Senate
18 October 1907

3rd Parliament · 2nd Session



The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 4893

SENATE ELECTION: SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Petition of Mr. Vardon

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not know whether the honorable senator is quite correct in saying that the report has been rejected.

Senator Major O’LOGHLIN:

– I meant negatived.

The PRESIDENT:

– I take it that the petition of Mr. Vardon has not yet been finally dealt with, as the Senate, instead of adopting the recommendation of the Committee,has thought it better that the matter should be remitted to the High Court for the purpose of determining the legal questions involved. With the concurrence of the Senate, I propose to inform the petitioner of the determination which has been arrived at. That, I think, is the proper course to pursue. As honorable senators know, a motion was passed last night authorizing a refund of the deposit which had been made by the petitioner.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Arising out of the question, I desire to ask Senator Dobson, in the absence of the Chairman of the Committee, whether, seeing that the report has been rejected by the Senate, its members intend to resign?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Thai is not a question which should be put, or which I shall call upon Senator Dobson to reply to. The strict rule is that a senator may be asked a question only with reference to any Bill or matter of which he has charge.

page 4893

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Women’s Work Exhibition

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Wednesday next at 5 p.m.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– The Senate is at least entitled to an explanation with regard to this extraordinary motion.

Senator Best:

– It is submitted in pursuance of an announcement made by myself.

Senator STEWART:

– I understood that the Government wanted to push on with the business, and I think that 3 o’clock is quite late enough for the Senate to meet on Wednesday next. Some very strong reason ought to be given before honorable senators are asked to adjoum until 5 o’clock on that day.I protest against this proposal to delay the business of the country, for that is really what it means. Senator Best ought to tell us why he asks the Senate to adjourn until an unusual hour. Is there any public reason for taking this course? Has some King or Emperor or other person of great importance died that the Senate should delay its meeting on Wednesday for two hours? Again, why should the Minister, if there is to be a special adjournment, ask the Senate to meet at the inconvenient hour of 5 o’clock on Wednesday? The business of the Senate will hardly have got into swing before the dinner hour is reached.

Senator Gray:

– And perhaps we should not get a quorum.

Senator Best:

– That would suit my honorable friend very well.

Senator STEWART:

– Perhaps we might not get a quorum.

Senator Best:

– That is not the proper spirit with which to receive the motion.

Senator STEWART:

– I understand that the reason for submitting this motion, although it has not been stated, is that some senators wish to attend an Exhibition.

Senator Pearce:

– An Australian Exhibition, too.

Senator de Largie:

– It is the duty of Senator Stewart to be there.

Senator STEWART:

– I am the only judge of whether it is my duty to be there or not. I may be wrong, but I believe that the work we have to do here is of very much greater importance and consequence to the country than is the opening of an Australian Exhibition.

Senator Pearce:

– But for the women’s, votes we should not be here.

Senator STEWART:

– In any case, honorable senators will have numberless opportunities to visit the Australian Exhibition when their visits would not interfere with the business of the country.

Senator Best:

– Not the ceremony.

Senator STEWART:

– Then it is the ceremony which’ honorable senators want to attend. They desire to be placed in the lime-light. If there is to be a show they want to be seen in it.

Senator Findley:

– Now the honorable senator is putting the X rays upon some of us.

Senator STEWART:

– Honorable senators want the X rays to be put upon them. What is troubling them is not the Australian Exhibition, but an opportunity of exhibiting themselves to the public. As I am not sufficiently handsome for that sort of thing, I would rather stay here and ape the common cart-horse, which is very useful if it is not ornamental.

Senator Lt Colonel Cameron:

– The honorable senator is very modest.

Senator STEWART:

– Perhaps my modesty will get me. down and worry me, but there are very few other persons of whom that can be said. I intend to oppose the motion, as it is uncalled for.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

– I am sure that honorable senators generally are grateful to Senator Best for asking the Senate not to meet on Wednesday next until 5 o’clock. But I rise to ask him whether he cannot see his way to delay the meeting until after the dinner-hour. Every senator has received an invitation to- attend the ceremony of .the opening of the Australian Women’s Work’ Exhibition, and Senator Stewart must know that this Exhibition is unique, not only in -the history of Australia, but of the world. It is, in a sense, an international Exhibition. We ought to attend the ceremony, especially as Senator Stewart knows that women are voters.

Senator Henderson:

– He is a single man.

Senator McCOLL:

– I understand that 200 Queensland ladies’ are coming here next wenk to afternoon tea. Surely out of consideration for them Senator Stewart will withdraw his objection.

Senator MILLEN:
South Wales · New

– I wish to address an argument through you, sir, to Senator Stewart.

Senator Stewart:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of the motion ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes, and I think that the Government will receive, not only the sympathy, but the support of the Senate. If I understand the position aright, Senator Best has submitted the motion largely as the result of an expression of opinion on the part of honorable senators.

Senator Best:

– In the presence of Senator Stewart, too.

Senator Stewart:

– I did not hear anything about the proposal.

Senator Best:

– The honorable, senator said he had refused an invitation.

Senator MILLEN:

– Whether Senator Stewart was a party to the arrangement or not hardly affects the argument I think. He will recognise, I am sure, that when a large number of the members of the Senate desire an adjournment for this purpose, it is not. unreasonable to ask him to fall in with the general view.

Senator de Largie:

– That is the best of all reasons to him for opposing it.

Senator MILLEN:

– The only reason I can see for Senator Stewart to oppose the motion is that suggested by ‘ Senator McColl. Possibly that modesty to which Senator Stewart has referred makes him fearful of meeting the contingent ‘ of Queensland ladies.

Senator Stewart:

– I did not know that they were coming.

Senator MILLEN:

– Now that the honorable senator knows that the Queensland ladies are coming, I understand that he withdraws his objection.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

– I am m favour of the motion. I utterly repudiate the insinuation which Senator Best made just now, in reply to my interjection. I assumed that the’ interest in the Exhibition would be so great that very possibly some senators might linger on, and the Ministry would find themselves without a quorum at 5 o’clock on Wednesday. Senator Best utterly mistakes my view if he for a moment- assumes that I come here with the idea- of stopping business. That is exactly the opposite to my wish. My understanding is that we assemble to transact business, but it is impossible to proceed unless we have a quorum. My interjection was not open to the interpretation which was put upon it by Senator Best.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Oh, give it best.

Senator GRAY:

– From any other senator, I could take that interjection with good grace, but from Senator Neild, who so rarely rises in the Senate, and who, when he does rise, speaks in such concise terms, I cannot. It is a strange condition of affairs when he cannot even allow a senator to get up and make a few remarks.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– The honorable senator cannot understand a joke.

Senator GRAY:

– I am trying to return the joke, but the honorable senator does not see what I am doing. The Australian Women’s Exhibition is so unique, and so deserving of encouragement, that I hope that the Minister will not ask the Senate to meet on Wednesday until after the dinnerhour. If he will accede to my suggestion, I believe that the business of the Senate will not be materially affected, and certainly he will be doing justice to a great Exhibition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4895

PAPER

Senator BEST laid upon the table the following paper -

Audit Acts 1901-1906. - Transfers in connexion with the accounts of the financial year 1906-7, dated 11th October, 1907.

page 4895

QUESTION

OPIUM SMUGGLING : PORT DARWIN

Senator FINDLEY:

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

Whether, in view of the discovery of a case weighing 160 lbs. of opium, valued at £1,600, at Port Darwin, or the statement that two tins of opium were recently thrown overboard from the steamship Alder ham at Port Darwin, the Minister is satisfied that the present staff at the port named is sufficient to exercise rigid supervision over vessels trading to the East, or to prevent opium being smuggled into the Commonwealth ?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows - It is considered that the present staff is suffi cient for all reasonable supervision. A suggestion was made that a steam launch should be purchased for the purpose of patrolling the port, but it was considered that the expenditure would not be justified, nor were the prospects of attaining the desired result at all certain. A sailing cutter is in use by the Customs. It is anticipated a report of the case from the subCollector, Port Darwin, will be received in a few days.

page 4895

QUESTION

CANCELLED MAIL CONTRACT

Is it not a fact that Mr. W. H. Croker, who signed, as agent, an agreement, dated the 7th day of July, 1906, for the conveyance of mails between England and Australia, is legally liable for the carrying out of the said agreement?

Is it not a fact that under clause 10 of the said agreement the said Mr. W. H. Croker is legally responsible for the sum of £25,000 as liquidated damages and not by way of a penalty for failure to commence or fulfil the said agreement?

What reason has the Government for not having instituted an action against the said Mr. W. H. Croker to recover the damages set out in the said agreement?

Is it the intention of the Government to enforce the said agreement?

If not, why?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : - 1, 2 and 3. It is not usual for Ministers to answer questions which involve a question of law.

  1. Yes.
  2. See answer to No. 4.

page 4895

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH SERVICE: MELBOURNE AND BRISBANE

Senator STEWART:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Is it the case that, as stated in the Brisbane Courier of 14th instant, “ hardly a day passes that there is not from two to seven hours’ delay” in the transmission of telegraphic messages from Melbourne to Brisbane?
  2. If so, what is the cause of the delay, and why is it not remedied?
  3. Is there a corresponding delay in the transmission of messages from Melbourne to Sydney ?
Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

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

The Postmaster-General is aware that there have been delays to telegraphic business between Melbourne and Brisbane, and is obtaining further information upon the matter, on receipt of which a further reply will be given.

page 4895

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Grants to Maize Growers

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it a condition of the assistance given to maize-growers in the New Hebrides that they shall only employ white labour?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– No.

page 4896

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to -

That two months’ leave of absence be granted to Senator Pulsford, on account of ill-health.

page 4896

BOUNTIES BILL

In Committee (Consideration on recommittal, resumed from 17th October, vide page 4841) :

Clause 2 postponed.

First schedule -

Coffee, as prescribed (period)8 years; rate of bounty),1d. per lb. ; (maximum payable in any one year), £1,500.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– When this item was before the Committee previously, the schedule contained the words “ Coffee, Raw.” An amendment was made striking out the word” raw “ and inserting instead the words “ as prescribed.” Subsequently, as honorable senators will remember, a certain ruling was given upon another item in consequence of which it seems the Committee had previously gone beyond its powers in making the amendment as to coffee. For that reason, I now ask the Committee to restore the item to its original form. I move -

That the words “as prescribed” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Raw.”

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– The Minister would get over the difficulty perfectly well, and at the same time meet the wishes of the Committee by making the item read “ Coffee, Raw, as prescribed.” I can quite see the mistake that was made. The item as it stands in the amended Bill would enable the bounty to be paid upon roasted coffee. That is not intended. But if we make the item read, “Coffee, Raw, as prescribed” it would be perfectly clear. Regulations would have to be made in regard to the payment of the bounty. It would’ not extend the amount. In some parts of Queensland the people pulp their coffee, hull it, and roast it on the premises. In other places they pulp and hull it, and send it away to be roasted. In other places, again, they pulp it, and then send it in what is called the parchment form to two firms in Brisbane, or to Melbourne, where there is hulling machinery. Parchment coffee is raw coffee just as much as what is generally understood as raw coffee, except that there is a thin skin over the bean. In that form it may be held by merchants for a considerable time before it is hulled. The result might be that the growers would be kept out of their bounty very likely for months at a stretch, while the parchment coffee was held prior to hulling. If the word “ raw “ were inserted after “coffee” the regulations would prescribe the kinds of raw coffee upon which the bounty was to be paid.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I take it that to adopt such an amendment as Senator Chataway suggests would not have the effect of amplifying the item. It would rather have the contrary effect, in tending to lessen the scope of the item. Therefore, I see no objection to allowing the item to stand “ Coffee, Raw, as prescribed,” just as I saw no objection previously to putting in the words “ as prescribed.” To meet Senator Chataway’s view I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Keating) agreed to -

Thatafter the word “Coffee” the word “ Raw “ be inserted.

Question - That the item, as amended, be agreed to- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 12

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I move -

That the following item be inserted :- “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.”

This is the item as it’ originally appeared in the schedule. It was struck’ out on division. The circumstances attending the taking of that division and the misunderstandings that arose are known to honorable senators. A lengthy discussion took place as to the advisableness or otherwise of stimulating the growth of tobacco of this kind by the offer of a bounty. I do not propose to traverse that ground again, but the Government think that, owing to the unfortunate misunderstanding that arose through the taking of the division immediately on the resumption of the sitting after lunch, the mind of the Committee was not properly-reflected in the vote. For that reason, we desire to give the Committee an opportunity to restore the item. A general feeling was expressed at that time that it was advisable to encourage the production in the Commonwealth of tobacco leaf of high grade, but some honorable senators doubted whether the bounty would have that effect, and believed that it would be to the advantage, not so much of the grower as of third parties. I believe that they opposed the item or abstained from voting for it for that reason more than any other. I think honorable senators generally will recognise, not only that it is desirable that this kind of leaf should be grown in Australia, and that we should encourage those who are capable of growing it to use the land suitable for it, but also that there is, in different parts of Australia, land eminently suitable for its growth. We have the benefit of the advice and instruction of _ experienced tobacco culturists, especially in Queensland, whose opinion is that Australia affords in many places a good field for its cultivation. All that we ask is that a vote shall be taken on the item in circumstances which ] can leave ‘little doubt as to the exact feeling of the Committee.

Senator Walker:

– What is the dub proposed in the new Tariff on tobacco leaf of this kind?

Senator KEATING:

– I believe that the import duty on leaf for cigar making is 2s. 6d. per lb.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– This is one of those items which are closely intertwined with the Tariff. I have taken some interest in the tobacco question from the start, and my remarks will probably be merely truisms, but still they ought to be made. At the present time, there is an import duty of, I think, is. 3d. per lb. on unmanufactured tobacco leaf.

Senator Findley:

– The duty is 2s. 6d. per lb. on cigar leaf.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That makes my argument all the stronger. It shows that the local cigar manufacturer can obtain under the Tariff an enormous advantage if he uses leaf grown in Australia. If this bounty comes into operation, and tobacco fit to be manufactured into cigars is grown here, I do not suppose that the cigar manufacturer will have to give the growers more than is. a lb. for the leaf in any circumstances. It is very difficult to ascertain what buyers will give. The prices given for Australian-grown tobacco have ranged from a minimum) of 5d. to a maximum of about is. per lb.

Senator Story:

– Eight tons of-it grown in the Northern Territory brought as high as 2s. 1 id. per lb.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That tobacco was sold in Hamburg twenty years ago. With’ due regard to accuracy, and with a fair amount of confidence, I assert - and my assertion is based on evidence given to the Tariff Commission, and on other information which I have gathered elsewhere - that no one can reasonably expect tobacco grown here for cigar making to be sold to any buyer in Australia at more than is. a lb. That being so, look at the enormous advantage which the growers of that tobacco will have under the Tariff. Translating that protection into percentages, it must be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 per cent. If that does not do away with the necessity for a bounty, is there anr virtue in protection at all? Surely it is not necessary to superadd a bounty of 2d. per lb. to a protective duty of 200 per cent. ? It is singular that whenever the tobacco question arises in this Chamber, we see strange divisions. The question of a bounty on tobacco seems to be necessarily interwined with the operations of a Combine. I am against the Combine1, and even’ opportunity that is offered in this Chamber to deal with It, I shall take advantage of, without the slightest regard to what is usual in legislation, or otherwise.

There is no limit to which I will not go, so far as the powers of the Senate will allow me, in order to put down the Tobacco Combine. I see here men abandoning ‘ their ordinary opinions to vote for ai bounty on tobacco. That is significant to me and to those who feel with me on this subject. No one who objects to the Combine ought to vote for a bounty on tobacco. If any one will get an advantage from the bounty, it is the Combine. At present, there is no other buyer in Australia of tobacco leaf.

Senator Story:

– There are fifty other buyers of cigar leaf.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not say that there are not other buyers in, a few isolated cases, but Senator Story will admit that if the growers of tobacco leaf have to rely on any purchaser outside the Combine, they ‘ will never find a profitable market, and never earn the bounty. If that is so, why play into the hands of the Combine bv offering this bounty? If the money is ever paid by the Commonwealth, it will go to a large extent to the very Combine to which we all object. For that reason, I shall vote against it. I object to the Combine, and I shall’ not omit any opportunity, directly or indirectly, of opposing it.’ Seeing that the growers of tobacco leaf have already under the Tariff a protection of 200 per cent., it is extravagant folly to superadd the bounty. .

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Colonel GOULD (New South Wales) [11. 13]. - I have listened to Senator demon’s speech with regard to the item, and also with regard to the Combine. I do not propose to say anything with respect to the Combine, or the effect which the offering of the bounty may have upon it or upon the growers in relation to it. It will be time enough to consider the question of what steps, if any, should be taken with regard to the position of the Combine, when that matter comes before us. It is not fair to say that we should not agree to a proposal for a bounty which is to go to the grower of tobacco leaf, because some honorable senators think that it will play into the hands of a particular firm. That consideration is beside the question. Personally, I do not favour bounties upon the various products that we may grow or may desire to grow in Australia;, but this Parliament has specifically declared in favour of adopting a system of bounties, and consequently it is reasonable that we should ascertain in what direction we think the bounties, if they are to be granted, can fairly be given. We know that tobacco cultivation is an industry that has been established in this country for a. great number of years, and has gone on with, more or less success. We are not now asked to grant a bounty for the growth, of tobacco leaf qua tobacco leaf, but only for a particular class of leaf of highgradequality, fit for making into cigars. It is a matter of notoriety that so far our people- have not been able to produce a class of leaf which is considered to be fit for use in. the making of a very high-class cigar ;. but we have it on the authority of experts that there is country in Australia suitable for the growth of leaf of this class, and, if that be so, it is right that, having adopted, the bounty principle, some encouragement should be given to people in the cultivation of this product. Those engaged in the growth of tobacco have, so far, not been-, able to develop the industry as we should like. I am told that the Combine, or the predecessors of the Combine, have spent a great deal of money in endeavouring to secure the growth of the better classes of tobacco leaf suitable for the manufacture of cigars, but without success. That mav be urged as an argument against the bounty, but as the bounty principle has been determined on, and I am informed that we have country which will produce leaf suitable for the manufacture of cigars, I am prepared to vote for this item so that the matter may be put to actual test.

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable senator thinks that we should give a bounty plus an import duty of 200 per cent.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Colonel GOULD.- I admit that Senator Clemons occupies a strong (Position when he refers to the large measureof protection afforded bv the Tariff, but I realize that, under the Tariff, our growers- have had very heavy protection for a number of years, and it has not, apparently, been found sufficient to encourage thegrowth of this high-grade tobacco leaf.

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable sena- tor thinks that the proposed bounty of 2d. per lb. will do what the import duty of 200 per cent, has failed to do.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Colonel GOULD. - The Government are advised that the proposed bounty will induce growers to= cultivate leaf of a high quality, and, in ‘ the circumstances, I am prepared to give the! proposal a trialApparently, it comes with a shock to some of our free-trade friends to find that certain honorable senators are prepared to assist in this matter, and I have, therefore, thought it due to myself and those who think with me that I should say two or three words as to the reasons which will guide me in giving the vote I intend to give, should a division be called for on the item.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I hope the Committee will agree to this small amount of encouragement for a particular class of tobacco culture. I agree with SenatorClemons’ remarks as to the protective duty imposed on cigar leaf, and as to the unwisdom of doing anything that would play . into the hands of the Tobacco Combine or any other Combine. I point out that1s. per lb. isnot a fair price to quote for leaf suitable for the manufacture of cigars.

Senator Gray:

– The States Tobacco Company say that they would gladly pay 2s. per lb. for such leaf.

Senator McGREGOR:

-I know from reliable information that if you want to manufacture high-grade cigars the price which must be paid for a considerable portion of the leaf used is not1s. per lb., but from 3s. to 5s., and even as high as 11s. per lb.

Senator Clemons:

– Where? Not here.

Senator McGREGOR:

-That leaf is imported into Australia, and what is the object of proposing this bounty, or imposing a duty givingpreference to leaf grown in the Commonwealth, if it is not to encourage our growers to grow tobacco of the very best quality? If they attempt to grow tobacco of the quality contemplated in this item, it will be a tobacco that will fetch from 2s. to 5s. per lb. If they do not grow a leaf of that quality they will not be entitled to the bounty. It should be remembered that for the manufacture of ordinary pipe tobacco, a leaf can be grown which will give a heavy crop to the acre, whilst a leaf suitable for the manufacture of high-class cigars will involve a reduction in the weight of the crop of about. 50 per cent. Where men can grow half a ton of leaf suitable for ordinary pipe tobacco they will not be able to grow more than from 3 cwt. to 5 cwt. of the class of leaf required to earn this bounty. Some special encouragement should, therefore, be offered.

Senator Gray:

– Have they not had encouragement?

Senator McGREGOR:

– Is that any reason why they should not get all the encouragementthat may be necessary? In my opinion the bounty proposed is not nearly sufficient, but I am prepared to support the item, seeing that I can do nothing to increase the proposed bounty. With respect to the bounty playing intothe hands of the Tobacco Combine, it is sufficient merely to mention the word “ combine “ to draw certain honorable senators. I say that a bounty on cigar leaf of high quality will play into the hands of the small cigar manufacturers, rather than into the hands of the Combine. The Combine are at present in a position to buy locally or import in very large quantities, whilst the small manufacturers must be content with such quantities as they can pay for from time to time. But if this highclass leaf can be produced in Australia there will always be a source of supply at the command of the small manufacturers of cigars. It is known that these men go in largely for the manufacture of the best quality of hand-made cigars. The Tariff gives a preference to hand-made cigars whichwill be an incentive to small manufacturers to undertake their manufacture. Cigar-makers will be able to make these cigars in their own homes, and if by the payment of the small bounty here proposed we can insure the growth of a leaf suitable for the manufacture of high-class hand-made cigars, we shall be doing something, not in the interests of the (Combine, though they will reap a certain amount of advantage no matter what we do, but in the interests of hundreds of cigarmakers who, if they had the material at hand, would be able to start the manufacture of high-class cigars on their own account).It is for ithat reason that I am prepared to support the item.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I do not propose to delay the Committee in coming to a decision on the item, but I should like to refer to a point which has been raised in connexion with the Tobacco Combine. I direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that in the annual report of the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock for the year 1906-7, there is a report from Mr. R. S. Nevill, the official instructor in tobacco growing. At page 92, of the report, it will be found that on the subject of “Cigar Tobacco,” and that is the tobacco dealt with in this item, Mr. Nevill says -

We have progressed’ far enough with our efforts to stimulate the production of cigar tobacco to have every confidence in its future. The prices realized have yielded an average of something like £60 per acre, and there is now a prospect of several farming centres becoming principally tobacco-growing. If we succeed in producing as good an article as our efforts indicate, the tobacco will return handsome profits to growers for export, and they will not have to depend altogether upon local markets. In the ‘meantime, the local demand will take all we can produce for several years to come, and at prices that will be more remunerative to the small farmer than any other crop he can grow.

I believe that in framing the Tariff, and in submitting this item, the Government have been, to a considerable extent, guided by the advice of Mr. Nevill, who is recognised as absolutely the best authority on this subject in Australia at the present time. If he has laid down distinctly in his official report to his Department, written, be it remembered, before anything had been said about giving, bounties for the production of cigar leaf, that a good cigar leaf can be grown in Australia for export, there is no reason to suppose that any benefit accruing from the proposed bounty will go into the pockets of the Combine.

Senator Findley:

– He is too optimistic. Our growers need not send such leaf abroad. They can get a good market for it in Australia.

Senator CHATAWAY:

Mr. Nevill points out that they can secure a remunerative market by. exporting the leaf, and if that be so, the growers of this quality of tobacco would be independent of the Combine, because the moment the Combine tried to squeeze them with a view to put this 2d. per lb. in their pockets, the growers would be able to send their leaf abroad, and get remunerative prices for it. That is the only point I wish to make at this stage, as the whole question’ was thoroughly threshed out before.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I should like to ask Senator Chataway the date of the report which he has quoted.

Senator Chataway:

– The report is for the year ending 30th June, 1907.

Senator FINDLEY:

– If the statements made by Mr. Nevill, the Queensland Tobacco expert, are to guide the Committee, I am satisfied as to the fate of the Minister’s proposal to reinsert this item. Honorable senators should bear in mind that Mr. Nevill expressed these opinions before the Tariff was considered in another place.

Senator Chataway:

– Before it was introduced.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Under the old Tariff, the tobacco growers of Queensland had a protection of is. 6d. per lb. on all tobaccos! With that measure of. protection, the Government expert assures the people of Queensland, in an official document, that there is a big future for. those engaged in the industry in that State. Further than that, he is so optimistic that he says that, in all probability, markets will be found abroad for the tobacco leaf grown Sn Queensland. If the growers were doing that in Queensland with a Customs duty of is. 6d. per lb., they ought to receive an additional stimulus now, because under the new Tariff they will get a protection of 2s. 6d. a lb.

Senator Chataway:

– The honorable senator’s argument would apply to a great many items for which he has voted. If, he says, it. is going to be successful, why give a (bounty ?

Senator FINDLEY:

- Mr. Nevill points out that it has been a success with a Customs duty of is. 6d. a lb. If it has been a success with that duty, an additional protection of is. ought .to be sufficient. The statement that markets will be found abroad for cigar leaf of high quality makes one laugh. In the first place, every one free from bias knows that up to the present time the best- cigar leaf has been grown in Cuba. For many years attempts have been made in many parts of the world to grow a’ similar kind of leaf-, but so far they have not succeeded. If Australia can produce cigar leaf of a very high quality - and I do not say that it is impossible - there is in Australia an immense market for the leaf, without talking about finding a market abroad for it.

Senator Chataway:

– We are only saying that, according to that report, the market abroad will render the growers independent of the Combine.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Where are they going to find abroad a market for Australian cigar leaf? We impose a Customs duty on cigars for two reasons - first, for revenue purposes ; and, secondly, to protect Australian workmen against over-worked and poorly-paid labourers in other parts of the world. In most countries tobacco leaf is grown by coloured men, who work long hours, and whose wages are very small. Yet we are told by Mr. Nevill that if we grow tobacco leaf in Australia under white-labour conditions - reasonable hours and decent wages - it will be of such high quality that we can compete with countries which have been engaged in the industry for many years.

Senator Chataway:

– The honorable senator has always argued that white labour is cheaper than black labour.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I have argued in favour of the White Australia policy, and at times it has been proved that white labour is cheaper than coloured labour. But I have not made the general statement that, in every sense and direction, white labour is cheaper than coloured labour. I have merely made these remarks in reply to the evidence tendered by Air. Nevill. Senator McGregor has stated that if this encouragement is given to the tobaccogrowers, it will be a help, so to speak, to the men who are making cigars to-day under a £5 licence from the Commonwealth. If their opinion is worth anything, _ they want the best leaf, and the best cigars are those which they make from imported leaf. I have not yet heard any one say that Australian leaf is of a quality suitable for the making of cigars. Whilst I am anxious at all times to encourage Australian industries, especially primary industries, I am guided to a very large extent on this occasion by men who know more about the matter than I do. They say that in Australia the elements are not favorable to the production of high-class leaf. They admit that leaf suitable for pipe smoking can foe grown here. We know that the pipe tobacco is not of the finest quality, because if it were, less imported leaf, and more Australian leaf, would be used. According to the statistics the manufacture of tobacco from Australian leaf is on the decrease. I would not have risen but for the statements in the report of Mr. Nevill to the Queensland Government. His opinions are altogether too optimistic, and, in my judgment, ought not to be taken too seriously.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– I point out to Senator Findley the possibility, of an export trade in tobacco leaf. He has recognised that it is very difficult to grow tobacco leaf of the highest quality, and he has said that, so far, Cuba is the only country in which it can be grown. Consequently, whatever kind of labour may be employed, Cuba has a market all over the world’ for its leaf. If by means of a bounty we can develop the production of tobacco leaf equal or, possibly, superior to that raised in Cuba, we shall, no matter what kind of labour we employ, have_ a market all over the world. That, Senator Findley suggests, is impossible, because he has had from experts in the trade- a de claration that there never has been produced here a leaf sufficiently good for making cigars of medium quality, and because there never has been, therefore there never can be. I remind him that things which are common-place now had, at their initiation, to stem the tide of the declarationthat it was impossible to produce them.

Senator Findley:

– I quite admit that,, but, in connexion with the growing of tobacco leaf, there are conditions and circumstances which do not obtain in othercases.

Senator TRENWITH:

– I quite agree with the honorable senator. That there are special conditions surrounding the growing of tobacco leaf, experience has proved. But we do not know what special conditions may exist in this great continent, a very large portion of which is still terra incognita.

Senator Gray:

– Does the honorable senator think that the high protectionist duty is not sufficient?

Senator TRENWITH:

– I do not say that it is not sufficient. I hold that up to the present time it has not attracted sufficient attention. My view is that protection means completely shielding. I believe in a protection that will protect. I am not frightened by percentages if the object sought can be achieved in the interests of the Commonwealth. I urge that no harm can be done if the tobacco leaf is not produced. If the bounty is not earned, no one is injured, and if contrary to our expectations, contrary to the probabilities, we should develop the production of tobacco leaf equal or superior to even that which can be produced in other parts of the world, what an enormous advantage it would be to this community. Therefore, to use a sporting phrase, it is “ all to nothing.” If we succeed, it is an immense advantage, and if we fail no harm is done to anybody.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

– It appears to me that the only evidence upon which the bounty is based is that of Mr. Nevill. He has had a large experience in the growing of tobacco leaf. For many years he has been experimenting, and, according to the evidence given before the Tobacco Commission, he has been very successful. The reasons which he gave why superior cigar leaf can be grown appear to me to be more theoretical than practical. For the last five years he has had an opportunity to grow cigar leaf on the State Experimental Farm, which he controls in Queensland. He has had every means placed at his disposal by the State Government to apply his practical knowledge to the production of cigar leaf. He could have made a practical test of the wisdom of giving further encouragement to the industry. The States Tobacco Company, I believe, manufacture one-half of the cigars which are made in the Commonwealth.

Senator McGregor:

– They are machinemade cigars.

Senator GRAY:

– Whether made by machine or by hand they are cigars, and I assume that the bounty, if sanctioned, will be paid upon the production of cigar leaf, whether it is to be treated by machinery or by hand. Every one must realize that the States Tobacco Company would be greatly advantaged if cigar leaf could be grown in Australia. They have not only expressed the opinion that it could be grown here, but, at very considerable expense, they have encouraged its growth. On a farm at Cairns, and at a salary of ^400 a year, they have employed a gentleman to make experiments, but so far have not succeeded. Mr. Jacobs states that Dixson’s have spent ^30,000 on experiments in the growth of a superior class of tobacco and have tried to the best. of their ability to encourage the growers in other parts of the State, as well as in the northern parts of Queensland, where it was believed that these tobaccos could be grown. Mr. Curran, an expert who was brought directly from America to give the benefit of his knowledge to the tobacco-growers, stated that the Australian leaf is lacking in aroma and flavour. Mr. Nevill also expressed the opinion that, so far, Australian leaf has not been grown equal to the imported leaf as regards flavour. I am not a smoker, but I take it that flavour is one of the essentials in relation to tobacco. If the leaf could be successfully grown here it stands to reason that the manufacturers would be willing to purchase it at a good price rather than import their leaf. Although Mr. Nevill states that good leaf can be grown in Australia, and although he has been experimenting for many years, he has not yet completely succeeded. It is questionable whether leaf can be grown in a commercial sense.

Senator Trenwith:

– If it is not the bounty will not be paid.

Senator GRAY:

– The money should be applied to the encouragement of industries which we have good reason to believe will be permanent. I have from the first contended that instead of paying these peddling little bounties, it would be better 10 devote the whole of the money proposed to be spent in this way to the building of our own torpedo boats. It’ would be far more advantageous to do that than to pay bounties to industries as to which there is no prospect of stability. I decline to vote money ‘to be placed in the hands of irresponsible people, who will be likely to spend it without regard to whether the industries which it is hoped to establish will be permanent. As to the Combine benefiting materially from the bounty, I think every one realizes that such will be the case. But that in itself is not a danger that I should consider for a moment. If the industry in question could be fairly expected to have a prospect of being established, I should not care where the money went. But I do not think that there is any likelihood of a permanent industry being established, and therefore I shall vote against the item.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I am rather astonished at the attitude taken up by Senator Gray. He admits that it would be a good thing for the industry of growing cigar tobacco to be added to those which we already have in the Commonwealth. But he appears to have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to grow good cigar leaf in Australia, and that therefore there is no need to attempt if. No doubt this industry has been established in Australia in a more or less ineffective fashion for a number of years. But during the last few years a complete change has taken place in the taste of the people of Australia in relation to tobacco. . A few years ago only strong, rank, black tobaccoes were grown and consumed- When the taste of the people altered, light tobaccoes were more in demand. Consequently, the growth pf the Australian article fell off. The growers are only now getting into the way of producing the lighter classes of leaf. The industry may therefore be said to be in a sense in its beginning. I think it desirable to afford encouragement to the growth of cigar leaf. If we do no more than improve the quality of our ordinary tobaccoes <ve shall do something for the benefit’ of the industry. I should not like to say whether we shall ever be able to produce a leaf equal to that grown in Cuba. That could only be determined by experience and experiment. In any case, it is worth trying.

We cannot Jose very much on an experiment of this kind, and if we succeed we shall produce a commodity which, has a world-wide market. ‘ Some honorable senators seem to be afraid that any bounty which may be paid will ultimately find its way into the pockets of the Combine. I went very closely into this matter during the time when the Tobacco Commission was sitting, and came to the conclusion that the more tobacco we grow in Australia, the more we cut down the power of the Combine. While all the tobacco consumed has to be imported, the Combine can beat any other competitor out of the field.. But if tobacco leaf is grown in Australia, a number of other manufacturers will enter into the market, competing with the Combine, and thus destroying its power. So that’ if we really desire to clip the wings of the Combine, the best way of doing that is to encourage, bv all means in our power, the growth of leaf in Australia. That is what it is proposed to do bv means of the bounty now under consideration.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I wish to cite the evidence given by one of the witnesses before the Tobacco Commission in order to show that what Senator McGregor has stated as to the price of cigar leaf is not correct. The witness’ name is Herschman, and he is a cigar manufacturer in Sydnev. He said in his evidence, page 3,30 of the report -

I say that on the rivers in this State we can grow a first-class cigar leaf. I admit that it requires a lot of cultivation, but it .could be cultivated if it were given proper supervision, If we could get experts here to grow this tobacco I should be quite satisfied to give is. to is. 6d. per lb. for it.

Senator McGregor:

– I was talking about imported leaf.

Senator LYNCH:

– This witness was talking about first-class cigar leaf being grown in New South Wales.,

Senator Gray:

– He was hot a witness upon whom we relied very much.

Senator LYNCH:

– He is a cigar manufacturer in Sydney, and one” of the two competitors of the Combine.

Senator Gray:

– There are twenty cr thirty manufacturers in a small way in Sydney.

Senator LYNCH:

– At all events, in the opinion of this witness, first-class cigar leaf can be grown in New South Wales in the river districts. But the price which he is prepared to pay is on an average is. 3d. -per lb., not from 4s. to 5s.

Senator McGregor:

– I have seen imported leaf at that price.

Senator LYNCH:

– At all events, according to this witness the price which the growers will receive is not more than is. 6d. per lb. Senator Gray has sought to throw some discredit on the witness’ evidence.

Senator Gray:

– Only as to his being an expert manufacturer.

Senator LYNCH:

– I take his evidence in regard to manufacturing and I find that all the good cigar making, according to him, is rapidly falling into the hands of the Combine. He gives his own personal experience. The witness stated, in replyto questions by yourself, Mr. Chairman -

I lost £5,000 in four years in endeavouring to compete against the trust. I made foi one firm in Sydnev, who had to compete against the trust, 750,000 cigars per annum.

Are you sure that the trade for those cigars went to them? - lt must have; I am not supplying the cigars now.

Do you not think they have gone to others? - There has been no other factory started excepting a very small one.

That proves that the trade in the manufacture of cigars in Sydney has fallen into the hands of the Combine. That witness had no machinery, and gave valuable evidence about the -exclusive possession of machinery bv the Combine -

Your principal cause of complaint is that the Combine has the sole right to a machine which will produce cigars at a much cheaper rate than can be produced by you, and that eventually hand-made cigars will be thrown aside? - That is so, and I shall be prevented from making a living.

You would have nothing to complain about in regard to the. Combine if you could buy the machines at a fair value ? - Quite so, at a fair value.

The ratio of the cost of making cigars by machinery to the cost of making them by hand is, according to the same witness, about 1 to 8. He states, that it costs about £j 10s. to make 150,000 cigars bymachinery, as against £62 10s. to make the same quantity by hand. Therefore, in that case, as in every other branch of industry, the machine must necessarily knock out the competition, of hand labour. It has been stated here that hand-made cigars are superior to machine-made. While thin witness mav not be an authority on tobacco growing, he. is at least an authority on cigar manufacture and public taste, and he gives the following evidence on the subject of public taste with regard to hand-made as against machine-made cigars -

You say that machine-made cigars are not as good as hand-made. Do you think the general public could tell the difference? - By the present lists they cannot. I do not like to express it, but I am afraid the public do not know the difference.

There is the opinion of this expert, from which the inference is clear that, so far as the public are concerned, machine-made cigars stand on the same level as the handmade for all practical purposes. His next admission is still more telling -

Could you, as an expert, tell the difference by smoking them ? - I think I could.

Therefore, he does not give an absolute opinion, but is in doubt -

There is a wonderful difference between a hand-made and a block, or machine-made, cigar. The best cigars made in the world are 1-lavanas, and they are made entirely by hand.

But that statement does not vitiate the fact that he had a doubt as to the relative merits of the two cigars. That evidence entirely destroys the objection that has been raised to machine-made cigars on account of their inferiority. That manufacturer, engaged in the hand-making process, does not lean, as one would naturally expect him to do, to his own particular class of trade, which makes his evidence all the more valuable when he expresses a doubt as to the merits of the two classes of cigars, and adds that the general ‘public are not able to tell the difference. I do not wish to vote against the item on general grounds, but the very liberal protection which is to be bestowed upon the industry of the growth of cigar leaf in Australia should be -ample for all purposes. There are further reasons in the monopoly of cigar-making machinery by, and the steady falling of the trade into the hands of, the Combine. ‘ It it unnecessary to argue that any corporation with command of capital, and, consequently, command of machines, can oust from competition every small man who is using primitive methods of production in the trade. I am not so foolish as to argue against the use of machinery, but I am arguing against the folly of paying public money which will eventually find its way into the hands of people who have already too much cash. That would be altogether against the principle of the Bill, which is that the money must be paid directly and without diversion to the primarv producers of the commodities specified. I have given the Bill a rather liberal’ support so far, but I absolutely refuse to sanction the payment of the taxpayers’ money for the purpose of greasing the already fat pig.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I believe that the arguments which have been used, based .on the evidence of the witness quoted by Senator Lynch, really strengthen the position put forward by Senator McGregor, who pointed out that, at present, the’ small manufacturers are unable to obtain their raw material except through the Combine. That witness, in all probability, has to buy his raw material from the very Combine with which he is competing. Practically, none of the small manufacturers are indenting at present. I know two or three of them, and their difficulty is that they are unable to obtain small quantities of leaf on the market, but have to go to the Combine for leaf for wrappers, fillers, &c, and must take whatever the Combine chooses to sell them. If we can demonstrate by the expenditure of a limited amount of public money the fact that cigar . leaf can be grown in Australia, the small man will always then be able to buy in the market small quantities of the material that he requires.

Senator Gray:

– Why have growers not done so already, to enable the small man to get his material ?

Senator TURLEY:

– I shall deal with that point directly. The encouragement ‘of the growth of leaf capable of being manufactured into good cigars will place the small manufacturer in a better position than he is in to-day. He will have to compete with the Combine in the market for the material, but he will not be absolutely at the mercy of the Combine, as he is now, before he can get any material at all. Senator Gray asks why this has not been done before, and states that Mr. Nevill has been employed for a number of years in Queensland, but has not yet demonstrated that it is possible to grow this leaf on a commercial basis. Mr. Nevill was engaged by the Queensland Government some time before Federation, because of the poor quality of the tobacco then being grown. The Government recognised that it was necessary to give growers the assistance of a man of experience, to induce them to cultivate a superior class of tobacco, and also to adopt different methods of curing the leaf. Mr. Nevill was engaged, and established a small Government farm at Texas, where he demonstrated to the growers what could be done in the way of superior production and preparation of the leaf. I was in- the district a couple of years ago, and some of the growers told me that they had received a great amount of assistance from Mr. Nevill, who ha3 ha,d experience in the industry before he came to Australia.

Senator Gray:

– That is exactly what the Combine sent two experienced men out for.

Senator TURLEY:

– Where did the Combine send them ?

Senator Gray:

– To Tumut.

Senator TURLEY:

– I never heard of their reaching the Texas district.

Senator Gray:

– Why has not Mr. Nevill demonstrated that cigar leaf can be grown as a commercial success where fie has been working ?

Senator TURLEY:

– In the first place no one has contended that the country about Texas is good country for the growth of cigar leaf. It is suitable for the growth of tobacco, and a considerable area in that district is devoted to its culture, but Mr. Nevill has never said that it is good country for cigar leaf. He has endeavoured to induce settlers at different places along the coast - at Cairns, Cardwell, and Bowen - to try if they could not make a success of the growth of a leaf suitable for the manufacture of cigars. Some time ago he induced one or two men at Cardwell to undertake the growth of -cigar leaf. I believe that he also induced some men at Nerang to go in for its cultivation. One man planted a few acres, and a manufacturer of cigars in a small way told me that leaf he got from that district was the best local cigar leaf that he had so far been able to obtain in Australia. If the men who have been induced bv the experts to experiment in the production of a leaf suitable for the manufacture of cigars find that thev can secure a good price for the leaf which they produce, they will extend their operations. In the Bowen district a man who was induced to go in for the growing of a high class cigar leaf produced leaf for which he got is. per lb.

Senator Gray:

– Was that cigar leaf?

Senator TURLEY:

– It was bought for cigar leaf.

Senator Gray:

– Then the grower should have got more than is. per lb.

Senator TURLEY:

– The buyer is prepared to take any quantity of leaf of a similar quality. I am given to understand that this settler on the Don River at Bowen is extending his operations, and others in the district, finding that he has been able to make something out of the business, are following his example. °

Senator Gray:

– Then no bounty is. required.

Senator TURLEY:

– That does not follow. When it is demonstrated that a leaf of good quality can. be grown in small patches, the Government may well be asked to afford some additional assistance to encourage its cultivation. Those who undertake the cultivation of such a leaf will then be aware that if thev succeed they will have a market at a certain price, and if they can produce a still better leaf, it will command a higher price in the market. I propose to quote from the report of the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock. I do not care about mentioning Queensland so prominently in connexion with this matter, but it is the only State of which I have special knowledge. I do not know what is being done in connexion with the tobacco industry in New South Wales or the other States, except from reading the report of the Tobacco Commission.

Senator Gray:

– Can the honorable senator give any reason why the farm established by the States Tobacco Company at Cairns for the growth of cigar leaf was a failure?

Senator TURLEY:

– I have heard that a certain amount of money was spent bv the company at Cairns for the purpose of establishing the growth of cigar leaf.

Senator Gray:

– Yes, ,£2,000.

Senator TURLEY:

– I do not know whether the experiment was successful or not.

Senator Gray:

– It was a failure.’

Senator TURLEY:

– In the annual report of the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock for’ 1906-7, from which Senator Chataway has already quoted, I find that the manager of the Kamerunga State Nursery, at Cairns, under the heading of “Tobacco” says -

The special tobacco experiments carried out last year, and fully reported on, were not repeated in the season just closed. The tobacco obtained - of the cigar variety - was very favorably reported on however, and these experiments have amply demonstrated that with judicious working an excellent . quality of cigar tobacco can be grown in the north. As a result, therefore, it has been decided that a practical experiment on a reasonably large scale shall be conducted, for which purpose an area of seven acres of selected land is being fenced in on the banks of the Barron River, and arrangements made for a. tobacco curing shed to be erected under the direction of the tobacco expert of the Department.

Senator Gray:

– What was the result of that experiment?

Senator TURLEY:

– There has been no result yet. The land has only just been fenced in for the purpose of the experiment, but the manager of the State Nursery at Kamerunga has already grown tobacco of the cigar variety which has been very favorably reported on, and the experiments made at the nursery have demonstrated that tobacco can be grown there successfully. In the statistical part of the report I find this statement made -

It would appear that there is an opening foi the cultivation of cigar leaf, more particularly in the Northern districts, where experimental areas have been planted during the current year. The result from one of these plots have proved so successful that the growers intend to extend operations -

That, I presume, is a reference to what was done on the Don River - and others will probably go into the industry, and thus bring about a considerable expansion, more particularly as the markets for high grave leaf is far from being overstocked.

I have no doubt that in other .States there is country as suitable for the growth of cigar leaf as that in Queensland, but when it has been practically demonstrated that we have soil and climate suitable for the production of this class of leaf the Government might well spend a limited amount of money to encourage people to go into the industry. Those who take it up must at first undertake a good deal of experiment, and cannot at once expect to produce the highest class of leaf. I understand that the bounty will only be paid on leaf of a fairly high quality. I think that our growers will be able with the advice of the experts to produce a cigar leaf of sufficiently high quality to earn the bounty, and that will be some inducement, to them not only to’ extend their operations, but to endeavour to make a commercial success of the cultivation of even a still better class of leaf. As we are prepared to assist people engaged in other industries, and we have people engaged in the industry of tobacco growing, there should be no objection to the proposed bounty as an experiment, to discover whether we cannot in some part of the Commonwealth ‘ grow a leaf suitable for the manufacture of cigars.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– I intend to support the item, and I should not do so if I thought I should be acting in the interests of the Tobacco Combine. I believe that the proposed bounty will induce people to attempt to grow a better class of tobacco leaf. Senator Turley made a good .point when he said that if people can be induced to grow a better class of leaf and put it on the local market, it will assist the small manufacturers to compete with the Combine, and. that competition . must benefit the grower.

Senator Clemons:

– It is the Combine that will benefit.

Senator SAYERS:

– I cannot understand; the honorable senator. If I have a few hundredweights of tobacco to sell, theCombine will hardly trouble about it, but if they compete with the small manufacturer for it, the price to the grower ‘wilt be increased and he will benefit. Thesmall manufacturer will be able to compete with the Combine for small quantitiesof leaf.

Senator Clemons:

– Why cannot the small man compete with the Combine in. manufacturing at the present time?

Senator SAYERS:

– He cannot compete in the manufacture of hand-made cigars, with the manufacture of cigars by machinery. A certain class of buyers want sixcigars for one shilling, and they cannot expect to get hand-made cigars at that price. I am given to understand that the best cigars are everywhere made by hand.

Senator Clemons:

– Could the honorable senator tell the difference?

Senator SAYERS:

– I can tell whether a cigar is good or bad, but I do not profess to be able to . say whether it has been made by hand or by machine. Every smoker knows a good cigar, and’ recognises that if he gives a fair price for a cigar he will get a comfortable smoke. Personally, I prefer the good old’ pipe. I do not see why we should not beable to grow high-class tobacco leaf in the Commonwealth as well as it can be grownanywhere else. We have thousands of acres which may be fit for the growth of such leaf, and which has not yet beentried.

Senator Gray:

– How is it that such leaf cannot be grown in other parts of theworld except Cuba?

Senator SAYERS:

– I have always understood that the best cigar leaf came fromCuba, but that does not prove that a good’ leaf suitable for the manufacture of cigarscannot be grown in other parts of theworld. We do not know the possibilities of the Commonwealth for the growth of cigar leaf, and I think the proposed bounty will induce local growers to endeavour tocultivate a better quality of leaf than they grow now. There is a world-wide market for tobacco. We have a high duty on the article, and it would be to our interest te* induce local growers to cultivate the quality of leaf on which it is proposed to pay a bounty. I hope that the Committee will pass the item. I am sure that it is being supported by honorable senators in the conscientious belief that a better class of tobacco leaf can be grown in Australia, and that its production will be a benefit not merely to one section but to everybody in the community. I believe that, if the experiment is a success, the bounty will be the means of settling a large number of persons upon the soil.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [12.31]. - With reference to the cigar trade, I have some rather interesting and. instructive information which I think it is pertinent for me to quote as showing the necessity for .material alteration’s in the existing conditions, and one of those alterations, I take it, the proposal before the Committee will effect. The figures I am about to quote have been supplied by the Department of Trade and Customs. It appears that last year we collected £116,000 on imported cigars, and £40,000 on colonial-made cigars. As regards the consumption of cigars, the proportions were about equal. While the cigars made in the Commonwealth paid £”40,000 in Excise duty, an equal quantity of imported cigars paid £116,000 in Customs duty, showing a difference of £76,000 against the revenue. Assuming that there had been no colonial-made cigars, and people had smoked an equal quantity of imported cigars, it would mean that for a single year the cigar industry had cost the Commonwealth £76,000. That is rather a tall price to pay for the luxury of smoking colonial cigars,’ and would be, .1 understand, sufficient to buy out every colonial -made cigar factory in Australia. Therefore, we could buy them out. with the loss of one year’s revenue, and be in pocket at the end of that time.- One of the reasons why the colonial_cigar has been- very largely a failure is the fact that hitherto appropriate leaf for its manufacture has not been grown.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Surely they do not use colonial leaf in making the cigars?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I am not sure, so that I cannot answer the question. But I am instructed that one of the .reasons) for the unsatisfactory condition of the local tirade is that a really good cigar leaf, has not yet been pro duced in Australia. The present proposal is made with a view “to assisting the production of suitable leaf. As a majority of us have voted for a bounty upon the production of a number of articles, I think I should not be justified in voting against this proposal, because it certainly does promise the possibility of success and offers conditions more appropriate to Australian environment than do some of the proposals with which we have been dealing.

Senator Gray:

– It has not a ghost of a show of being successful. The money will be wasted.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– The honorable senator is one of those who investigated the question of tobacco growing as a member of a Select Committee. But whether he is as well acquainted as I am with the fields in which tobacco is grown, I do not know. I claim that I know a good deal about Australia, especially the localities in which tobacco leaf has been cultivated.

Senator Walker:

– Especially Texas on the Mclntyre.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I rode through that country in 1872. My knowledge of the parts I am speaking about is not limited to travelling in a train, or in a steamer, I have travelled for many hundreds of miles in the saddle.

Senator Henderson:

– Any number of persons have done it on foot, and with swags on their backs.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I should not object to walk, except that I would see so little of the country, and would be so long in getting round. I have seen some Australian soils, and know a little about agriculture, and I am satisfied that this is one of those industries which have a fair chance of being experimented upon with reasonable success.

Senator Gray:

– Does the honorable senator think that a, . protection of 200 per cent, is not sufficient to encourage it?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– My honorable friend is putting a proposition which, though it is very admirable, is out of place, because it relates to something which is not before the Chamber, and may never come here, and that is the question of such duties as he has alluded to.

Senator Gray:

– Surely not.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– The honor-, able senator asked a question, but does not wish to hear my answer. Whether it is that he asked the question, which he now recognises was an undesirable one, or he is afraid that the answer may be too effective, I do not know. I think I can accommodate him by not answering the question, though I could give a very good answer if it were needful. I think that a lower bounty upon the production of tobacco leaf would be desirable and more reasonable, but at this stage of the Bill I do not propose to move* an amendment to reduce the rate, because, in the first place, it would lead to a great consumption of time, and, secondly, because I do not think it would be carried. But because I cannot reduce the rate of bounty, I am not going to vote against the proposal in toto, as I regard the culture of tobacco leaf as one of the few industries in Australia for which bounties are proposed that give a promise of success.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

First schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second schedule and postponed clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with a further amendment.

page 4908

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERATION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from nth October(vide page 4616) on motion by Senator Best -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Prior to the debate being adjourned last Friday, we listened to a speech from Senator Gould, who, as you are aware, sir, is the present President of the Senate. Now I shall venture, before proceeding to address myself to the Bill, to offer some remarks, not only upon the substance of that speech, but also upon the manner and the circumstances in which it was delivered. In my opinion and I believe I am expressing the opinion of many other honorable senators, though they may not have openly declared it, such an exhibition as we had then - a speech from Senator Gould, who at the same time was President of the Senate, delivered in a partisan spirit from the Presidential chair - was not conducive, either to the dignity of the Senate itself, or to the possibility of the proper and decorous conduct of our proceedings. The position is this: The speaker addressed nobody, whereas we have to address the President. He was subject to no one who could call him to order, as every other senator is when he addresses the Senate. The position might have become absolutely intolerable. A repetition of such an occurrence would, I venture to say, do more to demoralize and disorganize the Senate than any procedure that any one of us can imagine. I therefore have no hesitation! in expressing my opinion, openly and clearly, that not only was such a procedure unwarranted and unwise, but that we ought, if necessary to take absolutely certain measures to prevent a repetition of it. Now, I shall venture to offer some criticisms upon the remarks made by Senator Gould, apart from the circumstances under which he delivered them. His one contention with regard to this Bill was that we were being asked to treat the persons or combinations who might come under its operation as if they were criminals. His whole argument was based upon a confusion between civil and criminal law. Running through it was the continual question. “ Would you ask a man in a Criminal Court to give such answers to questions as might incriminate him ? “ He instanced the case of a man charged with murder, and appeared to imagine that it would be wrong to treat a person charged with an offence under this Bill as a man charged with an offence under the criminal law would not be permitted to be treated. But there is a very broad distinction which entirely differentiates the two classes of cases. I can conceive of no more fallacious argument being addressed to any Legislative Chamber. We were reminded, as a parallel to this, of provisions to be found in our Customs Act. Now, I venture to say that Senator Gould will recognise that between procedure under the Customs Act and criminal procedure in an ordinary Court of law there is an enormous difference. The same difference applies with equal force and intensity to the present Bill, and to the cases of persons who would be penalized under it. I may as well say at once that my one desire is to strengthen the hands pf the Government in this matter, and if I offer any criticism upon the Bill, it will only be with that object. If any attention is paid to my criticism, T hope it will be understood that it is intended to make the power of the Government stronger. Possibly I may be wrong in what I say, but, at any rate, that is my desire.

Senator Gray:

– I beg to call attention to the state of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is a quorum present.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I cannot understand such an interruption. Of course I do not wish to assume that it was unfriendly, but at the same time, in view of the state of the Senate-

The PRESIDENT:

– I would point out to the honorable senator that that is not a question upon which he can. offer any comment. I assume that Senator Gray thought there ‘was not a quorum present. I counted the Senate, and, therefore, did not order the bells to be rung. The incident- therefore closed.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I was venturing to say, when interrupted - and I am going to say it-

The PRESIDENT:

– Will the honorable senator resume his seat? He has no right to tell the Chair that he will persist in a course of conduct which has been ruled to be out of order. If the honorable senator feels that the ruling which I have given is not correct, there is a proper course for him to pursue. I am prepared to have that course taken. But I desire the honorable senator to realize that, while I occupy the position of President, it is my duty to maintain order and to see that my rulings are obeyed.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I had not the slightest intention of disobeying your ruling, nor did I intend to say anything which would prevent order being maintained.

The remark which you cut short would . have had no reference to your ruling. You are entirely mistaken as to what I was going to say. You made an assumption before I had concluded the sentence.. I do not wish to pursue that point any further. When I was interrupted I was dealing with the parallel between the Customs Act and the present Bill. Parliament has deliberately decided - and every one of us agreed that it was right to do so - that in order that the Customs Act maybe properly administered powers must be given to the authorities in excess of the powers which are given in other Acts of Parliament. That is an elementary principle ‘in connexion with Customs administration.

Senator Best:

– All over the world.

Senator CLEMONS:

– It applies, not merely in Australia, but all over the world. We may have our various points of view as to how the Customs Act should be administered, but that is beside the question of the power to be conferred upon the Customs authorities. That such powers should be given, I do not think is disputed by. any sane man inside or outside Parliament. To what extent does that parallel hold good in this case? It holds good entirely. Am I to assume that while we give power to the Customs authorities to deal with the importation of goods, we are going to deny to the authorities within the Commonwealth itself an equal power to deal with manufacturers who carry on operations locally? At any rate, that is a position which no one who occasionally professes free-trade . principles ought to support. The only remark which I have to offer with regard to the administration of this Bill, and especially as to the powers proposed to be given to the ComptrollerGeneral, is that I think we -should carry out our desires more effectively if we intrusted the powers to a Court. I am going to support the Government, and, as I said before, shall endeavour to strengthen their position. We have put our hands to the plough in regard to these trusts and combines. We cannot afford as a Parliament to allow our legislation to be ignored. We cannot afford to allow ourselves to be told that Ave are unable to control these bodies. And there is practically no limit to which I am not prepared to go in the effort to get them under our control. But the question arises - Shall AAre do it by intrusting these powers, which are parallel to the powers conferred under the Customs Act, to the ComptrollerGeneral ? At present. I have doubts about that. I am inclined to think that if we were to intrust these powers to a Court of law, they would probably be more effective. And for this reason : We all admit that in the administration of justice - and that is what we’ are pursuing at the present time- we shall be more likely to achieve our ends if we intrust the responsibility to the best possible men that we can obtain for the purpose. We are, therefore, forced to this conclusion : Would such an Act be more effective if enforced by a Court of law or by the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs? In other words, would it not be better to intrust it to those men who are trained and equipped so as to fit them for discharging such duties, who possess our greatest confidence, and as to whose purity of motive in the carrying out of such legislation there can be no suspicion? Personally, I have no doubt about it. The Comptroller-General of Customs is not, from this point of view, a more highly skilled man than is aJustice of the High Court. I feel that if we were to empower the Court, just as it is proposed under this Bill to empower the Comptroller-General, we should be likely to achieve far more satisfactory results. The Court is absolutely unimpeachable, so far as its integrity is concerned. I cast no slur upon the present ComptrollerGeneral, nor do I suggest any doubt as to officers who may in future hold that position, but I feel that if these powers were intrusted to a Judge of the High Court, we should have an absolute guarantee of the rigorous as well as the honest administration of the measure. I am well aware that so far there has not been the slightest suspicion with regard to the administration of the Customs Act. There have been no reflections upon its administration since this Parliament has been established; but. nevertheless, I think that the suggestion.I have made is worthy of consideration.

Senator Best:

– I apprehend that what the honorable senator suggests is that to appoint a Judge of the High Court as an alternative to what the Bill proposes, would bean improvement, but that he does not want to take away the Comptroller - General’s power of action under the Bill?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not want to do that.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I wish to add one other parallel as to the respective positions of the Comptroller-General and the Judges of the High Court. When we give the Comptroller-General power with regard to Customs administration, it is recognised that he has to deal daily with a multiplicity of detail, and that his work never ends. For that reason, it is obviously desirable that such a permanent official should be invested with extensive powers. But when we come to deal with this anti-trust legislation, which has for its object interference with large trusts and. combines whenever they are to be found doing anything illegal, it must be obvious to the Minister that the over-looking by some responsible person cannot be of daily occurrence, and that investigations into the wrongful acts of those trusts and combines must be on a large scale and occur only at long intervals. I hope that the Minister, if it is possible to amend . the Bill, will so amend it that, while he gives to the Comptroller- General this power, he will also bring in the Court to strengthen the Comptroller-General.

Senator Pearce:

– Have a joint inquiry?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not necessarily say a joint inquiry.

Senator Best:

– I appreciate the honorable senator’s suggestion if he means an alternative, but we must not shackle the Comptroller- General .

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not want to shackle him. I do not mean alternative so much as conjunctive action. I desire, if the Minister can see his way to bring it about, that the High Court may, as far as can be, join in with the efforts of the Comptroller-General. I should like in that way to add to the ComptrollerGeneral some additional strength in putting down these evils.

Senator Dobson:

– How could the High Court do that?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I admit that it is difficult, and that I am not prepared with an amendment in that direction. If we can possibly strengthen this legislation by giving powers to the Court, as well as additional and extraordinary powers to the Comptroller-General, it is a desirable thing to do.

Senator Dobson:

– Ought not the ComptrollerGeneral to get the leave of the Court to go ahead?

Senator CLEMONS:

– No. I am not going to be a party to weakening this measure in any way whatever. I am sure that the Vice-President of the Executive Council recognises that in any suggestion or criticism of mine, my only desire is to strengthen the Bill. I think it might possibly be strengthened by giving fuller powers to the Court, as well as these additional and comparatively unusual powers to the Comptroller-General. If that cannot be done as a matter of practical politics, I am not going to quarrel with the Bill. If it can be done, I shall cordially join with the Vice-President of the Executive Council in adding that strength to the measure. I wish to add a word as to the desirability of the Bill generally. We all recognise that these trusts are in existence in Australia to-day. I know of two - the Tobacco Combine and the Shipping and Coal Combine - that I should like to see controlled and regulated at once. No intelligent observer of public affairs in Australia can have any doubt that we are confronted there with two evils which require legislative interference and regulation. If it is incumbent upon any persons in this Senate to endeavour to put down these combines in Australia, it is incumbent upon those who sit on this side of the Chamber.

Senator Gray:

– If the trusts are doing an injustice.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not need to assume that they are doing an injustice. I know it. I have made up my mind about the -injustice. If I were not so sure of my ground, I should not be speaking in this way in regard to the Bill. There is every reason why honorable senators sitting on this side should co-operate with the Government in this case, and not leave the Government alone for a moment, if they have any fear that the Government are not doing their utmost to deal with trusts and combines. I am sorry, in a sense, that on the other side of the Chamber there is a feeling that legislation of this sort is comparatively useless. But I credit honorable senators opposite, no matter what their views are with regard to the nationalization of industries, with sincerity in attempting to cope with the evil now. I firmly believe that,’ although some of them may feel very doubtful with regard to the possibilities of this legislation, they are not going to relax their efforts to enable the Senate to pass such an amendment of the existing Act as will be operative and successful. I hope, and, so long as I am in the Senate I shall endeavour to bring that hope to its fruition, that the Bill will have a decisive and valuable effect for the good of Australia in the direction in which, it is> aimed.

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

Senator Clemons has anticipated one very important comment which I intended to make. I agree most cordially that honorable senators who belong to the Labour Party are entitled to the frankest approbation for the warmth of their support of this measure, recognising, as they do, that if these combines and trusts succeed, great force will be added to the arguments for the nationalization of the industries concerned, which they are constantly urging. They are content that in the meantime those organizations should be controlled, and, if they can be effectively controlled by legislation’ of this character, then, no doubt, the complete fruition of the aim of the membersof that party will be delayed. In those circumstances, their support of the measure is entitled to the highest commendation. But the attitude of honorable senators opposite, with two or three exceptions, simply amazes me. If they are in earnest - and I am sure they are - in saying that they desire the promotion of the public good, and that they recognise in the development of combinations of this character a seriousmenace to the Commonwealth, they should’ be amongst the most vigorous supporters of any legislation which has for its object the proper regulation and effective control of those organizations, whose development, if we. are to be guided by the experience of another country, must be alarmingly seriousto the public welfare.

Senator Dobson:

– We are all agreed tothat, but we say that this proposed legislation should be administered under thedirection of a Judge.

Senator BEST:

– The honorable senatoragrees to it in such a way that he would practically maim the Bill. I appreciate, also, another suggestion made by Senator Clemons in his whole-souled support of the measure. He is not prepared to weakenthe powers which it is proposed to give tothe Comptroller-General. If we are to achieve the object of the measure, it is of” the utmost importance that the greatest freedom and power should be intrusted to’ an officer in. whom we have confidence tocarry out his duty in the interests of the ‘ public. I quite appreciate Senator demon’s desire that there should be an alternative means of achieving the sameend, so as’ to provide for the contingency- of laxity on the part of the ComptrollerGeneral. Fortunately, we have had experience of that officer in. the discharge of his duties, which enables us to. anticipate with some confidence that the duties which we propose to impose on him will be carried out with the utmost integrity. In these circumstances, realizing the difficulty of giving effect to the suggestion which has been made, all that I can say at this stage is that it is entitled to the fullest consideration. I understand that Senator Clemons would place it within the power of any person, with the consent of a Judge of the High Court, to exercise the powers of inquiry which are, by proposed new section 15 a of clause 4 of the Bill, to be reposed in the ComptrollerGeneral. That is an important suggestion, the object of which is to provide for a contingency, which I trust may never arise. In other words, if the Comptroller-General happens to be under Ministerial or other control, it should, it is suggested, be open to any member of the general public whose suspicions are aroused .with regard to any combine or trust to go to a Judge o: the High Court and produce -Arima facie evidence that an offence is being committed. Then the Judge should have power to authorize such inquiries as he thought proper to be made, with a view to sheeting home the offence.

Senator Dobson:

– That is our suggestion.

Senator BEST:

– Does Senator Dobson suggest it as an alternative, because that makes all the difference?

Senator Dobson:

– Does the honorable senator think that any man would pay his own lawyer when he could go to the ComptrollerGeneral and have the whole inquiry conducted for him ?

Senator BEST:

– That is a reason why the Comptroller-General should be left completely unshackled.

Senator Clemons:

– It is no reason why we should not add the other power as an alternative.

Senator BEST:

– None whatever. What Senator Clemons suggests is only an enabling power. It will certainly not curtail, but increase, the powers proposed in the Bill. What I am most concerned about is that the Comptroller-General should be unshackled in the exercise of his powers, as they cannot otherwise be effective. Honorable senators opposite have- indicated their desire that the Comptroller-General should do nothing until he had gone to a

Judge of the High Court, but the Judges of the High Court may be scattered all over the place.

Senator Dobson:

– I said a Judge having Federal jurisdiction. The honorable senator should not exaggerate.

Senator BEST:

– I shall not exaggerate. Several honorable senators opposite distinctly mentioned the Judges of the High Court. They may ‘ be scattered, but altogether apart from that difficulty, it must be seen that inquiries of this character may be made from all sorts of sources. They will probably have to be prosecuted with great cafe and secrecy, and, if what we seek to achieve is to be effective, we must repose in the Comptroller-General the fullest- powers, with the confidence that he will not abuse them. In the event of any abuse, those who know what has occurred can complain to Parliament, or to any member of it, and the matter can be ventilated in either Chamber.

Senator Gray:

– The Bill- does not allow of an appeal to any Judge.

Senator BEST:

– In no circumstances can the Government regard with equanimity any suggestion to shackle the .powers of the Comptroller- General in the way so freely suggested bv honorable senators opposite, when “they urge that . the Comptroller-General should be required to go to a Judge of the Court ‘ and make out a prima facie case to satisfy the Judge before he is allowed to prosecute inquiries. That might involve considerable delay and a degree of publicity. The matter might be bruited abroad, and thus the object we have in view might be frustrated. Why should honorable senators opposite be so apprehensive when they must know that what we propose is the only recognised method of making legislation of this kind effective? I have pointed out the extraordinary powers given in America to the Commerce Commission, where, in connexion with carriers they have the right to prescribe the method of bookkeeping to be adopted, to make any inquiry they think proper, to obtain answers on oath to any questions they choose to ask, and where there is the most ample provision for publicity

Senator Stewart:

– Before, whom are the inquiries made?

Senator BEST:

– Take the Commissioner of the Bureau of Corporations. He is given the power to demand from any cor- poration all the information he thinks proper. He has the right to prescribe how these combinations shall keep their accounts, that they shall, record every agreement, contract, or arrangement they make, and they are bound to supply all the information that he demands of them. The result of this legislation in America has been the conviction and punishment of a trust of gigantic proportions, which previously had been successful in evading the law. My honorable friends who are opposing this Bill must not jump to the. conclusion that if we give these powers to the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs, some extraordinary abuse must follow which is unknown in the history of the exercise of similar powers, in the States and in the Commonwealth.

Senator Clemons:

– Honorable senators were prepared to give these powers for the administration of the Customs Act without a murmur.

Senator BEST:

– Yes, and I have not so far heard any honorable senator differentiate between the powers given under the Customs Act and this proposed legislation to my satisfaction. .

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator does not mean to say that powers are given under the Customs Act similar to those proposed in this Bill ?

Senator BEST:

– Yes, there are no powers proposed to be given by this Bill that are not already given by the Customs Act. This class of legislation is vital to the administration of the Customs Act. From personal experience of the working of the Customs Department, and from the experience of others who know much more on the subject than I do, I am satisfied that were it not for the application of these powers a large percentage of the convictions which have been recorded under the Customs Act would never have been secured and many criminals would have escaped punishment.

Senator Gray:

– The Customs officers have only power to examine books and documents relative to a particular offence.

Senator BEST:

– That is precisely what is provided for in this Bill.

Senator Gray:

– Under this Bill the Comptroller-General of Customs or his officers might go through the whole of the books of a combination.

Senator BEST:

– Nothing of the’ kind. Everything under this Bill must be relative to a particular offence, and the offences are prescribed by sections 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 of what is known as our Anti-Trust Act. As a matter of fact, there is only one provision in this Bill against which what I may be forgiven for describing as genuine criticism has been urged. I refer to the proposed new section, which deals with the burden of proof and which can only have been objected to, as the President conclusively pointed out, by honorable senators who have not read it. If honorable senators will refer to that provision they will see that what is proposed is that where it is alleged that there is a certain trust or combination and that certain persons are interested in it -

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Alleged without proof.

Senator BEST:

– I am endeavouring to give honorable senators some idea of the character of the averments that the defendant may be called upon to refute. For instance, it may be alleged that a certain trading organization is a trust or combine within the meaning of the Act, that the defendant belonged to it, and that he acted with or in connexion with it, without proving other members who belonged to it. If allegations of this kind are made, the onus is thrown upon the defendant of proving that they are not true. In America, in nearly all of the States, the law goes so far as to say that -

Any preponderance of evidence is sufficient to authorize a verdict and judgment for the State.

In other legislation of the United States it is provided that -

The character of the trust or combination alleged may be established by proof of its. general reputation as such. -

They have found it necessary to pass legislation of this character. Some honorable senators seem to ignore ‘the marvellous ingenuity displayed by these trusts in evading the law. .1 am certain that no matter what legislation we pass, if the experience of America is repeated here, we shall find that every species of ingenuity will be exercised to evade it, and it will then be the duty of Parliament to relentlessly follow up its legislation year by year, if necessary, in order ultimately to secure the regulation and control of these trusts.

Senator Lynch:

– They are as slippery as eels.

Senator BEST:

– Exactly ; and we must take extraordinary measures for the purpose of dealing with evils and criminals of the character to which I refer.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Of the worst type.

Senator BEST:

– Certainly, they are of the worst type. Honorable senators are not very solicitous concerning the treatment of other classes of criminals, and why should they be so solicitous in this matter?

Senator Walker:

– In other cases, the guilt of the persons charged must be proved.

Senator BEST:

– Nothing of the kind. To show how eminently fair is the provision which has aroused the indignation of certain honorable senators, let me say that intent is the essence of an offence against the anti-trusts law, and in paragraphs a and b of the proposed new section 15a, the onus is thrown upon the prosecution of proving intent. There really has been no genuine criticism urged against this measure, and, in the circumstances, I ask honorable senators to pass it in its present form. I promise to consider the suggestion made by Senator Clemons as to an alternative means of strengthening the Bill.

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 4

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Part II. of the Principal Act is amended by inserting therein after section 15 the following sections -

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– The Sydney Chamber of Commerce have supplied me with some objections to this clause, which I propose to read. I will then see whether we cannot induce the Vice-President of the Executive Council, who is, as a rule, a reasonable man, to consent to a modification of it. The proposed new section 15a is so repugnant to justice, they say, that it should be excised. They point out that the complaint dealt with in the proposed new section 15c should be made on oath or statutory declaration. And they suggest that an addition should be made to the proposed new section 15b dealing with the impounding of documents, to the following effect - and until such certified copy shall be furnished, such person or corporation shall be allowed full inspection of any such books and documents during all business hours, and at such other times as the Comptroller-General may in his discretion allow.

Senator Best:

– Let us pass the clause down to that point, when the suggestion canbe discussed.

Senator WALKER:

– I simply desire, at the present stage, to draw attention to the matters.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Perhaps it will be convenient to honorable senators if I put the proposed new sections separately.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In the first place, I shall put the introductory words of the clause.

Introductory words agreed to.

Proposed new section 15a -

In any prosecution for an offence against sections four, five, seven, eight, or nine of this Act the averments of the prosecutor contained in the information, declaration, or claim shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary, but so that -

the averment in the information of intent shall not be deemed sufficient to prove such intent, and

in all proceedings for an indictable offence the guilt of the defendant must be established by evidence.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I hope to have the assistance of the Minister in providing that the averment of the prosecutor shall be supported by an oath or a declaration.

Senator Best:

– That is not what the Sydney Chamber of Commerce said. What the honorable senator read to me was that, in the proposed new section 15c, they desire the complaint to be made on oath or declaration. That cannot be done in this provision.

Senator WALKER:

– I ‘ have only just received the communication, which certainly begins with a reference to the proposed new section 15a.

Senator Best:

– The honorable senator’s mild comment was that it should be excised.

Senator WALKER:

– I intend to call for a division against the retention of this provision.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I draw the attention of honorable senators to the following words in the provision -

The averments of the prosecutor….. shall be deemed to be’ proved in the absence of proof to the contrary.

We are asked by the Government to adopt a principle which* is entirely foreign to British ideas of justice. We are invited to enact that a man shall be deemed guilty until he is proved innocent.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– He will have to prove a negative in order, to get off.

Senator Findley:

– We are dealing with individuals and corporations which are foreign to British ideas.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– There are good ones and bad ones. Why we should be asked to take away from British people an inherent right I cannot understand. I protest against the enactment of the provision. Those who are so fond of talking of the liberties of the people will, if they enact this provision, do more injury than they realize. I cannot understand why they should be ready to support the Government on a. proposal of this kind.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [2.34]- - I am in agreement with what has been said by Senator Macfarlane. I ‘should like to know how those who are supporting this drastic provision would act if - it were directed against one of the forms of combine with which they are well acquainted, namely, trade unions.

Senator Findley:

– Trade unions do not shut the door to any one.

Senator Colonel NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The honorable senator, when he makes that remark, simply ignores the well-known, fact that in New South Wales trade unions have had their registration cancelled because of their refusal to admit persons. It is nonsense for the honorable senator to make such an assertion. It is not creditable to his, high sense of intelligence and experience. I intend to vote against the provision.

Senator Turley:

– Was not that the penalty which the law imposed upon trade organizations ?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– The law was passed at the instance of the political party of which the honorable senator is so distinguished and capable, but, I am glad to say, not an extreme, exponent.

Senator Croft:

– That is a left-handed compliment.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I am sure that Senator Turley does not regard the compliment as left-handed ; at least, it is not so intended, and I do not think that it can be regarded in that sense.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– - I would point out to honorable senators that in supporting a provision of this character they are turning upside down all our accepted ideas of justice. One of the most firmly embedded principles in our law , is that every accused person is considered to be innocent until his accuser has proved him to be guilty.

Senator Lynch:

– What about the position of a mine manager in Queensland ?

Senator STEWART:

– The exceptions are so very few as only to more deeply emphasize the general correctness and acceptation of the principle. The reason for the exception in the case of mines is a most obvious one. A manager is responsible for the conduct of a mine, and if an accident happens, it is his duty to show that he was in no way responsible for its occurrence, so that the position in that case is very different from the position in this case. Again, if a ship runs on a rock her captain is called upon to prove that it was not owing to his negligence that she went out of her course on t© the rock.

Senator Henderson:

– He is guilty unless he does that.

Senator STEWART:

– The captain is guilty if he does not do that. If the rock has been charted, and if nothing abnormal has occurred in connexion with the weather - if everything has been plain sailing - the captain is held, and rightly held, responsible, and, in all probability, deprived of his certificate. But if the rock has not been charted, if there has been a very dense fog, or if a number of other untoward accidents have happened, which he can prove easily, he is not held guilty.

Senator Trenwith:

– It is the same thing in this case.

Senator STEWART:

– The contention of my honorable friends would be absolutely correct if this were a principle in general application, but it is not.

Senator Findley:

– Combinations are not general, and, therefore, the principle cannot be applied.

Senator STEWART:

– Combinations are made up of human beings with the same rights as we have. Let me apply the principle in one or two other directions, and see how it looks. Suppose, for instance, that Senator Findley lodged an information with the police that on a certain day I had robbed him of £100 in Bourkestreet. If the principle laid down in this provision were applied in that case, I would be haled before the Police Court, the accusation would be read out to me, and the Court would say, “ You robbed Senator Findley of £100 in Bourke-street on such a date”. Prove to the satisfaction of the Court that you did not.”

Senator Best:

– That is not what, the provision says.

Senator STEWART:

– What does it Sn f If I were haled up on that accusation, the burden of proving that I was not guilty would lay upon me. It would be extremely difficult for me to prove that I was not guilty, unless I could show that at the time mentioned I was not in the company of Senator Findley, but somewhere else, and that circumstances pointed strongly to the impossibility of my having committed such an offence. But let me assume that on that day I was down the street in the company of the honorable senator when he was robbed, and that I had an opportunity of stealing from him. Just imagine what a position I should be placed in, and how difficult it would be for me to prove t*t I did not take the money out of his pocket. The ridiculousness of the situation appears clearly when I state the case from that point of view. Everybody recognises that it would be exceedingly difficult, if I were treated in that fashion, to prove, if I were called upon to do so, that I had not committed a certain offence. But a number of honorable senators, apparently, do not see that when the same principle is applied to a combine, it is just as far from being right as it would be in my case.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They can protect themselves.

Senator STEWART:

– How can they protect themselves?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They have plenty of friends, and lots of money.

Senator STEWART:

– Does the honorable senator mean to insinuate that the possession of friends and money can protect men who violate the law against the consequences of the law? If so, it is a serious attack upon our system of justice. I do not believe a word of it, though I do believe that if people have plenty of money, they can delay the course of justice. But when an accusation of having broken the law is made against a combine, it is not right that it should be held to be guilty until it proves its innocence.

Senator Millen:

– It is not necessarily a combine; it may be an individual.

Senator Findley:

– This legislation is aimed at combines.

Senator STEWART:

– A single individual may be at the he.ad of such a business just as easily as a dozen individuals. He may be like the thirteen rats that got into the barn, and ate each other up until onlyone was left. I plead with honorable senators not to subvert the principles of justice with which our system of jurisprudence has hitherto .been associated, simply because thev find that combines are difficult to con-‘ trol. We have heard much about the authority of the Customs. But surely a dis.pute about a small matter of duty cannot be placed upon the same level as a question of this character. It is right and proper that the Comptroller-General should be given authority to decide in trivial matters having relation to the payment of duty. He has power to demand the production- of invoices, is able to follow the goods, and is given all the powers that are necessary to enable him to administer the law. That is a very much better arrangement than the one which previously held good, whereby an offender might be invited into the private room of the Minister of Trade and Customs and might settle his difficulty there without publicity. It is extremely undesirable that a great number of the cases that arise under our Customs legislation should be brought before the Court. But because we clothe the Comptroller-General of Customs with certain powers of that character in matters which affect individuals only, is it therefore desirable that in great matters of national importance we should clothe him with the same powers’? No reason has been shown for departing from one of the foundation axioms of justice that every accused person shall be held to be innocent until proved to be guilty. Why should we drag the members of a combine into Court and say, “ Certain charges are made against you, and unless you can prove your innocence we shall impose a penalty upon you” ? It reminds me of a chapter out of ancient history. I have read of times when individuals were haled before a Judge and accused of offences. They might be requested to confess, and if they refused they were put upon the rack until they did, when the reward of the confession was, “ Ah ! you have admitted that you are a witch, and therefore you must be burnt at the stake.” This is a revival of a system that I thought was dead and buried, and done with for ever.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– It is rackandthumbscrew legislation.

Senator STEWART:

– It is, of the very worst character.

Senator Findley:

– The combines may even dodge that.

Senator STEWART:

– If the honorable senator thinks that such a law will be of no use, why does he seek to pass it? I suppose he wishes to have a nutter, or to do something, or at least to appear to be doing something. In our anxiety to do even the very best thing, we ought never to depart from certain principles, which have been laid down as right and just from time immemorial. Suppose Senator Findley was put in the dock and accused of murder, and the Judge said to him, “ Prove your innocence.” Would he not say, “Let the accuser prove me guilty “? Every man and woman would support him in doing so ; and if any Judge attempted to act in the manner I have indicated, Australia would ring “ from Dan to Beersheba” with denunciations. Yet here is a proposal to do the same sort of thing with regard to combinations. I was very much surprised to hear the Vice-President of the Executive Council refer to combines as criminals. I cannot see that there is anything criminal in their action.

Senator Best:

– I said combines guilty of these offences. The honorable senator heard me say that there are good and bad combines.

Senator STEWART:

– There is good and bad weather. All kinds of weather have their uses. The rain may be injurious at one time, whilst at another it may be wanted badly. The wind and the sunshine are each good or bad as they serve the purpose of the moment. The mere fact of the formation of a combine does not constitute an offence against the public. It is not necessarily wrong to combine. Suppose that Senator Millen, Senator Chataway, and Senator St. Ledger were three grocers in Bourke-street. Suppose they were competing so keenly that profits were reduced to vanishing point, that, instead of making money out of their business, they were losing, that they were under-paying their employes, not meeting their bills, that their bankers did not get their interest, and that their landlords were not receiving their rents. Suppose that, recognising the seriousness of the situation, they said, “ Why should we cut each other’s throats; let us agree together,” The result would probably be that their business would flourish, and they would make good profits.

Senator Millen:

– Whilst the other fellow was bleeding to death.

Senator STEWART:

– The other fellow lias his remedy. He can say “All right;if Messrs. Millen, Chataway, and St. Ledger will not sell their goods below a certain price, we, the members of the public, will co-operate and supply ourselves at reasonable rates.” That would be the proper thing to do, but it would be altogether wrong for the community to charge those three men with being criminals and hale them before a Court, accusing them of entering into a conspiracy to defraud the public, and calling upon them to prove their innocence. Of course, the community would have power to do that, because the community, like a despot, can do anything. But there is only one end to conduct of that character.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The community will not hurt the fat man.

Senator STEWART:

– I am concerned about certain fundamental principles of justice which ought to apply as strongly to the fat man as to the lean man. If Senator W. Russell is not prepared to give the richest man in Australia the same show as the poorest man before a Court of Justice, he has a wrong conception of what our laws mean, and of what our institutions are intended to accomplish. A proposal of that kind is not democracy; it may be a spurious democracy. Certainly it is not the real thing; it will not stand the acid. The Government ought to see the iniquity of this proposal.

Senator Findley:

– Of the trusts.

Senator STEWART:

– The trusts may be wicked, iniquitous, vile, diabolical, but that is no reason why the community should brand itself as of the same vicious character. We ought to give the members of a trust, however vile it may be, equal justice with every other citizen. Even if a man is seen by a dozen witnesses to commit murder in the light of open day, he must be charged in proper form, and found guilty before he is sentenced. No man need think that I am an advocate of trusts, because I speak in this fashion. It would be very much more popular in certain circles to talk the other way. But I am laying before the Committee my ideas of the administration of justice. After all, our social system hangs together because of the sense of fair dealing which exists between man and man. But for that, it would fall asunder like a rock blasted by dynamite; confidence would be gone; man’s faith in his brother man would disappear; society would dissolve-

Senator Walker:

– And the world would come to an end !

Senator STEWART:

– I do not know whether any honorable senator intends to move an amendment on this clause. I think it might be improved, but I could not vote for it as it stands. I am quite willing to give the Government’ power to summon the members of the Combine before some officer - I do not care whether he is a Judge or a Commissioner-

Senator Trenwith:

– That is, without evidence? This is merely an expedient to get evidence in circumstances wherewe know from experience that it is difficult to get evidence.

Senator STEWART:

– It is not an expedient to get evidence. The clause says “in any prosecution.” When you are prosecuting a combine, you are past the stage of getting evidence. The evidence must have been found and the charge made. The Government do not propose to rely upon the evidence that they have collected, but wish to say to the man in the dock, “ Unless you can prove yourself innocent you will be found guilty.” The charge would be that something was being done in restraint of trade. How could any man prove that he was innocent of restraining trade or that he had done nothing to injure some Australian industry ?

Senator McGregor:

– He could prove that he did not intend to. He must do it with intent.

Senator STEWART:

– That shows how hollow the Bill is. The duty of a prosecution is to show not only that the act was committed, but that it was done with intent. To use again the illustration of the crime of murder, if I stab a man with intent to kill, him, that is murder in the first degree. But if I have a knife in my hand, and, by an accident, the knife runs into the man and kills him, that is not murder at all. It might not even be manslaughter.

Senator Best:

– And according to proposed new section 15 a, there would be no offence.

Senator STEWART:

– According to this provision, there would be an offence, because the trust has to prove-

Senator Best:

– It has nothing of the kind. Will the honorable senator read 15a?

Senator STEWART:

– It is as follows-

In any prosecution for an offence against sections 4, 5, 7, 8, or9 of this Act the averments of the prosecutor contained in the information, declaration, or claim, shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary, but so that -

the averment in the information of in tent shall not be deemed sufficient to prove such intent, and

Senator Best:

– Did the honorable senator see that before?

Senator STEWART:

– The thing looked so bad that I did not wait to read to the end. I said, “ This is such an evil that it ought to be nipped in the very bud.”’

Senator Best:

– Will the honorable senator read further?

Senator STEWART:
  1. in all proceedings for an indictable offence the guilt of the defendant must be established by evidence.

This clause contradicts itself. It asserts one thing in the beginning, and the direct opposite in the end.

Senator Best:

– Would the honorable senator like to have the provision explained ?

Senator STEWART:

– I shall be glad if the honorable senator will explain it

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

– I could see that Senator Stewart had not read the whole of the proposed new section 15 a, or had utterly misconceived its meaning. In prosecuting a trust for any of the offences under sections 4, 5, 7, 8, or 9 of the AntiTrust Act, a great number of preliminary things have to be proved. It has to be proved first of all that it is a trust or combination, that that trust or combination exists, that the defendant belongs to it, and that he has acted for or in connexion with it. We say that if those things are averred, they can be proved without proving all the members belonging to the trust, or proving or producing any article of agreement, or any written instrument upon which it may have been based. Those are preliminary features before you get at the real offence. Similar legislation exists in nearly every State of the American Union. So careful are we to avoid all the dire contingencies feared by Senator Stewart, that we say in this clause that -

In any prosecution for an offence against sections 4, 5, 7, 8, or 9 of this Act -

If, for instance, we allege all those things which I have already instanced, that there is a contract, that the man is a member of the trust, that the trust exists, that he is associated with other members - those toeing the averments of the prosecutor - the averments of the prosecutor contained in the information, declaration, or claim shall be deemed to he proved in the absence of proof to the contrary.

We are obliged to put in a provision of that kind, because otherwise we might have to go all over the world to procure the necessary technical evidence to prove something which was obvious to the general public. Those averments - shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary, but so that -

  1. the averment in the information of intent shall not be deemed sufficient to prove such intent, and
  2. in all proceedings for an indictable offence the guilt of the defendant must be established by evidence.

Those are offences against the anti-trust law. They can only be offences when they are committed, according to the wording of the principal Act -

  1. with intent to restrain trade or commerce within the Commonwealth to the detriment of the public, or
  2. with intent to destroy or injure by means of unfair competition any Australian industry, the preservation of which is advantageous to the Commonwealth, having due regard to the interests of producers, workers, and consumers.

The honorable senator will see that the intention is the gravamen of the whole charge, and we simply provide in the proposed new section now under discussion that where intent is involved it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to prove the intent. Senator Stewart must therefore see that he has been labouring under a serious misapprehension in the matter. He ought surely to recognise that every facility must be given to the. prosecution to overcome the preliminary difficulties, and when they have been got rid of the prosecutor must undertake the responsibility of proving intent against the persons charged with the committal of the offences referred to in the section of the Anti-Trust Act to which I have alluded. Could anything be more reasonable? Let me go even further to assure my honorable friend that we are not doing anything un-British or novel. I. will ask him to compare the proposed new section 15A with section 255 of the Customs Act to which he agreed as essential to the . effective working of that Act. I shall ask the honorable senator then to admit that if such a section is essential to effectively deal with offenders against the Customs Act we are justified in making use of similar machinery to cope with the equally heinous offences dealt with in this Bill. Section 255 of the Customs Act- provides that-

In every Customs’ prosecution the averment of the prosecutor or plaintiff contained in the information, declaration, or claim, shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to to the contrary, but so that -

when an intent to defraud the revenue is charged the averment shall not be deemed sufficient to prove the intent, and

in all proceedings for an indictable offence or for an offence directly punishable by imprisonment, the guilt of the defendant must be established by evidence.

In the circumstances Senator Stewart will see that the dire contingencies and serious and alarming infringements of the liberty of the subject, and particularly of the liberty of the rich man of which he is so apprehensive, need not be feared from the operation of this provision. He must see also that if the Anti-Trust Act is to be made effective it is necessary that reasonable expedition in dealing with matters preliminary to a prosecution should be provided for as proposed in this Bill.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I have heard as one of the arguments against the adoption of this provision the claim that it enters upon an entirely novel line of legislation: I am prepared to deal with that statement first of all on the assumption that it is correct, and then on the assumption that it is not correct. Let it be assumed that it is novel, and I say that thejustification for it is that we are dealing with novel circumstances. The mere fact that there is not to-day in existence upon the statute-book of Australia or any other country, a particular law proves only that no special circumstances have arisen to call it into existence and to direct men’s minds to the only means of coping with the evil of trusts and combines. No one would deny thatthese combinations of capital are, comparatively speaking, later-day growths, the outcome of economic conditions seen operating in their full force only during late years. It is natural that as the evils of these combinations present themselves we must at some time or other reach the stage at which it is found neces- sary to take the first step in the direction, if honorable senators please, of experimental legislation to control them. That is dealing with the objection on the assumption that this is novel legislation. Let us see now whether it is novel. Surely honorable senators who make the statement overlook the provisions of the very Act which we are now engaged in amending. The Australian Industries Preservation Act itself assumes certain things to be proved. Senator Stewart will correct me if I am wrong, but I have no recollection that the honorable senator became eloquent and indignant when that measure was before the Senate. * Under that Act the allegation that a trust exists is taken as proved, but I do not remember the honorable senator protesting against that provision. He may have overlooked it, but unless he is prepared to admit that he gave his vote for the passage of the Australian Industries Preservation Bill when it was before the Senate last year in entire ignorance of what it provided for he lays himself open to the charge of some inconsistency in the attitude which he takes up to-day. The principalAct, for instance, takes the averment that the defendant is a commercial trust to be proved. The mere fact that certain people have entered into combination .to some extent throws them out of the class of ordinary defendants and into the class of defendants who, if I may use the expression, stand guilty, or upon whom the onus of disproving the charge alleged against them is thrown. There are four classes of such defendants referred to in section 6 of the principal Act. When Senator Stewart did not protest ‘against that provision how can he turn round to-day and invite honorable senators to throw out the provision embodied in this clause on the ground that it is novel, seeing that he helped to pass the principal Act, and we are to-day merely asking him to extend the same principle a little further. Let me direct the attention of the Committee to another matter. By agreeing to pass this proposed new section, we are not asked to say that any idle person who goes about the street is to .have it in Ins power to make a charge against people which would put them to serious inconvenience. -It begins with the words “ In any prosecution for an offence.” It must be admitted that something will precede a prosecution. It is not competent for any man in the street to’ set the machinery of the law in motion merely because of some idle rumour. A certain procedure must be gone through, and the Attorney-General or the Comptroller-General must look into matters before a prosecution can be launched. We may take it for granted that there will be under this Bill no unrestrained liberty’ to beset certain classes of individuals. It will be recognised that there will have to be some careful inquiry into each matter before any prosecution is started. That is in itself a safeguard. I ask honorable senators to say what is the complaint we have been making against the Government lately ? It is not that they have been unduly meddling with or looking into the affairs of trusts generally. We have not charged them with any great anxiety to put the law into operation against these trusts. The complaint has been that the Government have been rather slow to move. Many of us, and myself amongst the number, have believed that the Government might have shown a little more energy and activity in trying to enforce the Anti-Trust Act.

Senator Walker:

– Does the honorable senator know of any trusts that are acting wrongly in this country ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have brought certain matters before the Senate which appear to me at least to justify searching inquiry.

Senator Sayers:

– The Coal and Shipping Combines.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not hesitate to say that there is a coal combination in . existence in Australia to-day. The Minister has admitted that other combinations are engaging the attention of the officers of the Attorney-General’s Department. As to whether or not they are transgressing the law, it is not for me to say. That is for the Law Courts to determine. All that a senator can do is to bring before the Senate and the Government cases which he thinks demand inquiry. His business ceases there. I was pointing out that the complaint against the Ministry has been that they have displayed a want of sincerity and a lack of energy in enforcing the existing law. That being so, when the Government ask for additional powers, which 1 may or may not think necessary, it ill becomes me tocriticise them for doing nothing if, at the same time, I refuse to place them in a position to give effect to the law. Whilst I may believe that this Bill might have been drafted on different lines, I think it is the duty of the Government to carry out the policy of the law of Australia in this connexion, and we should give them all the reasonable power for which they ask to enable them to do it

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– Whilst Senator Stewart was very properly directing attention to the drastic nature of the proposed new section 15a, he was subjected to interjections intended to assure him that it was not so drastic, nor would it inflict so much injury as he anticipated. The Vice-President of the Executive Council asked to be allowed to give the honorable senator an explanation, and apparently the explanation has been considered satisfactory. It has no doubt made more orless clear points which might not have been clear to a layman, and which certainly required some explanation. I noticed that the Vice-President of the Executive Council seems to think, as do other honorable senators opposite, that if Senator Stewart had read on a little further andmore closely, it was possible he would not have anticipated all the dire evils and gross injustices which he apprehended might be inflicted upon the mercantile community under the proposed new section. The Vice-President of the Executive Council asked the honorable senator to read a little further on, and directed his attention to some matters in a later part of the clause. I wish to take the honorable senator at his word, and I ask him to read a little further on.

Senator Best:

– We are dealing with proposed new section 15a at the present moment. I will deal with the balance of clause 4 when we come to it.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– We shall, have to discuss proposed new section 15b.

Senator Best:

– The honorable senator knows that I did not address myself to that.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– We require to know why proposed new section 15a should go forward, and I think that Senator Stewart has’ done timely service in offering the criticism he did.

Senator Best:

– I shall take exception if the honorable senator attempts to deal with anything but what is contained in the proposed new section under discussion.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I hope that the honorable senator will not get warm. I propose to discuss the question very closely, but I trust not warmly, and I shall not object to the VicePresident of the Executive Council calling me to account if he thinks that I am transgressing the Standing Orders. I cannot help saying that the proposed new section 15b is inextricably connected with 15a, and my objection to 15a really lies in 15b, because I see that very drastic powers-

Senator Best:

– I shall have to take exception to the course the honorable senator is pursuing.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I wish to make my statement very distinctly. I say thatthe proposed new section 15a contains very strong powers, and that an essential consideration in conferring these strong preliminary powers must be the persons or officials upon whom they are to be conferred. I am glad to find that I am not yet out of order.

Senator Best:

– The two provisions have nothing to do one with another.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Notwithstanding the fact that very drastic powers were given in the principal Act, and it has not yet been tested in a Court of law, the Government are appealing . to Parliament for further powers. When one looks at the proposed new section 15a it is apparent that the Government are asking for remarkably drastic powers. In his explanation toSenator Stewart, the Vice-President of the Executive Council pointed out as a justification for the provision the precedent that similar provisions are in force in the United States. I was anxious to hear from the honorable senator, whether exactly the same provisions as are comprised in the proposed new sections 15a and 15b are contained in any United States Act.

Senator Best:

– I never said so.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Nor did I say that the honorable senator did.

SenatorBest. - I told the honorable senator where I got them from.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Exactly ; but in the debate on the second reading of the Bill, I was pointing out that in reply to Senator Stewart, Senator Best had mentioned as a justification for the additional provisions in this Bill a precedent in the

United States. I was anxious to hear from him when mentioning that precedent whether the Congress or a State Legislature had, in order to get at trusts and combines, passed a Bill of this character.

Senator Best:

– Not in the same words.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I am glad to have that admission.

Senator Best:

– Not in the same words, but the principle is the same.

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Stewart has made an appeal which is always heard with sympathetic ears by a British court or institution. The effect of his criticism was such that he was told by Senator Best that he did not understand the provisions in this clause, and in justification of them he was told that we have a precedent in the United States. But the weakness of the explanation was apparent. Where did the Minister get such provisions as are contained in the proposed new sections 15a and 15B? He did not get them from the United States which he quoted-.

Senator Best:

– Would the honorable senator like to strike them out?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– The VicePresident of the Executive Council always adopts that attitude with regard to myself. I am fully entitled to call his attention to the important character of these provisions, and to ask him where he got them from. He has admitted across the floor that there is no precedent for them in any ordinary legislation.

Senator Best:

– I never said anything of the kind.

Senator ST LEDGER:

-I did not say that the honorable senator did. When he is challenged - to cite a precedent for the provisions contained in the proposed new sections 1 5A and 1 5B he has to admit that, as a matter of fact, there is no precedent for them in ordinary legislation.

Senator Best:

– I do not admit that.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– When the honorable senator is pressed with this objection he says that we have a precedent in another Act. He is perfectly correct in making that statement, because the precedent is contained in the Customs Act. But, as I pointed out in my speech on the second reading, if in any place in the world there are trusts and combines it is in the United States.

Senator Best:

– Give us a chance to get on.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I am sorry that the Vice-P resident: of the Executive Council is impatient.

Senator Best:

– We have done very little business to-day.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– This is a most important Bill, dealing with the commerce of the Commonwealth, and I do not intend to be bluffed off this point. We cannot give too careful consideration to a provision of this kind.

Senator Trenwith:

– What we object to is that the honorable senator is not discussing the provision.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– On that point there may be a difference of opinion, but I think I am justified in pointing out that it is a most important provision. It affects any combination of persons engaged in trade whether good or bad, throughout the Commonwealth. We are clearly entitled to call upon the Government to prove the necessity for every provision in the Bill. For Ministers to preserve an attitude of either indifference or irritation suggests to me that they are conscious of some weakness in the administration of the principal Act. Notwithstanding the fact that trusts and combines have existed in the United States in a form which is without a parallel in the world’s history, Senator Best cannot tell us that in that country a, provision of this kind has been enacted. I take it that the Americans possess average intelligence, and are animated by the same desire to do a fair thing as we are. In that country, if we can give any credence to facts in connexion with trade and commerce which have been certified toby newspapers and magazines, there are trusts and combines which ‘have been highly prejudicial to the interests of the public.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator how he proposes to connect these remarks with the part ofthe clause now before the Committee? He seems to be discussing now the question of the desirbility or otherwise of anti-trust legislation.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I do not want to do that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– A distinct principle is involved in the provision before the Committee, and I ask the honorable senator to address his remarks to that principle, and not to the question of anti-trust legislation.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– When we have an admission from Senator Best that in the United States legislation of this kind has not been passed, I think I am entitled to ask why it is wanted in Australia? We are asked to grant admittedly strong powers, and the important element to consider is, into whose hands are they to be given? From both points of view we are entitled to get from the other side the strongest possible reasons before we assent to the proposal. We are entitled to demand from the Government the strongest reasons why they need the drastic powers which are contained in the proposed new sections isa and 15B. With the large powers given to them in the principal Act. how is it that thev have failed to deal with the alleged combinations? We have had nothing but the baldest statements from the other side. If the Government can give us an assurance that they have taken certain action in regard to alleged combines or trusts, if they will indicate what they have done-

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator not to pursue that line of argument. The question under consideration is not why certain; trusts have not been prosecuted under the principal Act, but the principle which is involved in the proposed new section.

Senator Millen:

– Will you, sir, allow me to point out that in the clause before the Committee the Government are proposing to take extra powers. For what purpose? Because, we are told, the principal Act is not sufficiently wide-reaching. Senator St. Ledger is showing that it is sufficiently wide-reaching if the Government will only put its provisions in force.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator St. Ledger is discussing why the Government did or did not proceed against certain trusts. The question of whether any amendments of the law are needed was decided when the Bill was read a second time by the Senate. The Committee is now dealing with a principle involved in one of the proposed amendments, and I ask the honorable gentleman to confine his remarks to that principle.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator cansay that there is sufficient power under the existing Act without taking these fresh powers.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– There certainly is, in my opinion, sufficient power under the existing law. When an Act has been passed with the greatest care to achieve a certain object, and when the Government say that it. is not sufficient, why should we be required to give them such additional powers as are contained in this proposed new section ? We have had no satisfactory explanation as to why the existing Act is insufficient.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has already made that statement several times, and I ask him not. to repeat it. Otherwise he will be guilty of tedious repetition.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I will not refer, to it again. It is an important point, to which I may be pardoned for drawing parT ticular attention ; but I am sorry if my remarks have been tedious. I have now sufficiently accentuated my view. I should not have made my criticism so strong were it not for the fact that these grave powers are to be intrusted to an officer who, :h my opinion, is not the most competent person to administer them.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I had intended to move an amendment, but find it very difficult to achieve my object by so doing. I hope, however, that the Committee will vote against the proposed new section altogether. I see no other way of improving an exceedingly bad provision.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the’Executive Council whether the provision is to be taken to mean that only the person mentioned can lay an information?

Senator Best:

– Any person can do so with the consent of the Attorney-General.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I move -

That the words “ the averments of the prosecutor contained in the information, declaration, or claim shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary, but so that” be left out.

The explanation of the Vice-President of the Executive Council has done something to lessen my fears with regard to the drasticcharacter of the clause, but I still think that too much power is conferred by it.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– - I am glad to be able to support Senator Stewart’s amendment, which will do a good deal to remove the objectionable features of proposed new section 15a.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out, be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 16

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That proposed new section 15A be agreed to- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new section agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 4924

ADJOURNMENT

Postal Facilities : Western Australia - Tariff : Western Australian Protest

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CROFT:
Western Australia

– I wish to direct the attention of the Government to the great necessity, particularly in the newly developed agricultural areas of Western Australia, for extended postal facilities. While I and my colleagues have been treated most courteously by the Postmaster-General and his officers when we have brought requests before them, they have failed to recognise the different position in which the people of Western Australia are placed as compared with those of other States. A fast increasing population makes it necessary for that and other Departments to depart a little from redtape methods, and provide greater facilities than have been enjovyd in the past. The Midland Railway Company, who for many years have been in possession of a large tract of country along the western coast, extending from the direction of Perth in the south to Geraldton in the north, have recently sold a great deal of the land. Thousands of people have purchased their own farms there, but can get no facilities from the Postal Department.A special complaint comes from Moora, which is a hundred odd miles from Geraldton, on the line to which I have referred. If an inhabitant of Moora expects a telegram or a letter, he has to wait at the post-office and take delivery himself. No attempt is made in that large town to deliver letters or telegrams. If a letter is sent to a resident of Moora from Geraldton, it is carried through Moora by train to Perth, and then brought back to Moora, and even then is only deliveredif the person to whom it is addressed calls at the post-office. No blame is attachable to the local postmistress, who gives every attention possible, but she cannot do what the Department will not allow her to do. I propose to bring the necessities of the settlers in that large district more directly under the notice of the Minister of Home Affairs, in order that he may give the Postmaster-General an idea of the conditions existing there. There is such a rush for valuable land in the coastal areas of Western Australia when land is thrown open that a whole district which formerly had no people on it quickly becomes populated. In such a case, the Department should at once step in and provide postal facilities, but the same old red-tapism prevents anything being done, and the Department is still conservative in its treatment of the people. I ask the Minister to take notice of what I have said, and to try to induce the Department to have some regard for newly populated districts in order to advance the development of the Common weal th .

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I understand that you, Mr. President, and Mr. Speaker, addressed a reply to the Speaker and President of. the Western Australian Parliament on the question of the protest against the Tariff, forwarded by them to you on behalf of their Houses. Have you received any reply to your communication? If so, will you indicate to the Senate the nature of the reply ?

The PRESIDENT:

– A reply was received from the President and Speaker of the Western Australian Parliament to the letter that was addressed by Mr. Speaker and myself to them in reply to the protest which they forwarded on behalf of the Houses of Parliament of Western Australia with reference to the Tariff. The original letter that we sent pointed out that we had no precedent for receiving the docu-ment in the way that it was forwarded by those two Houses ; that there was the immemorial right of petition; and that there were representatives of that State in this Parliament whose duty it was to attend to the question of the Tariff, that question having been specifically taken out of the jurisdiction of the State Parliaments. In reply, to that letter, Mr. Speaker and myself received a joint letter, in which, while admitting that the exclusive control of Customs and Excise had passed to the Federal Parliament, they nevertheless contend that the State Parliament has the right in its collective capacity to enter a protest against any legislation proposed in this Parliament. They point out the power that exists wherever constitutional government obtains for every subject to bring forward a petition, and indicate the method of approaching the Governor by means of an Address with regard to any matter before the Houses. They contend that similarly they ought to have the power to make an Address of this character to our Houses. They also point out that during the short period of existence of our Parliament there has not been sufficient time for precedents of the character we mentioned to have been established. Mr. Speaker and myself, after consultation, have sent a reply, in which we state, that we cannot subscribe to their contention that a State Parliament has a right to protest against legislation of the Commonwealth Parliament any more than the Commonwealth Parliament has a right to protest against legislation which comes properly under the jurisdiction of a State Parliament. We point out, with regard to’ the question of precedents, that we were guided by’ the practice of the United States of America, Canada, and other Federated Dominions, as well as the state- of affairs which has prevailed in this Commonwealth. We furthermore observe that the representatives of the State in this Parliament are the proper people to bring matters of the kind before Parliament. It may possibly be necessary at a later period for Parliament to offer an opinion with regard to the matter, but the position which the Speaker and myself take up is that we represent our respective Houses and are the mouth-pieces of those Houses, and that what we do is always subject to their approval. In a matter of this character, however, Mr. Speaker and Mr. President must take the initiatory steps in order to protect what they believe to be the rights and privileges of these Houses, and to prevent any possibility of their infringement.

Senator Pearce:

– Will you, ‘Mr. President, arrange that those letters shall be printed in full in Hansard! You are laying down a precedent, and it will be useful to have a full record of the correspondence.

The PRESIDENT:

– At the present stage I could not promise to have these papers printed in Hansard or in the Journals of the Houses. The correspondence is possibly not closed, and it would be well to wait until it is closed. There will then be no objection to copies’ of the papers being laid on the table.

Senator Chataway:

– Does it follow that if the Speaker and President of the West- . ern Australian Parliament had addressed a petition to the Senate, and that petition had been handed to a private member, it could not have been presented to the Senate?

The PRESIDENT:

– Had the protest, as it was .termed, or resolution, been presented in the shape of a petition,, it would have been perfectly regular and proper for the Senate to receive the petition.

Senator St Ledger:

– Would such a petition be placed before the Senate if it was addressed directly to yourself, Mr. President?

The PRESIDENT:

– A petition addressed simply to the President would- not be placed by the President upon the table. A petition must be addressed to the President and Members of the Senate, as it prays that they will take certain action 01 adopt a certain course. At times documents are addressed directly both to the President and Speaker, and in that case the invariable course is simply to acknowledge their receipt.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I shall at once bring Senator Croft’s representations under the notice of the Postmaster-General. I shall be glad to. have as soon as possible the further information which the honorable senator proposes to furnish. He may rely on the Department taking such action in the matter as is warranted by the circumstances detailed by him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.15 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 October 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1907/19071018_senate_3_40/>.