he and thev were verv friendly indeed. It was evident that he was extremely anxious to do all that he possibly could to defend them, and to weaken the Labour Party in the advocacy of its principles. And when I saw another bulky volume in the possession of another honorable senator - a volume which, by the way. accidentally got into the possession of one into whose hands it should nol have come- I at once learnt to mv own satisfaction how the wires were being pulled, and what influences were being exerted in order to bolster up this monopolistic monster known as the tobacco combine.. The very fact that the combine has lengthy advertisements in the daily newspapers, which must cost thousands of pounds, and that a number of its members have made their appearance in connexion with organizations hostile to the Labour Party, convinces me that they realize that the only hope they have of preventing that party from accomplishing its object is by the spending of large sums of money, and by sending out agents to place false issues before the people. A number of these agents are like Oliver Twist ; they are always calling for “more.” The tobacco combine has been very friendly to them and has aided them very much. It has helped them to go round the country getting fresh air, and talking a lot of flapdoodle - not at their own expense, but at the expense of the tobacco combine and other monopolistic institutions. I hold in my hand a copy of the Tocsin of 14th October, 1904. This newspaper is published in Melbourne, and is the organ of the Labour Party. The article which I shall quote is headed ‘‘Tobacco Trust Active.” This was as far back as 1904. It will continue to be active until the Labour Party takes the activity out of it by nationalizing the industry.

The tobacco monopoly is leaving nothing to chance. It has a really good thing on, so is determined to at least maintain, and, if possible, improve its position. Politically, it makes common cause with the Tory and cautious Liberal parties, whose terror of Socialism is being worked to the best advantage. One would suppose that the trust itself furnished the best evidence in favour of collectivism, and the most emphatic contradiction of those slanderers who say public industrial officers would neglect their duties. The representatives of the smoke combine are, or pretend to be, the servants of the amalgamated companies ; and whether mere employes or not, they are certainly acting for a body which can only act through managers and supervisors. Suppose we let the managerial staff ‘ remain, and for the companies substitute the State, would the conduct of the business be any less efficient? Would not the same men, for the same remuneration, do the same work for the State as for the combine? The funds of the trust mav not be available for political purposes, and its local chief may not distribute any <coin to the Tory organizations, but the fact remains that the several anti-Labour associations are being heavily subsidized by persons directly interested in the trust. As we say, these moneys mav not be trust funds in the sense that they pass through its account, they certainly are so in the sense that the cash is subscribed by trust members for the advancement of its objects. We shall have to fmd. Mr. Justice Hood another Royal Commission, requiring him to inquire into the relations existing between - not the trust, oh, no - but certain of its participa tors, on the one hand, and certain politicians, both in and out of Parliament, on the other. Keeping one’s eye on the trust affords some amusement and much food for reflection. For instance, on Friday last ifr. Jacobs, of the trust, met a member of Cranbourncites and prominent supporters of the Federal Government in Prell’s Buildings.

These gentlemen, who abhor the caucus, held one on their own account in the board-room, where they sat with closed doors for some considerable time.

Senator Col Neild:

– Just like the caucus !

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator seems to know all about it. Perhaps he was at the meeting.

Senator Col Neild:

– No, I was not.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The article goes on -

The meeting was of the most satisfactory character, if one may judge by the jubilation of the ordinarily dour Cranbourneites and the self-complacent smile of Mr. Jacobs’ acute commercial countenance as they returned to the lift. “Election,” “sinews of war,” and “necessary funds,” interspersed their conversation, until one gentleman summed up the position with, “Well, thank God, we are a match for them, now we understand each other.”

When Mr. Louis Jacobs appeared before the Tobacco Monopoly Commission Senator Stewart put him on the gridiron in regard to the meeting referred tol in the Tocsin article. I will quote a part of his examination -

You are opposed to the nationalization of the manufacture and sale of tobacco? - I am opposed on principle to the nationalization of any industry.

You are aware, I presume, that before thenationalization can take place an Act of Parliament authorizing it must be passed? - My information goes to show that the Constitution of the Commonwealth would have to be amended before it could be done.

Presuming that the Commonwealth had the right to establish a national monopoly, an Act of Parliament would have to be passed to give effect to the proposal? - I understand that that is so.

Has it occurred to you that it would be to the advantage of the tobacco combine to influence Parliament and the Government against nationalization ? - It occurred to us that we should bring arguments to bearby every legitimate means to show the mistake that such a venture would be.

Were you present at a conference of political bodies held on 13th ultimo in Melbourne? - Before I answer I must ask whether this is really a legitimate question within the scope of the inquiry?

By the Chairman. - Have the political bodies had anything to do with the monopoly? - Certainly not.

By Senator Stewart. - I propose to bring that out. There was a conference of political bodies on the date named ? - There was.

Were you present? - I was.

Did you call the conference? - I have already said that it had nothing to do with tobacco, and therefore I must appeal to the Chairman to protect me.

By the Chairman. - It seems to me that it does not prejudice you? - But it is going into other matters.

Senator Stewart has promised to connect it with the subject of our inquiry? - I have a lot of information to giveyou on matters which I am sure will deeply interest the Committee if you will only give me the opportunity.

He had a number of other things to tell the Commission, but evidently was not prepared to tell it what he was doing at that caucus, meeting, as Senator Neild called it.

Senator Col Neild:

– I did not call it anything.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The evidence goes on -

By Senator Stewart. - Can you tell us what political bodies were represented at that meeting? - I decline to say.

Was the Farmers’ League represented? - I decline to say.

Was the Reform League represented? - I do not think that is a fair question.

Was the Women’s League represented ? - I decline to say anything about it. I refer you to the Tocsin.

Did you make any proposal at that conference? - I have already said that I do not think it is fair to discuss that matter here.

Did you offer those organizations a certain sum of money to assist them in their organizations? - If I did not answer that question you would rather unfairly assume that I did, so that I had better say very positively that I did not. Would you mind telling me how these questions will show the Committee what are the best means of taking over the tobacco industry in order to provide money for an old-age pension system ?

It makes one smile ! Mr. Jacobs wanted to know what these questions had to do with the Commonwealth taking over the tobacco industry to establish a fund for old-age pensions, but he had shown -the caucus meeting at Prell’s buildings what in his, opinion was the best way to prevent the nationalization of the industry for such a. purpose. The examination continued -

What 1 want to show you is that the tobacco combine is using certain political organizations in Victoria for the purpose of defeatingany attempt at nationalizing the industry.

By the* Chairman. - The witness must use his own judgment in determining whether he should refuse to answerany questions. If, in the opinion of Senator Stewart, these questions lead up to something connected with the tobaccomonopoly, I must accept his assurance, but if the witness does not think he ought to answer the question and refuses to do so, he has to trust to the Committee to accept his assurance that they are not connected with the matter of the monopoly? - Quite so.

By Senator Stewart. - You take a keen interest in politics? - I always have done so.

Did you ever summons a conference before this one? - I cannot remember for the moment.

He had always taken a very deep interest in the politics of this country ! But when a direct question was submitted to him, whether he had , ever summoned a conference before he could not remember ! That was a very neat way of dodging a very pertinent question ! I do not remember Mr. Jacobsor any other member of the combine having interested himself to any extent in the politics of this country until the Labour Party set to work to influence public opinion on the evils of the combine, and to bring about the nationalization of the industry. But they had good reason to fear that the bulk of the people of this country are in favour of that principle. This question is beyond the experimental stage. This nationalization of the tobacco industry has been a success ; and in countries where it has been tried there is no desire to revert to the individualistic system.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– How does the honorable senator know that?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I know from my perusal of the various publications throughout the world in favour of advanced legislation. We members of the Labour Party are in communication with men of similar ideas in every part of the world ; and, further, there are official documents which absolutely confirm my statement. The tobacco combine has said, is saying, and’ probably will continue to say, that the Tobacco Commission was composed of men with preconceived ideas. But we cannot ignore the fact that many years ago a Royal Commission, with) a similar object, composed almost entirely of. men with individualistic ideas, was appointed by the Government of Victoria; and we know what the findings of that Commission were. Senator Millen and other monopolistic advocates try to weaken the report of the Tobacco Monopoly Commission by saying that The members who favour the nationalization of the industry over-estimate the profits likely to be returned. My own opinion is that Senator Pearce , underestimated the return when he placed it at £400,000; because all the indications are that it would be more like double that amount. There is no other industry in Australia, so far as I know, in which fewer hands are employed in comparison with the profits earned. If that were not so, is it likely that the combine would be spending, not hundreds, but thousands, of pounds in trying to placate newspaperd’om by paying high prices for advertisements, and by subsidizing, as they are alleged to do, organizations antagonistic to the Labour Party? When a committee of inquiry was, appointed by .the State Government of Victoria some years ago the manufacturers, who are now members of the combine, were in competition so keen that amongst them there was a disposition to favour the nationalization of the industry. They found, to use a colloquialism, that the “ game was not what it was cracked up to be “ ; and, therefore, they cried a halt with regard to competition and brought about combination. To refer once more to the question just asked bv Senator Gould, I may point to the report of the Victorian Committee, in which there is the following: -

According to the evidence, the result, in some, if not all, of the countries where the tobacco trade is a State” monopoly, has been that the consumers have obtained a better article than before, and, in some countries, at a lower price.

The working conditions in the State-owned industry are better than those under private enterprise, and the growers are much better circumstanced. What is the position of the growers in the United States to-day ? As I said last week, those growers are endeavouring to start independent factories on co-operative lines; but I am afraid they will have no tetter success than had the operatives who were driven to resort to a similar plan, and whose efforts were rendered futile by the combine forming a corner in tobacco leaf. The combine in Australia will, no doubt, in .the course of years, exercise .a. similar baneful influence; and it is because of this danger that the members of the Labour Party urge nationalization, under which the profits will go to the whole people. We have heard honorable senators on the other side pleading for the aged and indigent, but, nevertheless, those honorable senators are against the proposal to appeal to the people for an expression of opinion as to whether special duties should or should not be imposed in order to create an old-age pension fund, and they are also opposed to the people having an opportunity! of expressing an opinion on the Bill now before the Chamber. Those honorable senators say, in effect, that their opinion is superior to the united wisdom .of the whole of the citizens of the Commonwealth ; and under die circumstances we cannot but regard their pleading for the aged poor as so much sophistry. At the time of a general election it is impossible to obtain a clear and definite opinion on an issue of this kind ; and the desire of the Labour Party is to have a straight-out vote. We invite those who deny that the opinions of the Labour Party would meet with tha approbation of the public to put the question to the test. We are not afraid of public opinion - we are not afraid to trust the people. I feel that I have beer: justified in detaining honorable senators as long as I have. I have not spoken merely for the purpose of speaking; and I have not been briefed by any monopolistic institution. I feel earnestly in regard to this matter of private monopolies. The nationalization of such monopolies is a plank irc the platform of the Labour Party, and I should be lacking in my duty if I did not avail myself of every moment at my disposal tol express opinions which I feel so strongly. A certain newspaper said last week,” evidently in reference to myself, that there was an honorable senator who demanded his “ pound of flesh “ in the way of the time at the disposal of the Senate for the transaction of public business. But I know of no matter of greater or more vital importance to the community than that we are now discussing. When men desire in a conscientious, earnest way, to give the bestthat is in them for the advancement of a principle which is sacred to them, it illbecomes a public journal to complain of their taking up a small portion of the time at the disposal of the Senate in their advocacy of that principle. The complaint is especi- ally ill-timed when we remember that an honorable senator monopolized four hours on one afternoon, and the whole time at the disposal of the honorable senator in the next afternoon, in violently and vigorously opposing the nationalization of this monopoly.

Senator de Largie:

– Not a word was said in the newspapers about the honorable senator.

Senator FINDLEY:

– On the contrary, the newspapers gave prominence to his remarks, as they did to the letter of the combine. We who advocate nationalization have no money to spend ; but so long as we do not infringe the rules of debate, we are perfectly justified in devoting all the time at our disposal to the expression of our views. We shall not be subdued by any newspaper criticism, no matter how violent. Honorable senators opposite know as well as I do that there is no more important question to be discussed, if not now, in the near future, than that of the nationalization of monopolies. It is a question to be decided by the people, who are determined that there shall not grow up in this young nation of ours conditions similar to those to be found in older lands. We know what evils this combination has worked, and is working, in the United States. It was because of the dreadful pictures placed before us day by day of the doings of this monopoly in the United States that the Government were moved to introduce an Anti-Trust Bill. Personally,I have little, or no faith in anti-trust legislation, because the people in Australia are not different from the people in the United States, where, to use a hackneyed phrase, a coach and four has been driven through, the anti-trust laws. In my opinion, the anti-trust legislation in Australia will prove inoperative ; and that the combine do not expect it to be operative, is shown by the energy they are displaying, the influence they are using, and the money they arc spending in opposing this Bill, and in supporting candidates with anti-socialistic ideas. I. hope the Bill before us will receive the consideration it deserves, and that it will meet with the approval of the Senate.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I do not agree that those who vote against this Bill will, when they go before their constituents, be liable to the charge of being opposed to the nationalization of monopolies in jurious to the public. The Bill proposes thathe Constitution shall be altered by adding the following paragraph to section

51 : -

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

The first question to be decided is :. What is a monopoly ? How would the High Court interpret the word monopoly?I think I shall be able to show that if this measure were passed it would not have the effect desired, because the High Court would put a strict construction on the word “ monopoly.”

– It is a straight method from the point of view of honorable senators who support the measure, but it will not accomplish their ‘ object. I do not pretend for a moment to say that it is not straight, but I say that one man voting at a referendum on this measure would vote in one way,according to his idea of what a monopoly was, and another, holding a different idea, would vote in another way. There is a general complaint in America, as well as amongst ourselves, and especially amongst writers on matters connected with so-called monopolies, as to the loose manner in which the word “monopoly” is applied. In this connexion Iquote from Eddv on Combinations. . This” is a well-known American authority on monopolies, trusts, combinations, conspiracy, and contracts in restraint of trade. At page 28, paragraph 29, of this work, the writer sets out certain elements., which he considers essential to a monopoly. and he says -

From a review of the authorities cited, it is apparent that the following elements are essential to a monopoly : -

A grant commission or franchise from the sovereign authority :

To a certain definite grantee - which may be a person or persons or. a corporation ;

Of an exclusive privilege - usually for the sole buying, selling, making, working, or using of some thing. (d) Whereby the public in general is re strained from freedom or liberty enjoyed before - that is, restrained from following trades, pursuits, or callings theretofore free.

Shortly, it must be agrant to a person of the exclusive right to do something. In paragraph 30, on the same page, the writer deals with the indiscriminate use of the term “monopoly,” and he says -

By long and indiscriminate usage the term “monopoly” has come to be applied to any control of any product, industry, or enterprise, whether the control be absolute or not.

Unless the exercise of the control is absolute, the word “ monopoly” cannot be properly applied to it -

An agent having exclusive sale of any commodity in any given locality is spoken of as having a monopoly. A railroad between two points is referred to as a monopoly, notwithstanding the fact that its franchise does not grant exclusive privileges, and the field is open to capital to construct a parallel and competing line.

Senator Col. NEILD (New South Wales) [3.49]. - I have only a few words to say about the question before the Senate, apart from such remarks as I may have to offer about the extraordinary manner in which it has been mixed up with questions of a personal character, and of an alleged political character. I deprecate the consideration of this Bill upon the basis of a report dealing with a single industry, and I also strongly deprecate improperly endeavouring to drag in all kinds of side issues even to the extent of implicating women’s political associations. It appears to me that not only is the Bill which we are asked to read a second time based upon the alleged investigation of a single industry, but that investigation seems to have been conducted with one object in view - not to inquire but to prove; not to investigate what the public interests were, and what the real issues involved were, but to lead up to a certain conclusion. As a result, we have got a lopsided report as to which not unexpectedly the members of the Commission have arranged themselves in opposition to each other. The serious feature of the majority report is that, ‘ according to the keen and critical investigation not only of two of the brightest legal ornaments of the Victorian Bar, but also of three or four independent actuaries, it is quite unreliable. Whether these expert opinions have been published as advertisements or not does not seem to be important, nor does it matter that thev have appeared in the press. I took the trouble when thev appeared, as the matter was of considerable interest, to cut them out and paste them on sheets of foolscap for more ready reference. It may, of course, be said that these men were paid for the opinions they expressed. But if we are going to say that nothing is valuable that is paid for, it is evident that the services of honorable senators are not valuable. There must be some qualification of honour, some qualification of ability, that stands higher than the mere emoluments of professional men ; and we are not to suppose that members of the Bar and chartered accountants would deliberately falsify their own reputations, which they would not have earned unless their abilities had been of the highest - for the sake of a fee. I do not believe anything of the kind, and I do not think that any honest man in the community will say so. I do not know one of the lawyers to whom I refer. I have never met them, to the best of my knowledge, though I have known them by reputation for many years. Apparently, after a critical examination, the whole community is assured - not in a holeandcorner manner, because it is to the credit of all concerned that this information should have been published in the press, so that there should be nothing suspicious connected with such proceedings - that the evidence does not support the conclusions in the report, and that, so far as the figures are concerned, the most heartbreaking mistakes have been made in simple calculations. Consequently the value of the report upon which it is proposed to base legislation is unreliable, and we are asked to legislate on false premises. But is it reasonable, or within, the bounds of common sense that a Parliament should proceed to legislate on matters connected with production and manufacture on the strength of one faulty - or perfect, I care not which, - report relating to one combination of manufacturers ? But there are other tobacco manufacturers in the community, and there cannot be monopoly so long as there is option. The honorable senator who moved, the second reading of this Bill spoke of a sugar monopoly more than once. We know, however, that there is no such thing as a sugar monopoly in Australia, but that, on the other hand, there are twelve or fourteen Government mills in Queensland, not connected in any way with the organization referred to. How can we on such false premises proceed with legislation? How can we, on such meagre information from a single source, form any conclusion as to the desirability or necessity of nationalizing, not only manufacture, but production, trade and commerce? What does that mean? The wording would involve the shipping and every other industry. A little while ago this Parliament passed a Bill to regulate trusts, and crush them out of existence; but the other day, at the instance of the Government, we passed a

Bill the object of which clearly showed the lack of belief in the efficacy of the Australian Industries Preservation Act. Apparently no reliance is placed on the success of that measure; and we first had the authors practically denying its utility from one stand-point, and now we have the supporters of the authors denying its utility from another stand-point. Are we to spend weeks and months in achieving legislative efforts the futility of which is admitted in the course of a few weeks? I very much deplore the utterly needless personalities and vulgarities introduced into this debate. I should have been glad if I could, with Senator de Largie, feel that the discussion had been conducted without personalities ; but unhappily that is not the case. I certainly shall not follow the example of indulging in personal abuse, but prefer to devote a little time to discussing some of the mischievous inaccuracies to be found in the report of the Royal Commission - the fallacies on which, practically, this Bill is founded. I agree entirely with Senator Playford in the expression of a desire that monopolistic efforts of the trust character, which affect the well-being of workers and consumers, may never be found flourishing in Australia. Their evil effects in America are so well known that no more than a passing reference is required on the present occasion. It appears, however, that, in connexion with the tobacco industry, I have earned the hatred of certain honorable senators, because the other day I deemed it necessary to bring before the Senate an incident in connexion with the inquiry by the Royal Commission. I do not desire to say more on that point. I wish to say, however, that, , as to the tobacco combine, I know no one connected with it except Mr. Shaw, the managing director, who has been a personal friend of mv own since the early seventies, when he was employed in the same branch of business as that in which I was a manager. I entertain of Mr. Shaw a very high opinion as a man of unimpeachable reputation and character, and of the most kindly disposition any one could possess. An effort has been made to extract some capital out of the fact that I committed the awful enormity of meeting and talking in this building with the Melbourne manager for the tobacco combine, whom I met for the first time a few days ago. when he handed to me certain papers, sent bv Mr. Shaw for me. On that incident is founded an accusation that

I have some ulterior, purpose to serve, and an attempt is made to discount the few words which I thought it my duty to utter against this Bill. The chief members of the combine, so far as I have any knowledge of them, are Messrs. Dixson, of Sydney, but I do not know any members of that firm, even by sight. That is the sum of my connexion with the combine; and yet, because I was seen speaking to the Melbourne manager, I am made the subject of personal abuse, and of accusations of improper motives. I think it detestable that such conduct should be indulged in by any honorable senator. I should like to refer, first of all, to the accountants’ certificate. The Bill proposes a process of Government interference with an industry, and holds forth a splendid expectation of national advantageon theshape of profits. I find, however, that there has been a most serious misapprehension as to the value of figures; and I can only suppose that, as in the “ Charge of the Six Hundred,” some one has “ blundered.” I find, however, that the certificate before me is signed by such well-known accountants as Mr. Brentall, and Messrs. Watton. Fuller, and King. The certificate is dated so long ago as 3rd August last, and it reads -

ACCOUNTANTS’ CERTIFICATE.

Melbourne, 3rd August, 1906.

We, the undersigned, hereby certify : - 1. That we have carefully read and considered the calculation set forth on pages xii to xv of the report renderedbya majority of the Tobacco Commission, which calculations result in the estimate of a profit of£402,572 in excess of present revenue, to be derived from a Federal monopoly of the tobacco industry.

When a Royal Commission asserts that by the nationalization of an industry the community will benefit to the tune of£400,000 a year, a large inducement is offered to people to vote for nationalization. The certificate proceeds -

That we have carefully read and considered the evidence given before the Commission relative to these calculations, and to the above estimate of profit.

That we have found : -

That the principle or method observed in making these calculations is misleading -

I have no doubt it was nothing more ;because I entirely acquit every one connected with the business of any intentional misrepresentation.

Senator Pearce:

– Suppose the honorable senator were told that the calculations referred toby the Commission were made by another firm of accountants,equally well known, what would hesay? Which accountants have “ blundered “ ?

Senator Col NEILD:

– I say that some one has “blundered.”

Senator Pearce:

– The calculations referred to by the Commission were checked by a firm of accountants whose name and address I can give.

Senator Col NEILD:

– Possibly the two sets of accountants investigated the matter from different stand-Points - one set with full information, and the other with information supplied. The certificate from which I am quoting was given after the evidence had been examined, and is not based on information supplied, to use Senator Pearce’s own word, to be “ checked.” No doubt a set of accountants checking figures submitted to them would arrive at different results. But the accountants whose certificate I am quoting had nothing submitted to them in the way of a statement to check. I could show that the instructions given by ‘Messrs. Blake and Riggall - who, I understand, are a firm of solicitors ofhigh reputation in Melbourne - to these accountants was to investigate the matter, and arrive at their own conclusions. The accountants were not asked to check a few figures submitted, in all good faith, no doubt, but still based . on false premises. The certificate proceeds -

That the principle or method observed in making these calculations is misleading, and that their results, even if properly calculated, should not be a guide to the profit which might be derived from this industry, either in its present, hands or in the hands of the Government.

These people are doing very much more than a mere checking of accounts. They have gone into the policy involved, and the prospects that lie before the industry, either in its present hands or in the hands of Government officials. The fourth paragraph reads -

That apart from the adoption of a misleading method, the evidence clearly shows that the calculations set forth on pages xii to xv of the majority report are disfigured by certain errors as to facts which materially affect the estimate of profit based upon these calculations by the Commissioners.

– When one accountant is criticising a statement of another, the mere assertion that the estimates of the first are wrong is hardly enough.

Senator Col NEILD:

– The explanation is that this is a statement which I cut from the Melbourne Age of the 27th September, and it professes to be only a summary. If I had applied for all the details, and produced them here. I. should have had a very pleasant reception from- supporters of the Bill, who would have alleged all’ sorts of things, even worse than those already alleged, relating to my imaginary connexion with the tobacco trust. When men of high standing in their profession attach their name to a certificate, it has much more value in . my eyes than have the calculations of amateur accountants, even thoughthey should be gentlemen holding such high positions as do the members of the Senate. That is saying nothing to the detriment of those gentlemen. Although I have spent my life amongst figures, I should expect the certificate of a chartered accountant to be accepted in preference to a certificate of mine. These gentlemen show briefly that there is an over-estimate of profit of £299,637. Then, in paragraph 6, they say -

So that three-fourths of the anticipated loot has gone by the board, and there is a possible one-fourth left.

Neither the majority report, nor the above calculations, takes account of interest on purchase money, sinking fund, repairs and renewals, nor of the increase in wages necessitated by the Federal Public Service Act and Regulations.

Very little reliance can be placed upon an estimate in this matter which does not take into consideration the question of interest on goods purchased, lying in store, or in process of manufacture. The value of such goods must amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. We can quite understand that the Commissioners, not. being too well instructed in mercantile matters, might, in the most innocent way in the world, overlook such a point, but we who are asked to legislate on the subject cannot overlook it. There must also be an account taken of the expense involved in the maintenance of a sinking fund. Unhappily, some years ago I was a shareholder in a tobacco factory, which was very profitable up to a certain date. It was suddenly found that the machinery was antiquated, and I think that the most we got out of each £1 share was 2s.71/2d. A sinking fund must be provided to secure new machinery to cope with new requirements, or there must be a continual increase of capital to buy it. Then, again, if repairs and renewals are not accounted for in the estimates contained in the report, what in theworld is the value of them, and what can we imagine will be the prospect of advantage to the public from the prospective £400,000 of profit that is dangled before them as a bunch of carrots is dangled before the nose of a donkey ? Then there must be some consideration givento a possible increase of wages necessitated by the Public Service Act if the industry became a Government monopoly. The accountants finally say -

If allowances be made for these items, the apparent profits would be converted into a heavy loss.

– I have stated my reasons for taking strong exception to the Bill which it is sought to induce the Senate to pass on such very meagre and unsatisfactory foundation as a single report on a single industry which was signed by four Commissioners, and not signed by two others, one of whom submitted a minority report.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [4.38]. - lt is rather unfortunate that, in dealing with this Bill, we have not had the advantage of hearing the views of Senator Gray, who signed the minority report, because then we should have known the reasons which actuated the members of the Commission in arriving at different conclusions. In the debate, more attention has been given to the position of the tobacco industry than to the wider and larger question which is involved in the proposed amendment of the Constitution. It may be urged that there was a full inquiry into the state of- the tobacco industry, and that, on the evidence thus obtained, much force can be given to the contention that monopolies should not only be regulated bv legislation, but should be nationalized. Under the Bill, it is proposed to nationalize what are termed monopolies.

Section 51 of the Constitution is altered by adding at the end thereof the following paragraph :-

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

Under those words, although few, it is contemplated to make an absolute departure from the principles which have hitherto governed legislation in all English-speak. ing communities. I think that, before the Senate is called upon to express its opinion on so revolutionary a proposal, its subjectmatter ought to be submitted by the Government in a Bill. They ought to make themselves responsible for the advocacy of a measure with such far-reaching provisions. Of course, I know that every honorable senator has the right to submit a Bill ; but, at the same time, a Bill which proposes to revolutionize the principles upon which, hitherto, British Legislatures have proceeded, ought to bear the imprimatur of the Government. The present Bill has really no authority at its back. On the contrary, Senator Playford has distinctly stated that he and his colleagues are entirely opposed to a measure with such far-reaching provisions. He has suggested that it .would be very much better to submit to the people an amendment of the Constitution, which, if adopted, would enable the Government to take over the tobacco industry solely, than to have it associated or mixed up with other industries. If this Bill were submitted to the people, apart from the definition of the word “ monopoly “ given by Senator Playford, their attention would be directed to the fact that it would be possible under the proposed alteration to practically do away with individual effort, and to place every organization under the control of the Government. It may be that some honorable senators would be prepared to submit that issue to the electors ; but I feel convinced that the adoption of that policy would be disastrous to the best interests of the community. Under the Bill as it stands, it would be possible for the Commonwealth not only to take over the tobacco industry, but also the sugar industry and the shipping industry ; in fact, any industry. Whenever discontent was expressed with the conduct of a great enterprise, the cry would be raised that it ought to be nationalized. Do honorable senators consider that it would be productive of advantage to this country if this or any other alleged monopoly were controlled by the Commonwealth ? What are the objections to monopolies? The first objection seems to be that a monopoly has absorbed smaller industries into one large firm. But it is proposed by the supporters of this Bill not to put an end to a monopoly, but to transfer it from private ownership to the control of the Commonwealth, where it would be subject to the baneful effects of political influence. The so-called combine has grown from ; a number of smaller firms. Combination was probably necessitated by the manufacturers having to resist larger organizations in America and elsewhere. The history of combines has always shown that, by this means, immense savings are made in the cost of producing goods’ for general consumption. The combines have, by means of superior organization, been enabled to pay large bodies of workmen fair and reasonable wages. I think honorable senators will admit that the rates paid by these large industries are not unfair. We may lay it down as a proposition that where there is a great increase of prosperity in any industry there is a proportionate increase in the prosperity of those who are dependent upon it for their livelihood. One honorable senator complained that bymeans of combination the manufacturers were enabled to reduce expenditure, and to apportion their work in such a way that they got the advantage of labour at a modicum of expense. But who derives the benefit from that saving? Have not- the consumers always benefited from every saving effected in the cost of manufacture? Although it had been feared at first that the introduction of modern machinery would be the means of displacing labour, it has been shown that the labour has derived advantage from such machinery through increased production, and therefore increased opportunity to earn wages. My attention has been directed to an instance in the cotton-spinning trade. I will quote a passage from an address delivered in England on this subject in which it was said -

The hand loom cotton spinners in Lancashire declared that machinery was throwing them out of employment, destroying their labour, and lowering their wages. Before the inventions of Crompton and Arkwright there were only 8,000 cotton operatives in England, and no associated trades to speak of going with them. Twentysevenyears after these machines had come into operation there were 300,000 workmen engaged, and wages had advanced. Eighty years later wages had still further advanced, and there were 800,000 men engaged in England in the cotton industry, and to-day wages are higher than ever, and including the associated trades that go with cotton spinning, it is estimated that not less than two and a half” millions of people are engaged in the cotton industry in this kingdom.

– A good strong trust could run it nicely.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- The writer of the article to which I have already referred, says -

Apart from the fact that in all probability men would not work such long hours in a Collectivist State as they do atpresent, thereby diminishing the output of wealth, there is the further circumstance to be regarded, that they would not work so hard during the hours in which they were employed. This is not mere surmise. The instalments of Collectivism already to hand in our new municipal trading show clearly enough how already men work slackly where their employer is a democratic municipal body, of which the workmen themselves are electors. Thebricklaying performance of LondonCounty Council servants is a notorious case which will serve for illustration.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I am sorry that the time at my disposal is insufficient to enable me to go through the very able speech made by Senator Millen. But I point out that that speech was not devoted to a criticism of the report itself. Not a single sentence of his speech dealt with it. He did not attempt to argue against the conclusion at which the Commission arrived, but devoted himself entirely to criticising and analyzing what I said in initiating this debate. But I should like to deal with Senator Millen’s address. I think I shall be better advised if I devote my attention to the case which has been put before the people of Australia, per the medium of the press, by a Melbourne firm of solicitors. It was published in the Argus of the 27 th September. I invite honorable senators to listen to the paragraph in which the instruction of the solicitors to counsel is set forth-

Our clients consider that the report furnished by the majority of the Royal Commission is onesided, unfair and misleading, but as this can only be conclusively exposed bv a detailed study of the voluminous “minutes of evidence,” which would perhaps be too great a tax upon the time of members of Parliament, or of the public, they requested us to obtain the opinion of two leading counsel as to whether, specifically and generally, the conclusions of the majority report were justified by the evidence upon which they purported to be based.

Accordingly, we submitted the matter to two leading counsel here, Mr. E. I’”. Mitchell, K.C., and Mr. T. a’B. Weigall, as per our letter of 10th August, 1906.

It will be noticed that the two counsel were simply invited to support the opinion of their clients - who were paying for this ten days’ trip to the country. The case was already prejudged. Any finding bv the gentlemen who were being paid for tlie opinion that the report of the Commission was not misleading, would not have been very palatable to those who were finding the money. But I intend, in the short time that is available to me, to analyze this criticism of the Commission’s report, and I think I shall be able to show that if the two gentlemen who have furnished an opinion upon it, read the evidence, they were verv careful to put it on one side in formulating their opinion.. Here is their first statement -

First “ the combine “ or “ combination “ generally referred to by witnesses and Commissioners is that which was effected by an arrangement made in February, 1904, and described by Mr. L. P. Jacobs at Q. 555. Any amalgamated body which preceded it was always opposed by some other body or bodies powerful and active in a fierce war of competition. Not _ until February, 1904, was there anything in the nature of a “combine” of the principal firms nr companies carrying on the tobacco business in Australia.

Now, Senator Gray, who certainly was nor hostile to the combine, has submitted a minority report, and if honorable senators will turn to that document, they will see that he says (page 17) -

In March, 1903, the firms of Dixson and Cameron, realizing the formidable nature of the competition of the Wills ‘Company, agreed to merge their interests in a new company to be called the British Australasian Tobacco Company.

At that time, the Wil/ls Company had only commenced operations in Australia. That Company, I may say, was the pioneer of the British American Trust. Therefore, according to Senator Gray’s conclusion, based upon the evidence, in March, 1903, the principal Australian firms formed a combine to meet a possible competition which was only then commencing ; because the Wills Company had only then established itself in one or two of the capital cities of Australia. On page 56 of the evidence (question 542), we have a statement of the origin of the local combination which preceded the international combination. The statement is that of Mr. L. P. Jacobs. 542. I was asking you with regard to your connexion with tobacco manufacturing in 1806, and whether you took Mr. Gross into partnership? - I will explain. About the year 1895 or 1896 Mr. Alfred Gross, and his partner, who did business in Brisbane .under the name of Messrs. A. Gross and Co., came to Melbourne and opened a tobacco factory under the name of Alfred Gross and Co. Proprietary Limited. After he had been in business for about two years . the firm of which I was a partner, Messrs. Jacobs, Hart, and Co., secured an interest in Alfred Gross and Co. Proprietary Limited, whilst Mr. Gross acquired an interest in the firm of Jacobs, Hart, and Co. That arrangement continued for about two years, when Mr. Gross retired from (he firm of Jacobs, Hart, and Co., and remained connected only , V, tl, A. Gross and Co. Proprietary Limited. We retained our interest in Alfred Gross and Co. Proprietary Limited. Some time after that Messrs. Dixson and Sons, of Sydney, and Robert Dixson and Co., of Adelaide and Fremantle, joined me in purchasing the business of Alfred Gross and Co. Proprietary Limited, and starting a tobacco company in Melbourne under the name of the Dixson Tobacco Co. Proprietary Limited, of Melbourne. 543. Can you tell us why Messrs. Jacobs, Hart, and Co. went into, liquidation ? - We did not go into liquidation. We amalgamated our business with the distributing portion of the businesses of Dixson and Sons, Brisbane, Robert Dixson and Co., Adelaide and Fremantle, and Sutton and Co., Sydney, under the title of the States Tobacco Company Proprietary Limited, of Melbourne and Sydney. 544. That was just about the time of the estab lishment of Inter-State free-trade? - Yes.

Inter-State free-trade was established in 1 901, and, according to Mr. Jacobs’ evidence, the principal “tobacco firms had then already commenced their work of combination, and many of them were combined. At a later date the Cameron firm came in, and in 1903 the very large majority of the firms were in close combination. Now we come to the statement as to the humidity of the atmosphere, and the conditions under which the operatives worked - “2nd. Par. 17 states that four representatives of operatives employed in making twist and plug tobacco ‘were in agreement’ that conditions generally were worse than before the combination, and that these complaints refer to - “ (a) Inadequate and reduced wages. “ (b) The substitution of female labour for male labour at lower rates of pay than male labour. “(d) Power of combine to dictate terms and conditions, owing to the absence of competitors. “‘These four witnesses did not each of them corroborate each other of them upon each of these four heads of complaint. One of them, Mr. Blundell, expressed satisfaction with existing conditions in his State (South Australia). Only one of them. Mr. Stanley, referred to complaint c. Complaint d seems to have been pressed more by certain Commissioners than by the witnesses themselves.”

It is said that nobody backed up the evidence of Mr. Stanley, but here is the evidence of Mr. Forest Irwin -

Three or four times last summer I have, under instructions from the union, reported to the Factory and Shops Act Department the necessity of reducing the decree of heat existing in the press-room, owing to the employes not being allowed sufficient fresh air, and also in regard to the quantity of tobacco dust and particles flying through the air, which were naturally inhaled.

That is the statement of a witness from Sydney, and he practically makes the same charge as that made by Mr. Stanley. This shows that these impartial judges have not read the evidence, or they could not have made the ‘ statement that only one of the witnesses called on behalf of the operatives complained about the atmosphere. I now come to the following paragraph in the letter: - “ The contradictions given by the inspectors (public officers) were not confined to the question of humidity of atmosphere, and cannot be fairly described as ‘qualified.They appear to us to be unqualified contradictions of any assertions that there were any such ill-effects as alleged from any preventable humidity.”

The Commission stated in their report that the contradictions by the officials were only qualified ; and I shall read a statement to honorable senators, who will be able to judge as to the correctness of that view. Amongst the witnesses examined was Mr. William John Rubin Pearce, Inspector of Nuisances, Melbourne. His evidence was as follows : - 6994. You have no knowledge that any such state of affairs existed, as statedby Mr. Stanley ?- No. 6995. Assuming that the ventilators, at a certain time, had all been closed, and therefore the atmosphere had become unhealthy by reason of that fact, would you have any knowledge of it? -Really, I do not think I would. As regards the ventilation itself, that comes more under the supervision of the factory inspector.

As a matter of fact, this gentleman, who was brought to contradict Mr. Stanley’s evidence, had nothing to do with the ventilation. Mr. Edward Charles Martin, Inspector of Factories and Shops, whose duty it was to look after these matters, was examined,’ and the following is an extract from his evidence: - 7002. Do you supervise the ventilation ? - No, I have nothing whatever to do with that. 7037. By Senator Stewart. - You say you never found the ventilators shut? - Had I done so, I would have ordered them to be opened. 7038. If they were kept ‘shut, would the atmosphere be detrimental to the health of the people working inside? -I would like to sayin reply,to that, that that matter is beyond my province.

The statement made by Mr. Stanley was that the factory was supplied with ventilators, but that these ventilators were kept closed - 7039. But the purpose of having ventilators is to purify the atmosphere? - Exactly. If the ventilators were closed the men would not be able to work in the factories, and theywould take care of that themselves. 7040. The allegation made is that owing to the ventilators being closed, the factory is extremely unhealthy to work in ? - I have never seen the ventilators closed. 7041. You visit the place three times a year officially, and although you did not find the ventilators shut, it is finite possible that they may have been shut during the greater portion of the year ? - Exactly.

It will be remembered that Mr. Forest Irwin’s statements were in regard to the Sydney factory ; and the following is an extract from the evidence of Mr.William George Armstrong, Medical Officer of the Board of Health, who was called at the request of the combine to disprove Mr. Irwin’s statements - 4939. Have you ever had occasion to visit the

British and Australian Tobacco Company’s factory to inquire into the question of the humidity of the air? - If that is the factory formerly known as Dixson’s, I made a visit there on 26th May,in company with one of the inspectors of the Department of Labour and Industry. I suggested one or two slight alterations in the way of ventilation, but nothing further. 4940. What caused you to make any suggestions? - . I thought it might be improved slightly in one or two directions. But, generally speaking, I considered it fair. 4941. Were any of your suggestions based on the quantity of dust arising in the factory ? - No. 4942. Can you give the Committee an idea of what alterations you suggested ? - I think I suggested putting in one or two ventilating openings in one of the walls; that is as far as I can recollect. It is a considerable time ago, and my memory is not very clear about it. 4971- How long have you been in the Government employ ? - Eight years. 4972. During that period you often visited that factory ? - No ; I have only visited it once, in 1905. 4973. You were instructed to make the visit by the Minister for Labour and Industry? - No; I was not instructed, but at the request of that Department,’ who said they would like my advice in connexion with the ventilation at a certain factory. 4974. What time did you spend at the factory? - About one and a half hours. 4975. And by whom were you shown over it? - By one of the officials of the factory ; I could not say who. 4076. During the eight years you have been in the Department you visited that factory but once ; therefore, speaking as an expert, one visit in that period of time could not be taken as a serious opinion on a matter affecting the health of operatives engaged in that factory? - In general terms. No, I do not think so. I should prefer, before giving mv opinion, to visit the plan at various seasons of the year.

In view of that evidence, I ask any reasonable man if the Commission were not justified in saying that the contradictions given by officials to the. statements made by the witnesses for the operatives, were only qualified? As to wages, there is the following paragraph in the letter: - “ (a) Is a finding ‘that wages have been in some instances reduced.’ Except in the isolated, and (we think) immaterial, instances referred to by Mr. Irwin affecting only five or six operatives, we think that no finding that there has been any reduction of wages by the combine is or would be justified by the evidence.”

The statements made by Mr. Irwin are admitted; and, therefore,I need not follow that point further. Twist tobacco is very largely used in Adelaide, and is sold at so many sticks to thepound. After the combination was formed, the number of sticks to the pound was increased, but the operatives, who were paid 4d. to the pound, were not given an increase of wages. Where they had been making sixteen sticks for 4d..they had to make eighteen sticks, and where they had been making fourteen sticks they had to make sixteen. My contention is that that constitutes a practical reduction of wages, because more labour was required to earn the same amount of money. The following is an extract from the evidence of Mr. Reginald Blundell, of Adelaide: - 6028. By the Chairman. - In answer to Senator Gray, you stated you were getting thesame. wages now as you were before the combine came, into existence. You were making fourteen sticks for 4d., and nowyou are making sixteen sticks for the same price. How can you be getting the same wage? - I meant per lb. Some lines are worse than others, but taking it all round, our price is 4d. per lb. 6029. Take any particular line. You were making fourteen* sticks for 4d. for several years. Now you are making sixteen sticks in that particular line for 4d. Do you say youget as well paid? - In that light we are not. We get the sameper lb., but not the same per stick.

The same thing happened in the case of plug tobacco. The size of the plug was reduced, and the operatives who made the covers were paid so much per lb. ; and the result was that they had to cover a greater number for the same price as formerly. It will be seen that Mr. Irwin’s statement was not an isolated one. but that, in the case of the plug covers also, there had been a practical reduction of wages. Then we come to the following paragraph in the letter: - “ (b) Is a finding ‘that the number of females employed has increased,’ and that in some cases they receive less than men for similar work?’ In so far as this finding means that women areemployed to do the work which men formerly did, and at a less wage than men received for such work, we think that it is in noway justified by the evidence.”

Honorable senators will notice the twisting of the report, which stated simply that the number of female operatives had been increased. That statement is so twisted as to convey the impression that women are now employed at a lower rate of wage, to do work formerly undertaken by men. Now let us see what witnesses proved this.I direct honorable senators to page 59 of the evidence. They will find that the witness under examination was Mr. Louis Phillips Jacobs, one of the heads of the trust, and he submitted a table showing the average weekly wages paid in tobacco and cigar factories for the first week in June, in the years 1902, 1903, and 1904. The table gives particulars for all the factories, but I refer only to those of the Sydney factories under the initial “B.” It will be seen, from this table that the num- ber of hands employed in 1902 was 307 males; in 1903, 320 males; and in 1904, 328 males, and 43 females. In 1903 the trust came into operation. A summary of the whole position by Mr. Hugh R. Dixson will be found at page 327 of the report, and these are the figures which he gives - For 1903, women and girls, 523 ; youths and boys, 326 ; and men, 598. For 1905, women and girls, 609 ; youths and boys, 330 ; and men, 649. These figures show an increase of seventyseven women and girls, four youths and boys, and fifty -one men, or an increase of twenty-six more women and girls than of men.

Senator Guthrie:

– Do those figures include all the factories?

Senator PEARCE:

– They include all the trust’s factories. Mr. Coghlan’s figures for 1902 give the total number of employes at 2,979, and the number given by Mr. D. Ferguson, Inspector of Excise for Victoria for 1904, was 2,816, so that over the whole of Australia there had been a decrease of 163 in the number of employes engaged in tobacco factories. Here is another statement made -

That the atmosphere in two of the principal tobacco factories is kept at a high state of humidity, and a return handed in in reply to

5034 shows an unusually high percentage of sickness in one of the factories.

This is the answer to that -

In our opinion the evidence as to this matter does not support any finding that there have been in any factory any humidity which was excessive, or which could or should have been avoided. There is no evidence on which we can express an opinion as to whether the percentage of sickness in one of the factories, as shown in the return handed in, was unusual.

I turn again to the evidence of one of the witnesses supplied by the trust - Mr. Wicks, one of their foremen - and I direct the attention especially of honorable senators who have any acquaintance with the business of friendly societies to the evidence which he gave. It will be found at page 231 of the report -

Nearly one-third of those subscribing to the sick and accident fund had become at one time or another a charge upon the funds. In all my experience of friendly society work. I have never come across a record approaching anything like that. I think that evidence abundantly justified the statement we made on that point. Here is another paragraph -

The lessening of the number of competing employers has placed the employes more completely under the control of the dominant employer.

Their answer to that is -

However true this may be as an abstract general proposition, we think that there is no evidence to show that there has hitherto been any use by the combine as a dominant employer of any supposed power of more complete control.

We did not say that there had been, but we did say that they had the power. I pass over the rest of their report, for the very, good reason that I have not time to deal with it all, and I desire to deal particularly with a question arising out of the statement of the accountant. We are told that the tables submitted in our report were submitted by them to a firm of accountants. I may inform honorable senators that our tables were submitted to a firm of accountants by the Commission before they were embodied in the evidence. They were submitted to Mr. S. J. Warnock, incorporated accountant and managing trustee, of 375 Collins-street - a gentlemanwho, I am told, stands very high in his profession in Melbourne. He checked our figures before they were published in the report. Now, as to the sources to whichthey say they attribute errors, whichthey deal with in paragraph 5. I take the first line -

Under-estimate of retail of profit on imported cigars, £184,242.

If honorable senators will turn to page 12 of the majority report, they will find a table headed -

Cigars - Jacobs’ estimated retail prices and numbers, p. 465.

The meaning of that is that we took the estimates supplied by Mr. L. P. Jacobs, the head of the cigar branch of the tobacco trust. We give in the table the weight and number of cigars of local manufacture and of imported manufacture, according to his estimate, and then we go on to say–

Mr. L. Benjamin (pp. 71) estimates 50 per cent. of imported cigars are sold at 6d. each retail; 20,000 at1s.; 100,000 at9d. Imported, 120,000 at1s., £6,000; 100,000 at9d., £3,700; equals £9,750. Imported,9,551,115 at 6d., £238,778; 9,551,116 at average 3d., £119,389; equals £358,167. Total retail value, 19,322,231 imported cigars, £367,917.

If this is an error, then it is based on the sworn evidence of Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Benjamin, members of the trust, and the heads respectively of thecigar manufacturing and cigar importing branch of the business. Wherever we have been able to do so. we have given the page and question at which the evidence supporting the statements we have made are to be found, and why did not this firm of chartered accountants seize this splendid chance to expose the error? This is their next line -

Over-estimate of retail value, £100,681 ; less over estimate oftheir cost value, £51,604; £49,00;.

The estimated retail value is based again on the evidence of Messrs. Jacobs and Benjamin. What tetter authorities could we get? We might have taken the evidence of Mr. Carter, a cigar-manufacturer outside the trust, and if we had done so, instead of showing a profit of , £400,000, we might have shown a profit of £800,000. But anticipating this criticism, we carefully based all our estimates, whenever we were able to get the information, on the evidence of representatives of the trust. That is the reason why there was no detailed criticism of the accounts. These accountants knew that if they analyzed and attempted to destroy our figures “they would have to destroy the credibility of the trust’s own witnesses, and they were not likely to do that. I have material before me with which I could answer the whole of the criticism suppliedby these, persons, and on the sworn evidence submitted to the Commission. I regret that I have not time to do so, because I desire to have a division on the Bill taken, and I must perforce conclude.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.4.5 p.m.

page 6060

EXCISE TARIFF (SUGAR) AMENDMENT BILL

Consideration resumed (vide page 6031:). Question - That the Bill be now read a first time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 6

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

page 6060

PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS BILL

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

page 6060

SPIRITS BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message, stating that it had agreed to some of the Senate’s requested amendments, disagreed to others, agreed to part of one amendment’, and made a consequential amendment.

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That the message be printed and taken into consideration at a later hour on motion.

page 6060

EXCISE TARIFF (SPIRITS) BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message stating that it had made certain of the Senate’ s requested amendments, made, another with a modification, and had not made the remainder.

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That the message be printed and taken into consideration to-morrow.

page 6061

EXCISE TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from and October (vide page 5789),, on motion by Senator Playford -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Dobson:

– These alternatives enable the worker to appeal from the Arbitration Court to the Minister or to Parliament.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Of course they do. I am pointing out that there are alternatives provided which, are far preferable to that contained in paragraph d, and it is on that account that I propose to move an amendment to leave out the refer ence to the Minister. The alternative in paragraph e is that the conditions -

Are, on an application made for the purpose to the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, declared to be fair and reasonable by him -

That is a reasonable reference, to which no one could object. The paragraph continues - or by a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State or any person or persons who compose a State industrial authority to whom he may refer the matter.

Senator Dobson:

– That is an absolutelynew tribunal.

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator MULCAHY:

– That is, by suffering a penalty. A neighbouring engineer in the same line of business, but not manufacturing an article mentioned in the schedule, and not governed by any law imposed by the State in which he carried on his business, could continue to pay his men according to a lower scale of remuneration. I view this kind of legislation with much alarm. We should standby the agreement made with the States, and protect their sovereign rights. We should be loyal to the first principle of Federation, which is. “ Thus farshalt thou go, and no farther.” We should rot be continually encroachingupon the functions and (privileges of the States. It is their business to pass industrial laws ifthey please to do so. Some States may be more progressive than others. The conditions of life differin different States. What right have we to place in the hands of the Minister power to dictate conditions of employment to any State. Some reference has been made to Mr. Kingston by way of parallel. I have always been an admirer of one action of his whilst he was Minister of Trade and Customs. He separated himself as a politician from work, which he regarded as the proper function of a judicial tribunal. He recognised that it was not fair for him as a politician to be called upon to decide upon the merits of a case which should be dealt with judicially. But under this Bill we are going to enable the Minister of Trade and Customs to issue his decree arbitrarily.

Senator Playford:

– There are such provisions in the Customs Act, and in the Defence Act.

Senator MULCAHY:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Higgs). - I have been asked to rule whether Senator Gould is in order in saying that the Senate is “ attempting to sink low.” I do not think the honorable senator is strictly in order, and I hope that he will withdraw the expression.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- I. withdraw it j but I wish honorable senators would realize the danger of the Senate putting itself into such a position as to lead people outside to believe that it is sinking low or has sunk low. If, by a very great stretch of imagination we assume, for the sake of argument, that this is a constitutional measure, it will be admitted that it is unwise to require Parliament to decide what are fair conditions of labour. A decision by a resolution of both Houses would involve a discussion of the question in each House, and as there would be no evidence before either House to enable its members to come to a decision, all the persons concerned would have to be brought to the bar, and would be liable to be examined- by every member of the House who chose to take part in the discussion.

Senator Stewart:

– A Royal Commission might be appointed.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

.- The Bill makes no provision for the appointment of a Royal Commission. The provision for a reference to Parliament is an absurdity, and should never have appeared in the Bill. Paragraphs b and c are, in my opinion, reasonable provisions, but I remind honorable senators that they are open to the objection that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court can take cognisance only of disputes which extend beyond the boundaries of a State. Under paragraph d the reference is to the Minister, and I ask whether this is not a monstrous power to place in the hands of any Minister. He is to be the sole judge, and there is to be no appeal from him. If the Government for the time being are under the domination of any section in Parliament, the Minister will be a mere puppet in the hands of irresponsible persons outside. They will pull the strings, and he will jump, and if any one finds fault they will stand behind him, to vindicate his action and maintain his position. The provision might give rise to all sorts of charges of corruption and malfeasance against the Minister. He might be immaculate, and yet he would still be open to suspicion in connexion with his decisions on these questions. Paragraph e provides a reasonable way of having such questions settled, and I assume that the industrial authority referred to would include the Wages Boards established in Victoria. I do. not realize at present the intention of the Government in making the provision with respect to goods manufactured, before the 31st day of March. 1907, and I think we should get some explanation of it. I should much prefer, however, to see the Bill thrown aside, because it is a farce and a fraud from beginning to end. I hope honorable senators will realize that this measure is not an honest attempt to deal with what is a difficult subject, but is an attempt by a side wind to assume a power which is not conferred upon us by the Constitution, and that, if we submit to it, we shall be false to the trust reposed in us as representatives of the States. Assum- ing for argument’s sake that the power sought is constitutional, then, in agreeing to this measure we shall be allowing honorable members in another place to do what certain provisions of the Constitution were expressly designed to prevent, and that is to attach a tack to a taxation Bill sent, up to the Senate. The provisions of the Constitution to which I refer were designed for the protection of a weak Senate from imposition by another Chamber, which a strong and independent Senate would not countenance for a moment.

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

– - This is not an important measure regarded as an Excise Tariff Bill. The peculiarity is that though it has been ruled by the President - and technically no doubt he is quite correct - to be a taxation and Excise Tariff Bill, still on examination it found that really it is not an Excise Tariff Bill, because its object is not to raise revenue by means of Excise duties. The Minister has told us that he does not expect to raise revenue by means of the Bill, as that is not its object.

Senator Stewart:

– Revenue may be raised under the Bill, though.

Senator DRAKE:

– Revenue may be raised incidentally, but that is not the object of the Bill, because the operative clause tells us that it is, not to apply in any case in which certain conditions are fulfilled, and is not to come into operation until1st January, 1907. Perhaps, if there are any harvesters being made, the manufacturers will comply with the labour conditions, and there will be no duty levied. The Bill introduces for the first time quite a novel kind of legislation.

Senator Pearce:

– No, the honorable senator, when he was, in the Barton Government, was the first to introduce this kind of legislation in an Excise Tariff Bill.

Senator DRAKE:

– I suppose that the honorable senator refers to the rebate on sugar ?

Senator Pearce:

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. Senator Drake created one precedent as between black and white labour, and another of taxation legislation imposing industrial conditions. This will be a third or an extension of the first in which we shall make provision, not only for the employment of. white labour, but as to the rates of wages and hours of that labour. These are the grounds on which I value this legislation, and am prepared to support it. Coming tb the Bill itself, I believe that paragra”ph d of clause 2 is quite unnecessary. If honorable senators will look at paragraph c they will see that it reads - are, on an application made for the purpose to the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, declared to be fair and reasonable by him, or by a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State, or any person or persons who compose a State Industrial Authority to whom he may refer the matter.

In some States there may be no State industrial authority, but there is a Judge of the Supreme Court in every State, and under the Constitution he is charged with the administration of Federal law. This will be a Federal law, and if a Judge of the Supreme Court in any State is asked to adjudicate under that paragraph, if there is no State industrial authority to whom the matter can be referred, I believe that he will have to do so. There is therefore no necessity for an application to the Minister;

Senator Playford:

– We might strike out paragraph /.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is not of much consequence. If the amendment I suggest could be made without its being used as a means of hanging up the whole of this legislation, I should be prepared to support it.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– A great deal of the criticism which has been directed against the Bill has come from those who have made no secret of the fact that they are opposed to it. I wish to criticise it as one who strongly believes in the principle which it sets forth. As honorable senators are aware, I claim to be a straight-out free-trader, but I recognise that if protection is to be the policy of the Commonwealth we should devise some means by which the benefit of the protection afforded would not be annexed entirely by the manufacturers, but be passed on in some proportion to those whom they employ. Taking that view of the Bill, and as a friend of the object it seeks to attain, I shall submit some points for the consideration of honorable senators who are members of the Labour Party. I can quite understand the irritation which they have sometimes displayed when it hats been suggested that the course which they proposed to follow, although it appeared to them to be the shortest, would in the end be likely to prove the longest. I suggest to them now that they will not achieve their object as rapidly by faulty methods and wrong roads as they will by following sound constitutional ways. Has it occurred to Senator Pearce to consider what the position would be if the Court should ultimately decide that the provision regarding conditions of labour was in contravention of section 55 of the Constitution ? The provision as to the conditions of labour would disappear, and the provision for Excise duties would remain in full force and effect. It has been said by Senator Pearce that the Courts have never dealt with certain Acts which it has been alleged contained extraneous matter. That is true, simply because the Courts have not been asked to give a decision. But in this case there is every reason why an appeal should be made, because there are actively interested parties who would immediately feel the necessity of asking for a legal interpretation. In clause 2 several sets of conditions of labour are laid down. We know, unfortunately, that employers and employes do not always see eye to eye, and are not always in agreement as to what constitutes fair conditions of labour. As I read the Bill, it seems to me possible for varying decisions to be given. Take, for instance, paragraph a -

Are declared by resolution by both Houses to bc fair and reasonable.

In my opinion we are not dealing with any other matter ; we are simply imposing conditions.. According to better minds than my own, we can impose any conditions we like in such measures as we have beforeus. Having established, as we did in connexion with the Spirits Bill, the principle that we can include in an Excise Tariff Bill conditions affecting the working classes, what have honorable senators to lose by supporting this Bill? Honorable senators opposite point out, in vague and ambiguous terms, that there are other ways by which the working men may be advantaged. But we have an opportunity here and now ; and, no matter how long a time it may take, the members of the Labour Party are prepared to stand by the Government. The working classes, have for years been trying to find a way to obtain that measure of protection to which they are entitled. We believe the Opposition is not so much against any fancied unconstitutionality, as against the principle which we have established, and the operation of which we think will be further extended in connexion with other industries throughout theCommonwealth.

Motion (by Senator Dobson) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 15

Majority … … 8

AYES

– Undoubtedly it does. An industrial authority includes any special Board constituted under any State Act relating to factories.

Senator DOBSON:

– Then the Bill will place the Wages Boards of Victoria in an inferior position, because, whilst the Commonwealth Arbitration Court can act in this matter on its own initiative, these questions can only go to the industrial authority through theMinister, and he might not refer any dispute to a Victorian Wages Board.

Senator Playford:

– The reference to the industrial authority will not be through the Minister.

SenatorDOBSON.- I take it that the reference in paragraphf to goods manufactured before 31st March, 1907, will apply to goods being manufactured at that time. I do not know any other reason for the provision, but it has not been sufficiently explained. It appears to me that this Bill will allow of an appeal from the Arbitration Court to Parliament or to the Minister. Is that wise? I can quite understand that in a Parliament in which the members of a certain party preponderated, applicants would prefer to run the gauntlet of both Houses to going before an Arbitration Court where they would get a judicial decision according to the weight of evidence. Parliament is the worst tribunal that could be constituted a court of appeal. Very few members would take the trouble to make themselves fully acquainted with the facts. They would be subject to be earwigged by the persons specially interested, and could not be expected to arrive at anything in the nature of a judicial decision. Suppose that the harvester manufacturing industry were established in Tasmania, and that the machines were sold at prices slightly lower than those ruling in other States. If our manufacturers applied for a certificate to the effect that they were paying reasonable rates of remuneration and were observing fair conditions, of labour, some of the manufacturers in the other States who desired to put an end to their competition, might allege behind their backs that the conditions under which their operations were carried on were unfair. It might, for instance, be urged that the wages in Tasmania were lower than elsewhere. But taking into consideration the lower rentals, and cheaper living expenses, the rate of remuneration might be relatively higher than that prevailing in other States. Therefore, the greatest confusion might arise. An absolutely new tribunal, for which there is no constitutional authority, is being set up by this, Bill. A Judge of the Supreme Court could toe authorised to inquire into the conditions under which the harvester manufacturing industry was carried on in Tasmania, and might go to the length of refusing to grant the certificate necessary to entitle the manufacturers to the full measure of the protection provided for under the Bill. He might decide that the wages were not fair and reasonable. Suppose that such an inquiry were made, and such a decision were given after the Legislature of Tasmania had refused to pass an Arbitration Bill for the settlement of disputes. Would it not then become clear that we were going far beyond the powers granted to us under the Constitution, and that under cover of an Excise Bill Ave were endeavouring to interfere with industrial matters which were strictly within the domain of the State.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I do not intend to traverse the constitutional arguments advanced by other honorable senators. Like Senator Pearce, I gladly welcome the provision made in this Bill for the protection of the workers. This, is a new departure which I think marks a distinct stage in the progress of protectionist legislation. I do not anticipate that the administration will be attended by the difficulties predicted by Senators Clemons and Dobson. Protectionist legislation has hitherto failed to provide for the protection of the workers. Capitalists ate always well able to look after themselves, and our special object should be not to protect the employer but to confer as much benefit as possible upon the workers. I recognise that an attempt is now being made to protect our industries in a scientific and legitimate manner, and I trust that further measures will be adopted to improve the unsatisfactory conditions under which workers are employed in some highly-protected industries. I do not see that any danger can arise from adopting the provisions which are intended to impose special conditions upon the manufacturers of harvesters. Senator Dobson must know that one thousand and one industrial cases are likely to arise in the States to which the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act cannot possibly be applied. That Act cannot, as he contends, override the States laws dealing with industrial difficulties. It would be absolutely impossible for the employés in many industries throughout the Commonwealth to approach the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. It may be said that the Minister is really the medium through whom any application to those sources must be made : in fact, Senator Dobson said that the Minister must refer any cases to one of those authorities. It may be that I am dense, and, if so, probably that is the reason why I have not been able to discover that such a provision is made in the Bill.

Senator Clemons:

– Senator Dobson withdrew that almost as soon as he mentioned it.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I did not hear the withdrawal, but I am willing to accept the honorable senator’s assurance.

Senator Clemons:

– So far as I understood Senator Dobson, lie certainly did withdraw it.

Senator HENDERSON:

Senator O’KEEFE:

The PRESIDENT:

– I would ask the honorable senator to discuss the Bill before the Senate, and not to discuss the question of Wages Boards and Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration in the various States,.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I cannot resist the appeal which has been made to me. J. am afraid that it is notonly you, sir, but the poor fellows at the table who have had to graft so hard all day, who deserve some consideration at our hands. I shall conclude my remarks by saying that I hope that the proposed method of settling disputes whichmay arise under the operation of the Bill will prove equally as satisfactory all round as has the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in Western Australia. On those grounds, I. give the Bill my hearty approval.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 5

Majority … …11.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

Duties of Excise shall on and from the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and seven, be imposed on the dutiable goods specified in the Schedule at the rates specified in the said Schedule.

Provided that this Act shall not apply to goods manufactured by any person in any part of the Commonwealth under conditions as to the remuneration of labour which -

are declaredby resolution of both Houses of the Parliament to be fair and reasonable.: or

are in accordance with an industrial award under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 ; or

are in accordance with the terms of an industrial agreement filed under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904; or

are in accordance with terms which in the opinion of the Minister are fair and reasonable ; or

are, on an application made for the purpose to the President of the Commonwealth Court of) Conciliation and Arbitration, declared to be fair andreasonable by him or by a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State or any person or persons who compose a State Industrial Authority to whom he may refer the matter ; or

in the case of goods manufactured before the thirty-first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and seven, are cither as advantageous to the workersas the standard conditions at the place of manufacture, or are declared by the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, or by aJudge of the Supreme Court of the State in which the goods are manufactured, or by the Minister, to be fair and reasonable.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I move, as an amendment -

That the words “January, One thousand nine hundred and seven,” lines 2 and 3, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “November, One thousand nine hundred and six.”

The intention of my amendment is to make the Bill come into operation at a reasonable time after it has received the GovernorGeneral’s assent.

Senator Pearce:

– Should not that be a request ?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am extremely obliged to Senator Pearce for the assistance that he is proffering me, but I am going to be bold enough to move the amendment in my own way.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I rule that the honorable senator is not in order in submitting his proposal as an amendment. I think it should be submitted as a request.

Senator Clemons:

– I must dissent from your ruling, sir. I submit my dissent in writing in the following terms : -

I dissent from the Chairman’s ruling that it is out of order to move an amendment to clause 2 of the Excise Mill No. 37, and that such motion must be put in the form of a request.

In the Senate :

The Chairman of Committees. - I beg to report that when the Committee was considering the Bill relating to duties of Excise, Senator Clemons, on clause 2, submitted an amendment toleave out the words “ January, One thousand nine hundred and seven,” with a view to insert, in lieu . thereof, the words “November, One thousand nine hundred and six.” I ruled that he was not in order in submitting an amendment, and he has dissented from my ruling. The Constitution states, in section

53-

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation.

Standing order 244, dealing with procedure on Bills which the Senate may not amend, states -

The proceedings in Committee shall be as follow : - The Chairman shall (unless otherwise ordered) call on each clause or item, ‘and ask if any senator has any request to move thereon. If no motion for a request is moved, or moved and negatived, the Chairman shall declare the clause or motion passed. If motions for requests are moved and passed, the Chairman shall declare the clause or item passed, subject to the requests being complied with.

I did not give my reasons for ruling Sena.tor Clemons out of order in Committee, because I thought I might save time by delaying my remarks until I reported the matter to you. I regret that I had not an opportunity last evening to hear your ruling on a similar point, but I have hurriedly glanced at the report of the ruling, and find that you said, on a point of order, upon a Bill relating to Customs duties -

This Bill is undoubtedly one to impose duties of Customs. The fact, if it be a fact, that it contains a clause that it ought not to contain does not alter the character of the Bill.

I submit that the Bill with which the Committee has been dealing is a Money Bill, and the fact that it contains a clause which should not be in it, does not alter the character of the Bill. . If any amendment is proposed that amendment must, in my view, be put in the form of a request. Although I understand that you ruled last night that any amendment to a particular clause in a Bill such as that under consideration must be made in the form of an amendment-

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not say “must.” I said that I thought it ought to be within the power of the Senate to make an amendment in a clause in a Bill imposing duties or taxation, if the clause was of such a character that it ought not to be in the Bill.

The Chairman of Committees. - Holding as I do that the Bill before the Committee is a Money Bill, and that any amendment must be in the form of a request, I felt compelled to rule Senator

Clemons out of order. But, this evening, you said in reply to Senator Pearce -

I am quite willing to confess, after hearing Senator Drake, that I did not grasp the whole possibilities of the ruling.

Further, in reply to Senator Millen, you said -

I am not going to give any ruling now, but I am quite prepared, if an opportunity should arise, to reconsider the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Has this anything to do’ with the point? The point is whether a senator ought to move an amendment or a request in the part of the Bill referred to. That is all.

– No. In my ruling last night I first of all pointed out that under the practice in South Australia the Committee were the judges as to whether they would make requests or amendments in the different parts of the same” Bill, and then I said. “The paragraphs I have just read throw a light on the subject.” Continuing my ruling, I said, “ I think we ought to be able to amend it in the ordinary manner.” That is all I said. I think that the Senate ought to be able to amend in the ordinary manner a clause which isnot a money clause, and which ought not, in my opinion, to be in the Bill. I did not bind down the Committee so tightly as I originally thought I had done. But so far as the point before me is concerned, Ihave no hesitation in saying that I agree with the Chairman, and that there ought to be a request in regard to this part of the Bill.

In Committee :

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– In pursuance of the ruling now given I shall put the amendment in the form of a request. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the words “ January, One thousand nine hundred and seven,” and insert the words “ November, One thousand nine hundred and six.”

Question - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 5

NOES: 15

Majority …… 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I again move as an amendment -

That paragraph d be left out.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As I consider this a Money Bill, which the Senate may not amend, I rule that the honorable senator can only submit a request.

Senator Clemons:

– I dissent from your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and, in conformity with our rules of procedure, put my dissent in writing.

In the Senate :

The Chairman of Committees. - I beg to report that, in Committee, Senator Clemons wished to move, as an amendment, the omission of paragraph d from clause 2 of the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Bill. I ruled that, this being a Money Bill, only a request could be submitted, and he dissentedfrom that ruling. I thought that a previous point was taken for the purpose of having this question re-opened, and I was encouraged to believe thatyou, sir, were perhaps under the impression that we had taken a wrong course, and that it would, therefore, be well for us to seek an early opportunity to retrace our steps. I was led to that opinion by the following remarks: - Senator Pearce, having stated that he understood you to rule that it was competent for the Committee to request amendments in the Bill, the following discussion took place: -

The PRESIDENT:

- No. Thispoint,as every one knows, was sprung upon me last night. I am quite willing to confess, after hearing Senator Drake, that I did not grasp the whole possibilities of the ruling.

Senator Millen:

– If you will not think it discourteous of me, sir, I should like to ask whether you are going to give another ruling now.

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MILLEN:

– But we are dealing with a specific ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– I only elaborated the ruling given last night, and I do not think it is competent for any honorable

Senator now to dissent from that ruling, which has become the ruling of the Senate, unless he takes the necessary steps.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [2.23]. - I think the question with which we are confronted now is that if a ruling of the President is acted upon, the Senate is bound to accept that as the decision of the Senate, and if it wishes to do otherwise, must take the course of giving seven days’ notice of dissent - from what? A resolution? A resolution must surely involve the putting of some motion and its acceptance. I realize that if last night a motion had been made to dissent from your ruling had been debated, and a decision arrived at to sustain the ruling, it would unquestionably have become a resolution of the Senate. But I submit that in the circumstances it has not become .a resolution of the Senate, and merely stands as an unchallenged ruling, which, when followed up on the second occasion, is .as open to challenge as it was on the first occasion. Lastnight I not was prepared . to take the course of. dissenting from your ruling, because the state of feeling in the Senate was such that it would not have been fair to put such’ a question to the test.

The PRESIDENT:

– I admit that Senator Millen has a perfect right to take the course suggested, but I cannot help saying - and I say it with a good deal of feeling - that when I try to devise means by which the Senate can assert its powers, the very honorable senators who urge me to adopt that course are the first to object to my ruling.

Senator Millen:

– That does not apply to me.

Senator Clemons:

– Nor to me.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the ruling of the President be disagreed to.

I have put my dissent in writing. I desire to say at once that I fully recognise your desire to maintain the status of the Senate. My desire is the same, and if I take a course which appears to you undesirable, I can only assure you that, although my methods mav be at fault, my aim is to maintain the full rights and privileges granted to the Senate under the Constitution. I merely desire to direct attention to the second paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution, upon which I base the whole case that I now present to you. The paragraph reads -

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

It is not possible to divide a Bill into two portions. Under that section the Senate has to determine whether or not a measure is a money Bill - not merely whether every line can be covered by that term, but whether an instrument is or is not’ a Money Bill. If it is a Money Bill, then the Senate must proceed by way of re quest, and if it is not a Money Bill, by way of amendment. There is nothing in section 53 which gives, us any right or power to deal, by way of direct amendment, with a Bill which you, sir, declared to be a Money Bill. It may be possible that the practice in South Australia which has arisen under an agreement between the two Houses may have been present to your mind, and may have caused you to attach undue importance to the point to which you have given prominence.

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That as the matter requires immediate determination, the debate on the motion to dissent from the President’s ruling be now proceeded with.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– According to the terms of the. Constitution, we cannot amend Bills proposing to impose duties of Customs or Excise. The Bill now before us is submitted as one for the imposition of duties of Excise. The Constitution lays it down that Bills imposing duties of Excise shall deal with duties of Excise only. If this Bill relates to anything but such duties, it is not pro.perly before us, and the only way in which we can express our dissent is by returning the Bill with a declaration that we consider that it is not properly before us, or b’- refusing to proceed with it. If we undertake to discuss it as a Bill for the purpose of imposing duties of Excise, we shall practically admit that it is properly before us. But the opinion of the Senate is expressed by its corporate act. We are now asked to fix,- by resolution, a practice which is to bind the Senate on one of the most important questions in connexion with its powers and privileges. I submit that this can only be either a Money Bill, which is in accordance with the Constitution, or an alleged Money Bill.

Senator Drake:

– How is that question to be decided - by a vote ?

Senator TRENWITH:

– That seems to me to be the only way in which it can be decided. If it is a Bill to impose duties of Excise it cannot deal with any other question. Under the Constitution or the Standing Orders we cannot deal with a single Bill as a composite Bill. ‘ We cannot deal with a Bill which deals partly with duties of Excise and partly with other matters, when the Constitution says that a Bill dealing with’ duties of Customs must not deal with any other question.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [2.36]. - I think that Senator Trenwith touched the core of the question when he said that we cannot treat this as a composite Bill, and amend it in one respect and not in another. The Constitution is perfectly clear that the Senate cannot amend a Bill dealing with the imposition of Excise duties. If the Bill cannot be amended in one respect it cannot be amended in another. I felt sorry last night, sir, when you did not see your way to give a ruling on the constitutional point. The proper course, I think, to adopt was to move, as an amendment to the motion for the second reading, that the Bill be laid aside, because it contained a tack, and was not in accordance with the Constitution. By that means we would have avoided the necessity of asking you to interpret the Constitution,- and averted the present difficulty. I have always expressed a desire to uphold the position of the Senate under the Constitution, and it is with very deep regret, sir, that I feel myself compelled to dissent from your ruling. If we accept the Bill as an Excise Tariff Bill it must be accepted with all the restrictions which are placed upon a Bill of that character by the Constitution.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I recognise the gravity of the situation so far as the Senate is concerned. I regret that the question is going to be put to a Senate which is comparatively thin for reasons which I think are very justifiable. I regret, too, sir, that it is about to be put at a time when we are all fagged, and almost worn out, and that remark, of course, applies with still more force to yourself.

Question - That the ruling of the President be disagreed to - resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee:

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– - Will the Minister of Defence tell me how I am to move my amendment to the clause, or will the Chairman tell me how to proceed?

The CHAIRMAN:

– In the form of a request.

Senator CLEMONS:

– At this late hour, sir. and with every reservation which, may be necessary as regards the procedure, I cheerfully accept your statement that I must move a request. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out paragraph d.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I hope that the Committee will agree to the request, because if we can keep this class of cases away from the Minister, and yet effectively administer the Bill, it will be much better for everybody. There will still be an appeal to a Court of Arbitration, or to a Supreme Court. Judge, and I do not think it is likely that any injustice will arise.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– Personally, if I were Minister of Trade and Customs, I would rather be relieved of the responsibility of deciding in cases such as would arise under this Bill. Therefore, I shall not oppose the request. I think it is a good deal better for the Minister to keep clear of industrial disputes, which would probably be a source of annoyance to him. It is a great deal better to leave them to the other tribunals mentioned in the Bill. In some States there are Arbitration Courts, in others there are other industrial tribunals, and in all there are Supreme Court Judges, before whom matters could be brought.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– I regret that there appears to be a disposition to leave out paragraph d. I fear that there might arise cases in which it would be convenient .for all concerned to be able to appeal to the Minister. I do not approve of the request.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– Is the Minister satisfied that a Judge of the Supreme Court of a Statewould have jurisdiction in a matter of this kind?

Senator Clemons:

– There are many alternatives provided for in the Bill.

Senator STEWART:

– I am not quite so sure on that point. If an appeal is made to a Judge, the members of the legal profession are at once introduced. I think it would be just as well to leave some power in the hands of the Minister. It is merely a question of ascertaining, facts.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Aus tralia

– I regret to hear the Minister announce his willingness practically to accept the request to omit paragraph d. I think it will be found in the end to be a serious mistake to do so. There are conditions which may surround operations under this Bill in certain States that do not exist in other States. In Tasmania, for instance, there could be no appeal to a Wages Board or an Arbitration Court.

Queensland is practically in the same position. If we cut off a possible approach to the Minister, there is just a possibility that people living in States which are behind the times in respect of industrial legislationmaysuffer some injustice.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– After studying the clause further, I am more satisfied than ever that it will be a mistake to request the omission of paragraph d. It is quite a reasonable thing that there should bea power of approaching the Minister. It is true that there are other tribunals to which an appeal may be made. But in these matters it might be desirable that immediate action should be taken. The methods of appeal left in the clause would not conduce to a prompt settlement. I can well understand that if Senator Playford were Minister of Trade and Customs he might be anxious to be rid of a responsibility of this character. But, after all, the only thing to be determined would be a question of fact, which could be ascertained more cheaply and rapidly by the Minister than in any other possible way. Some persons might suspect the Minister of partizanship, but I do not think that any Minister would, in a matter of this kind, attempt to act otherwise than impartially.

Senator Trenwith:

– If he did he would have to “ walk the plank.”

Senator STEWART:

– If he did, he would have to run the gantlet of parliamentary criticism. He will be criticised by the press,and by every one interested, and I think we might fairly well depend on his decision. It might be months before the president of the Court would be in a position to hear the case, and then a whole army of lawyers would have to be engaged. Such procedure would have the effect, not of facilitating the administration of the Act, but of the reverse. The only other alternative which I consider feasible is the reference to the Judge of the Supreme Court of a State ; but that would mean the calling of witnesses, and the engaging of lawyers on both sides, with the inevitable result of waste of time, and, probably, not a very satisfactory decision. On the whole, I think the Committee would be well advised to adopt the Bill as it stands.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales’

– As a supporter of the Bill, I trust the Committee will accept the proposed request. This is a new class of legislation, and it is desirable to give it a fair trial, free from any possibility of prejudice on the part of the public. Laws can only continue if they are buttressed up by a belief on the part of the community that they are just in themselves, and make for the good of those who come under them. A Minister is the creature of political circumstances, who can be made or unmade by . 1 parliamentary majority. He may, indeed, represent a constituency seriously disturbed by some industrial trouble-

Senator Stewart:

– He then might refuse to act.

Senator MILLEN:

– He might, but I am trying to show that, even if the Minister be absolutely fair and impartial, he will still be open to suspicion of bias, and the Act would be prejudiced by that suspicion. It has been well said that it is better to have corrupt laws, which the people believe to be honestly administered, than the best of laws which the people believe to be corruptly administered. A Minister would, rightly or wrongly, create a feeling that there was partisanship in any decision he gave. If there were a Parliament with a strong feeling in one direction, and probably moved by some industrial trouble, a Minister might give a decision which he thought right, but he would do it with the knowledge that Parliament might disapprove, and. as Senator Trenwith has said, make him “ walk the plank.”

Senator Trenwith:

– This is the equivalent of one of the alternatives presented by the honorable senator - a resolution of Parliament.

Senator MILLEN:

– I discussed that possibility, but I did notsubmit arequest which had no chance of finding a favorable reception. A resolution of Parliament is open to the objection I have mentioned ; but we must remember that Parliament works in the open, and the minority have at least some opportunity to make themselves heard, if not felt; whereas, in the case of a Minister working in his office, there is no publicity whatever.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I am sorry that the Minister has consented to make any alteration in the paragraph. It is well known that in certain quarters there is an inclination to cast suspicion on politicians. But if there are any public men who cannot possibly go wrong without discovery, they are politicians, especially Ministers of the Crown, on whom the fierce light of criticism can be brought to bear with much effect. So far as the present Minister of Trade and Customs is concerned, if anything could have been trumped up against him, it would have been brought forward before now. I am sorry that Senator Playford has become a party to this amendment.

Senator Playford:

– I have no strong feeling in the matter.

SenatorDE LARGIE. - But there has been strong feeling manifested from time to time. Whyshould we have such implicit faith in lawyers and so much suspicion in politicians? Have lawyers been so very successful in the settlement of disputes of this kind? I speak with some experience, and I unhesitatingly say that lawyers have been no more successful than have politicians. In Western Australia there is a feeling in certain quarters that, instead of a Judge as President in the Arbitration Court, there should be some one popularly elected. A Member of Parliament, who has first been returned by the people, and then appointed to the position of Minister, would approach nearest to that qualification. In my opinion, the alteration proposed is a very foolish one at the present time. If a division is taken, I shall vote for the retention of the paragraph.

Question - That the House of Representatives. be requested to leave out paragraph d - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 8

Majority … … 4

question so resolved in theaffirmative

Request agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Clemons) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out paragraph f.

Senator PLAYFORD (South. Australia to move this motion. I have made inquiries and find that the paragraph was inserted to meet possible cases of small manufacturers, but it is now considered that it would be as well to leave it out. In any case, it could operate only between the 1st January and the 31st March.

Request agreed to.

Schedule, and title, agreed to.

Bill reported with requests.

Report adopted.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT.

Motion (by Senator Playford) agreed to-

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until 11 a.m. to-morrow (Friday).

Senate adjourned at 3.13 a.m. (Friday).

AYES

NOES

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 October 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1906/19061004_senate_2_35/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 4 October 1906

QUESTION

WAGES ON THE POCAHONTAS

Senator GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

TARIFF AGREEMENT:

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND NEW ZEALAND

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator Clemons:

Senator PLAYFORD:

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

Senator MILLEN:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Col NEILD:

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Senator WALKER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

LANDS ACQUISITION BILL

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL

EXCISE TARIFF (SUGAR) AMENDMENT BILL

Senator PLAYFORD:South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Clemons:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Clemons:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Millen:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Playford:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Col Neild:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Neild:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Playford:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator Pearce:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Turley:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator STEWART:

Senator McGregor:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Pearce:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Pearce:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Clemons:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Playford:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Playford:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Playford:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Playford:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Neild:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Playford:

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

Senator Playford:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Playford:

Senate
4 October 1906

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

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

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

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania