View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
3 October 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- RIFLE RANGE AND BATTERY: HOBART
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
TARIFF
- Transmission to Senate : Resolutions of Western Australian Parliament
QUESTION
- MILITARY SCHOOL: MELBOURNE
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATION
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL
- Third Reading
PAPER
STATUTORY RULES: FILES
BOUNTIES BILL
QUESTION
- COMPULSORY LIFE ASSURANCE: OLD-AGE PENSIONS
ADJOURNMENT
- Order of Business

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

page 4142

QUESTION

RIFLE RANGE AND BATTERY: HOBART

Land Resumption

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

– Pursuant to a suggestion which was made yesterday, I beg to ask the- Minister representing the Minister of Defence, without notice, if he will lay upon the tables return showing the settlements proposed or, agreed to withregard to the acquisition of lands in connexion with the rifle rnge at Sandy Bay, near Hobart, and the new battery at. One Tree Point?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– As was suggested in the course of ‘ the debate yesterday, I arranged this morning to procure for the Senate particulars in connexion with the claims relating’ to the lands for the rifle range, and they should be available this week. With regard to the claims for the lands in respect of the battery, which I may say is near the rifle range, these are to some extent bound up with the other claims, because they were settled at the same time. I shall be pleased to supply to honorable senators full particulars regarding them also.

page 4143

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– As a matter of personal explanation, I desire to refer to some remarks which I made yesterday criticising the delay on the part of the Post and Telegraph Department in fixing a ‘letterbox at Sydney Railway Station Post Office. When I left the chamber I found the reply from the Department in my locker, and, therefore, the delay has terminated.

page 4143

TARIFF

Transmission to Senate : Resolutions of Western Australian Parliament

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

– The Government has come to no final decision. I have consulted with the Treasurer. I am aware of his anxiety, . as well as that of other Ministers, to send up the Tariff piecemeal, but at this stage I cannot venture to give a definite promise on the subject.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Mr. President, I desire to ask you, without notice, whether you have received from the Parliament of Western Australia a communication relative to the Tariff, and, if so, the n’ature of the communication, and the reply there- 1 to ?

The PRESIDENT:

– The Speaker of the House of Representatives, and I,, as President of the Senate, received from His Excellency the Governor-General com,munications- one addressed to the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, and the other to the President and members of the Senate - which he had received, covering a joint resolution of both Houses of the Parliament of Western Australia, and embodying what they were pleased to term a protest” against the Tariff.

We gave careful consideration to the. question whether it would be in order for documents of this character to be laid upon the table of each House of this Parliament. While recognising, and desiring to recognise, to the fullest possible extent any representations which may be made by the Government or :Parliament of a State, we could find no pre- !. cedent to justify us in tabling such a document: ‘ From time immemorial the practice has been to approach Parliament by means of a petition. Had this document been. framed in the form of a petition it would have been entirely unchallengeable so far as laying it upon the table was concerned. We thought that we would exceed the powers which properly appertain to our offices if we, on our own responsibility, were to table the document. We felt, moreover, that the question of the Tariff had been expressly taken out of the jurisdiction of the States Parliaments, and had passed into the exclusive control of the” Commonwealth. This Parliament represents the people of the various States, and its members are returned for the purpose of dealing with such questions as representatives qf the electors and States, and not as representatives of the States Parliaments. Of course, the rights of the members of this Parliament .received very full consideration at our hands. We considered that the proper course to take was to explain that we were unable to deal with the document unless it was forwarded in the form of a petition. We sent a reply, of the nature which I have indicated.

page 4143

QUESTION

MILITARY SCHOOL: MELBOURNE

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Have the Government received from the University of Melbourne an intimation that they are willing to institute a Military School, arid to give instruction in military science’ in connexion with the University if the Commonwealth Government will provide the salary of the professor?
Do the Government propose to accept the offer, and if not, why not?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

Yes.
The Government has not yet considered the proposal, but will do so shortly. The Government is desirous of utilizing the University as far as possible for education purposes. The method of doing so requires some consideration.

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Arising out of the answer, may I ask the Minister if he. is aware that at the Sydney .University instruction in military science is given?

Senator KEATING:

– I understand that for some time Professor Foster has occupied a Chair of Military Science in the Sydney University. What the results have been I am not in a position to say : but I have no doubt that they will form an important’ factor in determining the action of the Government in connexion with a similar proposal for Melbourne.

page 4144

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, union notice -

Are the negotiations between the representative of the Government in London and the London County Council, with reference 10 the leasing of a site for Australian offices in London, being conducted through an agent or direct with the London County Council?
If through an agent, is the agent acting for the Commonwealth Government or for the London County Council ?
If for the Government, what commission will be paid him ; and why has it been found necessary to employ an agent, seeing that Captain Collins represents the Commonwealth in London ?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

All negotiations have been direct with the Council.

page 4144

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATION

Senator STEWART:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it true that the examination papers of a candidate who failed at a Civil Service examination recently held in Queensland were gone over a second time by the examiner, with the result that the candidate not only did not fail but wasplaced first on the list of those who succeeded ?
If so, at whose instigation were the papers re-examined ?
What explanation of his mistake does the examiner ofler?
Is this the first occasion on which sucha mistake has been discovered ?
Does the Government intend to continue employing the examiner responsible for this unfortunate occurrence?
If so, what guarantee is there that a similar mistake may not take place at any time?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– The Public Service Commissioner reports as follows: -

Yes. The mistake in transcription was inadvertently made by the examiner.
The candidate wrote upon the subject, when an immediate investigation was made, and the matter rectified.
The examiner explained that, on referring to his mark . book, he found that the marks awarded by him to this candidate on handwriting (as judged from the arithmetic paper) hadbeen inadvertently transcribed into the arithmetic mark sheet ; hence the error.
Yes, the only one out of 16,000 candidates examined.
The examiner in question is lecturer and examiner of “the Melbourne University, whose qualifications as examiner are undoubted. Although the occurrence, which was a clerical error, is much to be regretted, it is not considered that the circumstances are such as to warrant the discontinuance of this gentleman’s services, especially as the candidate has not been prejudiced in any way.
It is not anticipated that a similar oversight will again arise, and every care will be taken to prevent a recurrence.

Senator Stewart:

-He would have been prejudiced but for other persons interfering.

page 4144

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Industries Preservation Act1906.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 4144

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

Third Reading

Senator Guthrie:

– New South Wales will “ wade “ in.

Senator McCOLL:

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– - Would it have bepn anunbusiness-like proceeding to say to the

-I forget nothing. I do not even forget that the individual electors of the Commonwealth are the parents of the Commonwealth, and that they have more power and are more directly represented in the Commonwealth Parliament, than in any other Parliament in Australia. Indeed this is the only Parliament in which the people as a whole can speak with undivided voice. In every other Parliament in Australia a parasitic influence is at work. In this Parliament nothing of the kind exists. This is the only Parliament in Australia in which the free voice of the people can be heard, and can make itself effective. So that the sooner the talk about interfering with States, rights is done away with, the better it will be for everybody.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [3.20]. - There seems to be acharming conflict of statement between the re marksof the Vice-President of the Executive Council and the printed document circulated by the Acting Prime Minister, from which Senator Stewart has made certain quotations. I know that I should not be in-order in quoting from the debates in another place, but if honorable senators will look at page 3662 of. No. 24 of Hansard for this session, they will find a statement made by Sir William Lyne, on the 24th September, to the effectthat in two days, namely on Thursday, the26th September, the second extension Of time in’ this . matter would expire. I do not, know . that ‘what was meant was that there -were two’ extensions of time, pr that there was an option’ and : oneextension of the option. But we know that negotiations in connexion with this matter -were. begun at the latter end of May, and we have the word ofthe -Acting -Prime Minister, in his placein Parliament, f or. the statement that theextension of time would expire on the 26th September. This represents a period inall of ‘four months - from the 26th. Mayi’ when the negotiations were commenced, to the 26th September,when the extension of time- referred to- terminated. Weknow that the acting head of . the Government has’ repeatedly used the term “ option “ in his’ communications to representatives of the press regarding this matter. That is what somehonorable senators myself included, take exception to. The Government had an option, or some agreement or promise, for an option. It might not have . been a. binding option. There might not have been any money paid for it: I havestated., in my placehere that I shouldbe, willing to vote£1,000 to secure a legitimate, option, . so that negotiationsmight be entered into. That would be a business arrangement. I do not know; whether Senator Pearce is . acquainted with the processes of a business option, but, representing a Statewhere options; are as common as blackberries on a hedge, the honorable senator- should knowperfectly well that it is customary to pay sums of money ten securebinding options.

Senator Pearce:

-And my experienceis that the option does not commence until the money is paid.

Senator Millen:

– We could have an option withoutthepaymentofmoney.

Senator Pearce:

– Themoney binds the option.

SenatorWalker. -Property is sometimes put underoption for a week without any moneypayment.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– That is so. It often happens that properties are placed under offer in that way. Honorable senators, must be aware of how frequently that happens between landlord and . tenant.

Senator Millen:

-lt is the invariable rule in dealings in live stock.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– As Senator Millen says, options, in such . transactions are not paid for. But in transactions concerning property of large value, it is customary to pay some.thing.for an option. If the Government had paid a sum of money to secure a binding option in this matter, I should have been the last to find fault with them. If they had a binding option for this property, they might have done what honorable senators on this side claim they should have done,namely, entered into negotiations with those whom they desire to have for their tenants. If the proposed building is to be one of six stories, and we. are to have it occupied bv seven tenants, there may be some difficulty in arranging the matter. Possibly the States Governments are to be given a floor each, and the Commonwealth Government will occupy the cellar. Thisis a detail, but it ought , to be looked into. What State Government would care to have their offices skied ‘up under the roof, like a half-discarded picture at an art exhibition? If the proposal suggested be carried out, some State Government will have to take offices under the roof, and some, apparently, will have to be content with the basement. When Senator Pearce prefaced his remarks by admitting that’ he was, not acquainted with business customs, and then proceeded tocastigate business menfor unbusiness-like habits h.e displayed a splendid temerity. The honorable senator was vigorous in his denunciation of honorable senators on this side, who. have spent a lifetime in business transactions with business men., and who, by all rule, should have some knowledge of what constitutes a business proposal. I should not be prepared to attack the conduct of a class of transaction with which I was wholly unacquainted, and I certainly shouldnot attempt to castigate members of the Senate, for not handling properly a matterof which I possessed no . knowledge and no capacity to. criticise. There is one matter which was referred to last night that I wish to mention. I wish to say something- about ammunition waggons, and perhaps a change from Strand palaces to ammunition waggons for a moment may be arelief to those who are suffering from the “ tired feeling ‘ ‘ on the subject of the Strand transaction. Through the courtesy of the Secretary for the Defence Department, I; obtained just now copies of correspondence that passed between the Department and myself on the subject of ammunition waggons. It is not necessary that I should quote the correspondence at length. I wrote to the Minister of Defence, on the 26th March last, and I may read the last sentence of the letter. I wrote -

I make this application for fair treatment of New South Wales tenderers, and ask fora reply by wire to the effect that a sample vehicle shall be’ at once available for Commonwealth taxpayers in this State.

Two days later, I received a wire from the Minister to say that there was only one pattern waggon in the Commonwealth, and that he would communicate with me in a few days as Che officers were at campThat telegram. was dated 28th March, but. I did not get my promised reply until the- 19th April, or fully four weeks after thetenders for this£20,000 worth of waggons had closed. I never heard before of the clerical staff of the Defence Department being away at camp. It is not usual I think for the Secretary for the Defence Department and the clerks to go into camp. It is an almost unheard ot thing, and I fancy there must have been some mistake.

Senator Stewart:

– Did they go into camp ?

SenatorColonel NEILD. - I cannot tell the honorable senator; but, on the- 19th April, a letter was addressed to meby the Acting Secretary for Defence, in which I was informed that there was only one sample waggon and limber in the Commonwealth, and to have sent the sameround to all the. States, in turn would haveoccupied some time, and involved considerable expense. That was a bit of departmental bluff, because I had not made such a request. It stand’s to reason that this class of waggon, which costs between£750 and £800, could only be built in very few establishments in theCommonwealth. With the greatest respect I doubt if there would have- been many tenderers except from one or two of the leading States. It wasa large transaction. It is possible to build a railway carriage at the cost of one of these waggons. That there would have been many tenderers seems tome exceedingly improbable, but I did not ask for the sample waggon to be sent round to all the States: It would have been a differentthing if such an application had come in from all the States. The point I desire to make is that in New South Wales there were competent persons to tender, and that they wanted to be put on the same terms in making their tenders as were the folks in Victoria. Surely that was not an unreasonable request ! . I think that some step ought to have been taken to give to competent tenderers in such States as they may exist in the same opportunities as were given to practically’ one firm in Victoria, which obtained a £20,000 contract virtually without -competition. The firm are to be allowed from March, when the tenders closed, until the end df next June - a year and three months - in which to build the waggons. That, I think, is an unheard pf thing.

Senator Chataway:

– Surely the honorable senator does not want to hurry the Government ?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I suppose that they have secured a reliable priesthood to pray for peace until the waggons are made. Why was the Commonwealth put to the expense of paying for the guns years before the waggons were provided? The guns are absolutely useless without waggons, and therefore the taxpayers have been burdened with useless artillery, while a particular firm, without competition, is attempting, in the course of fifteen months, to build the waggons in which to carry the ammunition. That is a position of affairs which is not creditable to those responsible for its existence. I do not know exactly which official is responsible for the matter in its original form, but clearly the members of the Military Board and the Minister must have some responsibility. Though the Minister does not sit in this Chamber, two of his colleagues do, and they must be prepared to shoulder a reasonable share of his responsibility.

Senator Chataway:

– Why not courtmartial them?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 4155

PAPER

Senator KEATING laid upon the table the following paper: -

Post and Telegraph Act 1901. - Amendment of general postal, telegraphic, and telephonic regulations - Statutory Rules, 1907, No. 91.

page 4155

STATUTORY RULES: FILES

The PRESIDENT:

– With regard to remarks made by Senator Guthrie about files of statutory rules and orders, files are being prepared. The whole of the rules and orders will be placed on the table in the club-room for the use of honorable senators.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I should like to draw your attention, Mr. President, to the fact that those papers are becoming so voluminous that it might be as well to filethem under their separate headings’; such as Post Office, Defence, Public Service, and so on. We might also have an index to them.

The PRESIDENT:

– There will be a separate file for each Department.

page 4155

BOUNTIES BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 25th September, vide page 3730) - First Schedule.

Tobacco leaf for the manufacture of cigars, high grade, of a quality to be prescribed; (period) 5 years ; (rate of bounty) 2d. per lb. ; (maximum payable in any one year) £4,000.

Upon which SenatorPearce had moved) by way of amendment - “ That the words “ for the manufacture of “cigars” be left out.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– Honorable senators may not be aware that the carrying of this amendment would restore the Bill to the form in which it was introduced by the Government. I mention that because some honorable senators pay considerable attention to the fact of a Bill having been introduced in a certain form. They seem inclined to adhere to it, and object to any alteration. The fact that I am not moving anything hostile to what the Government, acting on the advice of their experts, have done, may have some weight with them. The Committee ought to carefully consider the question of whether if they are going to agree to this bounty they should not restore it toits original shape. I have read the debate that took place in another place, and the only reason given for the alteration was that to give a bounty on leaf for plug tobacco would be to make a present of it to the Combine.

Senator Major O’Loghlin:

– The honorable senator should quote me correctly. He has said that the statement was made that we can grow cigar leaf in any part of Australia’, and, so far as I know, no one ever made that statement.

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator was referring to my attitude, and used a statement made by Mr. Schmidt to him as an argument against my amendment, indicating that Mr. Schmidt thought that cigar leaf could be grown in Western Australia successfully. Mr. Schuh, manager for Snider and Abrahams, an independent cigar manufacturing firm in Victoria, making the “ Aristocratica “ cigar, was asked, at page 105 of the report of the Royal Commission on the Tobacco Monopoly question,No. 12 16 -

In the manufacture of your cigars, do you use anyAustralian tobacco? - No.

I think that this firm is the next largest manufacturer of cigars to the Combine.

Senator Findley:

– The Combine do not make many cigars. I do not think they make as many as do Sniders and Abrahams, who employ more men than the States Tobacco Company.

Senator PEARCE:

– They employ more men, but they have no cigar-making machines. If the honorable senator will look at the appendix to the report of the Tobacco Commission, he will find that the States Tobacco Company are the largest manufacturers of cigars in Australia. They may not employ so many hands at the work as the other firm referred to, but they have what no other firm in Australia has, and that is cigar manufacturing machines, each of which can be worked by a girl, and which do the work of seven cigar-makers. Mr. Schuh said that his firm used no Australian leaf in the manufacture of their cigars. He was asked-

Why is it not used ? - Because we do not consider it suitable. Its combustion is not satisfactory by any means.

He was then asked if the imported leaf contains stem, and his answer was that some of it did, and that some was stripped. Mr. Jacobs, of the States Tobacco Company, gave practically the same evidence. He said that they had used some Australian leaf, but that, generally speaking, they did not use Australian leaf. This is the evidence given by representatives of two of the largest cigar manufacturers in the Commonwealth.

Senator Lynch:

– Is there anything to prevent the production of cigar leaf in Queensland?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, I think the climatic conditions prevent it. The climatic and other conditions of the southern States of the United States approximate very closely to those prevailing in Queensland, and in those States they import their cigar leaf from Cuba.

Senator Major O’Loghlin:

– Can Queensland produce plug leaf?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes; growers in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria are to-day producing a leaf suitable for plug tobacco successfully, and I say that the bounty is needed to induce them to go in for a higher grade plug leaf, because to do so would mean a lighter crop, and they require some compensation on that account.

Senator Lynch:

– What is the secret of the superiority of the Cuban leaf?

Senator PEARCE:

– There is no secret about it; it is merely a matter of latitude and climatic conditions. Java and Sumatra produce more cigar leaf than does Cuba, simply because of their geographical situation. Cuba exported 28,000,000 lbs. of tobacco leaf, and Java and Sumatra exported 92,000,000 lbs. They are, therefore, very much larger producers of this article than is Cuba. I have here numbers of a Tobacco Journal, published in New York. I shall not weary the Senate by reading all the passages I have marked, but it will be found that in the southern States of America, right in the heart of the tobacco-growing country, at Tampa, Key West, in Louisiana, and in the other southern States, cigar makers have established factories, and these journals prove that they are sending their agents to Cuba to purchase cigar leaf wholesale. Do honorable senators think that they would do that if they could grow the leaf themselves ? There is a heavy duty on Cuban and other cigar leaf imported to the United States, and if it could be grown in the States, it would not be imported. I suppose it will be admitted that the Americans are as keen business men as we are. It seems to me that we are ignoring the fact that Australia is not sufficiently near the Equator to enable us to succeed in the growth of a leaf suitable for the manufacture of cigars. I feel disposed to oppose’ the item altogether, because I think that under existing conditions the Tobacco Combine will get the proposed bounty. But ifthe item is retained in the amende form I suggest, it may have some practical effect. As it appears in the schedule it might lead to the cultivation of a few experimental crops, and as soon as the bounty ceased the industry would cease. If the bounty is given for the. production of a high-grade leaf, suitable for plug tobacco, it may induce growers to go in for the cultivation of a leaf which Australian smokers demand, that is. to substitute for the cultivation of the heavy cabbage-leaf varieties of tobacco, the cultivation of the lighter Hester varieties. I appeal to honorable senators to support my amendment, which, I believe, is in the best interests of the community and of the tobacco growers themselves.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– I have been rather surprised and very much disappointed at the attitude which Senator Pearce has taken up in regard to this question. It was my privilege to be associated with the honorable senator on the Royal Commission inquiring into the tobacco industry, and in view of the fact that Senator Pearce is known to be a nonsmoker, I must say that the intelligence and knowledge he displayed as Chairman of that Commission excited my admiration. When speaking previously the honorable senator, in reply to an interjection I made, admitted that it was probable that the Combine would get the whole of the proposed bounty. Senator Gray also agrees that the Combine would receive the bounty. I agree with Senators Pearce and Gray that if the bounty is made payable in respect of tobacco leaf for making plug tobacco, it will undoubtedly go to the Combine. Probably it was largely on that ground that the other House made the bounty payable on highgrade leaf for making cigars. The other evening Senator Turley pointed out that if the bounty is to be made payable on tobacco leaf for the manufacture of plug tobacco, £4,000 a year will be altogether insufficient. It will be of no use for that purpose. I propose presently to read a few extracts from the evidence taken by the Tobacco Commission, in order to show that high-grade cigar leaf can be grown in Australia, and that possibly, with the aid of the bounty proposed, it could be grown successfully from a commercial stand-point. Senator McGregor has mentioned that twenty years ago cigar leaf was successfully grown in the Northern Territory. He stated that eight tons of cigar leaf were shipped from the Northern Territory to Hamburg, where it realized 2s.11d. per lb. at public auction. It must have been cigar leaf of a very superior quality to realize that price at public auction in a place like Hamburg, which is nearer to what is known as the home of the cigar leaf than is Australia. It has been pointed out that the increased duty of 3d. per lb. on unstemmed tobacco leaf, and the increased duty of 6d. per lb. on stemmed tobacco leaf, will offer a very large encouragement to the growth of a superior leaf for the manufacture of plug tobacco. I do not think that there is the slightest doubt that the increased duties will be sanctioned by Parliament. It is now generally recognised that Australia is committed to a protectionist policy. Free-trade is dead; as a matter of fact, it was buried in Sydney a few weeks ago. Mr. Peter Stewart Thomson, of Wangaratta, manager for Permewan, Wright and Company, when giving evidence as to the possibility of growing cigar leaf, gave an extract from the Australian Tobacco Journal - 1580. I have here the Australian Tobacco Journal for 21st September, 1905, and at page 720 I find the following statement’ made : - “ A record price has been obtained for Victoriangrown unfermented cigar leaf. In forwarding to the Director of Agriculture a cheque for£9 12s. for cigar leaf from the Government tobacco farm, Edi, sold in Melbourne on 23rd August, Mr. Temple A. J. Smith reports this satisfactory result. The price given for tent and field-grown tobacco, 1st and 2nd grades, stamps the first at a value of considerably over1s. per lb. The varieties used were Comstock Spanish,’ and ‘ Connecticut ‘ seed leaf, and the crop yielded at the rate of 1,200 lbs. per annum. These results have been achieved from experiments extending over three years, of which time two years were occupied in proving the variety suited to the soil. Mr. Smith states that the progress made is encouraging, as by further selection of soil and varieties the general quality of the leaf can be improved upon. The price obtained -1s. per lb. for all grades - constitutes a record for Victoriangrown cigar leaf unfermented. The crop was harvested in March, the buyer undertakingthe fermentation process.”

– Knowing that he had made that statement to the Tariff Commission in Adelaide, and that he was prejudiced against the use of Australian tobacco leaf, I took to him the cigar leaf from Edi, in the belief that it was good cigar leaf, and with the object of trying to remove his objection to the use of Australian tobacco leaf. He confessed that it was the best Australian-grown cigar leaf that he had ever handled. “That was good so far as it went. I smoked several of the cigars, and gave some of them to a number of my friends. Such excellent judges of a good cigar as Sir Richard Baker and Sir William Lyne each smoked one of them without knowing that it was an Australian cigar. Each gentleman smoked the cigar with apparent satisfaction, and expressed the opinion that it was a first-rate cigar. In Sydney, Mr. Moseley Richard Aaron, a cigar-maker, gave the following evidence - 7318. What experience have you had as a cigar maker? - Upwards of forty years. I am not now engaged in that business. I have been at the trade in Germany, Belgium) France, England, America, and pretty well all countries of Europe. Though not a tobacco-grower, I have studied the question fully, which, under my articles of apprenticeship in Belgium, I was required to do, as well as cigar-making in all its branches.

Mr. Aaron was employed by the New South Wales Government to report on the possibilities of tobacco growing in various parts of that State. On page 341 of the report of the Royal Commission he was asked -

Do you know anything about Australian leaf?

He replied -

I do know a great deal about it. I prepared a report for the Department of Agriculture in this State on the question on the 28th April, 9°3-

I will quote a few lines from that report, which deals with land which Mr. Aaron inspected near the. Queensland border -

I then drove about ten miles down river and examined the soil on Mr. Christenson’s land (on Gooman Station), and saw Mr. H. C. Ferdinand, who rents some eight acres from Mr. Christensen. . I saw some tobacco that had been grown by him, but owing to want of knowledge and lack of proper curing accommodation the product, in my opinion, is of nomarketable value. I then went about two miles further down the river, about fourteen miles from Bonshaw, and examined the soil on Mr. ‘ A. Watt’s holding. In short, the miles of country traversed by me on the New South

Wales side of the Dumaresq River are, in my opinion, of limitless value as a cigar tobacco producing country. I estimate that such tobacco as could be here produced would stand, in respect of quality, second only to the Havanna tobacco grown in the best portions of the island of Cuba.

Senator Walker:

– I rise to a point of order. I wish to obtain a ruling as to whether it is competent for the Committee to consider the amendment which has been moved. It seems to me that if we accept the amendment we shall make the bounty payable on account of any tobacco of high grade of a quality to be prescribed, whereas the Bill only intends the bounty to Le for leaf for the manufacture of cigars. Therefore, the intention of the Bill would be, to some extent, frustrated if the amendment were carried. I doubt whether we have power to pass such an amendment.

Senator Pearce:

– There was in the schedule originally an item for a bounty on raw coffee, and we have altered that to “coffee as prescribed.”

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Colonel Neild:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I find that ae» cording to May, nth edition, page 565 -

When a schedule of duties has been reported from a Committee and agreed to by the House, the Committee on the Bill cannot increase such duties, nor add any articles not previously voted; but if the duties so voted are less than those payable under the existing law it is competent for the Committee on the Bill to increase them, provided such increase be ‘ not in excess of the existing duties.

It was laid down by Mr. Speaker in the House of Representatives, where an amendment was moved to insert the .words “ and Canned Pine- Apple “ after the word “ Fruits “ in this very Bill, that -

If the Bill did not provide for a bounty on Pineapples a bounty could not be now put in. If an item in the Estimates .were under consideration the destination of a vote could not be altered. He ruled that no amendment could be introduced which would have the effect of giving a bounty on any item not provided for in the schedule or of increasing any bounty.

In this ‘ instance the proposal is to give a bounty on tobacco leaf for the manufacture of cigars. The amendment proposes the giving of a bounty on any tobacco leaf of high grade. Guided by the opinion expressed by Mr. Speaker in another place, and by the practice of the Imperial Parliament, I hold that this amendment, extending the bounty to articles not provided for in the schedule, and therefore extending the destination of the bounty, is not in order. Perhaps it may be desirable to refer the point to Mr. President.

Senator Pearce:

– The matter in question is of such importance, and the ruling of the Temporary Chairman limits the power of the Committee to such an extent, that I shall have to dissent from it formally. I do so in the following terms -

I dissent from the ruling of the Temporary Chairman on the ground that it unduly limits the powers of the Committee.

In the Senate :

The Temporary Chairman of Committees. - I beg to report that, in Committee, upon the item -

Tobacco leaf for the manufacture of cigars, high grade, of a quality to be prescribed, an amendment was moved to leave out the words “for the manufacture of cigars.’’ The effect of the amendment would be to make the item read “ Tobacco leaf, high grade, of a quality to be prescribed.” A point of order was raised as to whether that amendment was in order. I ruled that it was not. I did so first of all on the authority of May, nth edition, page 565 -

When a schedule of duties has been reported from a Committee and agreed to by the House, the Committee on the Bill cannot increase such duties, nor add any articles not previously voted; but if the duties so voted are less than those payable under the existing law it is competent for. the Committee on the Bill to increase them, provided such increase be not in excess of the existing duties.

I held that the amendment proposed would involve an increase in this way : that whilst the proposed bounty under the schedule is limited to tobacco leaf of a certain class, the amendment would materially extend the destination of the bounty, inasmuch as it would be applicable to other classes of tobacco leaf not specified in the schedule. I was also influenced by a decision given by Mr. Speaker in another place, where a question arose’ in connexion ‘with Dried Fruits, and it was proposed to add the words “and Canned Pine-Apples.” The decision of Mr. Speaker, reported in the Votes and Proceedings, No. 16, was as follows : -

Mr. Speaker stated he had no hesitation in giving his ruling. He would remind the House of the different stages through which the Bill had passed. First of all, there was a Message from the Governor-General recommending an appropriation.. The appropriation was voted in Committee, and a Bill was then brought in to give effect to the vole, and providing for certain bounties on certain items in the First Schedule. If the Bill did not provide for a bounty on pine-apples a bounty could not be now put in. If an item in the Estimates were under consideration the destination of a vote could not be altered. He ruled that no amend ment could be introduced which would have the effect of giving a bounty on any item not provided for in the Schedule, or of increasing any bounty.

It appeared to me that the amendment did propose the giving of a bounty on items not provided for in the schedule, namely, on classes of tobacco leaf not therein specified. Under these circumstances, I .ruled that the amendment was not in order. Senator Pearce has dissented from my ruling, on the ground that it unduly limits the power of the Committee’.

Senator Pearce:

– I draw your attention, Mr. President, to the fact - since reference has been made to the ruling of Mr. Speaker’ in another place- that when this Bill was under discussion there the provision relating to a bounty on tobacco was in precisely . the ‘ same terms as it would be if my ‘ amendment were accepted. An alteration was made in the schedule changing the destination of the bounty from tobacco leaf to cigar leaf only. .1 am endeavouring to reverse what another place did in Committee, and not to extend the bounty to other articles. My amendment simply proposes that the bounty shall be paid in respect of tobacco leaf, high grade, which includes cigar leaf» as’ the Bill originally provided. The ruling of the Temporary Chairman is founded upon what has been adopted as the practice in another place. But I submit thai, our practice is laid down by sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution and by our own Standing Orders. The Senate has determined that it will establish its own practice in these matters. The quotation which the Temporary Chairman has made from May has no effect, since we have not adopted the practice of the House of Commons. We have declared our powers and privileges, and have our own practice. While the Speaker ruled that at a particular stage of the Bill the proposed alteration could not be made, it was still within the power of the other House, under its Standing Orders, at one stage of the Bill to have made the alteration desired regarding “ canned pine-apples.” In Committee of Supply the other place could, if it had wished^ by means of an amendment to the resolution for an appropriation for ‘ the purposes of the Bill, have decided that “ canned pine-apples “ should be put in the schedule. Therefore that House had the power at one stage to make an alteration such as was ruled out of order at a later stage by, the Speaker. No honorable senator, would say that we should have less powers than the other House, except so far as they are lessened ‘by the Constitution. We are not in an equivalent position, because we never have the stage which I have indicated. A Bill is not brought in on a resolution founded on a Governor-General’s message and passed in Committee in this Chamber. Therefore that opportunity never presents itself here. Our equivalent opportunity is when we go into Committee on the Bill. Our procedure is different. Another place, in their procedure, have the power at one stage. If they do not care to exercise it then, but attempt to use it at a later stage, when it is clearly against their practice that is the misfortune of those who bring forward the amendment at the wrong time. But because in another place, at a certain stage, they cannot make an amendment which they could previously have made, are we in this Senate to decide that the only opportunity which we can have shall not be availed of ? Are we to say that because another House has adopted a certain procedure at this stage, we shall not have an opportunity at all to make an amendment? That is what we are asked to say by the ruling of the Temporary Chairman, since neither in our Standing Orders nor in the Constitution is there anything that prohibits us from making this amendment. It does not alter the destination of the grant, but allows the bounty tobe paid as the Bill originally provided when it was introduced after consideration of His Excellency’s message. If my amendment is carried, it will, therefore, be covered by that message. I ask your particular attention, Mr. President, to the point that my amendment cannot be said to in any way contravene the terms of His Excellency’s message, inasmuch as the Bill, as originally brought down, provided for what my amendment seeks to achieve. That is a very important point, and I ask you, sir, not to uphold a ruling which would seriously restrict the powers of a Committee of the Senate.

Senator Findley:

– This is the second or third time that a point of order has been raised as to the admissibility of amendments. When you, Mr. President, were asked for a ruling last week, your decision was that amendments, and also requests, could be made on this Bill. Later on, when Senator Pearce was in the chair, Senator Chataway moved an amendment regarding coffee. It was accepted by the Chairman, and the Committee agreed to it.

Senator Chataway:

– That amendment did not extend the area of the bounty on coffee.

Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator does not know how far the destination of the grant on coffee maybe altered by it, because the bounty will be affected by the regulations that will be drafted under the Bill. Senator Pearce desires that this bounty shall be made payable on all forms of tobacco. He does not necessarily exclude cigar leaf.

Senator Clemons:

– He could if he chose.

Senator Findley:

– Buthis amendment does not do so. There is no analogy between this amendment and the proposal made in another place to substitute “ pineapples “ for some other item. We are keeping directly to the item in the schedule. All that we desire is that a fuller opportunity shall be given for the encouragement of the growth of different kinds of tobacco in the Commonwealth. I do not profess to be as conversant with these points as honorable senators with longer parliamentary experience, but I hold that it is getting away from the question to compare the amendment regarding “ pine-apples “ with this amendment.

Senator Major O’Loghlin:

– The honorable senator will understand that the amendment is not now before the Committee.

Senator STORY:

– I understand that, sir. I propose to quote some evidence to show why the Committee should agree to the payment of the bounty on cigar leaf, and to prove that it can be grown in New South Wales, as well as in other States. I was quoting this extract from Mr. Aaron’s letter when the point of order was taken -

In short, the miles of country traversed by ;me on the New South Wales side of the Dumaresq river are, in my opinion, of limitless value as a cigar-tobacco producing country. X estimate that such tobacco as could be here produced would stand in respect of quality second only to the Havanna tobacco, grown in the best portions of the island of Cuba.

In reply to question 7333 Mr. Aaron said -

In the Inverell district we could produce plug and cigar tobacco lea-f of the finest description. I have samples of it which I could show the Commission, and I say that no better plug or cigar tobacco could be grown anywhere in the world than that produced there. 7334. By Senator Gray. - Do you say that no better cigar tobacco leaf could be grown anywhere else? - In speaking of tobacco for cigars, of course the island of Cuba must always be excepted. 7335- In saying that the tobacco leaf grown in that district is the best in the world, you mean plug tobacco leaf ? - I say we can produce cigar leaf in that portion of the electorate which I visited of equal quality or superior to anything grown in the world except the island of Cuba.

That is the opinion of a practical man who has been working cigar leaf all his life.

Senator Gray:

– Does the honorable senator believe in him?

Senator STORY:

– Undoubtedly. I admit that Mr. Aaron’s attitude was slightly eccentric, but nevertheless he is’ a practical man, and knew what he was talking about. Perhaps the honorable senator will accept the evidence of Mr. Robert Nevill, instructor of tobacco culture at the Queensland Agricultural Bureau. He was examined in Brisbane by the Tariff Commission, and his evidence is appended to the report of the Tobacco Commission. After urging that the Excise duty should L-e reduced, he gave the following evidence in reference to cigar leaf -

Before we go further, I should like to allude to cigar tobaccos. The other day I wrote aletter on the subject to our Under-Secretary. There is a strong disposition amongst farmers in the north, and in New South Wales, to’ grow cigar tobacco ; but the present Tariff, and the old Tariff in Queensland, before Federation, have acted ‘ as a deterrent. Local factories have tried time after time to hold their own in regard to the manufacture of Australian cigar leaf, but have failed to do so. A representative of the British-Australian Tobacco Company has been going through Queensland and New South Wales, and has bought up small lots of cigar tobacco at 8d. to od. a lb. It is almost impossible to divert this branch of the trade in face of the present Tariff and the present excise, as our tobaccos are brought into competition with tobaccos imported from Manilla, Sumatra, and Borneo. Our growers get a protection of only is. 6d., and hardly that, because a good deal of cigar tobacco is brought in stemmed and the excise is is. 6d. I am suggesting that the excise should be taken off altogether from cigar tobacco manufactured here, and that the is. 6d. should be added on to the duty on imported cigar tobacco instead. For instance, now, all the cigars manufactured in this State are made from imported tobacco.

I do not suppose that as many as 10,000 cigars are made from locally-grown tobacco. If my * suggestion were adopted, the revenue would not suffer. If the duty were made 3s., and there were no excise on cigar tobacco it would amount to the same thing as at present, and would not interfere with the working of the Tariff. The import duty on raw tobacco is is. 6d., and the excise on cigars manufactured in the Commonwealth is is. 6d. per lb. That makes it 3s. 28427. By Mr. Wamsley. - As against an import duty of 6s. and 15 per cent, ad valorem, on manufactured cigars? - Yes; I will read the letter which I wrote to the Under-Secretary. It is as follows : - “ Brisbane, 12th June, 1905.

There is a disposition among the farmers of the New South Wales and Queensland coastal districts to take up the growing of cigar leaf, and a few experimental plots give promise of good quality ; but the present excise prevents the opening of small factories, such as would encourage the industry ; hence all cigars in the Commonwealth are either imported or made from imported tobacco.

It is impossible to build up the industry of cigar leaf production in the face of the is. 6d. per pound excise ; if this wa-s removed for a few years, small factories working the local product would begin operations, and a local industry develop that would grow to large dimensions, and of immense value to the States. The large factories would also take large quantities of the local leaf when the supply became large enough to establish brands.”

You understand that a brand with a certain flavour has. perhaps a reputation upon the market, so that shopkeepers recommend it to their customers. It is expected that that particular brand will be supplied uniformly to the trade; and if we have not got the tobacco and cannot supply the demand to the trade the brand goes out of existence and money must be lost upon it. But a small manufacturer manufactures a few hundred- cigars only, and does not put his goods on the market in a big way. My letter goes on - “ In order to assist this industry, and, at the same time, work no injury to the revenue, I would suggest that the present excise be abolished and the import duty on cigar leaf be correspondingly increased. The present excise would thus be collected as duty, and the local tobacco thus freed from taxation would .be in demand.

This arrangement could continue until such time as the consumption of locally-grown tobacco impaired the revenue, when a readjustment might become necessary. At present the revenue is entirely from imports, no local cigar tobacco being used, hence no serious disturbance of the revenue could occur for some time under such a readjustment, could work no hardship to manufacturers, as they would pay all in duties, instead of. excise and duties, and would stimulate production and manufacturing by enabling men of small capital to go into the business and eventually there would be an export demand.

We can grow good cigar leaf, such as brings good prices in the European markets ; prices that are remunerative to ordinary labour, and it is a pity and a wrong that this valuable industry should be lost to the farmers of the State be- cause of adverse legislation. This industry/ would be especially valuable to outlaying districts, as it will stand transportation to shipping points.”

That is the opinion of Mr. Nevill, the Queensland expert. I do not think that 1 need advance more arguments to show that cigar leaf can be grown, not only in Queensland, but also in the Northern Territory, New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia. With regard to thepayment of the bounty, there is a difficulty in the case of tobacco leaf which doesnot exist in the case of other items in the schedule. I refer to the great difference in the prices of the different qualities of tobacco. Some kinds of tobacco leaf areworth 5s., 8s., and as much as 10s. per lb. This is an argument which I intend: to use against fixing a minimum price 011 which the bounty shall be paid. The experts suggested to’ the Commission that 10d. per “lb. should be the minimum price or* which the bounty should be given. If that suggestion were adopted persons would grow tobacco leaf which was worth about 10d. or is. per lb., and get the bounty. They would not take the same trouble ingrowing tobacco which was worth is. 6d. or 2s., or even more per lb. If the itemis passed as it stands, it may be possible for the Government to prescribe a way ir» which the bounty can be paid on the high.grade leaf which can be most profitably grown for cigar making. I do npt imagine that it will be possible to have differential rates for the different kinds of tobacco. If, however, that were possible, it would be a capital tiling to give abounty of id. per lb. on the lowest quality of tobacco leaf, that is leaf up to the value of is. per lb., a bounty of 2d. per lb. on tobacco leaf -of higher quality, and even to go up to 3d. per lb. I realize that it cannot be done, but I believe that if it could be done it would encourage and1 stimulate the production of high-grade tobacco leaf. I believe that most honorable senators, especially Senator Gray, W 11 agree that unless the payment of the bounty is confined to cigar leaf it will goto the Combine.

Senator Gray:

– They will get it under this item.

Senator STORY:

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is a statement as to which I should like to have proof.

Senator Story:

– It is a fact. It is made from the best leaf grown for plug tobacco.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Mr. Aaron said that, in company with Mr. De Beers, he went to the office pf Mr. P. L. Jacobs, a member of the Tobacco Combine, who is connected with the States Tobacco Company. Mr. Aaron- -

Mr. Jacobs brought down four or five boxes of Matador cigars. It is a nicely finished cigar and looks well, but not unlike the pudding, you cannot tell what it is like until you have tried it. 1! lit one of them, and he asked me what I thought of it. I asked Mr. De Beers what he thought of it, and said that as my English education was very neglected I was afraid I could not coin a word to express the quality of it.

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Story:

– The experts referred to are making cigars, and are not growing cigar leaf.

Senator HENDERSON:

– The man who makes cigars may have a better knowledge of the kind of leaf required than the grower of the leaf. A farmer may grow a field of wheat, and the miller may tell him that he can get better wheat. The man who makes cigars may be in a much better position than the grower of tobacco leaf to say whether the leaf grown is suitable for the manufacture of cigars.

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.4.5 p.m.

page 4174

QUESTION

COMPULSORY LIFE ASSURANCE: OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

.- Mr. President-

Senator McColl:

– Can we not have a quorum, sir? - [Quorum formed.]

Senator DOBSON:

– I move-

That, while it is desirable to provide old-age pensions for the present generation as soon as the funds can be provided, the Senate is of opinion that any permanent scheme applying to persons under thirty years of age andto future generations should be framed, as far as possible, on the principles of thrift and self-help, and that the Government should, as soon as convenient, introduce a Bill providing for a compulsory scheme of life insurance, old-age pensions, and sick allowance, based upon contributions from both employers and workers, with such subsidies from the Commonwealth as will make the scheme financially sound. And it is suggested to the Government that they might offer a substantial prize to the person furnishing the details of a scheme best suited to carry put this resolution, having regard to the conditions of Australian industrial life.

I realize that, in submitting this motion, I am tackling a gigantic subject - a subject with very great possibilities, and one which I am sure all honorable senators must admit is of the gravest importance to the wellbeing of the people of the Commonwealth. In this matter, as in every other, Australia - combined with New Zealand, of course - seems to me to have established a standpoint of its own. It has got into a certain groove, and I believe I am right in saying that this subject is looked at here from an Australian groove. I desire to bring under the notice of my honorable friends the German scheme, which in many ways is opposed to our scheme, differing from it in most material particulars, but conferring upon the people enormous benefits. I feel. sure that in the end, if I can get consideration for the scheme, it will be “found that our scheme is lacking in some of those essentials which make for social progress. I shall be very pleased to see the motion carried, but my great object to-night is. if possible, to cause honorable senators to consider seriously whether the scheme which has been adopted in New Zealand, New South Wales, and Victoria, and. is now proposed in South Australia, is the best one to encourage thrift and industry, and at the same time to provide in the most efficient way for the aged poor, and all who are disabled from earning their bread by the sweat ‘of their brow and their hands. I shall be quite satisfied if I can induce honorable senators to . consider these matters, and to study more’ and more the German system which, I regret to say, our Old-Age Pensions Commission in its report, has regarded as impracticable, or not suited to the Commonwealth.

Senator Macfarlane:

– It is only one of the German systems.

Senator DOBSON:

– In Germany there are three or four different systems, but practically they are all one. As I understand, our Old-Age Pensions Commission expressed the opinion that the German systems are unsuitable to Australian conditions. I most respectfully differ from that opinion, and I hope to make some converts before I have concluded my speech. I have read various reports by leading men in the Empire, and also by leading men in the Commonwealth. I have waded through an enormous mass of evidence, read books and perused many articles, as well as many letters in the press. I have convinced myself that our scheme is essentially a bad one, that it is fundamentally unsound, and that, while it is too soon now to pass any opinion as to its effect upon the moral fibre of our community, the time is not very far distant when its grave defects will become apparent to everybody when he realizes how intensely it has weakened our manhood. I have come to the conclusion that any scheme to do what we want on sound economical and social lines must be compulsory, contributory, and to some extent, discriminating. All those factors or principles are found embodied in. the schemes of Germany. I may just as well read now ai letter .from Mr. Thos. A. Welton to the Times last July -

It is a matter of profound conviction with me that no scheme for granting old-age pensions should omit to provide for contributions to be made by those who are eventually to receive benefit. I think every member of society who does not belong to the “ submerged “ element should contribute. Thus an enormous burden on industry would be sensibly mitigated, and the self respect of the people generally would be maintained.

Senator McColl:

– Who is Mr. Welton?

Senator DOBSON:

– I do not know who Mr. Welton is, but I copied his letter because I do not remember that I have seen in the Times any article which indicates its views on the subject. I shall read presently some letters and articles from the Spectator, which, on this subject, as on the cadet system, is emphatically of opinion that some compulsion is necessary. Before describing the German system, let me read from the Spectator an article or two, which will lay the foundation for the arguments I intend to use in favour of a compulsory scheme. In a letter to that journal, Mr. G. J. Cowley Brown says -

A national Insurance Society is a very different thing from a State-paid pension scheme, and need not interfere or compete with any sound Friendly Society. May I say that Mr. Mar.tineau’s objection (see Spectator, July 27th) occurred also to myself when I brought Mr. Blackley’s plan before one of our ChurchSynods some years ago? I am not sure that this was not one of the objections raised at a meeting in the Oddfellows’ Hall at Edinburgh presided over by the late Lord Provost Harrison, and addressed by Mr. Blackley himself; but I remember - his saying, in answer to it (I give the substance of his words) : - “ A man is either thrifty or unthrifty; if the latter, he must be compelled to make the necessary provision ; if the former, he is not likely, though already belonging to a Friendly Society, to cease to belong to it, or object to make what is in effect an additional investment any more than a man who owns shares in one company will refuse to become a shareholder also in another.” This, so far as I remember, is the substance of. what Mr. Blackley said in answer to a question I put to him on the subject.

Canon Blackley is the first man in England who started the idea of a compulsory oldage pensions scheme^-

I am sorry I cannot lay my hand upon his letter. He was not hostile to any sound Friendly Society or Benefit Club, or to any system that might tend to promote thrift. He felt sure that his scheme would not impair them. “ They may help,” he said, “the selfdenial of the best class of our people, but they do not touch the misery of the worst.” His scheme provides, not only against destitution in sickness, but also against destitution in old age. On the subject of Friendly Societies in general and other aids to thrift, may I venture to recommend Mr. Blackley’s really remarkable little book, published by the S.P.C.K., or his “Collected Essays on the Prevention of Pauperism “ ? They will repay perusal. -

The next letter I wish to quote is from Mr. John Martineau, who says -

In the Post Office Savings Bank a weekly contribution of 4d. commencedat twenty years of age will secure a pension of5s. a week at sixty-five. In the Friendly Societies the cost is considerably less. Thus, in the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows the same position can be secured for the same weekly contribution, commencing at twenty-five instead of twenty, or by a weekly contribution of 3¼d. beginning at twenty-one, and by members of Friendly Societies insured for other benefits it can practically be secured on easier and more convenient terms still.

Senator Guthrie:

-What does the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows charge in Australia ?

Senator DOBSON:

– I shall come to that by-and-by.

Senator Guthrie:

– It charges1s. 6d.

Senator DOBSON:

– The letter continues -

For instance, in the Manchester Unity the weekly contribution, commencing at twenty-one, to secure sick pay during life and funeral benefits is 4&3/8d. But if a member will commute his claim to sick pay after sixty-five for a 5s. pension from that age, combined with immunity from all further contributions, the weekly payment is 6&7/8d. ; that is to say, his right to the pension costs him weekly only 2½d. extra till sixtyfive, and nothing at all afterwards. By the rules of a Suffolk branch of the Foresters as fixed in 1896, which are before me, a member entering at twenty-one and paying 6d. a week secures : sick pay, 10s. per week for twentysix weeks, 5s. per week for twenty-six weeks, 3s. 6d. per week during remainder of sickness ; pension, 5s. from age of sixty-five, when sick benefits and also contributions cease; funeral allowance,£10 at death. To this should be added a small contribution for management, &c., which is not stated. This court was founded in a Suffolk village forty-four years ago, the members being chiefly agricultural labourers, then earning during most of the year probably not more than9s. or 10s. a week, if so much. At the end of thirty-three years, in 1896, there were a hundred and sixty-six members, and the audit showed a certified balance of £1,072. In the face of such an object-lesson as this, and in view of the great increase in the wages and resources of working men in the last forty-four years, what are we to say of proposals to load the country with crushing taxation, and to open wide the flood-gates of pauperism, in order to relieve the British workman from the payment of 2½d. a week?

In a postscript, Mr. Martineau says -

In other words, the man who gives up his pint of beer on one day of the week can secure an old-age pension of 5s. at sixty-five. In view of this fact, it is not unfair to describe Stateprovided pensions as the reward of thriftlessness.

Senator McGregor:

– Has it killed them in Victoria?

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask honorable senators not to interrupt the speaker in the middle of a quotation, and, that, when they do interject, to make their interjections as pertinent to the subject as possible, but not too frequent. Otherwise, the speaker is placed at a disadvantage, and will take a much longer time to explain the policy which he wishes to advocate.

Senator DOBSON:

– The letter proceeds - and with them would be lost all the ground that they have gained for the working classes in more than half a century of patient and sustained effort, till we are landed where we were in1834, on the brink of economic ruin, and with a large section of the people all but bankrupt in self-reliance and manliness. Will no champions of the friendly societies raise their voices in protest before it is too late ? - I am, Sir, &c., John Martineau.

SenatorMcGregor. - Has the old-age pensions scheme killed the friendly societies in Victoria, New South Wales, and New Zealand ?

Senator DOBSON:

– It has not killed them yet; but I do not think it will do them any good. It is altogether too early to say what effect our scheme will have. I believe that it will have a bad effect. I have many more arguments to show that far greater men than we are believe so too. The Spectator says -

We believe every word of Mr. Martineau’s admirable letter to be true.

The next letter which I shall quote is’ from Mr. J. H. Eaton. He says, and I shall be very glad to learn the result of his inquiries -

I am making an investigation into the detailed working of contributory pension schemes in Germany and Austria with a view to finding out how far they could be applied in the United Kingdom. In the event of either political party granting pensions at the expense of the State, continual demands for increases of the amount and reductions of the pension age seem likely to result. Agitation of this kind could probably best be met by advocating a scheme by which the contributions would be provided by those who will benefit.

Do not honorable senators opposite see that the system which they advocate simply means doling out - shovelling out - money ? Although they pretend and assert in their scheme that the pension is to be considered and accepted as a right, and not as a charity, will a declaration of that sort make any difference to what it really is? In their scheme, they lay no obligation on the citizen, and bring before him no duty. The German system does. It brings forcibly before him, and compels him to discharge, the most sacred duties of manhood - to provide for his old age, for his partner in life and for the dear ones he has brought into the world. The German system requires that this duty shall be carried out, and stimulates and encourages a man in the effort. Our system is defective in every one of those vital principles. Surely my honorable friends will see that there is room for doubt and consideration. Everything shows that, with all the experience of the world before us, we have chosen the wrong system, while the right system has been under our noses all the time. I now come to it.

Senator Findley:

– Does the honorable senator contend that, with the extension of the old-age pensions scheme throughout the world, the cost of charitable relief is increased ?

Senator DOBSON:

– I do not say that it is increased. It ought to decrease immensely, but it will not decrease as much as it ought to. Honorable senators opposite may call the old-age pension a right if they like, but they are going to make the thrifty pay for the thriftless - the industrious pay for the loafer. They give money away to people and ask them to do nothing in return for it. They do not ask them even for one penny, or sixpence per week. They simply say, “Take the money.” That is not the way to build up a strong, virile, independent nation, but just the reverse. I hold in my hand two very important documents, which I am indebted to the German Consul -General in Sydney for having sent to me. He evidently saw my notice of motion on the business-paper, and asked me if these two pamphlets would be of use to me. He also asked whether it would be well to send copies to other honorable senators. I said that it most certainly would. I believe that he had not enough to go round, but that some pamphlets were sent. This pamphlet, explaining the German scheme, was prepared with great care for use at the Universal Exposition at St. Louis_ in 1904. I suppose, therefore, that every word in it is correct, and that all the facts were carefully checked. It gives a complete description of the great scheme of Germany, which, consists of three principal funds - a sick fund, an accident fund, and an old-age pensions fund, the last named also including a fund for pensions to those who have not arrived at the pension age. If the decay of a man’s powers prevents him from earning a living, he becomes entitled, being an invalid, to what is called an invalidity pension before he reaches the pension age. Consequently there are really four different funds wrapped up in the German scheme. It is stated with regard to the sick insurance fund -

The great purpose of the insurance is to secure to the insured an ever certain and sufficient relief, in case of sickness, during at least twenty-six weeks. The minimum relief to which all the insured have a- legal claim includes : - 1. Free medical attendance and medicines from the beginning of the illness, likewise spectacles, trusses, bandages, &c. 2. In case of incapacity for work, from the third day of the illness, foi every working day a sick pay, amounting to one-half the daily wages on which the contributions have been based, or, in special cases - free admittance to a hospital, together with half the sick pay for the family. Besides this assistance the obligatory insurance grants : - 3. Burial money amounting to twenty times the average daily wages, and 4. Sick relief to women during six weeks after confinement.

The contributions of the insured are limited by the law in the Parish Sick Insurance to 1 - 2 per cent, of the usual local daily wages of common labourers, and for the rest they must not exceed 3 - 4 per cent, of the average daily wages of that class of workmen for whom the club has been formed. The law binds the employers, when depositing the contributions of their workmen, to. pay themselves a sum equal to one-half the contributions of the employed, so that two-thirds of the whole are furnished by the workmen, and one-third by their employers.

The State, therefore,, has nothing to do with the sick fund. We come next to the accident insurance fund : -

The common law granted no compensation in the frequent cases where persons were killed or wounded either by chance or through their own imprudence.

So the accident fund was started. We have had half-a-dozen Employers’ Liability Acts, and in some of the States there is a Workmen’s Compensation Act, which is a very proper thing. After having a good many tries at it, the Germans embodied all their law -in one scheme -

The compulsory insurance comprises principally all workmen (irrespective of wages) and inferior managing officials (with yea’rly salaries

UP t° 3j°o°, formerly 2,000 marks) if they areoccupied in concerns subject to insurance or (under the new law) in domestic and other service ordered by their masters or managers apart from their regular work….. The insurance is carried out under the guarantee of the Empire, on the mutual system, by. the employers united in Trade Associations, which may embrace all the several branches of industry in certain districts or in the whole Empire. The “employer” is held to be the person on whose account the enterprise is carried on. In the case of State undertakings special “ Executive Boards “ replace the Trade Associations.

The object of the insurance is to secure compensation for bodily injury or for death arising from an accident to the insured person whilst working for his employer, unless thevictim himself has caused the accident intentionally.

There is no getting out of it unless the man practically commits suicide, or deliberately puts his arm into a machine.

Senator Guthrie:

– Chamberlain’s Act was entirely based on that scheme.

Senator DOBSON:

– Is the honorable senator aware that when the Premier of New South Wales went to the country at the general election, he stated that he proposed to amend the New South Wales Act, so that pensions might be paid to incapacitated persons under the age of ‘ sixty-five years ?

Senator DOBSON:

– I have a note of that, and it shows that, he is aware of the weakness of the existing scheme. I would ask my honorable friends opposite whether, in addition to the amount paid away in old-age pensions, and, notwithstanding the excellent work which the friendly societies are doing, they suggest that we should give sick p_ay as well? If so, where is it going to end? What will be the cost to the taxpayers if we go on giving these grants without asking for a contribution of 6d. or id. per week from persons who mayhereafter become eligible for. the grant? The important part of the German scheme is that the employer contributes one-half the fund, and the workman _ the other half. Then there is a State contribution in the form of a little pension of 50 marks, or £2 10s. per year, to every man on his arriving at the age of seventy years. That represents the whole of the State contribution .to the old-age pensions fund in Germany. Even taking into account the fact that with us money is more expensive, I should be disposed to be more liberal than that. Really I do not care how generous, within reason, we make the pension, so long as we base the system upon some form of compulsory contribution from persons’ who may be eligible for the grant. I could read any quantity of evidence to show that if we trust to voluntary action; if we think that men will make provision, by insurance or in some other way, for themselves against accident or old age, we shall be disappointed. Not one in eight or nine will do it. It is ridiculous to go on imagining that we shall ever grow into a robust arid healthy nation, morally and physically, unless people who cannot be induced to do so are compelled bv law to carry out these sacred duties. Let me direct the attention of honorable senators to a report which appeared in the

– There may be some point in that remark. If we determined some day to do away with the old-age pensions systems of New South Wales and Victoria, in order to establish a comprehensive national insurance for the Commonwealth, I take it that the Constitution would be amended so that we might copy the German scheme if we thought it a. wise one, as I do. The conclusion of the whole business is stated in this pamphlet in these terms -

The three branches of the German National Workmen’s Insurance - Sickness, Accident, and Invalidity Insurance - supplementing one another mutually, form a complete organization, and have resulted in the formation of a new working man’s code, which in the inevitable fluctuations of modern industrial life, will afford to all those in need of assistance a welcome aid, and in its farther development cannot fail to exercise a great and salutary influence on the economical and social condition” of the working people, indeed, on the entire nation.

The other pamphlet deals chiefly with the conclusions and with results, and I propose to read a few sentences. When we get all the employers to take an interest in the health, the freedom from accident and sickness, and the poverty df the people, see what an enormous amount of thought, energy, and brain we shall bring to bear in the direction of securing a robust people morally and physically. Every single subject which affects human life is brought more into prominence in Germany than elsewhere, because of the very system which I have been trying to explain. Let honorable . senators listen to this statement -

We are doing everything in our power to further the health and general well-being of the people we employ. This conviction has been mainly brought home to the employers by the useful effects of the measures called into existence on account of the social legislature. Thai % is the reason why employers are very willing to extend their provisions far beyond the legal requirements, not only within their own establishments, but also, to a great extent/ in favour of the general social institutions aiming at the welfare of the workmen.

Senator Turley:

– Into what fund do they pay .this money?

Senator DOBSON:

– The added amount is paid out of their own free will in favour of the workmen, and it is over and above the contributions which I have mentioned. I have already stated that they have spent £.1:0,000,000 in building sanatoria and hospitals. It is to their interest to see that the men are brought up in a healthy way, and that disease is eradicated. Hitherto I have been talking of what the employers are compelled to do, and now I shall proceed to show what they do voluntarily. I think I have read that the great firm of Krupp, who employ many thousands of men, spend tens of thousands a year.on the workmen for their own benefit. Of course,

I admit that the firm make enormous profits. The pamphlet goes on to say -

The following figures show the amounts that have been contributed by the employers out of their own free will during the last few years in favour of the workmen : -

Senator Turley:

– It does not mention for what purpose it is spent.

Senator DOBSON:

– No. I was struck by the use of the word “free-will,” because, as I mentioned, the employers are compelled to make the other contributions. Take the case of Mr. Cadbury. My honorable friends know that he has spent tens of thousands of pounds in building homes, halls, and libraries for his employes. I objected to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill because it appeared to me that a fair thing between worker and employer could only be determined by going to law. Have my honorable friends every heard of people who are always litigating toeing a happy family? No. My idea is not that my honorable friends should do away with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act if they will not have any other, but should make it a success if they can, or go in for a system of profit sharing. Whatever they do, they ought to nail to the mast the declaration that the interests of employer and worker are mutual. So long as they have a system under which they point out that those interests are not mutual, and that the parties can only get their rights by going to law, they will have a rotten system. I ought to have read this extract before I read the last one, as it bears much on the same point -

An essential point in this respect is the fact that since the introduction of the insurance, the general position of the workmen in every direction of their interests, material, hygienic, legal, moral, and spiritual, has been considerably improved, but that during the same period, the whole political economy of the Empire has prospered to an immense degree. Of course the workmen’s insurance is only one of the causes producing the development, but as is proved in the description, a very strong mutual influence exists between the workmen’s insurance

Mid national economy, and the opinion sometimes expressed abroad that the workmen’s insurance is apt to act as an impediment to political economy and riches, can certainly not be founded on the German development of affairs.

It goes on to say -

For the hot competition among the nations the world of a recently deceased German author and patriot may be applied, which he wrote in his last work, dedicated to the United States of North America, and which is of double importance in this connexion. “ The palm of victory will be secured in the end by the nation possessed of the largest reserve of national health and power.”

How can my honorable friends build up a national sentiment in the people if the first thing which they do is to make them, not independent, but dependent, upon a State dole? Is that the way to develop a virile nation ? Is that the way to make men believe in themselves ? How can we ever’ hope to win in any naval or commercial struggle in which we may have the misfortune to be engaged unless we are a selfreliant community ?

Senator de Largie:

– We have in Australia the most independent working class in the world.

Senator DOBSON:

– My honorable friend is generalizing, but I cannot admit his statement. I hope that we have such a working class. In another place this writer says -

It is clear that the benefits thus secured for the health of the workmen are enormous. The principal aim is not alone to assist sick, injured, and invalid workmen, but to cure and make them capable again of earning their and their families’ livelihood. Where death used to occur, life is now maintained. Where formerly the victims became permanent cripples, they now keep their serviceable limbs. Thousand of individuals that would have become wholly or partly incapable of earning their living, are now restored and ‘can do their work as usual. The grown-up workmen in general are at present less exposed to sickness, invalidity, and accidents, and seem to have gained greater power of resistance, while the young generation is starting at once with a healthier and stronger constitution. And under the reign of the Workmen’s Insurance, which more and more forms the ground and corner stone of social hygiene, this development is growing more favorable every day, and becomes perceptible through the gladdening decrease of mortality, or, to put it in a positive form, through the increase of vitality of the German population.

There are many precedents besides the German precedent for the policy of compulsion. I will quote from a paper by Sir John Cockburn, which takes the form of a report on the International Workmen’s Congress, held at Vienna in 1905. In this document he says -

Among Continental nations the German system of insurance is the most complete, but there is also in Austria and Hungary a form of compulsory insurance against sickness for industrial work people generally. In France, there is compulsory insurance against sickness for miners, and in Belgium for miners and seamen.

In some of these places evidently the rulers have more wisdom than we have. They recognise that miners follow a very dangerous industry, and they have therefore been careful to institute a proper system of compulsory insurance for miners.

Senator de Largie:

– We have that in Australia.

Senator DOBSON:

– I am showing that there is plenty of evidence in , favour of compulsion -

Against accidents there is compulsory insurance in Germany, Austria, Hungary, France, Italy, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Luxembourg, and Finland.

The poor laws founded upon a noble principle and worthy of a Christian nation ha-ve, nevertheless, proved in practice to be debasing and subversive of order and morality. To counteract the labourers’ improvidence with its consequent evils so far as it springs from the causes specified is the end I have in view; and I will now, as concisely as may be, develope mv scheme. I would entitle every man at a given age - from the highest to the lowest - upon the fulfilment of certain duties, to a- pension from the country. I would have a comfortable provision for old age plainly within the reach of every man.

This is the father of the universal scheme, but even he does not go so far in laxity, generosity, and State nonsense as some people here propose to do. He insists upon the fulfilment of certain duties. I do not know exactly what they are, but certainly no man has a right to expect to receive a pension unless he does some little to deserve it, and to justify us in giving it to him.

There is no doubt that three-fourths of the prevailing distress and pauperism and crime are more the result of recklessness than all other causes put together. The drinking habits of the working classes are chiefly to be traced to this. I am firmly convinced that this recklessness and improvidence is mainly to be traced lo the hopeless condition of the labourer.

I desire to hold the best opinion of human nature. I would not by any” means say that poverty is always caused by drink. I know that workmen often drift into positions that seem hopeless through other causes. I desire to put hope into such men, and to point out to them that if they will only save a little we will not leave them in the lurch -

I would aim at divesting the pension of the remotest resemblance to a charitable dole. This I conceive cannot be done without including all classes in the operation of the scheme ; and every attempt I have made to narrow its working to the class for whose benefit it is mainly intended has signally failed.

I do not agree with Mr. Booth when he says that we ought to have a universal system of old-age pensions in order to make the pension a right and not a charity. Are we to say that a man who enjoys an income of ,£10,000 or ^20,000 a year shall be entitled to get the same pension as a working man? ls a law bad because in it we discriminate? That appears to be a most nonsensical view. Could we ever get such a scheme through Parliament? It is all very well for Mr. Booth, or any body else, to suggest it ; but there is a better way out of the difficulty. Just as we discriminate in every law, so I would discriminate in the old-age pensions law. Is there anything wrong in saying that any man who does not get more than £3 or £4 a week shall be compelled to provide for his old age, or in saying that a man who is fortunate enough to earn £3 or £4 a week, winter and summer, wet or dry, year in and year out, shall be exempt, and shall provide for himself ? If the latter does not provide for himself, and comes to us as- a pauper when he is sixty-five, he, too, will be looked after, but not quite so well as the man who has. saved carefully. In any scheme which is to fit in with human nature there must be some discrimination. Although I admire Mr. Booth’s large-heartedness, I am not going to let my heart run away with mv head. We must have a system based upon principles which will stand the test of time. The German scheme holds up for commendation and reward all the duties which make for progress and manhood, while the Australian scheme does not hold up one of them. If we have such a system, we may not feel or know it, but in a generation we shall see its effects. I experienced a great deal of disappointment upon reading the report of the Commission, of which Lord Aberdare was Chairman, and that of the Committee of which Lord Rothschild was Chairman. They both came to the conclusion that it was impracticable and impossible for them to recommend any old-age pensions scheme.

Senator Turley:

– There were nine or ten .schemes put before them.

Senator DOBSON:

– There were more than a hundred, and yet they could not adopt a scheme. Still there are a few useful passages in their reports. Lord Aberdare’s Commission-, at the end of their report, say -

The evidence on Friendly Societies, the Post Office Savings Bank, and other like agencies, has shown remarkably the great development of habits of thrift and providence among the working classes, and has satisfied us of the general ability of those who are in any regular employment to make direct or indirect provision for. old age, as well as for sikness and other contingencies beyond the every-day needs of life. The various thrift organizations which have been developed during the past sixty years have without doubt contributed largely to the relative diminution of pauperism in proportion to population which has been in progress during that period.

Those worthy men, including Lord Lingen, Lord Brassey, Lord Playfair, Mr. J. J. Henley, Mr. Albert Pell, Mr. A. C. Humphreys-Owen, Mr. Chas. S. RoundellMr. C. S. Loch, Mr. Joseph Arch, and Mr. J. J. Stockall, deliberately say that those who are in any regular employment can make direct or indirect provision for their old age. But how the workmen of England, getting the wages they did in 1895, could make provision for their old age without any help from the State, I do not know. Those learned gentlemen, however, told us that they could. They say -

We have carefully examined the various schemes for State assistance to the aged which have been submitted to us, and, bearing in mind the great labour and thought expended on them, and the high public spirit and deep sympathy -with suffering which inspired their authors, we regret that, in view of the financial and economic difficulties involved, we have been unable to recommend the adoption of any of the schemes 11s yet suggested, whether, for endowment or for assisted insurance….. In conclusion, -we again point out that the number of aged poor who seek public relief, while still very large, has much lessened in proportion in the last thirty years, although the rate of decrease lias greatly diminished in the last decade. We are encouraged in our hopes for the future by the remarkable growth of thrift, as shown by -the savings banks and insurances in friendly societies, which are largely increasing in popularity and importance. The self-reliance and strength of character of the working classes thus evinced will greatly aid in the solution of the problems of old-age poverty as well as of general pauperism.

I read in another report that it is all very fine to talk about the self-reliance of the people, and of their being able to make provision for themselves, but that if it is left to their self-reliance without any aid or help, or left purely to the voluntary system, only about 10 per cent, of those who ought to insure will insure. I do not like to leave the matter in that way. There is attached to the report a memorandum by Lord Brassey, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. A. C. Humphreys-Owen, and Mr. Joseph Arch, to this effect -

We are of opinion that the recommendations of the Commission do not go far enough, nor so far as the evidence before the Commission warrants. We consider that greater distinction should be drawn between industrious persons who in old age have fallen into misfortune, and the wastrels and worthless who seek relief.

Mr. Roundell; in a separate report, says

Some of the main points brought out by the evidence are : - i. The remarkable continuous decrease of pauperism, qualified only by the demoralizing and. pauperizing mischief of lax administration of the Poor Law ; 2. The remarkable continuous increase of wages, and of the purchasing power of wages; 3. The remarkable continuous growth, among the working classes, of thrift, of facilities for saving, of the desire to save, and of a healthy and honorable spirit of self-help and self-dependence. From these postulates it appears to result that direct aid from the State towards the establishment of oldage pensions is unnecesary, and, if unnecessary, detrimental to the- best interests of the classes concerned. And this objection to State intervention on historical, moral, and economic grounds stands separate and apart from the grave financial objection to be urged on the ground of the enormous and incalculable cost which any such scheme would ultimately involve.

Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Ritchie, Sir H. Maxwell, Mr. W. A. Hunter, and Mr. Charles Booth signed a kind of minority report, in the course of which they stated -

For this and other reasons we feel that this portion of the inquiry remitted to us has been inadequately considered.

It was inadequately considered. The Commission recommended the appointment of another Committee to inquire into the subject. I shall read their report shortly.

Senator Turley:

– All that stuff is dead now in England.

Senator DOBSON:

– The principles are -not dead. Mr. Loch, in a separate memorandum, observed -

In the face, then, of the great advance made in the last twenty-five years, the many means now at the disposal of the people for making provision ‘for old age, and the great increase in the membership of friendly societies, it does not seem either necessary or desirable that the State should abandon the policy, which has hitherto proved successful, of guidance and encouragement, and adopt that of subsidy and grant. It would be wiser to rely on the spontaneous growth of institutions suited to the actual wants of the people.

My object in reading these reports, with which I utterly disagree, is to point out that there exists a middle course. Those

Englishmen, call them Conservatives or Tories if you like, although ‘some of them are Liberals, think .that it is unnecessary to do anything, as wages are increasing, self-reliance is extending, facilities for saving are growing, and friendly societies increasing in number. They, therefore, consider that this matter should be left to the voluntary system. I do not think so, nor do I think it should be left entirely to the contributions of the workers ; but, at the same time,- it should not be left entirely to contributions by the State. Lord Rothschild’s Committee got to work, but their report was just as unsatisfactory as . the others. The Committee comprised the following gentlemen : - The Right Honorable Lord Rothschild (chairman), Sir Francis Mowatt, Sir Courtenay Boyle, Sir ‘Spencer Walpole, Mr. A. J. Finlaison, Mr. E. W. BrabrookMr. George King, Mr. A., W. Watson, and Mr. Alfred Chapman. Mr. Brabrook (now Sir Edward Brabrook) and Sir John Lubbock (now Lord Avebury) have, according to a recent cable, framed a scheme of contributory old-age pensions, of which I suppose we shall receive the details in a week or two. Lord Rothschild’s Committee stated -

Before quitting this portion of the subject, we desire to notice the plea constantly urged by advocates of State-aided pensions, namely, that the receipt of money in this form from the taxes or the rates is free from the taint which attaches to allowances made under the noor law. This might be true of a system such as that advocated by Mr. Charles Booth, under which a uniform pension became the right of every individual at a certain age, irrespective of his antecedents, his character, or his private means, but all such schemes are practically excluded by their enormous cost.

I call special attention to the next paragraph

Under any system, however, which does not involve a universal and identical pension, the plea which we are considering appears to us to be misleading. Any discredit must depend, not on the form in which the relief is received, but on the causes which have led to it. We believe that this truth is largely recognized by the working classes.

It is perfectly hopeless to expect any scheme worthy of the name to be inaugurated in Australia if honorable senators are going to ‘ ram down our throats the idea that, because a ‘ man receives a pension, he is thereby accepting charity, and doing something unworthy of his manhood. As those gentlemen point out, the question is not the fact of a man receiving relief, but the cause of his having to do so. If a man has struggled honestly all his life to support a delicate wife and many children, if he has not had permanent employment andi has had ill-luck, is there any disgrace in. his taking the relief or grant or pension which a Christian State says is his right and due? But if another man, who hashad no . disadvantage, takes it ; if a manwho has poured ‘two or three old-age pensions down his throat, or a man who has smoked himself dry with tobacco, or one who has gambled and never exercised one hour’s self-restraint in his life, takes thedole, although he may be legally entitled to it, he must feel in his heart, and anybody who is familiar with his history will know,, that he is robbing the State.

Senator Lynch:

– According to the honorable senator’s system, how would he deal with the extremes? How would he meet the cases of the man who has been moderately economical and the man who has been a miser?

Senator DOBSON:

– Senator Neild, who got an idea of old-age pensions into his head a few years ago, and paid an historic visit to Europe in connexion with the matter, cannot have watched the progress of modern events. He has not recognised the necessity of proceeding on economic lines, and, quite unintentionally no doubt, is misleading the Senate by trying to ram down our throats a very rotten scheme. Sir Spencer Walpole may not be as great a man as is Senator Neild, but let us listen to what this humble individual has to say - “ I feel that thrift should be a test of any pension scheme and that any pension scheme that is decided upon would be injurious if it injured the present methods of thrift which people must ordinarily adopt, and any scheme which injures Friendly Societies would do more harm than good.”

When I tell honorable senators that I can quote Mr. Charles Booth in favour of my scheme, I do not suppose any member of the Senate will attempt to criticise what he says.

It is, however, said that the principles of independence and thrift are assailed by the provision which takes away the stimulus of saving resulting from the prospect of destitution in old age. That this objection would be fatal if it had any real basis I readily admit, but it has no basis.

I think the more of Mr. Booth as an authority on the subject for his admission that it is fatal to any scheme that it should be open to the objection that it does not encourage thrift. He says further -

I think I have shown that no more useful assistance could be given to those who are inclined to help themselves than a small fixed provision in old age.

He suggests a pension of 5s. a week at sixty or sixty-five years of age, and 7s. per week at seventy years of age. And he goes on to say -

But that the proposed pension is inadequate in the sense of not in itself providing1 a sufficient maintenance I fully admit. To make it adequate would be an -error in social tactics, and the weakest points in this scheme are the few cases in ‘ which the pension income would be accepted as sufficient for all wants. I .trust that a rising standard of life may gradually cover these blots.

– I do not say that there is. But I say that if you undertake to .provide a man with something, he is less likely to try to provide it for himself, and it is better that we should say to a mart that we will meet him half way, and he will then make some effort to do something for himself. Mr. Booth says, also, that -

From sixty to seventy is usually the time of danger, when, for many of the poor, the workhouse begins to loom in the distance. The cost to the State of an annuity of 2s. 6d. per week from sixty, or 4s. from sixty-five, or 7s. from seventy, is approximately the same. Before theage of sixty I should not grant this facility.

Here Mr. Booth differs from the Germansystem, which I wish to see adopted, in- not being quite liberal enough. He suggests a pension of 7s. per week at seventy. He provides for no invalidity pension, and for an old-age pension of only 2s. 6d. per week at. sixty, and 4s. at sixty-five. But honorable senators will bear in mind that he admits that this pension is inadequateand insufficient, and it is on economical and social grounds, and advisedly, that he suggests, an inadequate pension. He goes on to say-

No case should be recommended by them, nor would be accepted by the Pension Authorities, unless need were shown for this concession, nor unless an income could be assured which, with the reduced pension, might be expected to suffice for the maintenance of a decent existence. The supplementary provision would be most satisfactory if it’ took the shape of a sum of money paid into the Post Office which would serve to raise the reduced pension to a minimum of 5s., or whatever sum might be “considered requisite to maintain independence.

That is a rather extraordinary position. If a man has not attained the age-of seventy years, and is above the age of sixty years, he can apply for a reduced pension, but the guardians will not grant his request unless he can show that he has some money with which to maintain himself. There again comes in the element of thrift and self help. My honorable friends’ own man is in favour of that principle. He goes on to say -

Any existing out-paupers who are over seventy I would allow to claim their pensions, and those whose age lies between sixty and seventy might put forward, through the guardians, their claims for an anticipated pension of reduced amount, according to their age, and these claims would be admitted provided that the applicants found the means to raise the amount of pension to a sufficiency.

Therefore, when a man is not seventy years of age, and is being doled out at 2’s. 6d. per week at sixty years of age, he will not get that 2s. 6d. unless he can .show that he has sufficient means to enable him to live.

Senator Turley:

– If he has nothing, give him nothing.

Senator DOBSON:

– I am not advocating that, but pointing out that Mr. Booth comes to the ground in not being liberal enough. He is satisfied, as I am, though I . am afraid that my honorable friends opposite are not satisfied, that thrift must be the foundation of any scheme which is worthy of a name, and will not do harm. .If my honorable friends do not adopt that foundation they will do infinite harm. Mr. Booth goes , on to say -

My argument is this. If we are to secure the moral results-

Does the Australian scheme look for any moral results? No. It simply means that any old man or old woman is to get 10s. per week -

If we are to secure the moral results for which I look, and without which a pension system would- be of little value, out-relief must be abolished. The original proposal of 5s. at sixty-five carried with it, in my mind, a proviso that no one should be granted an independent pension who had received poor relief during the preceding five or ten years. It was a clumsy device, but the aim was, by a gradual pressure, to bring about the abolition of out-relief. With seventy as the pension age, this plan would not work, and there is no practical course short of the entire abolition of out-relief for the old. To carry this out successfully, we need some system which shall put a premium on private effort of every kind.

Under our system, is any premium to be put on private effort? -

This premium may, I think, be found by allowing those who are. in danger of drifting into pauperism to forestall the pension before their resources were exhausted. These early pensioners would not be paupers - they would dip no deeper than others in the public purse-but it would be asking a favour, and would carry with it sufficiently the “ stigma of admitted poverty “ to make every one prefer to wait for their pension till the proper time if it was in any way possible.

Senator Chataway:

– At what age would he begin to pay?

Senator DOBSON:

– At the age of twenty-one years. I have compared the rates of the Australian Mutual Provident Society with the rates charged in England, and I find that they are very much the same. The Provident Insurance Company will pay 5s. weekly to a person at the age of sixtyfive years for a weekly premium of 2d. from theage of from one to ten years ; of 3d. from the age of from ten to twenty years; and of 4d.from the age of twenty years. Mr. Watson, an English gentleman, says that a pension of 5s. weekly can be” bought for less than 3d. per week. There are even cheaper systems than that in England. I find that some of the English authorities are making provision for pensions for women for whom they now have sick funds, pension funds, and accident funds. There have been many schemes. There is the scheme of Mr. Lionel Holland, the Bristol scheme, the Chester scheme, and Sir Henry Burdetts’ scheme. Every one of those schemes was considered by the Royal Commission, and every one was based upon some contribution by the recipients of benefits. They make it a principle to help the recipients provided they help themselves. I could not obtain a copy of the report of the Poor Law Com- . mission of 1835, as the Librarian informed me that our series of reports in the Library commences in 1836. It was, however, a most important report, the result of which was to alter the whole Poor Law system of England. However much honorable senators opposite may sneer at the poor-house, it has to be remembered that under the English system as much is distributed amongst the poor in proportion of the population of Great Britain as is distributed by the scheme of old-age pensions in New Zealand. Ihave here Sir George Nicholls’ History of the English Poor Law, from which I shall quote the following passages -

The Commissioners consider that the evils consequent on the existing system of administering relief, both indoor and outdoor, are “ on the whole, steadily and rapidly progressive.”

Whenever you have a defect in administration in reference to matters of this kind, the evil tends to become progressive -

The effects on the owners of property are then staled, including the case of Cholesbury in Buckinghamshire, where, in 1832, it is said the collection of thepoor-rate had suddenly ceased in consequence of the impossibility to continue its collection, the landlords having given up their rents, the farmers their tenancies, and the clergyman his glebe and his tithes.

The writer goes on to say -

The instances which had occurred of the defeat of legislation by unforeseen obstacles, or by the laws not being administered in accordance with the expressed will of the Legislature, led the Commissioners to distrust the operation’ of enactments, however clear and precise, unless a special agency were appointed to superintend and to control their execution. They say, “We find on the one hand that there is scarcely one statute connected with the administration of public relief which has produced the effect designed by the Legislature, and that the majority of them have created new evils, and aggravated those which they were intended to prevent “ : whilst, on the other hand, they declare that the obstacles to the due execution of any new legislative measure by the existing functionaries are greater than heretofore, the interests of individuals in maladministration stronger, and the interests in checking abuses proportionately weaker.

Whether we call an old-age pension “ a charitable dole or a right, it will have to be dealt with on the same lines as a charity. When a number of people come forward to claim pensions, each case will have to be inquired into, and the circumstances of each applicant investigated. As a man said to me the other day in reference to the old-age pensions system of Victoria, “ Its administration reminds me of a charitable dole.” That cannot be helped. The authorities all tell us that the evils attaching to any such system tend to multiply and increase. Therefore, it is most important that in formulating any Federal old-age pensions scheme, we shall take care to base it upon a sure and sound foundation. Sir George Nicholls further says-

Anxious attention had beendirected to the effect of the change upon the working classes, more especially upon those who had been accustomed to the allowance system. Inquiries were made as to the subsequent condition of those labourers whose allowances being discontinued yet refused to accept relief in a workhouse ; and it was found that they generally obtained independent employment without quitting their parishes. In the Faringdon Union all outdoor relief is discontinued, and relief in the workhouse was offered to. 240 able-bodied labourers, only about twenty of whom entered the house, and not one-half of these remained there more than a few days. Yet the diet in the workhouse was high as compared with the ordinary diet of the independent labourer. The reports from the dispauperized districts reported wages as improving and as being generally higher than in the adjacent pauperized parishes; and in concluding their report, which is dated August 8, 1835, the Commissioners remark that they are sustained in their labours by the conviction that the Act which they have to administer “will fulfil the beneficent intentions of the Legislature, and will conduce to elevate the moral and social condition of the labouring classes and promote the welfare of all.

I regard that as a most astounding bit of evidence - that when outdoor relief was discontinued, out of 240 labourers only twenty entered the workhouse, whilst the others, I suppose, found work in the neighbourhood.. This evidence goes to show how much evil may be done by lax administration, and it proves that this subject is surrounded with the greatest difficulties. It requires the utmost foresight and the wisest statesmanship we can possibly devote to the subject to solve the problem in a satisfactory manner. It is not enough to say that we will simply give a pension of 10s. a week to everybody who wants one. The new Poor law proclaims that the personal responsibility of the individual is the necessary foundation of all social progress. Every evasion of that principle, notwithstanding many plausible advantages, has a parasitic and demoralising influence. Are we not now in danger of sacrificing the permanent and expansive principles of social growth for advantages which are merely plausible and evanescent?

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [10.10]. - At this late hour I do not propose to speak at any length, but I hope that, after I have made a few observations, leave will be given to me to continue my speech on a future occasion. I compliment my honorable and learned friend Senator Dobson onthe delivery of a speech remarkable for its enthusiasm, as well as for its length ; but really, with the greatest possible friendship for my honorable friend, I cannot compliment him on having given thought to the opinions that he has quoted. He has given us a rehash of opinions that the world has put aside as positively useless. What in the world has become of all the writings of well intentioned enthusiastic gentlemen like Mr. Charles Booth ? They have been absolutely productive of nothing. My honorable friend has quoted the bygone and utterly useless report - so it is regarded in England - of the Royal Commission of 1895. It was practically forgotten when I reached England as Royal Commissioner for New South Wales in the following year. Indeed, it was forgotten in the year after the Commission! had reported. It was forgotten so quickly that within twelve months Lord Rothschild’s Committee was sitting to examine into the matter which the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Aberdeen - who died, unfortunately, while the Commission was at work - had dealt with. The Commission absolutely failed. Let me show what it did. I shall quote from what I wrote at the time. I quote from my report, page 23 -

The report is signed by Lord Playfair, acting Chairman, and by Lords -Lingen and Brassey, and Messrs. J. J. Henley, Albert Pell, A. C.’ Humphreys-Owen, Charles S. Roundell, C. S. Loch, Joseph Arch, and J. J. Stockall. Then follows a Memorandum by H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, explaining, “ that as the question involved has become one of party controversy both inside and outside Parliament it has assumed a phase inconsistent with my position of political neutrality,” he did not sign the report. This is followed by an “ explanatory memorandum “ by Lord Playfair. Lord Lingden next adds a memorandum to explain his numerous objections to the report, and he is followed by Lord Brassey and Messrs. Stuart, M.P. (who did not sign the report), A. C. Humphreys-Owen, M.P., and Joseph Arch, M.P., who, in terse language say, “We are of opinion that the recommendations of the Commission do not go far enough, nor so far as the evidence before the Commission warrants. . . We consider that in respect of the possible provision for the aged poor by means outside of the poor-law the investigations and work of the Commission ‘have been too restricted.” Mr. J. J. Henley, C.B., comes next with a brief memorandum recording his objection to any help being given by the State to the working classes instead of leaving them to trust, “as they have done in the past, to their unaided efforts.” He is followed by Mr. Albert Pell, who furnishes a further memorandum protesting against reform, and then Mr. C. S. Roundsell, M.P., supplies another protesting against “State intervention on historical, moral, and economic grounds,” and Mr. J. J. Stockall follows with yet another memorandum on the same side.

Senator Dobson:

– I stated how disappointing those reports were to me.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– But the honorable senator used the report of that Commission to buttress up .his scheme of compulsory payments, which, in my report, was as utterly demolished as any proposal ever was. ‘ I went on to report -

Report No. 2 is furnished by the Right Honorable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P., the Right Honorable C. T. Ritchie, Sir H. Maxwell, Bart., M.P., Mr. W. A. Hunter, M.P., and Mr. Charles Booth, who, as might be expected, assume a strong attitude for reform. A memorandum by Mr. Ritchie in favour of, and another by Mr. Charles Booth against, the e> tension of outdoor relief, come next and then Mr. James Stuart follows with a report devoted chiefly to the question of outdoor relief, which he deemed should be extended. A lengthy, vigorous, and humanitarian report is furnished by Mr. Henry Broadhurst, M.P., strongly urging reform, and the great array of conflicting opinions closes with supplementary memorandums by Mr. Charles Booth and by Mr. C. S. Loch, the latter a very lengthy one. It will be seen that the nineteen members of the Commission, reduced to seventeen by (1) Lord Aberdare’s death and (2) His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales’ virtual retirement furnished no less than four reports and eleven memorandums, in all fifteen varying expressions of opinion. This may prove that “ In the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom,” but it is certainly confusing to receive fifteen reports and memorandums from seventeen gentlemen. What may be called the report-in-chief, seeing it is signed by Chairman (Acting) occupied eleven months in preparation ; at any rate, the taking of evidence ceased on the 14th March, 1894, and the report is elated 26th February, 1805.

As to Lord Rothschild’s Committee, there will be found on page 474 of my report this paragraph -

An iconoclast might be excused for describing the composition of this Committee as an excellent example of the “how not to do it” principle, for, apart from the noble Chairman, it is plain that while the critical or destructive element was present in force, the constructive element was noticeably absent. And here it must be emphatically laid down that something more than even the ability to construct is needful in such matters as the preparation of an oldage pension scheme. There must be the willingness; nay, more, there must be the desire to construct, or such work cannot be effectually accomplished.

page 4199

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business

Motion (by Senator Keating) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

Will the Minister of Home Affairs inform the Senate the order of business for tomorrow ?

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– The first business to be taken to-morrow will be the Bounties Bill. The next on the noticepaper will be the Quarantine Bill.

Senator McColl:

– Is it not intended to go on to-morrow with the Bill to amend the Australian Industries Preservation Act ?

Senator KEATING:

– Not to-morrow. That measure will be third on the noticepaper.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– The VicePresident’ of the Executive Council said that he would make- his second-reading speech.

Senator KEATING:

– He said that he would put it on the notice-paper, and that the most he would do would be to deliver his second-reading speech, and then the debate could be adjourned, but, later on, he informed me that he thought in all the circumstances he would be better able to do justice to the matter next week.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 October 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1907/19071003_senate_3_39_c1/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 3 October 1907

QUESTION

RIFLE RANGE AND BATTERY: HOBART

Senator MULCAHY:TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

TARIFF

Transmission to Senate : Resolutions of Western Australian Parliament

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

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

MILITARY SCHOOL: MELBOURNE

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

Senator WALKER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator KEATING:

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON

Senator STEWART:QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATION

Senator STEWART:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

Senator Stewart:

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

Third Reading

Senator WALKER:New South Wales

Senator Pearce:

Senator WALKER:

Senator McCOLL:Victoria

Senator Best:

Senator Millen:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McCOLL:

Senator Millen:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator Best:

Senator McCOLL:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator Best:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gray:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gray:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senate
3 October 1907

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia