Senate
7 December 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

DEATH OF MR. JAMES HUTCHISON, M.P
QUESTION
- CIGAR LEAF GROWERS: QUEENSLAND
QUESTION
- WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY
QUESTION
- BOARDING OF VESSELS
LIBRARY COMMITTEE
DEATH OF MR. JAMES HUTCHISON, M.P
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
APPROPRIATION BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Woman Suffrage

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

page 7120

DEATH OF MR. JAMES HUTCHISON, M.P

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– For the second time during the very few months that I have been its leader, it becomes my duty to inform the Senate that death has once more visited Parliamentary circles, and that, as a result,’ we have lost the ‘ comradeship of Mr. James Hutchison, late member of the House of Representatives for Hindmarsh, in the State of South Australia. I am’ sure that, although we in this Chamber were not brought so closely into touch with the deceased gentleman as were the members of the House to which he belonged, we knew him sufficiently well to recognise the great loss which has fallen upon Parliament and upon the State which he so worthily represented. Mr. Hutchison was at all times a genial- comrade, and, I think I may say, an energetic and conscientious Parliamentary representative. That his absence will represent a loss to the councils of the nation, I am certain. But there is still a greater loss to which I desire to make a. passing reference, that to his family. I propose at a later hour to offer for the acceptance of the Senate a motion which I would have submitted now, except that it was thought desirable that it should be in similar terms to that which will be submitted elsewhere. I shall ask the Senate, sir, to adopt a motion conveying an expression of its sincere sympathy with the widow, who is now mourning the most severe bereavement which she could possibly be called upon to bear, and with the family who have been so suddenly deprived of their mainstay and breadwinner.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– Death is a very sad thing at any time, from whatever cause it may arise. The fact that another member of the body to which we belong has been suddenly taken away, and that death has been, at any rate to my mind, unduly frequent since the Federal Parliament was instituted!, must indicate to the general public that the work therein is of a character which is not conducive to the well-being of the representatives of the people. To ‘ learn of the death of any one who may not have been the main support, or the breadwinner, of a father, or a mother, or a wife, or children, is sad enough-. But when we come to lament, as we are now doing, over the death of one who was a faithful representative of the people in another place, and who was also a. husband and the father of a considerable family ; when we think of all these things, and recollect that only a- week ago he was in the prime of life, and in healthy vigour, it must fill our hearts with grief. Only a week ago I travelled over from Adelaide with Mr. Hutchison. In the evening he was as well as any one could be; but on the following morning he was stricken down, and we know .the result. I was very pleased to hear that later the Vice-President of the Executive Council will move a motion of sympathy with the widow and the family of the late Mr. Hutchison. All those who knew that gentleman intimately must at all times pay a tribute to his sincerity, his earnestness, and his integrity. I hope that the Senate will not for a long time have to again lament such a sad event.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia.

– In politics all differences dis appear on the arrival of death. As one who was a fellow-representative of South Australia with the late Mr. Hutchison, but on another side in politics, I want to bear testimony to the genuineness of his character, his earnestness, and his sincere desire to do the best he could, not only for his State, but for the whole of the Commonwealth. By his death we have lost a comrade whose desire always was to promote the true welfare of the Commonwealth. On an occasion like this, no matter on what side of politics we may be, we can all recognise the value of one who has thus been taken away. I desire to pay my tribute of esteem to the memory of Mr. James Hutchison, and to proffer my sympathy to those whom he has left behind1. No words of ours are sufficient to console and- comfort his family in this time of distress, but it will help them to bear their affliction when they know of the deep sympathy felt for them in this their time of sorrow.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I desire the indulgence of the Senate while I say a few words in regard to our late comrade, Mr. James Hutchison. I was, perhaps, brought more closely in contact with the late honorable gentleman than was any one else, because, in the late Government, he acted for the Defence Department in another place. I feel sure that the Parliament is the better for having had him as a member of it. He was a fine man, though physically he was very weak. Notwithstanding that he suffered continually as the result of that weakness, his nature was a bright and cheery- one. He always had a sunny disposition. He met trouble and discouragement bravely, and in that sense his life will be an example to others. But he had more than that in his nature. Not born in Australia, he was a true Australian. He was one of those who looked upon political life seriously. To him it was not a sport or a profession, but his whole life. There are those who know that, even on his dying bed, his mind continually reverted to his work in Parliament, and his expressions of opinion showed that his mind was still thinking over his responsibilities as a legislator. While he may not be called a statesman, sir, he was a patriot. He was one who loved his country. He was prepared to devote all his energies and all his strength to promoting what he believed to be the ‘ true interests of his country. It is well known to his friends that, prior to leaving his home on the last occasion, he felt unwell. He was urged by his wife and family to stay at home, but in view of the fact that the session was drawing to a close, and that many important measures were to be dealt with, against the advice of those who loved him dearly, and at the sacrifice of his health, he determined to go to Melbourne and remain till the close of the session. He has paid the penalty of his steadfastness, but I am sure that the record of his earnestness, his intense devotion to his . ideals, his whole-hearted belief in his principles, and his determination to do what he considered to be his duty, will be an inspiration not only to the party with which he was associated, but also to the political life of the country. And, in sympathizing, with his widow and children to-day, we feel that when the first pangs of grief shall have passed, the best consolation will be the knowledge of his splendid political work, his great earnestness, and his intense desire to do that which he believed to be his duty.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before calling upon the business of the day to be proceeded with, it maynot be amiss that I, in the position which I occupy as President of the Senate, should add a few words to those which have been so well expressed. It will, I am sure, be a matter of great gratification to the family of the late gentleman to know that there has been such a tribute pf esteem and admiration paid to his good qualities. It tends to show that, however divergent our opinions on political matters may be, however much men may determine to fight for their principles and views, nevertheless there is at the bottom a strong feeling of sympathy between members, and a strong recognition of the fact that men who come here are fighting for principles and for what they believe to be best in the interests of our great community. When tributes of esteem come from all sides of the Chamber, that fact must be brought home to everybody. While death separates us, at the same time it unites us. It brings us together in this respect - that we have a sense of regard and esteem for all that was good in fellow citizens who have passed away, and feel that there is a comradeship between us all. Death has unfortunately thinned the ranks of the Federal Parliament during the mine years of its existence, but where a large body of men are brought together that, will always be the case. Death is no respecter of persons; it seizes the best of men, and frequently men whom we looked upon as being, in the prime and’ vigour of life, and the least likely to becalled away so early. I had not theadvantage of an intimate personal acquaintance with Mr. Hutchison, but from all I have known of him and have learned” he was respected and esteemed as a manwho desired to do that which was right and best in the interests of the country.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I rise to submit the motion towhich I referred a few moments ago, and in doing so I beg to intimate that duringthe morning I propose to consult the Leader of the Opposition as to an adjournment toenable honorable senators to pay their last respects to the deceased gentleman thisafternoon. I move -

That this House desires to record its regret at the loss which the Commonwealth suffers inthe death of the late member for Hindmarsh, the Honorable J. Hutchison, and expresses itssincere condolence with his widow and the members of his family in their bereavement.
That the President be requested to convey the foregoing resolution to Mrs. Hutchison.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I second the motion, sir.

Honorable senators rising in theirplaces.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 7122

QUESTION

CIGAR LEAF GROWERS: QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:

– I desire to ask the Minister of Trade and Customs whether he can inform the Senate of the number of growers of cigar leaf in Texas, Queensland, to whom a bountv has been paid ?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Thehonorable senator was good enough to mention this matter to me privately, and I am obtaining the desired information. I shall be glad, during the course of the day,, to let him have it.

Senator PEARCE:

– And the names of the growers.

page 7122

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– I wish to ask theVicePresident of the Executive Council whether he has yet obtained the information which I sought yesterday, in reference, to the work of the proposed Inter-Imperial Conference on wireless telegraphy?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The information isnot yet to hand, and therefore I would request my honorable friend to ask the question at a later stage.

page 7123

QUESTION

BOARDING OF VESSELS

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council a question which I put to him on 25th August last, viz. : -

If his attention has been drawn to the notice issued in April last by the Naval Board (regarding boarding of vessels in time of war) reading “ Hobart south of the Une Mount Nelson Gellibrand Point “? Is he aware that such limit is within four miles of the city, would expose it to be shelled by an enemy, and has been stated by experts as too close for -safety ? Will he have the limit extended?

Upon that occasion, the reply given was -

The line mentioned indicates the location of the examination anchorage. The examination steamer would approach vessels and examine them south of this line.

The line has been determined in accordance with regulations on the subject, and is considered by the Director of Naval Forces to meet all requirements.

I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether, during the recess, he will have further inquiries made into the matter, particularly in reference to the opinion of the British Naval authorities that the boarding ought to take place nearer the mouth of the Derwent?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– I will willingly do what the honorable senator asks, namely, invite the Minister to again consider the matter. But I would like to point out to my honorable friend that the subject is one which necessarily covers information more or less of a confidential nature, which it is not desirable to publish to the world at large. I would therefore suggest to him that he should see the Minister, and he then will be able to obtain information which will justify the conclusion that it is inadvisable to publish everything that is known broadcast.

ADJOURNMENT(Formal).

Coat-miners’ Strike.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received an intimation from Senator de Largie that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate, to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the necessity for Federal intervention in the dispute in the coal -mining industry at Newcastle.

Four honorable senators having risen in their places,

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 6 a.m. to-morrow.

Senator DOBSON:

Senator MILLEN:

-The honorable senator went further, and pointed out what he believed to be the only directions in which we could move. He said that there were only two alternatives open to us. I dispute the statement he made entirely. The honorable senator said that one was that the Federal Government might send the Military Forces to assist the State Government to place the men on strike in gaol. That is not an alternative at all. It is impossible.

Senator Pearce:

– Hear, hear ! I admit that.

Senator MILLEN:

– The other suggestion was that the Federal Government should step in and nationalize the coal mines. The fact that we have not the power at the present time to do that is shown by the terms of a motion which the honorable senator has on the business-paper asking the people to confer upon the Federal Parliament the right to nationalize monopolies. It is obvious that at the present moment the Federal Government have no power to interpose in this matter in any way whatever. The Government take the view that unless circumstances arise to bring the matter within the ambit of Federal authority it would be highly injudicious for them to interfere. We should be very much in the position of a party going into a Court where a case is in progress and claiming to be heard in a matter in which they had no status at all. They would very properly be ordered to sit down, and their action would probably be regarded by both the parties to the case as more or less impertinent. The Government will be only too pleased should an opportunity present itself to do anything they can to bring to an -end the present distressing and unfortunate state of affairs, but until an opening clearly presents itself they take the view that it would be extremely injudicious, and might be disastrous, by interposing to enter a domain which at present, under the terms of the Constitution, is closed against them.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I think that Senator de

Largie adopted a wise course in submitting his motion. I venture to say that had we remained silent any longer upon the industrial trouble in New South Wales, the effects of which are being felt in every home in the Commonwealth, our silence would have been construed as weakness. It would probably be said that we were afraid to discuss this question in the National Parliament. During the discussion many facts have been brought forward to prove that if the Federal Parliament have not the power to intervene, they might before the end of this session be endowed with that power. A measure proposing the amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is at present before another branch of the Legislature, and, despite the decision of the High Court, I believe that a clause might be inserted in that amending Bill which would give the Federal Government power to at once intervene in this matter. I listened to Senator Pulsford’s remarks as to the amount of capital invested in the coal mines of the Newcastle district. It was probably owing to a lapse of memory that the honorable senator forgot to mention the dividends which the companies working those mines have received.

Senator Pulsford:

– The honorable senator will pardon me, I did refer to the dividends.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I think the honorable senator forgot to give the figures, and I intend to give them before 1 sit down. Before I do so I wish to make a reference to the proposed open conference. We have been told that at first the men submitted a list of forty or fifty grievances, which they have since reduced to four, but whether they have one or a greater number of grievances the fact that they are prepared to submit them to an open conference, and to agree that the minor grievances shall be settled locally, is entirely to their credit. Senator Dobson has said that because the coal miners are on strike they have broken the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act of New South Wales. Apparently the honorable senator has forgotten that the mine-owners have broken the same law. That is shown by the following statement which appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph: -

The proprietors had decided they would no longer be parties to the settlement of colliery troubles by conciliation. Therefore the Board lapsed.

I venture to say that in this case the men had only two alternatives left them - to strike or to tamely submit to the grievances which they are prepared to put before an open conference. I do not. suppose that any one in Australia desires that these menshould sacrifice all their privileges and liberties. On the subject of the dividends received by coal mining companies, I quote the following from a statement made by Mr. Prendergast at a social gathering in Melbourne the other night : -

In the Newcastle coal strike, the absentee land owner and shareholder had their heavy hands, upon everything. The Australian Agricultural Company owned 1,000,000 acres of land in the coal district. The shareholders lived in England, and enjoyed the fruits of a charter granted to them in 1824. In the 85 years that have elapsed, this company of foreign capitalists, who originally paid up ^483,000, have received about ^3,000,000 in dividends, or about seven timestheir paid-up capital - an average of ^35,300- per annum, equal to nearly 8 per cent. The Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company has 300- shareholders, foreign and otherwise, holding 10,000 shares, paid up to £10 each. In 1907 the reserve fund amounted to ,£28,158, indemnity account ^19,348, and insurance fund ^3,504. Added to these, from the year 1891 to 1907,. dividends amounting to ^302,250 had been paid. Allowing that ^10,000 per annum had been paid for the latter ‘half of the year 1907, and for the year 190S, and the first half of 1909, the total amount received for an investment of £100,000 was ^373,260. The capital was paid back 35 times over in iS£ years. They received’ over £20,000 per annum, and doubled their capital in a period of about every five years. TheNewcastle Coal Company has a paid-up capital of ^100,000, divided amongst 200 shareholders. Two hundred and eighty-six per cent, has beendeclared in dividends from July, 1894, to January, 1906.

Those are the figures which Senator Pulsford did not quote -

Allowing 30 per cent, in all to have been paid* for the years 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909,. ^316,000 has been paid in dividends which, with an undivided balance of about ^3,500, gives, a total of ^319,500 for an investment of ^100,000 for 15^ years. It is no wonder thecoal owners do not agree to an open conference.

It is just possible that those figures mightbe proved to the hilt, and that may be thereason why the owners refuse an’ open conference.

If the miners of Newcastle were workingg days per fortnight, the output of coal wouldbe about 180,000 tons for that time. The output is only from 60,000 to 80,000 tons per fortnight. This answers the wages question, for it is obvious that the men, on the average, worked” less than half-time. If the men averaged £3 per week for a weekly output of 180,000 tons, they could only average £1 3s. 4d. per week for an average weekly output of 70,000 tons.

Take the A. A. Co., Newcastle, which was incorporated in 1824, and managed in England..

This company paid £2,755,250 in dividends up to 1907, say £3,000,000 up to 1909, giving an average of £35,300 per annum in dividends for 85 years, or about 7f per cent, up to 1909 upon their capital of £430,000, paid up. Up to 1907 they had paid back their capital 6 two-fifth times. If we give £3,000,000 as their dividends up to 1909, they have paid back their capital about seven time’s over. In addition, they have debentures, £97,700; reserves, £15,000; undivided balance, £55,079.

The latter part of the quotation is the answer to the statement made by Senator Dobson that the men had been earning regularly from 10s. to 15s. per day. These are figures which cannot be denied. Australia is face to face with a crisis, and some members of the Senate think that the Commonwealth Government have the power to intervene, but, if they have not, I believe that the members of this Parliament would readily run through the Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill, which is now before the other House, with a clause giving the necessary powers, and thus enable the Commonwealth Government to intervene, and supersede the partisan action of the New South Wales Government: We have heard a lot about the miners going on strike and breaking the law. But what have their critics to say about the coal dealers in Newcastle, who have gone on strike five or six times; who have refused to sell coal for domestic and commercial purposes without an additional charge of from 300 to 400 per cent. Is not that a strike? In my opinion it is a strike of the most awful nature, but because a few unionists working the mines determined to throw down their tools, and because as a result of the paragraph I have quoted they had no alternative, they are supposed to be law-breakers, while the .coal dealers who charge exorbitant prices are allowed to go scot-free. I hope that the Government will realize the gravity of the position in which they are placed, and take all legitimate means to try to bring this industrial trouble to an end.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- It goes without saying that every member of the Senate is seized of the far-reaching importance and seriousness of the industrial war which is waging in Newcastle. Every honorable senator who is without bias will admit that the New South Wales Government have displayed hostility to the workers, and shown a partisanship which has not, I think, ever been exhibited before in Australia. In arresting the leaders of the strike move ment they showed to what limits they are prepared to go. From day to day the strike leaders were in attendance at the Conference which was being held in, the Trades Hall at Sydney, and nothing could have been easier than for the Government to have them arrested on warrants in Sydney if they had felt disposed to take that course. But they did not do so. On the very train by which the strike leaders were travelling to their respective homes at Newcastle on Saturday night, the State Government placed about seventy special policemen. And, not content with that, they engaged a special motor car, probably the speediest which could be obtained in the State, with a view to sending on to Newcastle the warrants for the arrest of the men. Something happened to the motor car and something else happened, so the man in the street says, in regard to the plans which the Government had mapped out. I am informed, and I believe it is true, that what the Government had planned out for the Saturday night was that the motor car should arrive at a certain hour. The Government anticipated that immediately the strike leaders alighted from the train they would be received by their fellow workers, and would make their way to the place where the mass meeting was to be held, and that, when the mass meeting was proceeding, and the audience would number some thousands, the police would make their appearance with the warrants and arrest the strike leaders. Tn these circumstances, so some persons say, and I am not disposed to disbelieve the statement, the crowd would be so excited by the presence of so many strange policemen that the State Government anticipated that in all probability a riot would, be created, and would give them a splendid chance of saying, “ What disorderly folk the Newcastle miners are !” But, fortunately, because of the mishap to the motor car, the plans which they had mapped, out could not be followed.

Senator de Largie:

– It was a cowardly, brutal thing anyway.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It was an act which has brought ridicule and contempt upon the Government of New South Wales. That opinion has been expressed in the editorial columns of more than one leading newspaper in the Commonwealth, rot newspapers which have at any time shown too much friendliness towards the cause of Labour, or Labour representatives.

I believe that this trouble has arisen from a determined effort on the part of the Coal Vend to weaken and to eventually break down unionism in the Newcastle district. But they have not the slightest chance of accomplishing their object. They may gaol a Burns, a Gray, and a Bowling from time to time; but the seeds of unionism can never be eradicated from that centre. This strike is a very serious matter to everybody in the Commonwealth. The industrial and commercial life of the community is in a state of disorganization. Many trains have been cancelled, causing very serious inconvenience to travellers. In some cases mail services have been limited, and if the- industrial war continues the probabilities are that in some parts of the Commonwealth people will not be able to get their mails more than once a fortnight, or perhaps once a month. “ What can be done in respect-to this matter?” asks Senator Dobson. I think that certain honorable senators have shown, this morning that we possess certain powers, and that if they were exercised to the full we could do much. In any case, they say that public opinion has had a marvellous effect on different disputes in days gone by. In connexion, with the industrial dispute at Newcastle, many gentlemen in this city, representing commercial, industrial and other pursuits, have been invited by the newspapers to speak their minds, and the great majority of those persons have expressed themselves as being in sympathy with the miners, and against the attitude .f, and the action taken by, the coal proprietors. It has been remarked that this discussion has been, so to speak, so one-sided, because the only senators who have spoken from the other side have been Senators Pulsford, Trenwith, Dobson, and Millen. With the exception of Senators Trenwith and Millen, the others expressed themselves in opposition to the miners’ cause.

Senator Pulsford:

– No.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Their sympathies, I gather from their remarks, were ,with the members of the Coal Vend.

Senator Pulsford:

– No, no.

Senator FINDLEY:

– “ What can we do?” we are asked. If we are unable to do anything we can show by a resolution, or by our remarks, that we want this dispute brought to an end. Various suggestions have been made in that direction. But I do not think that any suggestion is so practicable as that which was put forward bv the Age this morning in its first leading article, viz. -

Two things are clear. First, the mine-owners refuse to work their mines except on terms intolerable to the miners. Secondly, the miners refuse to work the mines under duress. These two things, therefore, create a coal famine. That famine must end. It can only end by the Government taking possession of the mines in the name of the people, just as the commandant of a fortress would do with the common stock of food supplies. The Government made its initial blunder when it consented to the suspension of the labour covenants of the coal leases. It can rectify that mistake now only by giving notice to the mine-owners that if the mines be not working by a given date of a few days hence a Government receiver will be put into them and the mines be worked under Government supervision, pending the holding of the open conference which the coal-owners at present refuse.

Suppose that we have not that power, surely we can, in our representative capacity, express our opinions regarding the matter, and those opinions will, at any rate, be considered by the State Government, who have taken a course which is unwarrantable ; a course which is likely to create bitter feeling, and to further extend this unfortunate strike. Personally, I am inclined to think that unless something is done to speedily terminate this industrial war, it will extend to every part of the Commonwealth. If the action of 12,000 miners, in striking against unfair conditions of employment, is causing’ the. distress which we have been assured it is causing, what will be the result if many more thousands of unionists strike in sympathy with them against the Coal Vend ? Like other honorable senators who have addressed themselves to this question, T hope that the dispute will be brought to a speedy termination, and that it will be settled on equitable lines in the interests of the 12,000 men who are suffering because of their resistance to the unjust conditions which for a number of years have been imposed upon them by the coal proprietors of Newcastle.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I am sorry that I have not a little more to reply to than has been advanced during this discussion. The attitude taken up by the Government is one of “ do nothing.” If such an attitude will result in the settlement of the Newcastle strike, I shall be very much surprised. It is idle to suggest that the Commonwealth has not the power to intervene in this industrial dispute. The Constitution gives us full power in that connexion if we choose to exercise it. For instance, we have power to make laws with respect to -

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

Another section of the Constitution empowers us to legislate regarding-

The control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– May I ask why the Navigation Bill’, which is the next Order of the Day, cannot be proceeded with ? There is also time to deal with private business. I have a few items on the businesspaper.

Senator Needham:

– May I ask whether it is intended to deal with the Northern Territory Acceptance Bill?

Senator MILLEN:

– It will be obvious to an old Parliamentarian like Senator Neild, and even to a young one like Senator Needham, that there would not be time to deal with any of the business referred to this session. It would be useless to discuss matters which there is no chance of disposing of.

The PRESIDENT:

– With the concurrence of honorable senators, I will leave the chair till 9 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 7.48 to 9 p.m.

The PRESIDENT:

– I understand that the Appropriation Bill has not yet come up from the House of Representatives, but it is anticipated that it may be received within a few minutes. It is impossible to predict what may happen, and, therefore, I propose to leave the chair now until 9.30 o’clock. If the Minister should be prepared to introduce the Appropriation Bill at an earlier hour, the bells will be rung for five minutes before I take the chair.

Sitting suspended from9. 2 to9.30 p.m.

page 7139

APPROPRIATION BILL

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives.

Motion (by Senator Sir Robert Best) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

Bill read a first time

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

[9.27]. - I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

have simply to point out to honorable senators that we have already by four Supply Bills appropriated various sums of money. This Appropriation Bill is intended to appropriate a balance of £3,246,456, making the total appropriation for the year£5,393,556. I would remind honorable senators of the fact that we took an early opportunity in this session to discuss at length the principles of the Estimates, and the Budget papers. On the various Supply Bills we have also had further opportunities to discuss in detail many of the features of the Estimates. In the circumstances I’ do not deem it necessary at this stage to say anything further.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not desire to discuss the Bill, but to ask the Minister of Trade and Customs whether he is prepared to make a statement in regard to the operation of woman’s suffrage in this country similar to that which was made in the House of Representatives last evening.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– May I suggest to my honorable friend that that is rather ‘a matter to bring forward on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Very well. I thought that the honorable senator might prefer to make the statement in Committee on this Bill.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– May I ask the Minister of Trade and Customs whether this will be an opportune time for him to acquaint the Committee with the contents of the report which he promised some time ago in connexion with the position of the female workers in the Stamps Branch?

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– On the vote for my department I shall be very happy to do so.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I do not desire to occupy the time of the Senate longer than to enter a protest against this practice of bringing down the Estimates at this late stage of the session. There is no time at our disposal now to give anything like adequate attention to their consideration, and, furthermore, we are handicapped by the absence of the Auditor-General’s report. Although it is nearly six months since the accounts for the last financial year were closed, yet we are completely in the dark as to how the votes were expended in . that year. I am under the impression that at about this time last year we had the Auditor-General’s report on the accounts for the previous year ; certainly we had an opportunity of perusing the document before we finally dealt with the Estimates. At present, honorable senators are not in a position to give to the Estimates that close consideration which the people expect them to receive. I hope that in the future, instead of resorting to the practice of passing monthly Supply Bills, the Estimates will be brought down earlier in the session, so that honorable senators may have a chance of dealing with the items exhaustively, and not be compelled to deal with them when some senators have gone to their homes, and others are making arrangements to depart, or- are fatigued and unfit to devote proper attention to the most important matters which can come before the Parliament. In what way are we now exercising our power of the purse? We are dealing with the Estimates at the fag end of the session without a report from the Auditor-General on the previous year’s accounts, and with no information as to how the votes for that vear were disbursed.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I am willing to assist the Government to dispose of the measure as speedily as possible, but I think it would facilitate its passage if the Minister of Trade and Customs would inform the Senate whether it sanctions any, and, if so, what, alterations of the usual appropriations for any constantly recurring items. If honorable senators were supplied with that information it would be possible’ for them to devote their attention to those items. But if, on the other hand, we are simply asked to revote, as we do revote year by year, appropriations for specific purposes, I think that I am voicing the opinions of a good many honorable senators when I say there will be no opposition offered to any votes of that kind. If there are any increases proposed which might be lightly passed by the Senate without full consideration, and passed simply because of a disposition on its part to fall in with the other House and to early terminate the session, I think the Minister would not be treating us exactly as we would expect to be treated. But if there are anv items on which increases are proposed, and on which there might be a reasonable ground for dis- cussion, I trust that the Minister will furnish us with that information so that any discussion may be concentrated thereon. I know of no such items, but if the Minister will assure us that there are none, I wish a safe and speedy passage for the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

– I agree with Senator Keating that if the Minister of Trade and Customs in moving the second reading of this Bill had made a short statement regarding increases of expenditure, honorable senators would probably have been satisfied to allow it to pass through Committee without much discussion. But I find that under this Bill the increased expenditure, as compared with, the expenditure for 1908-9, aggregates . £645,779.

– It seems to me that we ought to determine whether we intend to postpone the first schedule, and then we can proceed to debate the items which are grouped under the various Departments.

First schedule postponed.

Second schedule.

The Parliament : Hansard Typists : Archivist : Repairs to Parliament Building.

Divisions 1 to 10 (The Parliament), £32,066.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Some months ago I brought under the notice of the Senate the position of the sessional typists who are engaged in connexion with our Hansard staff. I understand that they are only temporary employes, and the time has now arrived when their services will be dispensed with. They occupy rather an unfortunate position, in that most of them desire to be re-engaged - they have no complaints that they are not well paid - and very few commercial houses are inclined to employ men who they know will remain with them only a short time. It does seem remarkable that in connexion with the Commonwealth Public Service no suitable arrangement has been made whereby these men can be transferred to other Departments whilst the Parliament is not in session. I understand that some difficulty is experienced in that connexion. I have been informed that during the past, few months consideration has been given to the question of effectively dealing with their case, and that we are likely to be favoured with a statement upon the position this evening. I shall, therefore, content myself with expressing the hope that some definite action will be taken in their case in the near future.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.58].- Some time ago the honorable senator saw me in reference to the sessional typists who at the present time are merely temporary officers. These officers, at the close of each Parliament, usually receive a week’s pay in lieu of notice, and their services are then not required until they are re-engaged. It has been urged that they should be placed on the permanent staff. The matter has occupied the attention of Mr. Speaker and myself, and a recommendation has been made that they should be placed on the permanent staff at a fixed salary. The conditions of their appointment will probably be that whilst Parliament is not in session their services will be utilized in any other portion of the Commonwealth Public Service in which it may be found necessary to employ them, subject always to the approval of Mr. Speaker and myself. Upon our recommendation these typists will be placed in an exactly similar position to that of other officers of the permanent staff, and will have a fixed salary. It is contemplated that their salaries will range from £160 to £200 a year, and it will be necessary for them to pass a satisfactory examination before they are permanently appointed.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I think it is only right that the Committee should recognise that under the heading of “The Library,” there is a new item, namely, “Archivist from 1st September, 1909, at £500 per annum, £417.”

Senator SIR ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

I think that all honorable senators are aware that Mr. Petherick has been engaged in that capacity.

Senator Walker:

– The fact has never . been mentioned.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The item has appeared upon the Estimates for many months. Every honorable senator knows that Mr. Petherick has been appointed Archivist.

Senator Sayers:

– I did not know it;

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– His collection was exhibited in the Queen’s Hall for some time. He has been engaged by the Government at the salary stated, and we have secured the benefit of some of the most valuable records which he has brought into the Library.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– In connexion with the vote of £462 for Queen’s Hall, I wish to point out that it is obvious to everybody who enters the Hall that it is somewhat out of repair. The walls present anything but a satisfactory appearance. I wish to inquire upon whom the responsibility rests of keeping the building in order, and particularly of mending the cracks which cause Queen’s Hall to look much more dilapidated than it would otherwise do.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- Some time ago, at the instance of a number of men out of employment, J made a request to a certain Department of the Commonwealth with reference to the subject which has been mentioned by Senator Keating. I understood that as the result pf that request Departmental officers visited portions of this building, and reported that no repairs were needed. Nevertheless the men, at whose instance I took action, and who are very experienced in connexion with building work, assured me that the structure is in a very bad way. On the score of economy, if for no other reason, it should be attended to. I do not know whether any improvements have been made since I directed attention to the matter, but I trust that it will receive the consideration of the Government.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.- This is certainly a matter that requires consideration in connexion with the building which we a.re now occupying. As we are tenants, it is our obvious duty to keep it in good condition. We owe a great deal to the Government of Victoria for allowing us to remain in occupation for so long a period. I understand that the building is being seriously damaged by reason of the smoke from a chimney in the neighbourhood. This smoke pours forth in great volume, and, not only blackens the building, but contains some chemical property which injures the stonework.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I remind the honorable senator that we are dealing with the division relating to the Queen’s Hall.

Senator McCOLL:

– The same nuisance affects the inside as well as the exterior. I do not know whether the Federal Government have any authority in the matter, which certainly requires serious consideration. If necessary, they should approach the municipal authorities with a view to putting an end to the nuisance. All that is required is probably the regulation of the draught of the furnaces which produce the smoke.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [10.5].- These buildings are occupied under an agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria. It is the duty of the Commonwealth Government to maintain the structure. A little while ago a considerable sum of money was spent on painting and other improvements. The Joint House Committee are’ exceedingly anxious to see that all necessary work upon the building is properly done. As to the matter referred to by Senator Findley, the authorities must, of course, be guided by the reports of their responsible experts, whose duty it is to see that property occupied by the Commonwealth is not allowed to get into a state of disrepair. It would be quite impossible for us to take action against the advice of our officers in relation to the building. I quite agree with Senator McColl as to the smoke nuisance. I am not aware as to whether it is a matter with which the municipal authorities can deal ; but I will endeavour to ascertain what the position is.

Senator de Largie:

– It is not a matter in which the Committee is very much interested just now.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– We are certainly interested in seeing that the agreement made with the State of Victoria is observed.

– I also wish to say a word or two upon the vote for advertising the resources of the Commonwealth. We voted £20,000 for this purpose last year, of which £8,644 was spent. This year another vote of £20,000 is asked for the same purpose, and I submit that until some arrangements are made between the Commonwealth and State Governments for the allocation of lands for immigrants it is futile to vote this money. There is plenty of good land in Australia, but the Commonwealth does not own an inch of it. In Victoria and New South Wales, we find that there are hundreds of applications from people already in Australia for every block of land opened for settlement. If the State Governments cannot supply the demand for land for the people who are already here, it must be impossible for them to meet, in addition, the demand for land by people introduced from oversea. The fact is that a vote of this kind should be preceded by the introduction of a Bill for the taxation of unimproved land values, which would have the effect of bursting up the large estates, and so making available lands for those who might be induced to come to Australia from oversea. I do not desire to repeat statements I have already made on the subject. But I hope the Government, even at the eleventh hour, will recognise that it is futile to vote £20,000 for advertising the resources of Australia when, if people come here from abroad, there is a difficulty in making land available for them.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (VictoriaMinister of Trade and Customs) [10.22]. - I thank Senator . Pearce for bringing under special attention the matter to which he has referred. The position is a little complicated. Captain Holden desired that he should be appointed agent of the Commonwealth in India for the purpose of procuring this particular class of immigrant?

Senator Findley:

– And securing a job for himself.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That is true. He represents a number of commercial firms here, and we found that there would, perhaps, be some little difficulty in assimilating the various positions, and so have not proceeded very far in connexion with this matter. I dare say that a very valuable class of immigrants would be secured in the way proposed, and I will take the opportunity of bringing the representations of Senator Pearce under the notice of my honorable colleague.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– There is a vote of £20 set down for “Repatriation of distressed Australians. ‘.’ I understand that it is intended for the assistance of persons who would like to get back to Australia, but who have not sufficient means. I should like to know whether it is possible to secure assistance from the vote for Australians who are outside the Commonwealth at the present time?

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– The object is to bring back unfortunate Australians who are stranded in foreign countries.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I understand that ; but I want to know whether there are any further sums available to assist persons outside of Australia who want to get back to this country ?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (VictoriaMinister of Trade and Customs) [10.26]. - I understand that the practice is that where special cases are brought under notice, and are shown- to be deserving of assistance, some advance can be obtained from this vote for the purpose of helping them.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Attorney-General - Agricultural Implement Makers’ Employes : Refund of Legal Expenses - Conciliation and Arbitration Court : Registrars.

Divisions 17 to 20 (Attorney-General’s Department), £16,172.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the vote of , £3,781, Division 17.by £1.

My reason for submitting the motion is that about two months and a half ago, the Senate decided, by a majority, that something should be done towards defraying the expenses incurred by a number of men who, unfortunately, were involved in the new Protection cases before the High Court. I do not know whether honorable senators were serious when they supported the motion to which I refer. But I take it that they really desired that the Government should give serious consideration to the unfortunate position of these men. Without going into details, it is sufficient to say that from the beginning to the end these men were hocussed and made the catspaws for the political interests, not of parties, but, to a large extent, of the party in power today. I make the following quotation from a speech made by the Prime Minister on nth March -

No one would look forward to once more considering the Tariff, but it was possible that this House, after the publicly-announced intention of. the Government, would supplement it with what is popularly known as new Protection, and whatever might be the result of present proceedings the Government is absolutely bound by its undertaking.

Since we carried the motion to which I. have referred, we have had no intimation that the Government intend to give it any consideration. I believe that on one occasion there was a bald announcement that the Government would do nothing in the matter at all. Surely, when a majority of the Senate give expression to their opinions, they are entitled to consideration by the Government, and not to be merely put aside by those who were responsible for the position which was created. Why did the men engage in this struggle? It was not a case of men striking or entering into open rebellion, but a case where, owing to laxity on the part of the Government, men felt themselves compelled to take action to secure the proper administration of the law of the Commonwealth. Through the neglect of Ministers to discharge their duty, the men appealed to the Court, and produced evidence to prove that the manufacturers, who were receiving the benefit of a law which individual members of Parliament supported on a definite promise, were not observing the conditions which they had agreed to comply with, and which that law imposed upon them. Not only did the Government fail to administer the law, but, within a few hours, the Parliament is to be prorogued, with no provision made for the establishment of new Protection, or to meet the just and reasonable claims of the agricultural implement workers. No doubt we shall be told that the present Government are not responsible for the actions of their predecessors. But let me remind the Senate that nearly one-half the members of the last Deakin Ministry, who were responsible for this mess, owing to lax administration, are members of the present Government, and that we have had a declaration from the Prime Minister that their policy has been accepted by those who belonged to the other party. If it is a fact, as claimed by the Prime Minister, that the Fusion Government accepted the whole of his programme, what has become of the assurance that they would mete out justice to the workers through the medium of new Protection? It may be very interesting to honorable senators to know that the last Deakin Government believed that the workers had so successfully proved their case in the Court that they issued a writ for £20,000 against Mr. H. V. McKay. Why was the writ issued? Because the men had proved their case up to the hilt, and so compelled the Government to take steps to enforce the law which should have been, vigorously administered six months previously. Since the men have been loaded up with a debt for law costs, no stand has been taken by the Government, beyond saying that they would not accept the responsibility of paying the bill. The Senate, after a full debate, and in the light of all the facts, declared, by a majority, that reasonable costs should be paid to the men. But the Government said that, inasmuch as the law had been declared to be unconstitutional, they could accept no further responsibility in regard to the matter. Next we had the hoax of the men being promised that the law would be amended in some shape, or brought into operation prior to the termination of this Parliament. We are all aware of the changes of Government which have taken place. But I am not aware, nor is anyother honorable senator, that there is any change in the opinion of the majority of the members of both Houses that the workers should participate to a reasonable extent in the benefits derived from the Protectionist policy. What was the object of the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act? On the 21st September, 1906, Mr. Isaacs said -

The Government have given their anxious consideration to this matter, and I take it that every member of this Committee acquiesces in the idea that we do not wish to impose duties merely to enrich manufacturers.

Clearly, the fact is that the members of each House were deliberately asked to vote for high Protection to many industries, on the distinct promise from responsible Ministers that the men, through the medium of new Protection, or in some shape or form, would be permitted to participate. Yet, here we are to-night asked to pass this item, and to close the last session of this Parliament in the course of a few hours. The manufacturers are enjoying all the benefits of a high Tariff, but the workers are not permitted to share in them at all, and are still each contributing 3d. or 6d. per week towards the cost of an action undertaken to secure the administration of a law which should have been administered by the Government of the day. I am not quite clear as to what will be the position at the coming elections in connexion with this matter. Can the Minister of Trade and Customs, who put the Tariff through the Senate, with a distinct understanding in the mind of every honorable senator who voted for high duties that the workers were going to enjoy a fair share of the benefit of the Protection, say to-day that the Governments with which he has been associated have honestly and fearlessly endeavoured to extend that measure of justice to the men? Or, are we to take it that the promise made by . Ministers was not made seriously, or was not intended to be carried out? To further delude the men, a Bill was brought into the Senate a few weeks ago which purported to extend the benefits of new Protection through the medium of an InterState Commission. What has become of it? Have the Ministry abandoned it? Was it because a few honorable senators criticised certain portions of it that it was immediately relegated to the same position as the Navigation Bill ?

Senator Millen:

– Would the honorable senator have helped to’ put ‘the Bill through ?

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Certainly not ; because mine is not the responsibility of introducing legislation to the Senate, or redeeming promises made by the Minister of Trade and Customs. My duty is to endeavour to see that the Government carryout their pledges.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator prevented us from carrying them out.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not know whether the Minister thinks that at this stage of the session it is time for him to play with public business; but I have no hesitation in saying that the accusation that we on this side prevented the enactment of a new Protection law for the benefit of the workers is without any foundation. Nor can I give my honorable friend credit for believing that his statement contains the slightest truth. We refused to accept a Bill which required the workers, after they had been involved in law costs to the sum of £1,100 or £1,200, to appeal to the State Premiers, to. Wages Boards, to Industrial Courts, to a Judge, to the Inter-State Commission, and thence to the High Court on constitutional points, because the men had asked for a simple, effective law which would secure finality on an industrial question without being subjected’ to enormous law costs. Will my honorable friend assert for a moment that the Government attempted to establish an easy, simple, and effective Court to which the men might directly appeal in order to have their labour difficulties adjusted? On the other hand, can the Government say that the Minister of Trade and Customs has not shirked the responsibility of his position? The Government have a majority when they want to crack the whip on some item. Seeing that they can induce honorable senators to vote against their convictions and their principles, surely if they were really honest and believed that the Inter-State Commission Bill would have redeemed their promise to the workers in the protected industries they could have made a little judicious use of the whip? It seems to me that it is never used when it is a case of trying to get a little justice extended to the workers. When, however, it is a case of doing something which will cripple the workers, the whip will always be cracked by the Government. So fair the employes in the agricultural implement industryhave subscribed £25511s. in small coins, because it has been proved in the Industrial Court of the Commonwealth that they are receiving less than a reasonable living wage. If men in receipt of small wages can make an endeavour to pay what they believe to be their honest debt in that manner, surely the Government cannot shirk the responsibility of helping them in some form or other? Let me illustrate the class of men whose cause I am pleading. When a workmate was recently killed the men, instead of taking the half -day off to attend the funeral, went to work, and gave the half-day’s pay to the widow. In other words, in one establishment alone the men contributed £200 to maintain the widow of a mate who had been killed at his work. That case should indicate their character. These are not men with a weak claim, or no claim, who are endeavouring to drag money out of the Treasury, but men who honestly desire to obtain justice, who were backed up by the promises of the last Deakin Government, who provided the very money to pay the rent of the halls in which Mr. Deakin made to Australia the promise which brought him back to power, and in which a Minister who sits in this Chamber spoke. How can the Minister of Trade and Customs tell these men, whose subscriptions paid for the advertisements of his meetings at which he told his hearers that they would share in the benefits conferred by a Protective Tariff, that he is not going to redeem his promise? I have no desire to be personal, but I say that the Minister accepted the assistance of these workers to provide a fund whereby he might carry on propaganda work for the purpose of educating the people up to the claims of the new Protection. He endeavoured to obtain that Protection, but failed to do so. The Prime Minister then promised that, in some shape, his pledge to the workers in the protected industries of Australia would be redeemed. But has it been redeemed? When this Parliament has ceased to exist, can the Minister face those workers, and say, “ We would have dealt with the question, but we had not time?” Is that the explanation which he intends to give to the men who have so generously assisted him in the past? I ask for some assurance from the honorable gentleman that serious consideration will be given to their claims, and that some respect shall be paid to the majority decision of the Senate that the expenses incurred by the Agricultural Implement Makers’ Employes Union shall be paid by the Commonwealth. I see my friend, Senator Walker, smiling, and he may well smile, because he has the enthusiastic admiration of those who sent him to this Parliament, and who are glad that the Fusion Government have proved sufficiently powerful to play the hypocritical game of introducing a measure which they never intended should become law. We know that when the Fusion Government was formed outside assistance was required to bring the various parties composing it into agreement. One section of the Fusion party had previously been described by the Prime Minister as “ the wreckage of all the reactionaries of the Commonwealth, the remnants of the black labour party, and of all the other defeated elements in Australia.” When the various parties to the Fusion had been brought together, representatives of the Chamber of Manufactures and the Chamber of Commerce actually met and made the Fusion what is today. While some honorable senators opposite were excluded from the conference between the Prime Minister and Mr. Joseph Cook, representatives of these institutions were allowed to enter it. Apparently the dropping of the new Protection by the Government is the reward of those persons for the magnificent services which they have rendered to the Fusion party.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable senator is getting very far away from the request which he has submitted. For some time he has not made the slightest reference to it.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– This is the only opportunity which I shall have of entering my protest against the action of the Government in failing to give effect to the majority decision of this Chamber, and in dropping the new Protection after having promised the workers that such legislation would be enacted. I take it that I shall be in order in quoting a newspaper extract, which expressed jubilation that the workers had been defeated, and that the expenses incurred by the Agricultural Implement Makers’ Employes Unions had not been paid. The extract reads -

The President of the Chamber of Manufactures, Sydney, announced that New Protection is settled, for which he added manufacturers were thankful, as they had always felt disquieted at the thought of New Protection being forced upon them.

– Then why, does the honorable senator sneer?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Will Senator E. J. Russell address the Chair?

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I will, but the honorable senator has no right to sneer at my statements. I trust that those honorable senators who on a previous occasionaffirmed that the expenses incurred in litigation by the Agricultural Implement Makers’ Employes Unions should be paid try the Commonwealth, will support my request in order to re-assert the position of this Chamber. If they are not prepared to do so I hope they will assign some reason for their change of attitude.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.This matter- has been exhaustively debated in the Senate. On the 9th December a motion was submitted by Senator Neild expressing the opinion that the Commonwealth should bear the legal expenses incurred by the Agricultural Implement Makers’ Union in enforcing the provisions of the Excise Tariff Act 1906. The result of the division on that motion was that fourteen senators voted for it and eleven against it. The Government, nevertheless, said that they did not intend to pay the slightest notice. When the next Supply Bill was brought forward, I moved a request with the object of reaffirming the opinion of the Senate that justice should ne done to the men. It must be apparent to everybody that they have been subjected to a gross wrong. Parliament, under the guidance of the Deakin Government, passed a Bill embodying the principle of the new Protection, and enabling Excise to be collected in the event of certain employers not paying reasonable wages and observing reasonable industrial conditions. The chief manufacturer in the agricultural implementmaking trade was not observing decent industrial conditions. So much “was shown when the subject was investigated in the Law Courts. If the Government of the day had enforced the law and had collected the Excise due they would have had a fund from which to pay the expenses incurred by the men, and they would at least have shown their sincerity with reference to the Act which they have placed upon the statute-book. But they were half-hearted, and seemed indisposed to defend their own Act. Consequently, a number of men had to provide out of their own earnings a fund to test the validity of the Act. We all remember how certain industries were picked out for special consideration under a Tariff which was brought before Parliament twelve months before the general Tariff Bill was introduced. The clear understanding was that these manufacturers were to observe the principles of new Protection, and pay their employes reasonable wages. They did not carry out their undertaking. Had . the Government enforced the Act, the employes would not have been compelled to pay these legal ex?penses out of their own pocket. I consider that an overwhelming case has been made out, and that the Government should accede to the request now made.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– I regret that this matter should have had to be brought up again. I can sympathize with the position of the Government, and their reluctance to initiate a novel precedent. But it has to be remembered that one branch of the Legislature has already expressed its opinion, and that the Government have refused to act upon it. In view of all the circumstances, I feel that the Government might well have acceded to the request that has been made. The men in question proceeded in all good faith under an Act of Parliament. If the law had not been discovered to be ultra vires I presume that costs would have been paid to them.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– They could not have been. I have explained that before.

Senator TRENWITH:

– At any rate, had the men secured a material increase in their wages they would thereby have been enabled to bear these costs much easier. I think that a mistake has been made in imparting a controversial spirit to the application instead of endeavouring to get the money for the men by other methods. It is advisable that we should discuss the question temperately, having always in view the object which we profess - to get for the men affected the amount for which they have become liable. That is what I am anxious to do. I shall vote for the request submitted by Senator E. J. Russell, although its adoption may have the effect of sending the Bill back elsewhere. I shall vote for it, because it will be a means of obtaining an emphatic expression of opinion from one branch of the Legislature. The men have undoubtedly sustained hardship. They are an association of honorable men. They have not endeavoured to get out of their liability by refusing to pay. They are week by week endeavouring to accumulate a fund out of which to pay the money. Having regard to their current responsibilities, it is probable that the debt will hang upon them like an old man of the sea for months, and, perhaps, years. Therefore, I consider that the Government ought, even at this late hour, to reconsider their position, and to meet the obligation. I am inclined to think that they, might try to modify the Bill that has been presented. I understand that an undertaking was given by their predecessors in office that they would ask Parliament to grant to these men, not all that they claimed in the way of costs, but a substantial modicum of what they claimed, in order to relieve them of the heavier part of their burden. If the whole Bill cannot be paid by the Government, I earnestly urge that they should, if necessary, have the costs taxed. At any rate, they should arrive at a fair and proper decision, with a view of relieving the men of the great obligation that has been entailed upon them, as I think, unfairly. There is reasonable ground for complaint that action was not taken by the authorities before the men took proceedings. They were forced into action by tardiness on the part of the responsible authorities to accent responsibility. Consideration should surely be given to that fact.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

[11.14]. - I am sorry that my honorable friend, Senator E. J. Russell, has seen fit to bring this matter up again. It has been twice before the Senate, and I do not see that any useful end is to be served bv blocking the Appropriation Bill. I wish to correct what is evidently a misapprehension in the minds of some honorable senators. The Government are just as full of sympathy for, and as anxious to do justice to, these men, as are any other honorable senators. But they have a serious public responsibility, which I hope they will discharge according to their best wisdom and judgment. First of all, it must be realized that the proceedings in which these men took part were entered upon voluntarily, and of their own volition.

Senator Findley:

– Because the Government did not do their duty.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Under the Act it was possible for an application to be made to the Arbitration Court for the purpose of securing a declaration that the applicant, by reason of paying fair and reasonable wages, was exempt from the payment of Excise duty. The application was an ex -parte one by the manufacturer. Mr. Justice O’Connor dealt with it as an ex parte application, but he said that if any of the unions desired, in their own interests, to be represented, the Court would not stand in their

– Why should the honorable senator prolong the discussion at this hour of the night?

Senator PULSFORD:

– I think that the honorable senator might permit something to be said on the other side. I wish to direct attention to a phase of the question which was put before the Senate on the 15th October last, when certain correspondence ws read in this chamber. The following letter, addressed to Mr. Fisher, is quoted on page 4619 of Hansard -

Federated Saw Mill Timber Yard and General Woodworkers Employes Association of Australia.

Carlton, 24th September,1909.

Fisher, M.H.R., Leader Labour Party,

Dear Comrade,

Russell informs me that he is sending you on the account of his Society, re the Excise Case;I will enclose mine.It will be a little more moderate than his. I had no legal advice, but conducted the cnse on behalf of the following myself : - Woodworkers, Carpenters, Ensrine-drivers, Painters, Pattern Makers, Coachbuilders, and others, for 27 days, and done, I consider, for the men every bit as good as the legal gentlemen, only a greater strain on me, and I consider I should be paid for it whilst I had to arrange my own work when engaged on it. If you are successful in getting the Government to pay, which I consider they should, it was no fault of ours the Act was declared unconstitutional, therefore, the Government should pay. Thanking you in anticipation.

I am, yours fraternally,

A. Sutch.

Then follows the account -

To A/C.

– I am continually asked, sir, whether I will allow honorable senators to catch their trains. An enthusiastic supporter of the Government, through rising when a vote might have been taken, made me miss my last tram. I do not see why I should not have the sympathy of some honorable senators in my misfortune, and the only way in which sympathy can be secured is by their being placed in similar circumstances. What I wish to emphasize is that the Commonwealth Parliament enacted a law under which certain steps were taken by employes who were interested in the observance of that law. Upon being appealed to, the High Court declared that that law was’ unconstitutional. All that these men now ask is that they shall be reimbursed the costs to which they were subjected in instituting proceedings before that tribunal. Senator St. Ledger claims that this question should have been dealt with earlier in the session, but I hold that the Government are entirely to blame in that connexion. Personally, I think that the men engaged in the agricultural implement industry have established a reasonable claim to compensation.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

– Upon a former occasion I voted in favour of a motion having a similar object to that which Senator E. J. Russell has submitted. But it seems to me that tonight he was much more desirous of attacking the Government than of securing justice for those whose cause he advocated’. Since I voted upon the motion to which I have alluded, I have made inquiries into the legal position, and I am advised that the payment by the Commonwealth of the costs of the Agricultural Implement Makers’ Employes’ Union would establish a very dangerous precedent. Whilst everybody must sympathize with the men who have been led into this impasse, we must consider what would be the result if the Government conceded their claim. In addition, it cannot be denied that extravagant charges have been made in connexion with their costs. For instance, we find an ordinary mechanic charging £5 5s. per day for’ attendance at the Arbitration Court, when his ordinary wages would probably be about 12s. a day. Is not such a charge an attempt to rob the workers. But that is only one portion of the trouble. I am led to believe that under our system of government the constitutionality of any law enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament may be tested in the High Court. When this case came before that tribunal three Justices declared that the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act was unconstitutional, whilst two others affirmed that it was constitutional. If we are going to establish a precedent under which the parties aggrieved may take every law of doubtful constitutionality to the High

Court, and if their expenses in case they are successful, are to be paid by the Commonwealth, we shall commit the Commonwealth to untold damages. To-night I repeat the offer which I made on a formeroccasion.If my honorable friends opposite can get thirty or forty men who will each subscribe £10 towards reimbursing the agricultural implement makers’ employes the costs to which they were subjected in testing the validity of the Act,I am prepared to subscribe my share.

Senator Findley:

– Have not the people as much right to be protected as the Parliament ?

Senator McCOLL:

– But if we establish the precedent that laws of doubtful constitutionality may render the Commonwealth liable to untold costs, we shall be making a grievous mistake. Consequently I have to consider whether I shall allow myself to be led into such a dangerous path or whether I am not bound to safeguard the Constitution by voting against this proposal.

Senator Findley:

– Notwithstanding these reasons the honorable senator voted for the motion which was submitted by Senator Neild.

Senator McCOLL:

– I have already said that since then I have looked into the matter more closely, and I find that the precedent which we would establish by giving effect to that motion, would be such a dangerous one, that I cannot repeat the vote which I then cast.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the vote, Division 17, £3,781, by £1 - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– In connexion with division 20, which relates to the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, I desire to know whether the Registrars in the various States have been instructed in accordance with the question which I asked some time a go?

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– The representations of my honorable friend were brought under the notice of my colleague, Mr. Fuller, and I understand that he has communicated with Western Australia.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Home Affairs : Agricultural Bureau.

Divisions 21 to 29 (Home Affairs Department), £305,845.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I should like- to have an assurance from the Minister that item 13, division 29, if agreed to, will not be taken as authorizing the establishment of an Agricultural Bureau. Is it proposed to spend any money under the item ?

Senator Millen:

– I can give my honorable friend the assurance that the Government have no intention of proceeding on the lines of the Agricultural Bureau Bill until that measure becomes law.

Proposed Vote agreed to.

Treasury - Old-age Pensions : DeputyCommissioners : Salaries : Appointment of State Officers : Special Magistrates - Government Printing Office : Engineer-in-Charge : Allowance to Government Printer - Distribution of Parliament ary Papers - Governor-General : Services Rendered by State Railway Departments - Coinage - Stamp Printing : Employes’ Salaries.

– They were taken over from the State.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The administration of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act costs in Western Australia £330, and in Tasmania £465, or £135 more. Seeing that the distances between the centres of population are longer, and the area over which population is scattered much greater, in Western Australia than in Tasmania, there should not be this difference.

Sitting suspended from 12.22 to 12.50 a.m. (Wednesday).

Senator NEEDHAM:

– When the sitting was suspended, I was pointing out the disparity in the cost of the administration of the Old-age Pensions Office in Western Australia and Tasmania. I see that there is a footnote, which states that the Deputy Commissioner in Western Australia is also paid £700 a year as Public Service In spector, and that the Deputy Commissioner in Tasmania is paid by that State as Under-Secretary. Nevertheless, considering the greater area of Western Australia, and the probability that there are not so many applicants in Tasmania, and the delays there have been in the payment of the pensions to genuine applicants, I should like to know the reasons for the disparity in the cost.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [12.57 a.m.]. - There is but one explanation, and that is that in Western Australia there are 2,462 applicants, as compared with 3,236 in Tasmania, and that, in the two States respectively, the applications granted are 1,773 an(i 2>797- The honorable senator will see that there are a greater number of old-age pensioners in Tasmania than there are in Western Australia.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I do not think that the reply of the Minister is an explanation. I take it that, when the staffs were appointed to the Old-age Pensions. Offices of the various States, it was not known how many applications would be made, nor how many old-age. pensioners there would be. In Western Australia there is a Deputy Commissioner at £100, a clerk at £185, and another clerk at £45, making a total of £33° > while in Tasmania there is a De,puty Commissioner at £100, and two clerks at £185 and £160 respectively, with a long-service increment “of £20. Surely the clerk in Western Australia, who now receives ,£45, is* entitled to the same grading as the Tasmanian clerk, who receives £160? I take it that it is a matter of grading, and not a matter of the number of applicants, which could not have been known when the appointments were made.

Senator Pulsford:

– The Statistical Office would know the number within a small percentage.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not think that is a reply to my question. When we compare the greater distances, the increased trouble in obtaining evidence in proof of the bona fides of the applicants, and so forth, the position should be reversed so far as the cost of administration is concerned. In Western Australia a number of the applicants have had to refer to relatives or to acquaintances in the other five States. The inquiries from other States entailed a greater amount of work on the staff in Western Australia; and, ia the circumstances, I cannot accept the Minister’s explanation as final.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– In connexion with the vote of £17,000 for the services of special magistrates and others, I should like to know how many special magistrates have been appointed in the various States, and what they are being paid ? We have one, if not two, in . Western Australia. Mr. Fairbairn is one, and I should like to know whether his appointment is a temporary appointment ?

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– It is.

Senator PEARCE:

– I ask because he was pensioned off long ago from the State service, and we ought not to appoint State derelicts to these positions. I wish to say, again, that 1 think Mr. Green, the Public Service Inspector in Western Australia, should be relieved of this work. I do not think he is by nature fitted for it.

Senator Keating:

– He is a man of great capabilities, and one of the most straightforward officers in rhe Commonwealth service.

Senator PEARCE:

– I quite admit that, and I look upon him as an ideal man for certain purposes. I believe he is kind of heart, but he does not show it in his manner, and he is not the right stamp of man to deal with the old folk who are applicants for old-age pensions. They are often illiterate and timid in approaching any one in an official position. Though the object of the Commissioner may be merely to hurry them along and get their explanations, if they are treated in a brusque and somewhat overbearing manner, they go away under the impression that they have been treated unkindly. I have no desire whatever to injure Mr. Green ; but the numerous complaints I have received force me to the conclusion that he is not the best man for this work. I could mention other officers in Western Australia who would be much better fitted for it. Mr. Green’s office is in the Federal building in Perth, and from what I could judge, he should have plenty to do with his duties as Public Service Inspector. If a Treasury official is visiting Western Australia, I would urge that it would be well to relieve Mr. Green of the work of Deputy Commissioner of old-age pensions.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I believe that the officers charged with the responsibility of operating the old-agepensions scheme are doing their best to give effect to the intentions of this

Parliament, and the wishes of the people. But, in some cases, the Act is not administered with the sympathy we have a right to look for. On one occasion, I witnessed the administration of the Act by a police magistrate, and I regretted to observe that it was not sympathetic. The applicant was an elderly woman who had no one to represent her, and she was treated with a brusqueness whichI am certain did not betoken unfriendliness, want of heart, or lack of consideration, but was nevertheless calculated to inspire the applicant with the feeling to which Senator Pearce has just referred - the feeling of doubt and misgiving m approaching persons in authority. The applicant in this case was told to come again and to produce certain evidence and documents ; and I felt sure she left with the intention that she would never come again, to undergo a repetition of the humiliation to which she had then, as she thought, been subjected. We have a right to ask that all officers administering the Act should administer it kindly, with a true sense of the responsibility imposed uponthem, and with a due regard to the feelings which actuated this Parliament, and the people behind it, in passing such a measure.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I should be glad if the Minister would take note of what has just been said. It would be very much to be regretted if an Act, the spirit and intention of which is so kindly, should be administered in an unkindly fashion.

Senator Keating:

– Not deliberately.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I quite understand that those administering it are not deliberately unsympathetic. It would be well if the Treasurer would give some instructions which would prevent any unsympathetic administration of the Act.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I should like to emphasize’ what has already been said about the administration of the Old-age Pensions Act. I have received a very large number of rather serious complaints from my own State. The investigation of manv of the cases has been perfectly satisfactory to me, and in most of them to the applicants themselves ; but the evidence goes to show that there must be something wrong; with the administration of the law in WesternAustralia, I do not know what it is, but- I am of opinion that it is wanting in sympathy, and I think that if the Governmentadopt the attitude suggested by Senator

Keating, they will do well. I admit at once that one cannot make a man sympathetic if he is not built that way, and that therefore, in some cases, a bad choice has been made. I do not think there has been any intention on the part of the Government to select an unsympathetic officer, or that there is any intention on the part of an officer to be unsympathetic, but there are men whose natures are not warm enough to permit of their dealing properly with a system of this kind. I emphasize the plea for a sympathetic administration, and particularly the point raised by Senator Pearce in regard to the desirableness of relieving Mr. Green of his duties under the Old-age -Pensions Act. I have every respect for that officer ; I know his capabilities as a Public Service Inspector, but I think that his busy life as such may tend to deprive him of that bent of mind which is required to enable a man to deal with these old people as they ought to be dealt with.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [1.13 a.m.]. - I desire to assure honorable senators that the policy of the Department, and certainly the policy of the Treasurer, is that those on whom is thrown the responsibility of administering the Old-age Pensions Act shall extend the utmost sympathy to the aged poor whom we are desirous of helping in their declining years. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honorable colleague to the statements that have been made. Among the vast number of officials associated with the administration of the Act, there must be men of different temperaments. There are men whose intentions are good, but who have an extraordinary way of exhibiting what are perhaps the best of natures. On the other hand, they have sometimes a very difficult task to perform by reason of the neculiar disposition of the applicants themselves. Some of the applicants in the cases that have been investigated have been, to some extent, to blame for what has been the subject of complaint. As to’ Mr. Green, I am clad to hear the testimony to his recognised ability.If it is a fact that he is overburdened by his duties as Public Service Inspector, and that his duties under’ this Act are thus made more or less irksome to him,I shall draw the attention of mv right honorable colleague to it.

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA · ALP

a.m.]. - I note that in the Government Printing Office there is an officer classified as an “Engineer-in-Charge” who is in grade D and receives a salary of £335 per annum. I may be wrong, but I think that his duty consists of supervising the linotypes that belong to the Commonwealth, and that he does not exercise any control over the printing machines, which are in another part of the Government Printing Office. On more than one occasion when I have drawn attention to the unsatisfactory way in which the office is being worked, from a Commonwealth point of view, the promise has been made that there would be appointed a gentleman who would be able to state exactly what property we had in the office, the extent to which it had depreciated, and the value of the type and other material there. I wish to know whether such an officer has been appointed.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [1.17 a.m.]. - The duties of the EngineerinCharge are to supervise the working of the linotype and the monotype machines and also the machinery in the Stamp Printing Branch. Indeed, it is his duty to attend also to other machines belonging to the Commonwealth. As to the necessity for the appointment of some one to attend to our interests in the office, the Treasurer is moving in the matter, and hopes very soon to complete arrangements in that regard.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I wish to have an explanation in regard to the item -

Allowance to Government Printer, Melbourne, for services rendered in connexion with printing for Parliament, £150.

I understand that there is one Government Printer to supervise the printing of both the State and the Federal Parliaments, and that he receives a fixed salary. “ We have been told, when taking action in connexion with the management of the Federal branch of the Government Printing Office, that we have a Government Printer whose supervision is good, and that he is performing all the work required of him for a fixed salary. If I read the item aright, it must represent an allowance in addition to the salary which he receives.

Senator Findley:

– He is a State employ.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– We have been told that he supervises the printing for the Commonwealth Parliament.

Senator Findley:

– For which he receives an allowance of £150 a year from the Commonwealth.

Senator Pulsford:

– A very moderate sum, too.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– What I desire to know is whether the Federal Government contributes a fair proportion of the salary which the Government Printer receives, or whether we are allowing him £150 a year for supervising our printing?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [1.22 a.m.]. - I have given such elaborate explanations from time to time regarding this matter that I am almost surprised at the honorable senator asking for further information.

Senator Needham:

– Not on this point.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Under our arrangement with the State a record is kept of all the work that is done for us, and the Commonwealth is charged according to that record. For instance, if some men are employed for a certain time if doing work for the Commonwealth, it is debited with the cost. This item represents an allowance to the Government Printer, who has a great responsibility in supervising the work done for the Commonwealth. It is a very fair allowance, having regard to the manner in which our printing is attended to.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I notice an item of £1,600 lor the distribution of Hansard and Parliamentary papers. I am under the impression that a very great deal ought to be saved in connexion with our printing.’ When I observe the quantity of literature which is thrown away and wasted in one way and another, and find that our printing bill is running up to about £too,ooo a vear, it suggests to me that a very great saving might be effected. It seems to me that £1,600 is a very large sum to vote for the distribution of Hansard and Parliamentary papers. We ought to be able to make some saving, especially in regard to the printing and distribution of papers.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I should like the Minister to furnish some information with regard to the item of £2,000, under the head of Governor-General’s Office, for services rendered by State Railway Departments. Last year £750 was appropriated for this purpose, the expenditure amounting to £2,tt6. and this year we are asked to vote £2.000.

Senator Findley:

– We are asked to vote more, because we are asked to vote an item of £500 for “travelling, incidental and petty cash expenditure,” which probably includes railway travelling.

Senator KEATING:

– Last year £500 was appropriated for travelling, and only £220 expended. As a great deal of misconception exists with regard to these matters, I should like the Minister to explain for the information, not only of the Committee, but of the general public, why a vote of £2,000 is required to cover services rendered by the State Railway Departments.

Senator Mulcahy:

– To cart about one man and a few of his hangers-on.

Senator KEATING:

– That remark is, I think, uncalled for. If the GovernorGeneral travels he should do so under conditions and in circumstances commensurate with the high office which he holds.

Senator Mulcahy:

-Not at a cost of £40 a week though.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA · PROT; LP from 1913

Senator FINDLEY:

– The StampsPrinting Branch has only been in existenceabout twelve months.

Senator Mulcahy:

– It is not a very large increase.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is not, but if it were granted to some of the lower-paid employes it would be regarded as a very substantial increase. If we wish to get the best work, we must pay our officers in accordance with the value of the work which they perform. Senator Henderson’s complaints in regard to many girls and women who are employed in this branch of the Public Service are thoroughly justified. I hope that the Government, in order tosecure efficiency, will see that justice is done to every one of their employes. If they can afford to grant a large increase tothe head of this branch, there is strong, justification for increasing the wages of other employes in it.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [1.37 a.m.]. - Of course, I have dealt with thisquestion fully on a previous occasion, and: Senator Findley has had an opportunity of looking through the report bearing upon it of the Public Service Commissioner.- The position is that the Commonwealth determined to take over the Stamps Printing Branch. In doing so it took over fourteenemployes who were previously engaged init. Three of these were permanent employes, who were appointed to permanent positions in the Commonwealth service at the maximum salary at which they had* been employed by the State, namely, £72- per annum. Eleven temporary employes,, whose duties are of a simple character, such as -perforating and counting postagestamps, were also taken over. Their dutiescan be readily learned by any girl in a fortnight or three weeks. Some of these temporary employe’s, it is true, had been inthe service of the State for fourteen or fifteen years. They were taken over by the Commonwealth at the same salarywhich they had been previously paid.

Senator Vardon:

– At what salary?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Thethree permanent officers were taken over at. £72 per annum, and ten of the temporary employes at .£52 per annum. One young girl was transferred at 7s. 6d. per week.

Senator Needham:

– What does the Minister call a “ young “ girl?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I am told that she is about fifteen years of age. All these temporary employes were taken over by the Commonwealth at the salaries which they had been paid by the several States. The position is this. We started a new branch of the Public Service. It was considered that no injustice would be dene by allowing the employes in that branch to continue for some time on the old terms. In the meantime it was desired to ascertain what the requirements of the branch were, and what new machinery was necessary. The Public Service Commissioner has undertaken to revise the whole of the conditions in February next. He will” then determine what permanent staff is required, and what wages shall be ‘paid. Under the circumstances, I suggest that my honorable friend might wait until the decision of the Public Service Commissioner is given. If the arrangement then made is not satisfactory, the matter can be brought up again.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I have had an opportunity to peruse the report which the Minister of Trade and Customs has before him, and I am dissatisfied with it. I do not doubt that the wages paid to the employes in the Stamps Branch axe those which were paid by the Victorian Government. I am quite satisfied that the Commonwealth took over the employes on the old terms. My complaint is against those wages being continued to be paid by the Commonwealth of Australia. Liberal advances have been made by the Commonwealth to most public servants. Some officers within a few years have been jumped up from £.180 to £200, £300, and _£3’5°. V** annum. The salary of the Commissioner himself has been raised from £1,200 to £1,500. Yet this same Commissioner has not been able to persuade himself that the women taken over at a wage of £1 per week are worth 25s. The time has arrived when a strong protest should be made against such administration. There is no necessity for the Commissioner to- wait until February next before determining that the services of any women are worth more than £t per week. It is an absolute disgrace to us that we should be paying such wages. A woman is worth more than £1 per week if she does no more than sit on a doorstep and sell matches. These women have to maintain themselves in respectability, and the wages which they are now receiving are quite insufficient. Though it has taken the Commissioner nearly twelve months to find out whether a woman is worth more than £1 per week, it did not take him long to find out that, in his own opinion, he himself was worth more than £1,200 a year. I, therefore, move by way of protest -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the vote, Division 37, Stamp Printing, £1,267, by £*

Senator NEEDHAM (Western Australia [1.47 a.m.]. - The Minister might have made a more definite statement on this question. I remember that some time ago he stated that if the wages of the employes in the Stamps Branch were increased, it might mean their dismissal. That was tantamount to a threat.

Senator Findley:

– Did he say that?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That was practically what Senator Best told the Senate, as Hansard will show. He has also stated that the Commissioner will reclassify the employes in February next. In the meantime, however, it is necessary that this Committee should affirm the necessity of a living wage being paid. I agree with Senator Henderson that the wage at present paid to these employes is a disgrace to the Commonwealth. Yesterday we passed a measure increasing the salary of the Public Service Commissioner by £300 a year, yet there axe girls and women employed under the supervision of that gentleman receiving sums varying, to take the Minister’s own words, from 9s. to £1 per week, after rendering fourteen or fifteen years’ service to the States and Commonwealth, while the Public Service Commissioner has given us only nine years’ service. The Minister tells us that if we are determined to increase their wages they will be dismissed.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– I said nothing of the sort.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The Minister said that there was a danger of their dismissal and the engagement of other people. The time has come for this Parliament to insist on all its employes in every branch of the service receiving at least a living wage. If the Minister thinks that from 9s. to £1 a week is a living wage, the sooner he reconsiders his position the better.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 14

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Trade and Customs - Patent Office, Administration - Bank Exchange.

Divisions 40 to 50 (Department of Trade and Customs), £353,296

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I wish to bring under the notice of the Minister the administration of the Patent Branch, more particularly as regards the Commissioner of Patents. I have received from Messrs. Griffiths and Allen - I think that is the name - the following statement of a case -

On the 30th March, 1909, the applicants through our firm made application to the Registrar of Trade Marks for an order for the lodging of , £40 as security for costs under section 46 of the Commonwealth Trade Marks Act, which reads as follows : - “ If a person giving notice of opposition or appeal does not reside in Australia the Registrar, Law Officer, or the Court may order him to give security for costs, and if the Order is not complied with the opposition or appeal shall be deemed to be abandoned.”

On the 26th April, 1909, we received the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks, to the effect that the opponents should lodge security for costs for the ^amount asked, on the condition that a similar amount be lodged by the applicants onthe ground that they also were resident outside the jurisdiction of the Victorian Courts, i.e., in the State of New South Wales. To this latter condition we objected on the ground, that the Courts of any State are com-‘ petent to recover costs granted by the Registrar equally with those of Victoria, and that if permitted to stand without protest, this decision would place Australian applications outside the State of Victoria at a distinct disadvantage.

Without going through the whole history of the case, the facts are that the Commissioner was held by Mr. Justice Isaacs to have wrongly laid it down that security, for costs must be given in another State as if people in any State other than Victoria were outside the Commonwealth ; and his decision was therefore reversed. It is singular that the Commissioner of Patents should interpret, as applying to a person residing in New South Wales, a provision which allows the Registrar to order a person not resident in Australia, on giving notice of opposition or appeal, to furnish security. He appears to me not to be au fait with the law which he is administering. On the 24th. November, I asked a series of questions of which I will read two, and the answers returned to them. They are these: -

Will he (the Minister) ascertain whether it is a fact that in connexion with patent application No. 1 1396, the Commissioner for Patents compelled the applicant to pay a fine of£3 because his application had lapsed through not being “ accepted “ within the statutory period, and whether the delay had not been caused by the Commissioner himself?

To that the reply was -

The Commissioner of Patents had no alternative but to ask the applicant of No. 11396 to pay the fee prescribed by Regulation 14 for the necessary extension of three months.

The delay in acceptance - which rendered necessary the payment of the fee - was partly due to an oversight in the Patent Office (one month) during the Commissioner’s absence, but for the principal delay (two months) that office was not responsible.

The next question was -

Is it not a fact that after the applicant’s Patent Attorneys, on the 15th of March last, replied to some objections raised by the Examiner, no further action was taken by the Patents Office for several weeks, andthat the Commissioner’s letter consenting to hear arguments on the matter was not received by the applicant’s attorney till after the application had lapsed, i.e., on the 3rd May last?

To which the Minister replied -

The Applicant’s Attorney did reply on the 15th March last to objections raised by the Examiner. Owing to the absence of the Commissioner, who had previously dealt with, the application, the papers were held until his return, and reply was sent on the 29th April, and was received by the Applicant’s Attorney too late to avoid a request being made for extension of time.

Although the fault was admittedly that of the Department, a fine was inflicted on the patent attorney, and the money has not been refunded, the Department contending that it has no power to refund it.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– One month’s delay was the fault of the Department, but there were two months further delay for which the applicant was to blame.

Senator PEARCE:

– Had it not been for the delay occasioned by the inaction of the Department, the application would have been in time. The applicant’s attorney replied on the 15th March to the objections of the examiner, but the papers were not sent on until the 29th April, after the application had lapsed. These cases are not altogether creditable to the Commissioner. Let me refer to a third case about which questions were asked in another place. The Commissioner has objected to the application of one firm for the use of certain words, and has allowed another firm to use precisely similar words. He objected . to the use of the word “ Dudley,” presumably because that is the name of the GovernorGeneral, and allowed the use of the word “ Chelmsford,” although that is the name of the Governor of New South Wales. When the head of the firm to which I have referred, greatly irritated by the lapsing of the patent, and the damage likely to be done to their business, wrote a stronglyworded letter to the Commissioner, the latter threatened to suspend him for disgraceful conduct. I have read the letter, and do not think that under the circumstances it should have been objected to. However, the firm was not wealthy enough to appeal to the High Court, and, therefore, felt constrained to withdraw the letter and apologize. The Commissioner’s action appears to me to be very high-handed) and in view ot the facts that 1 have put before him, I think that the Minister should inquire whether he is showing a proper capacity for his duties.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

[2.9 a.m.]. - The Commissioner of Patents holds a high and important position. About 1,400 applications are dealt with by him every year, but, like the Justices of the High Court and every one else, he occasionally makes mistakes. I have no doubt that he honestly strives to do his duty, and it must be admitted that he is a man of great experience, having filled the office for a considerable time, and having had State experience in Queensland. It is quite possible that the Commissioner has made the mistakes mentioned, though I am not going to admit all that has been alleged, certainly not in one of the cases. In regard to exacting security for costs because a company was registered outside Victoria, the Commissioner was held by the High Court to have been wrong ; but, as to having refused permission to use the title “ Dudley,” while giving permission to use the title “ Chelmsford,” he may have been perfectly right. According to law no name can be used which is essentially and merely the name of a person; but “Chelmsford” is not only the name of a person, but the name of a place. It is by reason of that distinction that the Commissioner in his discretion saw fit to grant the application so far as “ Chelmsford “ was con- cerned. I am sorry to say that there is very strong feeling, at least on the part of Mr. Griffiths, against the Commissioner, and the latter has complained to me. I am not going to say for one moment that the Commissioner has been completely right or tactful in all he has done.

Senator Keating:

– Speaking generally, he has the confidence of the public, except a few patent attorneys.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Yes, I have said so.

Senator Pearce:

– This is not the way to keep that confidence !

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

- Mr. Griffiths is a patent agent ; and it is quite true that Mr. Townsend did summon him under a particular section for misconduct. That summons was for misconduct, in regard to which the Commissioner thought he had power to take action, in connexion with a most improper letter, containing a charge, which, if true, or bearing the semblance of truth, would quite unfit Mr. Townsend for his office. I pointed out to the Commissioner that, in point of law, he had, in my opinion, exceeded his duty ; and I was also interviewed by Mr. Griffiths. On looking into the matter. T conceived that, before anything further was done, Mr. Griffiths should either pro-, secute the charge or withdraw it. and Mr. Griffiths elected under the circumstances to take the latter course. On further consideration, T satisfied myself as to the law ; and the matter dropped. When a fearless- officer, such as T take Mr. Townsend to be. seeks to do his dutv, and has to deal with such a large number of cases, it is easy to pick out one or two in which he- may have made mistakes. On the whole, however, I do not think there is quite room for the complaints which Senator Pearce has suggested.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I see that under the heading of bank exchange, Western Australia is charged £100, whereas in the case of New South Wales it is only £10, and in the case of Victoria, £5.

Senator Keating:

– In Tasmania there is no charge.

Senator LYNCH:

– Seeing that payments are received at every Customs House throughout the Commonwealth, it ought to be an easv matter to abolish this charge.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– Would it not be possible to arrange, seeing that the Commonwealth has accounts in banks in all the States, to so adjust the balances that there would be no necessity for imposing exchange on Commonwealth cheques? Senator Walker seems to be amused, but what I am suggesting is only common business. No one knows better than the honorable senator that there is, in this case, no necessity for imposing exchange in the nature of a toll - for that is all it means - as if on the transmission of specie from one bank to another, because, as a matter of fact, there is no actual transmission of specie, but only a bookkeeping adjustment. I hope that the banks, in regard to Commonwealth cheques, will follow the example which is set in connexion with Government cheques within a State, on which no exchange is charged, no matter in what part of the State they may be paid or presented.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs)[2.18 a.m.]. - The honorable senator will be glad to hear that the course he suggests is actually being followed in the several States, save and except on the north-west coast, and in the northern portion of Queensland, where the exchange is very high, thus accounting for the item to which exception is taken. Tn other respects, there is reallv no charge for exchange, arrangements having been made to put the balances one against the other.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Defence - Visit of Lord Kitchener: Military Camps - Military Board, Chief of Ordnance - Imperial General Staff - Inspector-General - Grants to Rifle Associations - Tasmania : Commandant, Staff Officer for Works.

Divisions 51 to 196 (Defence Depart- ment), £1,004,062.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– In connexion with the Estimates for the Defence Department, I should like to direct attention to the fact that a military camp is to be held in January at Seymour, which it is understood will be visited by Lord Kitchener. The Defence authorities of this State do not regard as satisfactory the replies they have received to inquiries as to the number of men who will attend the camp. It must be remembered that it is proposed to hold an eight days’ camp, which will start almost immediately after the Christmas holidays. In the circumstances, it is rather too much to expect the men to put in so much time in camp at such a period of the year, without some compensation. It is all very well to appeal to their patriotism; but that will not pay the landlord, the butcher, or the baker, and it. will not provide the men with clothing for themselves and families. If the Government wish to make a military display with a large number of men at that time of the year, they should be prepared to pay them for the four extra days which they will be asked to put in at the camp. I may mention that yesterday in another place, a half promise to give consideration to the matter was made. The Minister of Defence said that he could not give a definite promise because he was not Treasurer ; but that cannot be regarded as satisfactory to the men. I hope that the Minister representing the Department in the Senate will be able to give some assurance that the men attending the camp at Seymour will receive just compensation.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I desire to know from the Vice-President of the Executive Council, when the Government propose to fill the vacancy of Chief of Ordnance on the Military Board? I should say that there never was a time in the history of the Commonwealth when the services of such an officer were more urgently required. We are initiating a new military system, and are ordering large quantities of ammunition and material. The position has now been vacant for over six months. I should like to mention also that it was understood that a British officer would come to Australia to take the place of Colonel Bridges on the Imperial General Staff, as that gentleman is now in England acting as our representative in the Imperial General Staff there. I should like to know whether that understanding is to be carried out. Then perhaps the Minister will be able to say whether the office of Inspector-General is to. be abolished or allowed to remain vacant, and whether, if it is to be continued, an Australian or an Imperial Officer will be appointed. At this hour of the morning I do not intend to debate these matters. But in view of the fact that the salaries for these positions appear on the Estimates although they have been vacant for six months it is not unreasonable to expect that the Government will be able to make some statement in connexion with them.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

.- I am not able to speak as definitely as I should like to be able to do. But I may inform Senator Pearce that with respect to the officer in exchange for Colonel Bridges some little hitch occurred at the time due to the fact that Colonel Bridges was sent from Australia before proper, exchange had been made, at Home. That is a matter for which the honorable senator himself must accept some responsibility.

Senator Pearce:

– Colonel Bridges had to be sent Home to attend the Imperial Defence Conference.

Senator MILLEN:

– The difficulty is that arrangements should at the same time have been made for the exchange, and it was not discovered until later that my honorable friend’s instructions were not complete. With respect to the filling of the vacancy in the position of Chief of Ordnance, and the other position referred to, the delay is due to the fact that the whole of these questions may be brought under review in consequence of the alteration necessary on the passing of the new Defence Bill. I can say no more than that I shall early in the morning bring the honorable senator’s remarks under the notice of the Minister of Defence. I can give Senator Findley no more assurance in connexion with the matter to which he has referred than he says was given ‘by the Minister of Defence. The honorable senator will recognise that what he proposes would involve a considerable increase of expenditure.

Senator Sayers:

– And if granted in Victoria it would be asked for in the other States also.

Senator MILLEN:

– I gathered from the honorable senator that the Minister of Defence contemplated conferring with the Treasurer as to the possibility of doing something in the direction desired,_ and I can only say now that I will bring the honorable senator’s remarks under the notice of the Minister of Defence.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– In connexion with the vote of £.100 for the Commonwealth Council of the Rifle Association of Australia, I should like to refer to the fact that some time ago I brought under the notice of the Senate the inequality in the- grants to various rifle associations throughout the Commonwealth. The Minister at the time promised to bring the matter under the notice of his colleague with a view to having the grants made in proportion to the population of a State, the number of riflemen in the State, or the number of efficients. At present the grants are distributed on the principle that kissing goes by favour. I should like to’ know whether any alteration is to be made in the distribution of the grants?

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I remember that the matter was referred for inquiry and report to the Defence Department, and I admit that I. am probably somewhat to blame, for which 1 ask the honorable senator’s forgiveness, in* not having at hand the necessary information. I promise the honorable senator that I shall endeavour to obtain for him this afternoon a copy of the minute prepared on the subject.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– Under the head of Tasmanian Military Forces, on page 207, I’ observe an item of .£1,084 for “ Commandant, including pay for retiring Commandant on leave.” I desire to know the rate of salary for the present Commandant.

Senator Millen:

– £700.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– Under the same head I see an item°f j£6o for “ Engineer, pay for officer detailed for the duty of Staff Officer for works.” I desire to know what that officer is receiving from the military point of view, and whether the works are military or general ?

Senator Millen:

– This sum of £60 is. paid to Captain Parker, who is, I understand employed in other ways. It is additional pay for some extra wonk that he does.

Senator KEATING:

– He is a civilian, of high professional standing, and his services are obtained by us very cheaply.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Divisions 197 to 203 (PostmasterGeneral’s Department), £3,206,796 agreed to.

Postponed clauses 2 and 3, first schedule, and title agreed to.

Bill reported without request, and passed through its remaining stages.

page 7168

ADJOURNMENT

Woman Suffrage

Motion (b.y Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Owing to an expression of opinion given by the Prime Minister in the other House, I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he will afford to the Senate an opportunity to affirm the following motion -

That this House testifies to the facts that after 16 years’ experience of woman suffrage in various parts of Australasia and 9 years’ experience in the Commonwealth, the reform has justified the hopes of its supporters.
That, as foreseen by. its advocates, its effects have been : -
1. To gradually educate women to a sense of their responsibility in public affairs.
2. To give more prominence to social and domestic legislation.
That Australasian experience convinces this House that to adopt woman suffrage is simply to apply to the political sphere that principle of government that secures the best results in the domestic sphere - the mutual co-operation of men and women for the individual and general welfare.

The object is to enable the women of Australia to cable Home the testimony of this Parliament that woman suffrage has justified itself from all points of view. The message is not necessarily to be sent with the idea of defending the tactics adopted by the advocates of the principle there, but merely to state the effects of the operation of the principle in this country. I have already intimated to the Minister what is desired, and I hope that he will fall in with the request.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive ‘ Council · Free Trade

– I understood that the desire of the honorable senator, and those who are moving with him, was to have submitted the motion he has just read to this and the other House. I am sure he will see that it would be impossible,, not merely, at this late period of the session, but at this early hour of the day for us to discuss a proposition of that kind. At the same time, if he is content to take my assurance on the subject, I feel satisfied that there is no one in the Senate, and no section of the people outside, who would now venture to controvert the affirmation laid down in the motion.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I should like to ask the Minister a question.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister has replied, and the debate is closed.

Senator Keating:

– Can no other honorable senator ask a question, sir?

The PRESIDENT:

– Not on a motion for adjournment which has been replied to by the mover.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 2.48 a.m. (Wednesday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 December 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19091207_senate_3_54/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 7 December 1909

DEATH OF MR. JAMES HUTCHISON, M.P

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator VARDON:South Australia.

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MILLEN:New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

QUESTION

CIGAR LEAF GROWERS: QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

BOARDING OF VESSELS

Senator MACFARLANE:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DE LARGIE:Western Australia

Senator Dobson:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Stewart:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Turley:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator HENDERSON:Western Australia

Senator Dobson:

Senator HENDERSON:

Senator Findley:

Senator HENDERSON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Dobson:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Dobson:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Fraser:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator de Largie:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator de Largie:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator de Largie:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Henderson:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator de Largie:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator de Largie:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Henderson:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

Senator Turley:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Fraser:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Henderson:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Lynch:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Stewart:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator de Largie:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator de Largie:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Dobson:

Senate
7 December 1909

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator VARDON:
South Australia.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Free Trade

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania