View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
22 August 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- TARIFF : ACTION OF NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT
QUESTION
- SUGAR BOUNTIES: QUEENSLAND
QUESTION
- CABLEBUSINESS : TASMANIA
QUESTION
- COASTAL DEFENCE VESSELS
QUESTION
- TENDERS FOR TORPEDO BOATS
PRINTING COMMITTEE
- Committee Room, Chairman. 22nd August, 1907
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT
PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL
- Third Reading
BILLSOF EXCHANGE BILL
TARIFF PAPERS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH MAIL STEAMERS
TOBACCO INDUSTRY: TARIFF
ADJOURNMENT
- Personal Explanation

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

page 2178

QUESTION

TARIFF : ACTION OF NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT

Seizure of Wire Netting

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether he is in a position to give to the Senate any information as to the action which the Government has taken, or proposes to take, with regard to the incident which occurred yesterday in New South Wales?

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

– No fresh action hasbeen taken by the State of New SouthWales to-day. A demand has been made upon the State for the return of the goods, and instructions have been sent to Sydney for the immediate issue to-day of a writ for the recovery of the property wrongfully taken from the control of the Customs authorities, and for an injunctionto restrain them from disposing of it. Instructions are also being issued with’ reference to the recovery of penalties in connexion with the removal of the goods.

page 2178

QUESTION

SUGAR BOUNTIES: QUEENSLAND

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, a question relative to a paragraph in the Daily Mercury of the 15th August, published at Mackay. I shall not read the paragraph, as it is ratherlong, but it isto the effect that owing to a misarrangement,there isnot enough money at thedisposal of the Collector of

Customs to pay the sugar bounties as the farmers send in their claims, and that, as a consequence, the farmers are unable to promptly pay their men. The matter is one of considerable urgency, and I shall be glad to hand the newspaper to the Minister.’ Ail I ask now is, will he make an inquiry, and, if he finds thestatement justified, request the Government to take the necessary steps to put an end to the difficulty?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– Ifmy honorable friend will be good enough to hand the newspaper to me, I shall be glad to make the necessary inquiry, and see what can be done.

page 2179

QUESTION

CABLEBUSINESS : TASMANIA

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

asked theVicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it quite certain that the Eastern Exten sion Telegraph Company Limited have no right - after the termination of their present agreement with Tasmania and Victoria - to compete with . the. Commonwealth for cable business between Tasmania and Australia?
Whether the company can compete or not, is it the intention of Ministers to negotiate with the company for the purchase of their cables across Bass’ Strait, and their buildings and plant, or does the Government still propose to spend money in chartering a vessel for the purpose of making a survey to enable it to lay a new cable across the Strait? 3.. Have Ministers any’ reason to believe that a better route for a cable between Tasmania and Australia than that occupied by the existing cables can be found ?
What would - roughly - be the cost of laying a new cable across Bass’ Strait, and creating the necessary offices and buildings?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– This matter relates to the Department of the Postmaster - General, who has furnished to me the following answers : -

That is the opinion of the Postmaster-

General.

The company has been asked if it desires to submit an offer for the sale to the Commonwealth of its cable and accessories.
There appear to be grounds for such belief.
The Postmaster-General is not at present in a position to furnish this information.

Senator DOBSON:

– Arising out of the answer, may I ask the Minister if the company have actually been asked to submit an offer? I understand that the. negotiations are a year or two old.

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– Personally, I can not say. I have readthe replies that have been f urnished to me by the Department.

page 2179

QUESTION

COASTAL DEFENCE VESSELS

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Have Commander Colquhoun and Mr. Clarkson been instructed to inquire into the feasibility of having vessels constructed suitable for defence purposes as fast cruisers, and also suitable for passenger, mail, and cargo traffic? If not, will the Government communicate with the officers named, and instruct them accordingly ?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

The officers were instructed to obtain information with regard” to vessels suitable for coastal defence. The class of boats contemplated, viz., torpedo-boat destroyers or submersibles, could not be utilized for purposes such as suggested by the honorable senator. The cost of cruisers renders their construction improbable at present.

page 2179

QUESTION

TENDERS FOR TORPEDO BOATS

Senator DOBSON:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice-

In what places is it proposed to invite tenders for the construction of the proposed torpedo boats and destroyers?
Is it the opinion of Ministers that they can be skilfully and efficiently constructed in the Commonwealth ?
If the reply to the last question ‘is in the affirmative, will it not still be necessary to employ an expert from Great Britain to superintend such ‘construction ?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

In Australia and in Great Britain.
The Government hopes such will prove to be the case.
It is probable that special expert aid will be required, but no decision can be arrived at until theprojectis more matured. Reports from officers at present in Britain are shortly expected.

page 2179

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Report presented by Senator Henderson, andread by theActing-Clerk,as follows

The Printing Committee have the honour to reportthat theyhavemetin Conference with the Printing Committeeofthe House of Representatives.

The Joint Committee having considered all the Papers presented to Parliamentsince ‘the last meeting of the Committee, make the following recommendations with respect to such

Papers as were not ordered by either House to be printed, viz. : -

GEO. HENDERSON,

Committee Room, Chairman. 22nd August, 1907

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I beg to ask the Senate for leave to move that the report be adopted.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– I object.

The PRESIDENT:

– In that case, Senator Henderson will have to give notice of a motion for the purpose, which he can only do by leave.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I beg to give notice that to-morrow I shall move that the report be adopted.

The PRESIDENT:

– With the concurrence of the Senate the notice of motion is received.

page 2180

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT

Motion (by Senator McGregor) agreed to-

That a return be prepared and laid on the table of the Senate, Showing the amount of the expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth in Melbourne consequent upon that’ city being temporarily the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth for the twelve months ending June, 1907.

page 2180

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator Millen:

– Which is always praiseworthy work !

Senator FRASER:

Senator FINDLEY:

– Mr. Flynn went to the meeting with the object of opposing the motions submitted. I do not always regard the newspaper reports of a meeting as correct, and they may not be correct in this instance. But it appears to be very evident that Mr.. Flynn was in a hopeless minority at the meeting. The majority did not take the same view, and voted in favour of the motions, not because those present at the meeting were against the proposed increase in the salaries of members of the Federal Parliament but because of the course taken by the Government in introducing this measure. That is the objection which is taken generally by the people of Victoria.

Senator Stewart:

– What course should have been taken?

Senator FINDLEY:

– The course which the Government should have taken was to have made the proposal a question to be seriously considered at the general election.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am going to state the position again, because it takes a long time for plain truths to sink into some skulls.

Senator Fraser:

– That is quite true.

Senator LYNCH:

– My object in restating the position is not to instruct those honorable senators who will not listen, but to show up the inconsistency of the press in this regard, and to point out how they have abused the privileges which they have enjoyed at the hands of this Parliament. The first session of the tenth Parliament of Canada was opened by the GovernorGeneral with a speech on the 12th January. 1905, but it did not contain a reference to the question of an increased allowance to the “members o’f the Parliament. On the 17th June, a motion was. brought forward in the House of Commons in terms similar to those of the motion which was passed recently in the other branch of this Parliament. The discussion on that motion, which was passed ‘on the same day, occupied . precisely two .pages of Hansard.

– In Western Australia we. have, L believe, the fairest press of any Australasian State. We have a press that will give fair reports of the views of the meanest members of the community who have anything to say upon any important public question. At the same time, our newspapers use their leading columns, as they are entitled to do, to point out the weak spots in any policy opposed to. that which they advocate, and to criticise the utterances of public men. I do not complain of such treatment. But I. do complain of the policypursued by the press of this city. The matter is one that affects every member of the Senate. Every honorable senator is interested to see that his views are fairly set forth. In this case, my allusion to the Canadian precedent is entirely suppressed.. But, on the other hand, consider the attention given to the meeting at the Town Hall last night. The Lord Mayor of Melbourne is reported in the Age to have said -

He desired to draw attention to the sudden introductionof the Bill and to its rapid progress through the House of Representatives. (Laughter.) He thought, indeed, that it would take the record.

I submit that that is not a true statement of fact. But here is a clear proof that the Melbourne Age decided to publish the opinions expressed by the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, who, so far as this Commonwealth is concerned, is an irresponsible person, and at the same time to suppress mine. The point which I wish to make clear is that it is decidedly unfair: that this should be so. It is time that the public recognised that the press is run for business motives, just as is a boot factory, or a shop. The press is run to make money for its shareholders and proprietors: But when it comes to one man sitting in his office, and constituting himself a censor of public men, while he refuses to publish the views of representatives of the people, and at the same time devotes space to the views of irresponsible persons, then I say that he has made a manifest departure from the path of justice and reason. Speakers at the Town Hall meeting were permitted to refer to the ‘.’rushing “ of the measure through the House of Representatives, and their remarks are reported at length. A Mr. Reid remarked that he had come forward to - protest against the measure that had been rushed through behind their backs in this iniquitous way.

– It was wonderful how calmly Senator Findley took the other remarks that were made against the party of which he is a member. Not one word came from him when that accusation was made against the Labour Party by

Senator Fraser. He seemed, however, to be highly indignant when he was charged with probably having something to do with an article which was in accord with his own views as stated” in this Chamber. However, as Senator Needham said, there is only one way by which those who are opposing the measure can prove their sincerity. The opposition to the Bill does not end on the floor of the Senate. If they wish to impress the sincerity of their opposition on other honorable senators, they will refuse to accept one penny of the increased allowance which the Bill authorizes. That is the only way in which they can induce me to accept any of their professions of sincerity. It is no use for them to howl on the floor of thisChamber, and then, after the Bill becomes law, to accept the extra money with the rest of the members of this Parliament. That kind of cheapclaptrap and pandering will not satisfy me. I will believe that a man is sincerely and honestly opposed to the. Bill when he carries that sincerity to its logical conclusion. The only proof of it will be that he refuses to accept the extra allowance.

Question - That this Bill be now read a third time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 11

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2194

BILLSOF EXCHANGE BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 16th August, vide page 2067) :

Postponed clause 81 -

Where

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

That all the words. after the word “banker,” line 14, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ may recover from the drawer in a Court of competent jurisdiction any amount expressed in the cheque over and above the original sum so drawn.”

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– Since this clause was last under consideration, an important banking journal has been published. I have read carefully the remarks in it on clause 81, and I think my amendment will meet the views of the banking people as expressed by that paper, as well as those of the general public.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– This amendment is one that could be very well accepted bythe Committee. The object of the clause is to provide that, when there has been negligence on the part of the drawer, if that negligence has been the cause of a cheque . being fraudulently altered to a larger amount, and the banker has bona fide and without negligence honoured the cheque for the larger amount, the banker shall not bear the loss. As the clause now stands, it leaves the banker in such circumstances to debit the drawer with the difference. The amendment proposes to throw upon the banker the onus of nroving the negligence of the drawer, and of proving also the other facts which have led to the fraudulent alteration, before he can recover the amount from the drawer. I think that the object which Senator Chataway has in view in throwing the onus upon the banker, instead of leaving the matter in his hands to decide at his own pleasure, is one with which we can sympathize. In ordinary 1 circumstances, individuals, and especially those in a small way of business, are not very anxious to go into Court to contest with a large financial institution their respective liabilities in a matter of this kind. On the other hand, it is a comparatively easy matter for a bank to institute necessary proceedings if it thinks it can prove that the drawer of the cheque was neglectful of his proper responsibilities. For these reasons I see no objection to the amendment of the clause in the way proposed.

Senator Major O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [4.16]. - I shall support the amendment, which I think will improve the clause, since it throws the onus of proof in legal proceedings upon the bank, instead of upon the customer. But the more I look at the details of this clause, the more I am convinced that it is both unnecessary and dangerous, and I shall vote against it, even though it should be amended in the way proposed. If I had any doubt on the matter, it has been removed by further study given to the measure, and parties larly by some remarks which were made by Senator Gould on the last occasion when the Bill was before the Committee. When the honorable senator was referring to the injustice which would be suffered if the law were left as it is, I asked him, by interjection, who had suffered from it in England up to the present time. The honorable senator, in reply, explained that the customers of banks in England were very different from those here, inasmuch as the people using cheques in England were generally educated men who were quite able to look after themselves. It may_ be inferred from that that in the opinion of the honorable senator a considerable number of persons engaged in business in Australia are not so well educated, or so well versed in commercial law, and that they may therefore make mistakes which would not be due to negligence, but which would render them liable to proceedings at law. I would ask honorable senators whom they think it is most necessary and desirable we should protect by this clause. Is it the banking institutions with their trained staffs and experts in commercial law, or is it the general public, and particularly those who have not had the advantage of special training, and who may be liable through ignorance and not negligence to draw a cheque in such a way that it may be altered? From whatever point of view it is looked at, I think that honorable senators should reject this clause. In my opinion, this is an exceedingly valuable Bill, ana - the uniformity it will secure is most desirable. I point out, however, that this particular clause will not secure uniformity. Although attempts have been made to show that it will only make clear what is already common law, I believe that it will establish a new and a dangerous principle.

Senator Walker:

– Is the honorable senator aware that a similar provision is contained in the Queensland and Tasmanian Acts ?

Senator Major O’LOGHLIN:

– That has come out many times during the discussion on the Bill, but it only proves that this clause will not secure uniformity. Its effect will be to bring four States of the Commonwealth, in which such a provision has not been passed, into line with two States, which I hold are wrong in this matter, and will also put us out of touch with Imperial legislation on the subject. That is one of my principal reasons for opposing the clause. 1

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– Since this clause was last under consideration I have given considerable attention to it. I have communicated with the Chamber of Commerce in Brisbane, and with banking authorities on the subject, and have carefully considered the suggestions they have made. I listened with interest and attention to the Minister of Home Affairs, in moving the second reading of the Bill, and to the arguments he has offered in support of the clause. I have been much impressed by the last remarks he has made. To my mind, they . afford the strongest reasons why the Committee should favorably consider the proposal. The clause as it stands amounts to this only : That in the hard case between two innocent persons, the banker and the drawer of a cheque, the banker, if he desires to have any protection, must prove his case up to the hilt. The clause differs in some respects from the Queensland section, and throws a greater onus upon the banker. I have pointed out that in this matter we have a delicate duty to perform in deciding _where the onus should equitably go as between the banker and customer, and the person who takes advantage of any negligence on the part of a drawer of a cheque, to commit a fraud as between the two first parties. It seems to me that the clause is very carefully framed, and clearly throws upon the banker the onus of proving to the hilt the several conditions set forth. If we are going to be absolutely impartial, I think we should do absolute justice between the two parties by passing the clause in the form in which the Government submitted it.

Senator Major O’loghlin:

– Can the honorable senator say that the banks have not sufficient protection already?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– The clause would operate as a sort of danger signal between the banks, the drawers of cheques, and the banks’ customers. As such it does not go quite as far as do the Queensland and Tasmanian sections. However it throws a slightly graver obligation on the banker. It makes it clear that in a case where two innocent parties might suffer the banker must go into Court and prove to the satisfaction of a jury affirmatively all the conditions set out in the clause, and until he does so he will not get protection. This question has arisen in consequence of the decision in the case of Marshall v. The Colonial Bank. That was a very hard case.

Senator Givens:

– Would it not have been just as hard if Marshall had been compelled to make the money good ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– The fraudulent person in that case ought to have been in gaol.

Senator Givens:

– Marshall was not the fraudulent person.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– No, he was an innocent party, and so was the bank.

Senator Mulcahy:

– But was not Marshall a very negligent person?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– No; Marshall in that case drew his cheque in the ordinary way, and the question was whether drawing the cheque in that form was in itself negligence, or evidence of_ negligence. The High Court of Australia and . the Privy Council pointed out that there was no obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque to do any more than an ordinary man would do in drawing a cheque in the ordinary way. A third party getting hold of the cheque so altered it that it was made an instrument of fraud, and the question was, who should suffer. The Courts decided in that case that the drawer of the cheque, by drawing it in the ordinary way, was not guilty of negligence, nor was that proof of negligence.

Senator Major O’loghlin:

– Does not this clause propose to alter that state of the law?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– No. The persons affected will go into Court to have the matter decided, and under this clause the banker will not go into Court unless he is prepared to prove affirmatively the conditions set forth. It has been objected by opponents of the clause that notwithstanding the decision in the case of Marshall v. The Colonial Bank,the Bills of Exchange Act has not been altered in Great Britain, or in some of the States of the Commonwealth. I should like to say that I think it will be generally admitted that for every £1,000 that passes currency through cheques in Australia, not more than £10 passes in the same way in Great Britain. Cheques are recognised throughout Australia as an almost universal and most convenient form of exchange. They are more largely used as a medium of exchange in the Commonwealth than in the United States, or, I think, in any other country in the world. In view of the decision in the case of Marshall v. The Colonial Batik, it is natural to suppose that Australian bankers, knowing the extent to which cheques are used as a medium of currency in this country, will take especial care to prevent the perpetration of fraud. That, very probably, is the reason why in Australia bankers at once drew attention to it. I think that the Committee, if it is desirous to do absolute justice, will allow the clause to stand as it is printed.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

.- In Australia it is a very general practice for men to transact their business by means of cheques. Of course, the drawer of a cheque as well as the banker has a responsibility. If, through negligence, the drawer enables the holder of a cheque to alter the amount he is responsible. Each party should be held responsible for his own misdeed, but I hold that if we empower a banker to pay a cheque which may have been drawn somewhat carelessly we shall confer upon the banker an enormous power which, if taken advantage of, might bring wholesale ruin to customers. I have done a large business both as a bank director and as a drawer of cheques. Every man ought to be most careful when he is drawing a cheque. In the first place, he should use his own cheque-book. At the same time a responsibility rests upon the banker. Whenever a man wishes to open an account the banker should teach him how to draw a cheque, and give him a properly . drawn-out cheque, together with printed instructions as to how a cheque should be drawn. If a banker does not warn his customer, and the latter is perhaps careless in drawing out his cheques, who is responsible ?

Senator Trenwith:

– If a customer is in the habit of drawing a cheque negligently the banker will draw his attention to the fact.

Senator FRASER:

– I have seen an enormous number of cheques which were drawn in a most reckless way. It is a wonder to me that more wrong-doing is not carried on when a man employs figures only in filling the body of his cheque. I write the body of a cheque from beginning to end without a stop, and do not employ any figures. I do not give an opportunity to any person to put a figure in front of ” £10” or “£100.” It is a custom with some persons to order their banker to pay a man £1,000 or £100, but I always write the amount in words, without a stop. The clause, even as proposed to be amended, is surrounded with danger. I do not know what suggestion to make for its improvement. I prefer the amendment to the clause. T admit that it was a diabolical swindle which was practised upon the Colonial Bank of . Australasia, but it is almost impossible to prevent cases of swindling if persons are determined to defraud a bank. A man with a large credit balance is always liable to be defrauded. There may be collusion on the part of two persons to get a man with a large balance to draw out a cheque for a small amount, and if they succeed they may ruin that man in one act. If a banker has any doubt about a cheque drawn by a man who does not usually draw a cheque for a large sum he should stay his hand.

Senator Gray:

– If there are funds to meet the cheque he dare not stay his hand.

Senator FRASER:

– I know “better than that.

Senator Trenwith:

– I have had a cheque returned with the words “ Signature unlike “ written on it.

Senator FRASER:

– In the case of a trust estate the position is different.

Senator Walker:

– We want to provide against the recurrence of such a case as Marshall’s.

Senator FRASER:

– Where one trustee writes a cheque and purposely leaves room for swindling to take place, and gets his co-trustees to sign the cheque, he can alter the writing at his leisure. No amount of ingenuity can guard against a swindle of that kind. If we allow a banker to pay a cheque without being under a liability he will become careless. It is only right that he should feel a responsibility in regard to every cheque which he pays.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– To my mind, the amendment will be a distinct improvement of the clause, and I shallvote for it. But even with the amendment,. I consider that we are going out of our way to do what Senator Gould said the other day, and that is to throw the aegis of our protection over the banker. I do riot consider that he is in great need of that special protection. In other countries it has been distinctly refused to him.

Senator St Ledger:

– Where?

Senator GIVENS:

– In Great Britain. The bankers got up an agitation with a view to obtain this protection ; but it was refused by the Imperial Parliament. The Committee should take warning by the remarks of Senator Fraser. What he indicated might very easily happen by collusion between a fraudulent person and a person behind the bank’s counter.

Senator Dobson:

– That could not happen, because it has to be done in good faith.

Senator GIVENS:

– It would not be possible to prove that there was anything else but good faith on the part of the man behind the counter.

Senator Dobson:

– If the alteration of the cheque could be discovered by diligence, the bank would be liable.

Senator GIVENS:

– A bank has already the protection of the common law, which the best authorities in Great Britain consider is ample for the purpose. In all the States, until very recently, it has been considered ample for the protection of the banks. Only Tasmania and Queensland offer to the banks any protection similar to that which is proposed in this Bill.

Senator St Ledger:

– The fraud of an official would be the fraud of the bank, and it would have to pay.

Senator GIVENS:

– Yes; if the fraud could be proved. But this provision would relieve the banker from liability. If a man added the letter “ y “ to the word “ eight,” then the man behind the counter would say, “ This cheque is perfectly good, I will pay it.” He might have acted in collusion with, the man who presented the cheque, although there was really no negligence on the part of the drawer. As a rule, a banking chamber is now surrounded with counters. When a man goes into a bank with a cheque, he goes to one side of the banking chamber and hands the cheque to an official, who, if it is good, puts a mark on it to indicate that it is good. Then the holder of the cheque walks to another counter and presents it to the paying teller, who, when he observes that it is marked as good, pays it without question. Not very long ago a case occurred in which a cheque was altered from £8 to £80. When the cheque for £8 was presented to the ledger-keeper, he looked upthe account of the drawer, and saw that there were funds to meet the cheque, and marked it as good. There was a crush in the banking chamber, and the bank officials were not watching the holder of the cheque, who very cleverly added the letter “y” to the word “eight,” and the figure “o” to the figure “8,” walked across to the paying teller, presented the cheque marked as good, and received the £80.

Senator Mulcahy:

– The bank would suffer in that case.

Senator GIVENS:

– Through the negligence of the banker, or through the system, the customer would be defrauded of £72. The common law affords sufficient protection to a banker. I hold that the customers are equally entitled to protection at our hands. I intend to vote for the amendment of Senator Chataway, and if a division is called for, against the clause.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

.- It seems to be the opinion of Senators O’ Loghlin and Givens that some of us on this side of the Chamber want to give undue protection to the banker. I do not desire to do anything of the kind. The banker does an enormous amount of good to the public. He is a very great convenience and advantage. He has to carry on his business promptly, and, of course, he has to incur a great many risks. But he ought to be excepted from all risks where it can be done without doing an injustice to the customer. It appears to me that with the amendment that Senator Chataway has proposed, and which the Government has accepted, the clause will be as perfect as we can make it.’ The decision in Marshall’s case came as a shock to every one of us. I think that every honorable senator if he had been on a jury would have held that in that case the bank ought not to have suffered.

Senator Trenwith:

– The clause would not alter that decision.

Senator DOBSON:

– I think it would. But, in that case, there was no authority upon which the Court could rely to show that the bankers were relieved from liability.

Senator Major O’loghlin:

– Does the honorable senator think that Marshall should have suffered?

Senator DOBSON:

– I do. To the mind of every layman it must appear that there was negligence.

Senator Trenwith:

– The Court held differently.

Senator DOBSON:

– The point had hardly ever been decided in the annals of English law, and both the Courts which dealt with the matter considered that they; were justified in finding that there was no evidence to go to a jury. But if a man draws a cheque negligently he is guilty of negligence; and now that the onus is thrown upon the banker of proving everything I can see no objection to the clause. If a fraud has been committed owing to> the negligence of a drawer the banker should be relieved, but if the banker allows himself to be deceived, though there, has been no negligence on the part of the drawer, the bank should bear theloss.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– As the matter presents itselfto my mind, the clause merely indicates what the common law already is as decided in the case referred to. No negligence was shown in Marshall’s case. If there had been negligence the banker would, under the existing law, have been relieved. This clause, if there were no negligence, would not relieve the banker. Therefore the clause is ifI may so express it, a danger signal by means of which a. person may be induced to be more careful than he would otherwise be. I think that Senator Chataway’s amendment is extremely desirable, because, in the event of a dispute and of alleged negligence, the onus of proceeding to seek the aid of the law is thrown upon the party most capable of adopting such means. But the clause does not alter the law in the, slightest degree. It merely puts up a dangersignal in order that people may be warned to be more” careful.

Senator Givens:

– The Bankers’ Journal holds a different opinion.

Senator TRENWITH:

– Bankers are usually extremely astute persons, but they are sometimes extremely simple persons and if the bankers think, as expressed by their Journal, that this clause will give, them any protection’ that they have not now, they are mistaken. I have not had a great deal of experience of writing cheques, but I formerly had a habit of commencing to fill in a cheque too near’ the right’ hand of the line. My banker called my attention to this habit, and I at once saw the danger. Now if, in consequence of my former habit, a fraud had been committed, I should have felt, as an honest man, that my negligence was the cause of it. I have now, I may explain, taken steps to draw my cheques for the small sums for which I write them with even greater care than I suppose Senator Fraser does. I do not think that the ingenuity of man could now get inside a cheque that I write. The clause will give an additional safeguard to the customer and the bank, and I shall support it.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– It appears to me that a considerable numiber of honorable senators lose sight of the relation which exists between the banker and his customer. We will say that a customer deposits £100 in a bank for safe keeping, and draws upon it by means of cheques. It seems to me that an obligation rests upon him to draw his cheques in such a way as to make any alteration extremely difficult. If he does not, and if loss is incurred, it ought to be borne by him. If he draws his cheque negligently he ought to suffer. Say that a cheque is presented at a bank, and that the amount which the drawer originally wrote was £8. But suppose that, owing to the negligence of the drawer, it has been possible for a dishonest person to add the letter “ y “ after the word “ eight,” and ‘ the figure “ o “ after the figure “ 8_.” Say that the cheque is presented to the bank teller, and ihat he recognises the signature and pays the £80. There are many banks where the customer goes straight up to the counter and presents his cheque without having to hand it to a ledger-keeper to be examined, as is ithe case in Melbourne. In such a case as I have instanced the drawer would find that he was £72 out. He would discover that his cheque for £8 had been altered. Who ought to be responsible in a case of that kind? I suppose that the matter would have to be fought out in a Court of law. The cheque would be produced, and experts would have to determine whether it had been drawn carelessly or otherwise- My contention is that in the case that I have instanced the bank ought not to be held liable. There are other instances in which it might be much more difficult to alter a cheque,’ and where the alteration would be more easily discovered. Buf the funda mental rule regarding cheques ought to be that the drawer should exercise every care. If a banker chooses to issue instructions to his customer he does that out of goodwill. There is no obligation upon him. It is the duty of a person who opens a banking account to know how to write a cheque. I think that the clause is perfectly fair as between banks and their customers. For that reason I shall support it.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The fraud in the case that has been cited, where the bearer of a cheque availed himself of the opportunity to alter it between the time when a responsible official of the bank certified it to be correct, and the time when he converted it into cash, might have been discovered. In such a case I hold that the bank is distinctly liable, because it has allowed the cheque to pass out of its hands, and to be fraudulently converted by the cunning of the bearer into more cash than it originally represented. That, however, is an extreme case, and in common law the bank ought to be liable. I should not have spoken if it had not appeared that the clause was in jeopardy. My reason for supporting the clause is that every person in the community should be called upon to bear the responsibility of his own negligence. If we so alter the clause as to throw what I may call “ the money value “ of the negligence of one person on to another, the first thing that other person will do, if he has any regard for his own interests, will be to safeguard himself against such a contingency. If we do not safeguard the bank, the bank will immediately set about securing itself, as it has done in Western Australia, against any fraudulent action of the kind. In that case, it will be the other customers of the bank who will suffer, either through the rate of interest being reduced, or through a higher charge being made for keeping their accounts. Consequently the negligent act of any person in the community would saddle others who look after their accounts carefully with the cash value of that negligence, which is clearly an illogical and unreasonable issue. Why should not banks be entitled to the same protection under the law as anybody else? Some bank shareholders are not very affluent, and in any case there is no reason why the responsibility for a person’s negligent act should be passed oh to any other section of the community - a result which the rejection of the clause would undoubtedly bring about. I hope that a State Bank will be very soon established. In fact, there is one already in Western Au’stralia, whose funds are drawn upon by cheque. Supposing that a cheque was drawn upon that bank, and the trustee was as negligent as Marshall was, it would simply mean that the other taxpayers of the State would be called upon to pay for his negligence.

Senator Givens:

– In Marshall’s case, the High Court held that” the. cheque was most carefully drawn.

Senator LYNCH:

– In any case, every person should be held responsible for his own negligent act. A cheque, after all, is merely a vehicle by which a person’s substance is conveyed from the custody of one citizen to that of another. The essence of a cheque is that it is an order upon the person who holds the goods or substance of another to transfer those goods from his care to the care of somebody else to whom the first owner owes a debt, or to the owner’s own custody. Suppose that the banks do not come into the question at all. Reduce the issue to a consideration of goods and chattels. If a person whose goods are in the possession of another citizen sends for them bv means of a faulty conveyance, or if the agent whom he has instructed to convey them to another person acts negligently, then in the circumstances the man who issued the instructions, or fixed upon that particular mode of conveying them, should alone be held responsible. A cheque serves the same purpose. I shall support the clause as it stands, notwithstanding the fact that there is no precedent for it in the English law.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– The Committee should remember that we are not legislating particularly in the interests of banks or bank depositors, but in the interests of the whole community. We are providing a machinery measure to cover to a great extent commercial transactions. If we” are not very careful, we shall be very likely to inflict great hardship on the community as a whole, in our desire - or it may be prejudice - to tighten the bonds round the banks. Every man with a deposit in a bank is concerned in th’e law which we are now dealing with. It is not merely for the protection of banks. A bank can very easily protect itself, but the result would be necessarily to impose hardships on its customers. What happens in ordinary banking (transactions? A man with more money than he cares to keep in the house takes it to a bank, which accepts it as an ordinary or fixed deposit.. He is allowed by the bank to withdraw that money without the trouble of going personally for it. The bank, in the first place, takes a very great risk of forgery in banking transactions by means of cheques. It has to be responsible for knowing and recognising the signatures of its customers, and for honoring them when presented. Bankers are not specifically paid for that responsibility, although they have made a charge lately for keeping accounts. If we strike the clause out. as we are asked todo, so as to make things more difficult for banks, then they must, for their own protection, imposemore arduous conditions on their customers, and the consequences will come back on the public.

Senator Major O’loghlin:

– What sort of conditions?

Senator MULCAHY:

– They can require their customers to come for their money themselves. That would be only a matter of contract between a banker and his client. I am rather sorry that we have not adopted in this clause the wording of the Tasmanian Act, which requires the negligence to be “ gross negligence.” In this clause, we clear the bank only with regard to simple negligence. A man may draw a cheque for most carefully, but it is a matter of very easy manipulation to turn that £8 into £80. We should have an eye both to the customer as well as the banker, but if by withholding that fair amount of legislative protection which they should be given, we throw upon the banks the necessity of safeguarding themselves, the precautions which they may adopt will possibly be more oppressive to their customers.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– An almost analogous case in legislation is the law regarding the liability of innkeepers on a guest’s goods. At common law, the innkeeper had a lien upon all the goods that might be brought in bv the guest. As years went by, that was felt tobe rather a severe interpretation of the law, and to be a restriction of the proper arrangement between guests and innkeepers. The law was subsequently modified, and declared in. such a way that if the hotel keeper wished to protect himself against that liability, there were certain conditions under which he would be protected.But it was further provided that, in order to get’ the benefit of that protection against the common law, he must publish it in the rooms of the hotel which the guests used. That is our licensing law throughout the whole of the States to-day. It will, therefore, be seen that, as trade and commerce developed, the common law as between guests and innkeepers had to be modified. I absolutely agree with Senator Trenwith, as expressing the layman’s point of view, that this clause is practically no more than a danger signal. It gives no more advantage as between banker and customer than is given in the various States Licensing Acts, which say in effect, “We will relax the severity of the common law for the benefit of the hotelkeeper, but he must publish the conditions upon which that severity will be relaxed.” This clause is the public manifestation of that relaxation of severity in this case. As between two perfectly innocent persons whom this legislation is going to affect, the advantage given to the banker is no more than was given to the innkeeper. The clause will simply be a publication to everybody - customer and banker - throughout the Commonwealth that this is to be the law, and to be taken as a warning. It shows that we are seeking to do absolute justice. I think we can do it with safety by adopting the

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I have listened with considerable pleasure to some of the speeches made, although I noticed that the majority appeared to be against my views. Senator St. Ledger told the Committee that he had a communication from the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce. I have one from the Sydney Chamber of Commerce - a body composed of merchants and others, which is as follows : -

In connexion with the Bills of Exchange Bill now before Parliament, I am instructed by the Council of this Chamber to state the measure generally meets with their approval. Some question arose as to clause 81 regarding altered cheques. The Council consider this a fair and reasonable clause, and instructed me to write and convey their opinion to you for use in Parliament if needed. - I have, &c. henry C. Mitchell, Secretary.

I am also desired by the representatives of the bankers in Melbourne, through one of their committee, to say that the clause has their approval.

Senator Major O’loghlin:

– What about their customers, the people who draw the cheques ?

Senator WALKER:

– I propose to make a few remarks toshow the danger of allowing persons to draw cheques who are not very well acquainted with the procedure.

Before the Bank of England allows a man to open a current account he has to be introduced by two responsiblepersons, and to undertake, whether he is in business or not, to have always a credit balance of £300, so that they may have some guarantee of the respectability of the persons who open accounts with them. I am in a position to tell the Committee that many rogues use banks for roguish purposes, and banks cannot always detect them. The banks here have a habit of accepting as a depositor any person who is apparently respectable, and who comes in to open an account, depositing, say,£20 or upwards. Consequently, we in Australia run a great deal more risk than they do at Home. If honorable senators read the clause carefully, they will see that, as Senator Gould has already shown, before the banker can charge the liability to his customer, the following things have to occur :

a cheque, drawn on a banker by a cus tomer, has been drawn by the customer with negligence, and
the negligence of the customer has afforded facility for the fraudulent alteration of the amount of the cheque, and
the cheque has been fraudulently altered so as to increase its amount, and
the cheque as so altered has, in good faith and without negligence, been paid by the banker.

Honorable senators will admit that many safeguards are provided before recourse can be had against the customer. We know that comparatively few customers are negligent in the drawing of cheques. I direct attention to a singular case that occurred in London. A man is asked to contribute to some charitable purpose, and he says, “ Here is myblank cheque. You are authorized to fill it up for any amount you think reasonable up to£1,000.” If the cheque is filled up for £5,000, and paid by the bank, who should be held responsible? Was there any negligence on the part of the drawer in having drawn a cheque in blank?

Senator Major O’loghlin:

– In that case, under the existing law, the Court would hold that the drawer was liable.

Senator WALKER:

Senator Lynch:

– Has the honorable senator any experience of such a case as that mentioned by Senator Givens, where the cheque was altered after it had left the certifying officer’s hands ?

Senator WALKER:

– In the case mentioned I am inclined to think that the bank was guilty of contributory negligence. Bankers think now that the ledger-keeper should be behind the teller, so that there should be no opportunity afforded for the alteration of a cheque before it goes to the teller from the ledger-keeper. A much’ more important case than that referred to by Senator Givens occurred in Melbourne many years ago. A man drew a cheque in a running hand for ,£1,000, had it initialed for payment as correct, and then went out of sight somewhere, and putting an “ f “ before the letter “o” in the word “one,” made the amount read ,£4,000, and the bank paid over that amount. I forget who bore the loss in that instance, but I suspect it was a case of compromise. Honorable senators may recollect the celebrated Miranda case, which occurred over forty years ago now. A man who called himself Miranda arrived here from England with a great flourish of trumpets, and produced a credit from Barings, the well-known London bankers, for £25,000. He went to the Joint Stock Bank, put the money there, and began making inquiries. He professed to be looking out for investments, and after a time, having got the ,£25,000 to his credit, he transferred part of it to Melbourne. When he came out here he drew the balance of the money in gold, and in. that case the bank lost the .£25,000. There was no cable communication with the old country at that time, and the fact that the credit was a forgery was not discovered until some months after the money had been paid. That was certainly one of the cleverest frauds perpetrated upon the banks in Australia. I have mentioned” these cases to show the dangers which the banks run, and that, although bankers are usually extremely careful, the banks are sometimes hit very hard. I feel it my duty to do what I reasonably can to protect them from frauds of any kind. I shall vote against the amendment, and should it not be carried, I shall support the clause. I have been surprised that the Government should have accepted the amendment.

Senator Major O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [5.25]. - I have just one word to say, and particularly in reference to the case mentioned so often in the course of this debate. It is my desire that the law should be preserved as it was laid down by the highest Court of Great Britain and of Australia in the case of Mars/tall v. The Colonial Bank. I hold that no injustice is done to the banks by the decision of the High Court of Australia and the Judiciary of the Privy Council in that case. It might be hard lines that the banks, after exercising due diligence, should be mulct for paying a cheque for a greater amount than that for which it was drawn, but the injustice, if any, would have been much greater if the customer had been placed in that position. Senator Trenwith contends that the clause involves no alteration of the existing law, and should be regarded merely as a danger signal. I say that it does alter the law, and I am supported in that view by an article in a journal published in the interests of banking and insurance institutions, copies of which have been sent to every member of the Committee.

Senator Trenwith:

– The article in that journal, to which the honorable senator refers, was written in a weak moment.

Senator Major O’LOGHLIN:

– The people who act in the interests of these commercial institutions, do not have many weak moments. The publication to which I refer deals fully with the question involved in this clause, and contains a tirade against members of the Senate who have had the temerity to say anything in opposition to it. With respect to the argument that four of the States of the Commonwealth have seen no necessity to alter the law in this respect, they say that there was no such necessity until quite recently, when its alteration was rendered necessary owing to the astounding decision in the case of Marshall v. The Colonial Bank. Is it not evident from this that they consider that this clause does alter the existing law.

Senator Trenwith:

– In their opinion.

Senator Major O’LOGHLIN:

– Their opinion on such a matter is authoritative. Recently in dealing with the question of the taxation by the States of Federal salaries) to which I allude only by way of illustration, Senator Symon and other eminent authorities held that it was wrong for us to seek to alter by a Bill what was a decision of the High Court. It was said that on that matter we proposed to say that what the High. Court had decided was wrong. In this case, we are being asked to decide that what both the High Court and the Privy Council have decided is wrong. I am satisfied to leave the law as it stands. According to the Bankers’ Review what was. decided in the case of Marshall v. The Colonial Bank was not that there had been negligence, but that there had not been sufficient negligence to justify the action of the bank. If the object is to alter the law in that respect, then it will do a gross injustice to those customers of a bank who have not the requisite knowledge to prevent the possibility of a fraud being committed. I hope that those who are willing to leave the matter as it was settled by the Courts will vote for the striking out of the clause, and then the banks will still have ample protection. If, however, we deprive ignorant customers of the protection which the decision of the Courts gave, we shall take a very unwise step, and one which may involve in absolute ruin an uneducated man who has a large credit balance. We ought to be very careful before we take any step to alter the law as it was laid down by two eminent tribunals.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I was rather surprised at Senator St. Ledger mentioning that he had received a letter from the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce when he did not quote its contents. Senator Walker, who has had an opportunity to read the letter, has not mentioned its contents. I have received a letterfrom the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, and also a letter from the bankers in that city. I sent to them a copy of the Bill, and asked what they thought of it They replied in general terms stating that they were very well satisfied. I took it that they did not specially pin their faith to a particular clause. Senator Macf arlane has received a letter in which the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce states in general terms that, in their opinion, the banks were getting rather too much protection. I do not think that the opinion of those bodies is necessary to guide us to a conclusion. , A number of honorable senators seem to assume that the attempt to amend the clause is an attempt to take away from bankers all protection ; in other words to make bankers liable to be penalized by any person who opens an account with a bank, draws a cheque negligently, and gets another person to fraudulently alter it. The amendment does not propose to do anything of the sort. It merely proposes to give the banker preciselythe same protection as is given in the clause itself. The only effect of the amendment will be that instead of making the banker the judge of whether there has been negligence or not, he will have to take the customer into Court, and prove that the cheque was negligently drawn, fraudulently altered, and that it was cashed in good faith. Under the amendment the banker’s protection will be perfect. I do not attach much importance to the argument that bankers do not like going into a Court. It is quite true that they do not like to take that step, but if a man chooses to remain out of a Court rather than protect his own interests, then he is entitled to suffer. I believe that the clause, as proposed to be amended, will give full protection to the banker, in fact a great deal more protection than he has had in four States, and at the same time it will hold out a certain amount of protection to the customer against a bank which is inclined to stand absolutely on its own rights. I trust that the amendment will be carried.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I think that there is one reason why the clause with the amendment should remain in the Bill. If the clause were struck out it would still be within the power of a bank to make it a condition of accepting a deposit from a customer that he should abide by certain restrictions. In Western Australiathat has been done. The conditions which the customers ought to observe are pasted on every pass-book. Before a deposit is accepted the customer is made clearly to understand that if a cheque should be fraudulently altered, and paid by the bank in good faith, one condition of the contract is that the bank shall have the right to debit that amount to the account. Even if the clause were struck out of the Bill, that condition of the contract would operate. The customer voluntarily accepts the condition, and has to stand the consequences.

Senator Gray:

– Does he sign the condition?

Senator PEARCE:

– There is no signature given.

Senator Gray:

– Then it is not binding upon him.

Senator PEARCE:

– I believe that it is binding on the customer, although the point has not yet been decided.

Senator Major O’Loghlin:

– The amendment will not alter the position, because the banks can make a contract in just the same way.

Senator PEARCE:

– In the future, if the bank makes a contract it will be subject to the provisions of the Bill. Furthermore, if a cheque should be fraudulently altered, and when the amount was debited to the account, the customer should dispute their action, the bank would have to proceed against him in a Court. It will not be possible for a bank to contract itself out of the Federal law.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

.- Possibly, the clause, as amended, may commend itself more to honorable senators if we put in a provision which has been suggested by the editor of the Bankers’ Review, and that is to make it compulsory on every bank to see that each cheque-book which it issues contains instructions as to how a cheque should be drawn. I move -

That the following new sub-clause be added - “ 2. Every cheque-book issued by a bank after the commencement of this Act shall have printed on or attached to the cover thereof concise instructions or directions as to the manner in which cheques should be drawn so as not to facilitate fraud or imposition.”

That, I think, will be an improvement to the clause.

Senator Major O’loghlin:

– That is done now in many cases.

Senator DOBSON:

– It has been stated by several honorable senators that there is a number of ignorant farmers and other persons who are not handy with the pen, and do not understand how to properly draw a cheque. If that is the case, we shall do well to compel every banker to supply printed instructions with every cheque-book he issues to a customer.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is done in South Australia now.

Senator DOBSON:

– I am not aware that it is done. I have bought cheque-books at the Bank of New South Wales in Melbourne; but no instructions are given to the customer.

Senator Gray:

– Why should this duty he imposed on the banker and not on every other tradesman?

Senator DOBSON:

– Surely my honorable friend does not contend that any other kind of business is analogous to the business of a banker?

Senator Gray:

– I cannot agree with my honorable friend.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– It is only within the last few moments that I have had an opportunity of seeing the amendment. The question is whether as it stands it will carry out the object which Senator Dobson has in view. I take it that what he wants to do is to throw upon a bank an obligation to help to instruct its customers to protect itself against what might be the consequence of non-attendance to the previous provisions of the clause ; that is to protect themselves against the loss that would be occasioned to them by their own negligence in drawing their cheques. I do not ‘know if there is a precedent for the amendment. The Tasmanian Act of 1906 throws upon the banks the obligation of printing in their cheque books the exact section, which reads as follows -

Where a bank in good faith and without negligence pays a cheque drawn on the bank by a customer of the bank, and the cheque has been drawn by the customer, with gross negligence, and such gross negligence has afforded facility for any fraudulent alteration in the amount thereof, and the cheque has been so fraudulently altered, the bank shall not be responsible or incur any liability by reason of having paid the cheque.

The second part of the section says -

The foregoing portion of this section shall be printed on or attached to the cover of every cheque-book issued by a bank after the passing of this Act.

The framers of the Act which was passed after Marshall’s case was decided, evidently had in view the same object as has Senator Dobson, but they provided that the first part of the provision should be printed in every cheque-book. Whether or not that would be of much assistance to customers to whom special reference has been made to-day by Senator O’Loghlin, and others, as persons not very competent or skilled in business transactions, I cannot say. But I am inclined to think that a person who would be likely to be guilty of negligence in drawing a cheque would not be assisted or guided very much by having the provision placed in the cheque-book. He would not read the section, or, if he did, possibly he would not gather the full import of it, or understand why it was printed for his perusal. Again, who will be this judge of the “concise instructions or directions?” From the one difficulty we go to the other difficulty. If we leave it to the discretion of the banks, we leave it to them to determine how concise or intelligible the notification shall be.

Senator Dobson:

– Would not the banks hold a meeting to determine the form of words to be used?

Senator KEATING:

– I cannot say. I am simply pointing out how our intentions might be frustrated by the fact that instructions might be printed which would be either too numerous or too few to have any real value.

Senator Dobson:

– We might put in the words, “ to be approved by the AttorneyGeneral.”

Senator KEATING:

– I do not say that there is much in the principle of the honorable senator’s proposal to object to, but it behoves us, even if we do not object to it, to express our intention in such a way that it will be fruitful in results which we are seeking to obtain. It is for that reason that I point out that if we leave the proposal in the form in which it is now, the instructions might be either too diffuse, or too concise, or too numerous, or too few to achieve the desired results. Of course, this is not a party measure in any sense of the term, nor is this amendment to be discussed on party lines. I welcome the expression of- the sense of the Committee, and am anxious to give effect to what honorable senators conceive to be a proper thing to do in regulating the relationships between banks and their customers. I am merely pointing out the dangers which we may be incurring in our well-intentioned efforts to protect even the most unsophisticated customer of a bank.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I sympathize with the motive that Senator Dobson has in mind. Tt would be a very proper thing if instructions intelligible to all customers of a bank were printed on every cheque-book issued. But the Minister of Home. Affairs has shown how impracticable the proposal would be unless definite and uniform instructions were adopted. Senator Dobson has interjected that the form adopted might be approved by the Attorney-General. The suggestion is a good one. Another course might also be taken. Of course, I am speaking entirely in the interests of the customers of the banks. It will be recognised that the interests of the bankers are very well represented in the Senate, and their case has been very forcibly put. Only a verv few are directing their attention specially to the protection of customers. Would it not be possible to have a sample cheque printed in each cheque-book, so as to show’ a customer how a cheque should be written out? That would be the best safeguard.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Colonel GOULD (New South Wales) [6.1]. - It would be a mistake to insert in a Bill of this character a direction that instructions of the character indicated in the amendment should be prepared, and approved by the AttorneyGeneral. It would be throwing upon the Attorney-General of the day a responsibility that Parliament should never attempt to throw upon him. We have practically agreed to put in theclause provisions to protect bankers against certain fraudulent acts. The amendment now proposed is to insert the following as a newsub-clause-

Every cheque-book issued bya Bank after the commencement of this Act shall haveprinted on or attached to the cover thereof concise instructions or directions approved by the AttorneyGeneral as to the manner in which cheques should be drawn so as not to facilitate fraud or imposition.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

.- Does not the Minister intend to move that the clause itself be printed on the chequebook ?

Senator Keating:

-no.

Senator DOBSON:

– Then the honorable senator is inconsistent. He pointed out all kinds of objections to the amendment. He said the banks could not be trusted to draw up simple directions to their customers. He adopted Senator Trenwith’s view that the banks could not be trusted to alter the instructions properly from time to time and that the Attorney-General’s approval would again have to be sought. Then he went right in the other direction by saying that the banks can be trusted to do everything, and that no directions whatever are wanted. If he does not call that inconsistent, I do.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– Senator Dobson, if he had listened to me, would not have made the mistake of asserting that I said that we could not trust the banks to draw up simple instructions. I said that it would be left entirely to the banks themselves to determine how few or how many instructions had to be drawn, and what form they should take. We should be making a statutory provision throwing an obligation on them and leaving it’ to them to determine whether or not they had fulfilled it. I added that, without throwing any obligation upon them by this law, it could be safely assumed, after what Senator Dobson said, that the banks would accept the responsibility of issuing instructions themselves, and, in that case, they would be the only judges - and the best judges - of whether they had done the right thing. I said : If they chose to issue instructions, well and good ; if they did not, well and good. Once they issue instructions on their own responsibility they alone must be the judges. If we make a statutory provision that they must put certain instructions in their pass- books, and do not determine what those instructions must be, honorable senators must see how absurd and futile it will be for us to impose that obligation upon them, and leave to them the choice as to the way in which they shall fulfil it.

Question - That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 6

Majority … 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 98 (Computation of time).

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I move -

That the following new sub-clause be added : - “ (5) Where, in pursuance of the law of the Commonwealth or of a State, any portion of a day is declared to be a bank half-holiday in the Commonwealth or in a State or in a part of the Commonwealth or of. a State, the day, so “far as regards the portion declared to be a bank half-holiday, shall be a non-business day in the Commonwealth or in the State or part as the case requires, and any payment, presentment, notice, noting, acceptance, act, or thing which should be made, given, or done on the day in ‘relation to a bill, cheque, or note, may be made, given, or done either on the portion of the day not included in the bank half-holiday or on the next following business day.”

When the Committee arrived at the consideration of this clause, I asked that it should be postponed for the purpose of adding a new sub-clause 5. Since then the proposed new sub-clause has been printed and circulated amongst honorable senators. They will see that it provides for what are known as bank half -holidays. As it stands, the clause provides for the computation of time, and. provision is made that when certain acts to be done in respect of bills of exchange, cheques, or promissory notes fall on a non-business day, the day shall be excluded from the computation of the time. In sub-clause 3 for the purposes of this measure “ non-business days “ mean -

Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day :
A bank holiday, and any other day is a business day. Then in sub-clause 4 we provide that -

Where in pursuance of the law of the Commonwealth or of a State any day as declared to be a bank holiday in the Commonwealth ot in a State or in a part of the Commonwealth or of a State, that day shall for the purposes of this Act be a bank holiday in the Commonwealth or in the State or in the part of the Commonwealth or of the State as the case requires. and so it is treated as a non-business day, and comes under the operation of sub-clause 2, in which we propose to provide that -

When the day on which any payment, presentment, notice, noting, protest, acceptance, act, or thing should be made, given, or done in connexion with a bill, cheque, or note falls on a non-business day, it may be made, given, or done on the business day next following.

– Under the amendment he would have the option of performing the necessary act during the business portion of the bank half-holiday or ons the next succeeding business day.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2211

TARIFF PAPERS

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I lay ion the table -

Statement embodying the Tariff, showing the rates previously in force under the Tariff of 1902, and amending Tariffs, together with the recommendations of the Tariff Commission, and the importations and duty payments for the year 1906.

These papers are furnished in pursuance of a promise made to honorable senators, and supply further information on the subject of the Tariff, which will prove of a useful character.

Silting suspended from 6.2Q to 7.4.5 p.m.

page 2211

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH MAIL STEAMERS

Debate resumed from 18th July (vide page 688), on motion by Senator Henderson -

That this Senate is of opinion, that, in the best interests of the Commonwealth, the Government should purchase and control a fleet of mail steamers^ capable of maintaining a fortnightly nail service between Australia and Great Britain.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– In advocating the very practical proposal .which stands in the name of Senator Henderson!, and which is calculated to get us out of the dilemma in which :we have been for a considerable time, I feel quite sure that the Government will not say that the Labour Party have not given to them every possible assistance to secure a mail contract on the old lines. I believe that I can fairly say that our support in that direction has been generous. It will be generally admitted, I think, that we have miserably failed to bring about the desired object. Last year we entered into a contract which the majority of us considered was very favorable to the Commonwealth, and we all remember how it came to be cancelled. “ The influence of the shipping trust, which practically controls ocean transport between Australia and the United Kingdom, was so powerful as to prevent the contractors from obtaining sufficient capital to carry out the contract. No doubt the contractors, when they realized how influential the shipping trust was, recognised the hopelessness of being able to carry on the business of a shipping company, even if they should succeed in raising the necessary capital. It is only right that we should consider this question in all its aspects. It must be evident to every one that the difficulty will not come to an end when we have entered into another contract, because the same hostile influence will operate in the future as in the past. By that time the shipping combine will be firmly established, and better able to monopolize the ocean traffic. I believe that that will go on until a stage is reached when the people of Australia will rebel, and say that its trade and commerce should not be dominated by a trust of that kind. If we haul down our flag before the influence of this gigantic trust, the position of the Government and the people of the Commonwealth will, sooner or later, become intolerable. Every year the influence of the shipping ring is extending. The fact that it has been able to prevent a new competitor from entering the field is very significant. In submitting this motion, we are not asking the Government to make a new experiment. It has been tried elsewhere by much smaller concerns than the Commonwealth of Australia. It has been tried by railway companies in the old country, States owning railways on the Continent of Europe, and railway companies in Canada. In connexion with their great carrying enterprise, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have cargo steamers operating, not only on the Pacific Ocean, but also on the Atlantic Ocean. Several companies in England have their own steamers plying between the United Kingdom and the Continent of Europe. There is a fast line of steamers owned by a railway company that run between Holyhead and Dublin. The same thing obtains in the west of Scotland. For many years steamers owned by the North British and the Caledonian Railway Companies have been engaged in the carrying trade on the Firth of Clyde, plying right out to the islands. Between Folkestone and Boulogne, and also between Dover and Calais, English railway companies are running very fast turbine steamers, which connect with continental railways. Therefore, in establishing a line of mail steamers, the Commonwealth will not be embarking upon a new experiment. In support of the proposal, I intend to quote the opinion of a gentleman whom the Commonwealth. Government have sent to- the United Kingdom to collect reliable information on certain subjects. I refer to Commander Colquhoun, who has had a large experience, riot only in the naval service, but also iri the mercantile marine, and whose opinion on a question of this kind should carry some weight with honorable senators. In 1903 the Senate appointed a Select Committee, over which Senator Keating presided, to report on the subject of supplying better means of communication between Tasmania and the mainland. Commander Colquhoun gave the following evidence - 241. In your opinion, what improvements are capable of being made with advantage, if any, in the line between Tasmania and the mainland? If it is not improper for me to express an opinion, I may say that I am quite in sympathy with the feeling that appears to be prevalent that the mail and passenger service between Launceston and Melbourne ought to be in the hands of the Commonwealth Government. I think such a service is the complement of the Australian railway service. I do not think the establishment of such a service by the Commonwealth would interfere with the general carrying trade between Australia and Tasmania. 24a. You regard that service as distinct from any of the other Inter-State services? - Quite. I think it is simply a part of the railway system. I have very little doubt that if the railways on the mainland and in Tasmania were in the hands of private companies, those companies would own the Bass Straits trade. 243. Do you know if that is the practice in other parts of the world? - It is. Practically all the fast passenger steamers trading between the continent of Europe and England are in the hands of the railway companies. I think I am correct in saying that the mail steamers between Holyhead and Kingston are in the hands of the railway companies- The same remark applies to steamers between Calais and Dover, and between Folkestone and Boulogne. They are all owned by the railway companies.

In discussing a project of this kind, we must be guided to a considerable extent by the opinions of experts, and as Commander Colquhoun- has had considerable experience, not only in naval affairs, but also in the mercantile marine, I think his evidence should go a long way to prove that Senator Henderson has submitted a practical proposal, and not a far-fetched one. I desire to refer to the existing services and the unfair system of rebates which obtains, and to show how that system is detrimental to the interests of -Australia. We can legislate against the application of the system on the Australian coast - in fact, we have passed a law for that purpose - -but we cannot interfere with the companies which are trading between the United Kingdom and Australia. All that we can do at the present time is to bring new competitors into the field, or, as Senator Henderson proposes, to establish a line of mail steamers of our own. We cannot legislate with regard to a trust which has its head-quarters in the old country. On several occasions the rebate system has been shown to be very detrimental to our commercial life. It has operated so unfairly that in the past we have had politicians swallowing their principles and admitting that the only way in which it could be fought properly was by the establishment of a line of Government steamers. At one time the late Senator Reid, who was a prominent member of the ‘Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, advocated the very principle which is embodied in this motion.

Senator Pearce:

– At the time he was President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australasia.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The late Senator Reid said that the merchants of Australia were placed so much at the mercy of the shipping ring that the only way in which the commerce of Australia could be relieved, was by the establishment of a line of Government steamers, because, in his opinion, there was no other solution of the difficulty. Besides the rebate system the existing shipping companies have a system of charging passenger rates which act very unfairly as between the States. A passenger” coming from London to Fremantle pays quite as much for his passage as he would do if he came from London to Brisbane. In other words, he has to pay quite as much as if he travelled 3,000 miles more. That is a very unfair principle, and one which if we had a Government line of steamers would not be tolerated. But even a greater injustice is practised on the people of Western Australia in the matter of freights between the Unite’d Kingdom and Australia. The freight between London and Sydney amounts to nearly 50s. per ton, whilst between London and Fremantle, the freightage is 65s. per ton, or 15s. per ton more. This is all the more remarkable when we remember that in some instances the freight between America and Fremantle is about 30s. per ton. As a matter of fact, the White Star line, whose vessels ply between Liverpool and the United States, and also between the old country and Australia, will actually bring freight first from America to Liverpool, and then tranship from the old country and bring it to Australia for half the amount which they charge for bringing it direct from the old country to Australia. It must be admitted that if we had a line of Government steamers such manifestly unfair anomalies would be prevented. I should like to read an extract from’ evi- dence given by the .late Mr. Dyamond, of Fremantle, who was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, and chairman of a Royal Commission which inquired into the question of ocean freights on behalf of the Western Australian Government. He gave evidence before a Commonwealth Royal Commission in Western Australia, and I take the following passage from his evidence : -

As the result of practical experience, I became aware of the fact that Australian freighters were paying far more for freight than they should do. There exists in London a ring of brokers-, some of whom are partly ship-owners, and most of whom have no interests in ships. This ring of brokers control not only the Western Australian trade, but the Australian trade generally. There is a section of this ring at work in Western Australia known as the Western Australian Shipping Association. They draw dividends from the freight trade, which is controlled in London, and one cannot secure an ounce of freight unless with the consent of the ring.

This, ring, he went on to say, levies a profit of 8s. 4d. per ton on freight ‘coming here -

This 8s. 4d. per ton I consider a tremendous tax upon the people of Western Australia. ‘ There are no boats outside the ring coming here..

So that it will be seen that there is a complete trust. He went on to say -

I think there is no other way out of the difficulty than that the Commonwealth Government should run a line of State-owned ships between England and Australia. So long as the Government does not take the matter into, their own hands, so long will the Australian people be plundered by the shipping ring.

– I should not like to attempt to raid Japan or any other country. All that we could reasonably expect would be to cope with the kind of warship that would be sent to harass our shipping. Commander Colquhoun, to whom I have already referred, gave his views to the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the bettering of communication between Tasmania and the mainland. He said that the steamers he would like to see running between Melbourne and Launceston in the Bass Strait trade could be so constructed without any great interference” with their trading capacity as to be a means of defence also. In the. re port of his evidence, the following appears -

Have you given any consideration to the possibility of such steamers being used for defencepurposes? - Yes; I think it would be possible to have a steamer built that would answer all therequirements for passenger traffic and mail carriage, and at the same time she could be designed so as, in the event of war, to carry armament for its own protection and be used as. a fast cruiser.

Do you think the provision of such characteristics as that would make the cost of the steamervery much more than you have estimated? - I dc* not know that it would increase the cost of the hull very materially, but you would have to add to the estimate of the cost of the steamer the cost of her armaments. I think that in the event of any attack being made upon Australia, if England were engaged in war with another Power, Tasmania would be a most likely point of attack. At such a time these steamers would! be invaluable for the transport of troops from the Continent to Tasmania. You would have in> them vessels faster Ulan anything likely to be steaming after them at sea - faster than anycruiser likely to come here ; in fact, faster than. any cruiser in the world, if it came to a real! practical demonstration of speed.

Commander Colquhoun was referring toturbine steamers built on the most modernlines, with great speed capacity. Later om he gave this evidence -

You do not think that the fact of using’ suchsteamers in the passenger and mail service would! interfere with their usefulness for defence purposes? - I think you could combine the two in» a” vessel suitable for conversion - a vessel that would ordinarily carry passengers and that would carry armaments in the event of war.

I wish to quote another authority in Captain Creswell, who occupies the very highest position in our Australian Naval! Forces. He said -

I have read the evidence through, and am substantially in accord with Commander L. J. Colquhoun. There is no reason on earth why a Government should not carry passengers and” conduct a passenger traffic by sea just as weir as by land. A fast steamer is an addition to thedefence of any coast. The faster the better. If, in addition, she is capable on occasion of” carrying a large number of troops she is a. valuable acquisition in this particular instance.. 1 agree with Commander Colquhoun that a turbine steamer is well suited, but he will find thathe is over-estimating their coal expenditure. The last Brasseys Annual, 1902, page 159, and’ following to 165,’ gives data of the King Edward.. a Clyde turbine passenger steamer, and demonstrating her superiority in speed and lighter coal’ consumption over other ordinarily-eng’ined steam, vessels. For high speeds (and a high-speed service is desired) for the Tasmanian crossing, turbines ‘ are economical ; it is in low speeds that they a-re wasteful. In engine space turbinessave over 30 per cent. The tyne of .vessel I would recommend would, in hull, resemble the Dublin and Holyhead boats, with an ordinary sea’-speed of at least 22 knots.’

Honorable senators will recognise that that is a pretty high speed.

There is no reason why passenger traffic should be disturbed in war-time. Every reason why it should not. A high-speed passenger traffic would be safe in war, and a passenger ship of high speed would show the wisdom of her provision. The present low-speed traffic is an anachronism, and would not be continued in war. The chances of capture might not be great, but passengers would not embark in a vessel that had little chance of escaping if chased by a cruiser. The traffic would fall in war, and there would be no place in defence for a slow and useless ship when passenger traffic ceased. Should it be necessary to take the fast passenger steamer off the passenger line for defence work, her speed would make her of valuable service as a scout or shadowing an enemy’s squadron, hanging on their heels, reporting their movements, and always able to command a speed which few, if any, cruisers, couldcome near, and none dare use, with its better coal consumption, away from a coal base. Ability to carry a large number of men on occasion would add to her value in defence. There is an idea in military minds that Tasmania might be captured and used as a base of operations against Australia. Two conditions are necessary for the success of such an operation - (i) That Tasmania shall be inhabited by people friendly to the invaders, who would cause them no trouble while making their preparations - in fact, aid them ; (2) that the enemy shall completely blockade Bass Strait, and so seal itthat reinforcements in driblets in boats and small craft could not cross over to their aid from Australia. Both these are impossible conditions. In 1794-5we took and held Corsica as a base of operations against the South of France and Napoleon’s armies in Genoa and North Italy. The native population rose against us, and French reinforcements in detachments slipped over so constantly in small craft - even in rowing boats - across the 90 or 100 miles from the mainland, that in a very short time we were besieged in Bastia and Calbi and St. Fiorenzo and compelled in the face of overwhelming forces to evacuate the island. The capture of Tasmania as a base would fail from the same causes, and is in my opinion a myth. We could keep on passing over reinforcements in a way that no blockade could prevent, and in numbers’ that no probable invader could resist. Briefly - a fast steamer would insure a greater traffic and comparative freedom from interruption in war.

I have quoted sufficient to show that the amendment I have suggested would make these steamers of much more practical use to Australia than if they were constructed solely for the merchant service. As many of our politicians are contemplating the establishment of an Australian Navy in the near future, I recommend to their consideration this proposal, by which we could have the most up-to-date steamers, suitable according to experts to meet any kind of naval force likely to attack our shores, and thoroughly equipped at the same time as up-to-date turbine steamers for traffic be tween Australia and the United Kingdom. There is a constant demand for the fastest steamers possible. Only the very fastest are now recognised as up-to-date. With the turbine vessels of high speed suggested by the Select Committee, we should have cruisers of the very fastest type that could be made use of in war time. In that way we should fulfil a requirement that every one will admit must be met.

Senator St Ledger:

– Such vessels would cost about . £750,000 each.

– The tragic side of the matter is seen in the many serious accidents which have occurred owing to men being worked for such long hours. The quotation proceeds -

Another driver and fireman worked 360 hours 50 min. in 21 days, the longest spell being 26 hours ; another driver and fireman worked a 5-day week of 102 hours 30 min., the longest spell being 33 hours 45 min., and the shortest 13 hours; another, 156 hours 20 min. in 9 days. Weeks are still producible of 92½,96, 98, and 99 hours of drivers and goods guards.

On the Great Western, one man’s average for 3 months was 77 hours per week. About 30 guards at Stourbridge worked weeks ranging from 70 to 90 hours 30 min. Specially long days were quoted on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway of 17 hours 15 min., 19½ hours, 21 hours, 22¾ hours, and 20¾ hours.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator PEARCE:

– We should have no successful competitors once we had established a line of mail steamers. I trust that the motion will not only be carried, but that the Government will see their way to give effect to it.

Debate (on motion by Senator Needham) adjourned.

page 2227

TOBACCO INDUSTRY: TARIFF

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I beg to ask the Senate for leave to amend ‘the motion standing in my name, so as to include some information which Senator Walker desires to get.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the will of the Senate that the honorable senator should have leave to amend his motion, as he has indicated ?

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That there be prepared and laid upon the table of the Senate a return showing -

The weight of the following articles taken out of bond for the period of four weeks preceding 9th August, 1907; namely, plug tobacco,, cut tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes, tobacco unmanufactured, but entered to be locally manufactured into (a) tobacco, (4) cigars, (c) cigarettes. Showing the weight of each item separately.

The amount of duty paid on the items set out.

The average weight per month of the year preceding July, 1907, of the above , articles upon which duty was paid ; and also the average amount of duty paid.

The weight of plug tobacco upon which excise duty was paid for the four weeks prior to9th August, 1907, and the amount of excise paid.

The same particulars as regards cigars and cigarettes.

The average amount of excise duty paid per month of the year preceding July, 1907, on tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes separately ; and the weight of such articles upon which excise duty was paid.

The weight of the following articles remaining in bond on the 9th August, viz., imported manufactured tobacco, imported cigars, imported cigarettes, and unmanufactured imported leaf tobacco, and the amount of duty which would have been payable on same under the former Tariff, stating each item separately.

The weight of locally manufactured tobacco remaining in the factories, not excise paid, on the9th August, 1907, and the amount of excise which would have been payable on same under the former Tariff.

The weight of locally manufactured cigars and cigarettes remaining in the factories, not excise paid, on the 9th August, 1907, and the amount of excise which would have been payable under the former Tariff.

page 2227

ADJOURNMENT

Personal Explanation

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– This afternoon, when Senator McColl was speaking, I interjected that he had warned the women of Geelong against the Labour Party. I would not have referred again to the matter, only that he resented my statement in very warm terms, and, as I understood, said that I had slandered him. He afterwards referred to the matter, and said that he had looked up the newspapers, and that there was no justification for what I had said. . I only propose to read from the newspapers that part of what the honorable senator said which has a bearing on the subject, and to leave the Senate to judge whether I. misinterpreted him. From the Argus of 27th July, I quote the following extract from a telegram : -

Geelong, Friday. - At a meeting held in the Mechanics’ Institute to-night, in connexion with the annual conference of the Women’s National League, an interesting address was delivered by Senator McColl, on the subject of “ Women in Public Life.”

The report goes on to say -

The basis of the organization was loyalty to the Crown, the checking of Socialism, and the dignifying of the home. . . . We had lately had a revival of Socialism, which from being a theory was becoming a religion. It had been introduced by the Trades-hall and the Labour Party as a political movement, but they were finding now that the country was not prepared to take it up. Consequently they were beginning to quarrel with their late allies. Mr. Tom Mann, who was once employed by the Labour Party, had started a Sunday-school, and was travestying that which many people held most sacred. The country must look to liberal legislation, but all legislation had its limits. It could not give the equality that was sought by Socialists. Fitness must rule, and brains and energy must be rewarded. What Government should aim at was to give all a square deal. All could not hold trumps, and some one must win, but the Government would see that the game was played fairly. The nationalisation of industries was not required, but. their regulation was.

I find in the Geelong Advertiser, of 27th July, that Senator McColl is reported in these terms -

The Trades-hall party was starting to grow into the Labour Party, and the Labour Party was growing into the Socialistic Party. They found that Socialism was rearing its ugly head, and from a theory it had become a religion in the minds of some of its followers. They read of the baptizing of children into Socialism, and the travestying of those things they held most dear and revered. In Tom Mann’s Sundayschool the lessons were not learnt there that would have a lasting effect. The children were taught to follow Socialistic leaders like Tom Mann and not the Divine Master,who came as a little Child to show what little children should do. The advance guard of Socialists claimed equality of wealth and property, the abolition of private capital and the placing of everything in the hands of the State - nationalizing everything, and giving every one, no matter what was his capacity or his industry or energy, equal shares and an equal reward. Row were they going to do it ? They would have to do away with competition altogether. It was not that sortof legislation that had benefited mankind.

It was after reading those reports that I felt justified - and I still feel justified - in saying that Senator McColl warned the women of Geelong not to have anything to do with the Labour Party.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at10.4 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 August 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1907/19070822_senate_3_38/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 August 1907

QUESTION

TARIFF : ACTION OF NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

SUGAR BOUNTIES: QUEENSLAND

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

CABLEBUSINESS : TASMANIA

Senator DOBSON:TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator DOBSON:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

COASTAL DEFENCE VESSELS

Senator DE LARGIE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

QUESTION

TENDERS FOR TORPEDO BOATS

Senator DOBSON:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Committee Room, Chairman. 22nd August, 1907

Senator HENDERSON:Western Australia

Senator Colonel Neild:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator HENDERSON:

The PRESIDENT:

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL

Third Reading

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

Senator Needham:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator FRASER:Victoria

Senator Needham:

Senator FRASER:

Senator McGregor:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Best:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Millen:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Millen:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Needham:

Senator Turley:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Givens:

Senator Best:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Givens:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Givens:

Senator FRASER:

Senator de Largie:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator FRASER:

Senator McGregor:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Givens:

Senator FRASER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Millen:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator FRASER:

Senator STORY:South Australia

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator STORY:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator STORY:

Senator Fraser:

Senate
22 August 1907

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator STORY:
South Australia

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria