House of Representatives
7 August 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS AT PORT ADELAIDE
PAPER
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
LAUNCESTON MAILS
QUESTION
- BRITISH OFFICIALS IN PAPUA
QUESTION
- HAWKER BOARD
QUESTION
- MAJOR BRUCHE
BUDGET
- In Committee of Supply:

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2370

QUESTION

CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS AT PORT ADELAIDE

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In connexion with the Customs prosecutions at Port Adelaide, I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Customs the following questions : -

Was Forwood a recognised Customs agent, acting solely for himself ; or
Was Forwood a’ servant?
If so, who was his employer, and was said employer a recognised Customs agent?
Who were the owners of the goods in volved?
Have the suspended Customs officers been reinstated ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I have been furnished by the Comptroller-General - to whom the honorable member evidently forwarded a copy of these questions - with the following replies: -

He was a licensed Customs-house agent.
It is not known to the Department whether he was a servant.
See replytoNo.2.
It is not considered desirable to mention names until the investigation is completed.
The officer originally suspended has not been reinstated.

page 2370

PAPER

Mr. DEAKIN laid upon the table the following paper -

Correspondence with the Premier of Queensland, and a departmental memorandum, relating to the repatriation of kanakas.

Ordered to be printed.

page 2370

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL PROBLEMS

Mr KNOX:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

How and when does he intend to take action with regard to his proposals for dealing with the financial problems of the Commonwealth, which were circulated with the Budget papers and referred to in his Budget speech?
Is it his intention to introduce legislation for the purpose of securing the necessary powers to give effect to bis proposals? -

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– Action will be taken as soon as possible, and in part by legislation.

page 2370

LAUNCESTON MAILS

Mr. BAMFORD (for Mr. Kins

O’Malley) asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether he will supply the House with information showing -

The times of the delivery of the mails at the Launceston Post-office for the” last six months?

The times they should be delivered according to mail contract- if not at. Post-office, on Launceston wharf?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– Inquiries are being made, and answers will be furnished at the earliest possible moment.

page 2370

QUESTION

BRITISH OFFICIALS IN PAPUA

Mr WEBSTER:
for Mr. Brown

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether the particulars of case and claims in connexion with the suit, Strachan v. the Commonwealth of Australia, had been submitted to the Government prior to instituting legal proceedings in the High Court?
If so, will he cause the papers relating tosuch claim to be made available to members prior to asking the House to vote moneys for the maintenance of the British New Guinea Civil Service?

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

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

Yes,to the Prime Minister’s and Attorney-

General’s Departments.

Yes.

Mr. WEBSTER (for Mr. Brown) asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether his attention has been called to a. telegram in the Age, of the 2nd instant, stating that the High Courthad delivered judgment in the case of Strachan v. the Commonwealth of Australia, in whichplaintiff was non-suiterf on the plea that the Commonwealth was not responsible for acts committed by British New Guinea officials?
Was this plea of non-liability raised by theCommonwealth Government?
Was it known or supposed that this nonliability existed when Parliament was asked to vote the salaries of those officers?
Is it proposed to ask for are-vote of salaries, under the conditions disclosed by this decision?
Is it proposed to bring British New Guinea under Commonwealth control; and, if so, when is it proposed to take the necessary action to this end?

Mr DEAKIN:

– The answers are as follow : -

Yes.
Yes, by its counsel.
and 4. Parliament has not voted the salaries of British New Guinea officials. The fact that the Commonwealth was not legally liable for the actions of British New Guinea officials has always been known.
Yes, immediately.

page 2371

QUESTION

HAWKER BOARD

Mr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

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

What sums (including expenses) were paid to each of themembers of the Board appointed to inquire into the Hawker case?
Were any officers of the Permanent Forces paid any sums for expenses in connexion with such inquiry, and who were such officers, and how much did each receive?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

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

The following sums, which include expenses, werepaid to the members of the Board: -

The following sums were paid to officers of the Permanent Forces, as expenses, in connexion with the inquiry : -

page 2371

QUESTION

MAJOR BRUCHE

Mr MALONEY:

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

. Is there an Adjutant-General, an Assistant Adjutant-General, and a Deputy Assistant AdjutantGeneral in Melbourne, for Commonwealth and State, and how many of them, and who are they?
What necessity is there for all these officers, and what are their duties?
Could not the duties of Major Bruche, Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General, be carried out bya junior military clerk?
What pay does Major Bruche receive, and what would be the pay of a military clerk?
Are there, any, and if so, what increases on the Estimates for any of these officers?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

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

There is no Adjutant-General in Melbourne for Commonwealth or State. In the district of Victoria there is an Assistant Adjutant-General (Brevet Lt.-Col. Lee, D.S.O.) and a Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General (Major Bruche).
These officers are necessary in connexion with the administration and instruction of the Military Forces of Victoria. Their duties are as follow : -

The Assistant Adjutant-General is the chief Staff Officer, and deals with matters relating to discipline, returns and statistics connected with the personnel appointments, transfers and promotion of officers, training of the troops, drafting and issue of district orders and circular memoranda, distribution of duties and correspondence. The Deputy Assistant

Adjutant-General prepares examination papers and superintends examinations for the appointment and promotion of officers, conducts schools and classes of instruction, deals with questions relating to musketry, training of infantry, and is the officer supervising Rifle . Clubs. Acts as member of Boards for examination of officers and non-commissioned officers of the Permanent Forces, and is often a member of Boards of Examination for candidates from other States.

No.
Major Bruche receives£450; the salary of a military clerk in the Victorian District Staff varies from£70 to£260 per annum.
Yes, in accordance with regulations anincrease of£25 for both the Assistant AdjutantGeneral and the Deputy Assistant AdjutantGeneral.

page 2371

BUDGET

In Committee of Supply:

Debate resumed from 31st July (vide page 2048), on motion by Sir John Forrest -

That the item, “President,£1,100” be agreed to. .

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

.- By arrangement with the honorable member for-Parramatta, I have agreed to open the debate this afternoon. It is not my intention on this occasion to deal generally with the Budget, and I shall say little in regard to it beyond congratulating the Treasurer upon its delivery, and the people of the Commonwealth upon the great prosperity which it indicates. In my opinion, it must take second place when compared with the important issues raised by the right honorable gentleman at the conclusion of his speech, and by the publication of his memorandum on the financial problems of the Commonwealth, dealing with the assumption by the Commonwealth of the debts of the States. The questions which he has well entitled the financial problems of the Commonwealth are, to my mind, of surpassing importance, and I think that there is a general feeling amongst honorable members, and throughout Australia, that they should be faced and dealt with in the interest of the States and of the people. I have, since the passing of the Constitution Act, taken a considerable interest in these matters, and it has been one of my chief objects in remaining in politics to give my aid and help, if possible, in their settlement. The seriousness of the position, as affecting future loans, altogether apart from the difficulties arising between the States in connexion with financial adjustments, ought to be pressed upon the attention, not only of honorable members, but also of the public at large. During the fourteen years from 1907 to 1920 no less a sum than , £124,000,000, or an average of £9,000,000 per annum, will have to be provided for in connexion with loans falling due- in addition to any requirements for new works and obligations. Honorable members will thus see that it is important that this question should receive not only serious, but immediate, attention. We are approaching the time when the first of thegreat obligations contracted bythe various States during the years of socalled prosperity will have to be met. We have had the pleasure of spending the money, and we shall soon have to face the less attractive duty of meeting our obligations. The outlook for the immediate future is not a pleasant one, and I think that the Treasurers of the States, when they realize what is before them, must come to the conclusion that it is their duty to join with the Commonwealth Government in facing the situation. I observe that some of the States Treasurers are making arrangements on the assumption that they willnot meet with difficulties. But we have to remember the enormous sums that are about to fall due, that the lending classes, who have given us the use of their money, are well aware of the obligations that the States have to meet, and that during the next fourteen years there will be not one borrower, but in many cases five, in the London market. Therefore, the competition between the States in order to secure the renewals of their loans must of itself bring about the most serious and dangerous difficulty.

Mr Fisher:

– But there is no indication that the people who have lent their money in the past will not continue to do so.

Mr HARPER:

– I shall deal with that point later on. For the present I would merely tell the honorable member that it is impossible for us to say what the lending classes may think twelve or fourteen years hence. We know, however, that the money market is managed by a comparatively small circle in London, to whom our necessities are well known, and that if the States compete one with theother in endeavouring to obtain renewals of loans, the financiers will endeavour to make the best possible terms. They may be quite willing to lend their money, but may require high rates of interest. It has been said by representatives of the States, at the Premiers’ Conferences and elsewhere, that the credit of the States is as good as that of the Commonwealth. I think, however, that ifthey rely upon that assumption they will find themselves most grievously mistaken. J am in entire accord with the Treasurer, who, as the result of inquiries made by him in London recently, has come to the conclusion that it is most dangerous to seek to obtain large renewals of loans in the London market, when there are a number of competitors, each endeavouring to do the best he can for his own State. In my opinion, if the States compete one with the other in obtaining renewals, they will probably not only be unable to do as well as in the past, but have to renew their loans at a rate of interest considerably higher than they are paying at present. Therefore, the question of placing the finances of the States on a satisfactory footing should be dealt with without delay. I believe that without some organization, and the assistance of the Commonwealth, the States will runvery seriousrisks of disaster. I have already referred to the statement of the Treasurer in this connexion, and I may further point out that my view is supported by Mr. Coghlan in the paper that he recently issued on the question of the States debts. He says -

This is a most seriousdanger - one which can only be adequately metby the Commonwealth intervening and taking up the renewal of these loans, and dealing with them in the future.

– Would it be more satisfactory for the States to pay us the money, than for the Commonwealth to pay the States?

Mr HARPER:

– I think it would be much more satisfactory, because it would place the States and the Commonwealth in their proper positions. If we assumed the States debts, and removed from their balance-sheets the big debits for interest, that now appear annually, it would be only right for the States to pay to us the difference between the amount to which they are entitled under the Braddon section, and the sum that would be dueby them to their loan creditors. Under this plan, instead of having an uncertain sum to provide for, as would be the case under the proposal of the Treasurer, we should, year by year, give to the States a cumulative rebate which would ultimately reach the sum of £1, 860, 000. To this extent we should relieve them of their financial strain. Each year, as the States went on making their payments to the Commonwealth, the liability would be reduced by 5 per cent., and ultimately the whole obligation of the States with regard to interest payments would be wiped out.

Sir John Forrest:

– When the debts were paid off by means of the sinking fund, what would become of the Customs and Excise revenue?

Mr HARPER:

– That could be remitted to the people of Australia.

– Is there any reason for that assumption ?

– But the people are not employed there. I trust that I have made my meaning clear concerning, the existing debts of the States. I hold that the Commonwealth should take them over, and handle them in its own way. Bv the use of the Commonwealth credit, a profit would be derived which, in a certain number of years, would be sufficient to wipe off the total amount of the States indebtedness. The profit which is derived from the use of the Commonwealth credit should be appropriated to equalizing the conditions of the different States. Can anything fairer than that be proposed? In the Argus to-day I read a letter regarding my proposals from Senator Pulsford. I am afraid that he has rushed in before he knew what he was attacking. As a matter of fact, his communication shows that he has not yet begun to grasp the idea which underlies my scheme. My proposition seems to be a sound business one, and one the adoption of which will overcome the enormous difficulties which will “beset us, if each State acts separately and independently for itself. With regard to future borrowing. I have sought to give effect to the same idea - that is to say, that whilst the Commonwealth credit is being built up and put upon a sound basis, we cannot expect - as was proposed at the

No class of persons are less influenced by sentimental considerations than are the investing public and their brokers ; nevertheless, there is no class whose political predispositions and prejudices more largely affect their dealings. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that, of the considerations affecting the price df Australian stocks, not the least important, so far as concerns the London market, is the repute of the State to which thev belong, and the policy of its Government. If for any cause that repute should be low, then the conjunction of various other conditions usually looked upon as favorable would not avail to maintain the price of its securities. Such being admitted, it is therefore evident that so long as Australia seeks further money from the London market, either fo, new undertakings or for renewing old Joans, attention will have to be paid to the opinions of the British investor on certain political matters.

I think that that statement is as clear as language can make it. He continues -

It must be confessed that the difference in the attitude of the British investor towards Australia can be accounted for only on the supposition of mistrust arising from considerations, not of the resources of the States, but of their politics.

Nothing can be clearer than that. lt means that our Commonwealth legislation is affecting our credit in London.

Mr Bamford:

– From what is the honorable member quoting?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– From Mr. Coghlan’s paper which reached Australia a few weeks ago. I do not think that the honorable member will accuse Mr. Coghlan of belonging to the “ stinking fish “ party. If the latter has any sympathy at all, it is with radical. Australian democracy. Yet, with every disposition to make the credit of Australia stand as high as possible in London, that is what he writes concerning the causes influencing the prices of our stock. Mr. Coghlan, who spends almost every week cf his life in answering the animadversions of our- critics in London, declares that our politics are unquestionably influencing the price of our stock, and that before we can hope to improve our credit, we shall have to pay. more heed to our legislation. I now propose to quote another statement of his bearing upon the same matter. Speaking of the transfer of the State obligations to the Commonwealth. He says: -

If the Commonwealth were to take the place of the various States in the London loan market, it would probably not be able at first to obtain money on better terms than the States could do for themselves. Some of the leading brokers who deal with Australian stocks in this country - men of wide knowledge of financial conditions - have been consulted in this matter, and their views are in agreement with those herein expressed, which have been formed from independent observation ; but thev also say that in the course of time the Commonwealth will undoubtedly stand in a superior position to that of any of the States, provided that the confidence of the investor in the policy of the Government remains unimpaired. Should there be an immediate transference of the States debts, the Commonwealth must be prepared, for a few years at least, to content itself with results no better from the point of view of price than the States new obtain.

– I am not so sure that the Treasurer did not mean it. He went on to say -

I only mention this to show that the facts do not bear out those charges of recklessness and carelessness which are often levelled against this Parliament by ill-informed people who criticise us. If this House wanted to get kudos for itself by spending as much as it could throughout the different States, thereby gaining to some extent the approbation of the people, we could have spent very much more than we did. But, instead of so doing, we have handed over to the States an immense sum during the past 6£ years, allowing the States Governments to spend the money, and thereby to gain any kudos that might be attached to the expenditure

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We could not help ourselves.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

Mr Webster:

– Is not the increased cost of government due to extravagance on the part of the States?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That does not matter. I am merely pointing out that the same taxpayers have to pay the increased cost. It does not matter whether the States are extravagant or not. The total cost of Federation is the cost by which the government of Australia as a whole has increased, between the period when Federation was accomplished and the present time. The figures show an alarming rate of increase in. our expenditure - an increase of 20 per cent - as against an increase of 8 per cent, in our population. That increase, I think, is due to the financial relations which exist between: the Com- monwealth and the States. The latter are receiving the moneys which we raise. They have no obligation to raise them for themselves. Theirs is the privilege of spending them. No doubt a great deal of their expenditure is upon a verv lavish scale, so that the statement of the honorable member for Gwydir is quite right, so far as some of the States are concerned. There is no doubt that the States Governments spend money freely and make themselves popular by so doing. But the people have to pay. So much for the result in figures of the cost of governing Australia as a whole.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.30 p.m.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think we ought to have a quorum. [Quorum formed.’] The cost of governing Australia when the Federation was established amounted to £28,000,000 ; to-day it is

;£33>5°°>°°°-

Mr Higgins:

– What proportion of that increase is due to Federation?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not dealing with that point just now, nor am I offering these observations in criticism of any action taken by the Government or the Parliament of the Commonwealth. I am pointing out to the people of Australia, who have to foot the bill, that Federation, at any rate, has resulted in no economies, either in the State or Federal arena.

Mr Higgins:

– I said nothing about the Government; all that I asked was what proportion of the increased cost was due to Federation ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not prepared to say what is the proportion. I am simply pointing out that there is an increased cost, and that the same people have to meet it. For the taxpayers - apart from their State and Federal relations - this is a very ugly fact to face.

Mr Fisher:

– Do the honorable member’s figures include the cost of railway management ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– They include everything.

Mr Fisher:

– The railways are a trading concern., and their cost might be increased by £10,000,000 without the cost to the people being increased bv one penny.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not referring to that point. I am simply grouping the estimates of the States at the time that Federation was established and those of to-day

Mr Mauger:

– The inference that the cost of governing Australia would not have increased had there been no Federation is purely hypothetical

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There would have been a natural increase, due, if .to nothing else, to the increase in population. Whilst the increase in our population since Federation amounts to only 8 per cent., the cost of governing our people has been increased by 20J per cent. That is an important and an ugly fact to face.

Mr Wilks:

– We were promised that, with Federation, economies would be effected.

Mr Mauger:

– But we cannot force the States to economize.

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member’s figures do not prove anything so far as this Parliament is concerned.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Not so far as we are concerned ; but they prove that the people have to pay more.

Mr Poynton:

– They do not prove that there is any greater burden on the people.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The strong probability, amounting, in my judgment, to absolute proof, is that there is a greater burden.

Mr Isaacs:

– Money may have been expended on reproductive works.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am speaking of revenue, not of loan expenditure. The borrowings of Australia have no doubt increased in due proportion. But the main outstanding feature of our Federal relations to-day is that we are duplicating functions, and not substituting Federal for State functions. That appears to be the trouble. I am not blaming the Federal system for this state of affairs; but it is time that the taxpayers took the matter in hand, and said that, if certain things are to be done by the Federation, there ought to be a corresponding saving in the cost of the government of the States. In some way or other thev ought to relieve themselves of the burden of double government which is pressing upon them so severely, as these figures appear to show. There is another matter to which I propose to make brief reference. The Prime Minister has told us of the careful way in which we are husbanding the onefourth of Customs and Excise revenue that we are entitled to spend. I think it was Mr. Peake. Treasurer of South Australia, who, during the late Conference of Premiers, said that a careful analysis of the Constitution showed that we had taken over from the States 12½ per cent, in value of the functions which they previously performed for themselves. If that is so, and if, in order to finance that 12J per cent., we have a revenue amounting to 25 per cent, of the revenues of the whole, it seems to me we are not so badly off in the Federal arena. I admit that this is only a rule-of-thumb method to apply to such a very important matter; but that was the view propounded by Mr. Peake at the Premiers’ Conference in Sydney.

Mr Fisher:

– Hear, hear ! Comparing two different things.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is all very well for the honorable member to poohpooh these statements; but we find responsible Treasurers bringing these matters forward for serious discussion. It does not help us to assume that everything we do in a governmental .way is necessarily perfect and economical, and that everything that is not economical and is imperfect is confined to the States-

Mr Fisher:

– The honorable member will not father reasoning like that.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I take all this as indicating the feeling of the States towards Federation in our financial relationship. After all, this question of finance perpetually colours the whole relationship, and ramifies into every nook and cranny of tooth Federal and State government. It is the one disturbing feature of the whole situation ; and ‘ it shows tine pressing urgency to cut the financial relationship, and make each independent of the other, so far as that can be done by any scheme of human contrivance. As I have said, this is an electioneering Budget, and here are some of the items set forth by the Treasurer. I mention these items because this is a Budget delivered on the eve of an appeal to the people. For bounties it is proposed to provide £500,000.

Sir John Forrest:

– The bounties were announced before the Budget.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– And they are also mentioned in the Budget ; indeed, they are a great feature in the Budget.

Sir John Forrest:

– I do not think so..

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– -The Treasurer said more than once in his Budget speech that the Government proposed to encourage industries in every shape and form. Amongst the political favours to be distributed by the Government on the eve of an election are £500,000 for bounties, £209,000 for post offices; and £12,500 for Tasmania. I have no quarrel with the last item ; the least we can do for that small necessitous State is to make her a present of the kind.

Mr Isaacs:

– It is not a present; it is what Tasmania is entitled to.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Shall we say that it is something we have withheld previously from Tasmania?

Sir John Forrest:

– We have had this expenditure before us for a year.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Budget goes on to provide £1,000 to send a team to Bisley; £8,000 for a trawler; and for lighthouses, I suppose, about £100,000, or £10,000 to £15,000 each, when all are built. The increase in new works expenditure is £160,000; and so the list goes on. As to the purchase of a trawler, I am prepared to say that this is a justifiable expense.

Mr Kelly:

– Where is it going to trawl ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I d0 not know, but I should certainly say, seeing that this is a proposal by the Treasurer, that the trawler will be used in the waters of the Western Australian coast. In the fitness of things, the trawler ought tq be used in those waters; and, if more be caught than fish, so much the better. The more one looks at the Budget the more one finds that it is an electioneering Budget. There would not be so much to take exception to, if it were not for the fact that the Budget shows, in my judgment, an unjustifiable increase on last year’s expenditure, while shewing, at the same time, a very small increase on the revenue side of the ledger. That brings me to the question ofl penny postage. The PostmasterGeneral has issued a memorandum of very great interest; and I propose to- make some observations, in order to show how deftly the whole matter has been wrought and how the honorable gentleman has skipped over certain factors which would have made his calculation look very different in regard to the question whether penny postage is the great success he claims for it in other parts of the world. Of course, one can appreciate the Postmaster-General’s first reason, that the adoption of penny postage would be an outward and visible sign of Australian Union. But when it comes to paying taxes, we are not so much concerned for outward and visible signs as we are for inward and spiritual grace; and I am afraid there is not much financial grace, so far as the small States are concerned, in a proposal of this kind. We are reid that our postal conditions in this connexion are a standing illustration of the incompleteness of Federation. But we should, I think, be very happy if that were the only indication of an incomplete Federation at the present time. The PostmasterGeneral, in his memorandum, goes on to deal with some of the objections which are urged against the principle of penny postage as he has heard those objections from time to time in Australia. The first objection is the loss of revenue involved, and the second is the fact that the expenditure of the Post and Telegraph Department has each year exceeded its revenue, and that, therefore, to incur anyserious loss would be inadvisable. The Postmaster-General deals with the first objection in a very easy way, by declaring that the experience of countries which have adopted the penny .rate, shows that the idea that there is a loss of revenue involved is fallacious, seeing that an increase in the amount of correspondence immediately^ commences, and, in a short time, restores the equilibrium. But has that been the case in Victoria? Later on, the figures of the Postmaster-General show that that result has not followed in the State I have mentioned.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– The revenue in Victoria is now higher than it was when penny postage was established.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I should like to ask the Postmaster-General what the expenditure is in Victoria to-day as compared with the period to which he refers?

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Let the honorable member take the case of New Zealand, in regard to which we have exact figures.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I should like, in passing, to ask the Postmaster-General whether the view expressed’ in his memorandum is departmental, or whether it is his own personal view? If the honorable gentleman were able to assure us that the Department believes the loss of revenue to be a matter of no concern, I should attach the greatest possible weight to that view ; but I am not prepared to accept his individual opinion.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– What does the honorable member mean by “ departmental view “ ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I mean the view of the officers of the Department. Is the comment in the memorandum that of the officers of the Department, or that of the Posmaster-General himself?

Sir John Forrest:

– Departments are naturally very conservative.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– And very often with abundant justification, particularly in matters of Estimates.

Sir John Forrest:

– We expect an old Postmaster-General to support penny postage.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not say that I am not going to support penny postage. I am concerned with putting the matter straightforwardly and clearly before the people of this country, and I do not think that that has been done in this memorandum. Reference is made in it to foreign countries which have adopted a penny postage rate. We are told that penny postage prevails in tine United Kingdom. But the Postmaster-General does riot tell us that when it was adopted there the United Kingdom had a population of 17,000,000. Nor does he tell us that in the United Kingdom the cost of distributing the mails is a mere, fleabite compared with the cost in a continent like Australia. In the ^United Kingdom the utmost distance to be covered is only 400 miles. Here we have 3,000 miles over which to distribute our mails. Our expense -per capita is, therefore, much in excess of the expense in the United Kingdom. I point to those facts as worthy of consideration - that in the United Kingdom there was a population of 17,000,000 when Bie penny postage rate was adopted, and that there the mails have to be distributed over a country whose greatest distance is 400 miles, whilst here we have 3.000 miles to cover. In the case of France, which is the latest country that has adopted penny postage, we have a country with a population! of 40,000,000. France does not furnish a parallel with this country either in respect of population or financial resources.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– We shall have to turn up some of the honorable member’s old speeches on this subject !

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That cheap, empty claptrap will not deter me from what I am going to say, nor will the honorable member’s ugly looks. I am appalled when I look at him.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– The honorable member should not ask a question, and then be angry when he gets an answer.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not asking a question. When I did ask one the Postmaster-General declined to answer. His memorandum goes on to say -

Our experience of cheap uniform telegraph rates has been altogether satisfactory.

– We are just as prosperous.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I believe so; but is not that a reason why the fact should be shown in this memorandum? If our postal revenue is going ahead by leaps and bounds it would have been a good thing, I think, to have let us know all about it. Instead of that, however, we have not a figure which would enable us to make any comparison. Then the Postmaster-General goes on to say that, according to his officials, the estimated loss from the penny postage would be , £265,000 a year.

Sir John Forrest:

– They do not make any allowance for increase of business. That estimate. I understand, merely refers to present business.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Of course, I must not suppose that the officials know very much about the matter. As a rule those who devote their lives to the business do not. That is the view often taken.

– We are refusing to take that sum out of the people’s pockets.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not see that it makes much difference which way the ‘honorable member turns the figures if he is not going to draw a broad distinction

_ 0__ . between Federal and State finance. My only object in criticising his memorandum is to show that as a basis for any forecast it is worthless, because it furnishes no means for making a comparison, and that if we are to have the penny post inaugurated, we must make up our minds to face a very substantial loss. This is not: a matter which would affect the large States appreciably, but it would affect very materially the small States, whose Governments are straining every nerve to make both ends meet. In Tasmania, for instance, the people are bearing direct taxation to the tune of 24s. 3d. per head, and still the Government cannot make ends meet. Here is a proposal to take from them immediately £15,000. From the view-point of the smaller States, the position is a very grave one indeed. The larger States could afford to meet the burden, because in view of their surpluses the introduction of the penny post would not make any material difference. If things were equal I should applaud the proposal as being as good a way of spending the surplus revenues as any I know of within the Federal purview. I make these criticisms now because I feel that, while the bookkeeping system continues, we are but trustees and clerks for the States, so far as their finances are concerned, and should be careful how we dispose of large sums of money belonging to them, and not to the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- The people of the States and the people of the Commonwealth are one and the same. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Yes; but we must honour the bookkeeping system so long as it remains in force. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The Commonwealth is entitled to spend one-fourth of the net revenue from duties of Customs and {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Undoubtedly ; but there are put forwardin the right honorable gentleman's Budget proposals for the ear-marking of special taxation, which show that he expects that the time will soon arrive when he will spend more than one- fourth. In my judgment, the financial relations of the Commonwealth and the States will never be satisfactory until the different entities are financially independent, and the sooner we approve of a scheme which will place the relationship on a proper and independent footing the better. By doing so, we shall create a better feeling and more harmonious relations, paving the way for each, within its own sphere, to move onwards to a prosperous future. {: #subdebate-7-0-s4 .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON:
Bland -- Although the honorable member for Parramatta differs from the Treasurer on some points, he views a satisfactoryBudget from practically the same aspect, the general effect upon both gentlemen being almost identical. The Treasurer sees in the record of a good financial year the opportunity to throw money about, careless of what the consequences may be, while the acting leader of the Opposition takes it as an indication that all is well with the country, and nothing more requires to be done. According to him, ail excuse for social legislation disappears with the presentation of a Budget disclosing a handsome surplus. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I agree with the honorable member, if he substitutes " Socialism " for social legislation. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Surely the honorable member must be aware that the condition of the public revenue is not an unfailing index of the condition of the people. He ought to know that, only lately, in England, a period of the greatest prosperity, judgedby statistics of imports and exports and of manufacturing, activity, was coincident with the greatest destitution and want of employment. Mere statements of revenue and expenditure showing a surplus do not go to the root of matters. The fact that we in Australia are able to raise enough money to pay our debts, and that wealth is being produced here in much larger measure than was previously the case, is no complete criterion of the conditions of the people. Although there is a greater measure of prosperity amongst our people to-day than they were enjoying a little time ago, much remains to be done before the condition of the masses will be reasonably satisfactory. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- There is much to be done in the equalization of the distribution of wealth. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Undoubtedly. The production of wealth is one thing, and its distribution another. I share the sentiments of the poet who wrote - >Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, > >Where wealth accumulates, and men decay. We can congratulate ourselves upon the good seasons which have enabled our financial institutions to recover their stability, and upon the fact that money is plentiful, and that while work is not as, plentiful as it might be, there is more employment offering than was obtainable a little time ago; but there still remains the fact that Australia is not progressing as its resources should make it progress. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member seems to have joined the " stinking fish " party. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- So far as I have read, no country offers opportunities for the making of homes equal to those offered in Australia to-day ; but, if we adopt the attitude of the honorable member, and say that nothing more remains to be done, because the Treasurer has shown: a surplus, the POS. tion of our people will not be likely to improve. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I did not say anything of the kind. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The honorable member said that the Budget shows that there is no need for protection, nor for repressive legislation. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I did not say that. I said that it was an answer to those who demand extreme protection and Socialism. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The honorable member said that it showed that there was no need for higher protective duties, on the one hand, nor for repressive legislation which might interfere with the development of enterprise, on the other hand. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- It is a new *role* for the honorable member to express himself as anxious as to the possibility of legislation proving repressive. It seems to me as yesterday when he was one of the chief advocates of legislation to repress the rapacity of individual employers in regard to the great body of the public. In my view there is need for a great deal of legislation. The honorable member said that the Budget shows that there is no need for the proposals put forward by myself on behalf ot the Labour Party for a progressive land, tax. which he condemned as lacking principle and various other valuable elements. In support of his position he advances only the fact that we have temporarily an overflowing Treasury. ' I ask him : Is Australia progressing as it should? Is settlement increasing as it should ? Is land being found for would-be settlers who are already in the country, and will land be available for those to whom we hope to offer inducements to come here? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- It never will be, when men like W. N. Willis can get hold of it a.11. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- While, in the main, the land transactions to which the New South Wales scandals relate, should not have passed into the hands of those who got it, it is not such as I would select as the choicest for settlement. They were central division lands, mainly in the western part of that division, and were not suitable for farming, although adapted for small pastoral holdings. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The honorable member does not offer that fact as an excuse for the mal-administration of the Lands Department ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Not at all. But I say that it is idle to suggest that the land which was improperly obtained would have been available tor agricultural settlement if it had not been locked up. With regard to the Budget, it certainly appals me to contemplate the light-hearted manner in which the Treasurer proposes to throw money about. Apparently, he is so imbued with the spirit of the boom prosperity of the State with which he was so long associated that he cannot divest his mind of the idea that our revenue is going to bound along just as it did in Western Australia in the early days of the gold-fields. He does not realize that there is a possibility of a falling off in the revenue. To my idea, however, there is very great danger to be apprehended in that direction. So far as the mere programme of the Government is concerned, I think that we are within measurable distance of the end of our financial tether. If honorable members will look at the expenditure of the last few years, they will see that a steadily-increasing amount has been laid out by the Federal authorities. I am bound to admit that some of the expenditure has been inevitable from the stand-point of policy. We entered upon the payment of the sugar bounties with our eyes wide open, and in other directions there were increases that were impossible to avoid.' Some of these were due to a better recognition of the rights of public servants to fair treatment at the hands of their employers, the people, and some were attributable to other causes. Now we have placed before us a number of proposals for very large increases, which, if agreed to, will raise the total expenditure for the current year up to about £400,000 in excess of the outlay for last year. Setting on one side increases which are inevitable, such as the £130.000 in respect of the sugar bounties and £50,000 proposed to be spent upon the general elections, there are a number of proposals which seem to me to demand close attention. Take, for instance, the additional £77,000 which it is proposed to expend upon the Military Forces. Some four years ago the leaders of different parties in the House came to an understanding - and in the absence of any disclaimer from individuals, we may assume that honorable members were unanimous - that the Military Estimates should be limited to £700,000. That amount was to be exclusive of any votes for special armaments or war materiel of a specific character. Since then we have added ,£96,000 to our Defence Estimates on the account of the Naval Subsidy, and as that increase was approved of by a distinct vote of the House, no exception can be taken to it, so far as the administration is concerned. Since then, however, there have been steady and repeated attempts to increase the vote until we find that the present Estimates exceed the amount previously agreed upon by £80,000. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The Military Estimates amount to only £676,000, because £200,000 is payable under the Naval Agreement. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- After allowing for an increase of £96,000 under the naval subsidy, there remains a net addition to the outlay upon the Military Forces of £80,000 over and above the sum previously 'agreed upon. I think that we should be prepared, at the earliest possible moment, to make Something like adequate provision for coastal defence. It is utterly nonsensical for us to spend such a large amount upon our Military Forces, whilst we are making practically no provision for coastal defence. I do not wish to discuss the policy of the Naval Agreement. It is there, and we have to adjust our arrangements in view of the continuance of the agreement for the full period. We must, however, provide for local coastal defence, which the Imperial Squadron on the Australian Station does not pretend to give. The Imperial authorities look upon the squadron as being intended for general defence purposes, and as available for service in the China seas at any moment if occasion should require. Therefore, it seems to me to be in the highest decree suicidal for us to spend no time or money in making provision for the defence of our harbors and coast line. If there is to be any increased expenditure, it should be upon the Naval side of our defence. If the Government had proposed to spend £100,000 or £150,000 per annum in building suitable craft for the protection of our harbors, I should have been very glad to give them all the assistance possible. While, however, remaining silent upon that important aspect of our defences, they propose to increase the estimates for the Military Forces, which, after all, are only our second line of defence, by £80,000. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- There are 50,000 rifles to be provided for. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am not speaking of the expenditure upon rifles or war materiel, but of the annual expenditure upon the training and maintenance of the Military Forces. I make no complaint with regard to the money proposed to be spent in the purchase of rifles or field .guns or ammunition, but I submit that it is altogether unjustifiable to so largely increase the Military Estimates, and leave the Naval side of our defence unprovided for. Apart from the question of spending £100,000 or £1:50,000 per annum upon the development of our Naval defences, there is need for the establishment of an ammunition factorv, a small-arms factory, and the nucleus of an arsenal. All these are items of extra expenditure for which money will have to be found at no distant date. ,1 find that it is proposed to spend an additional £167,000 upon works and buildings. I do not know how far this expenditure may be justified. In some cases. I know that not nearly sufficient care has been exercised by Ministers with regard to expenditure. T know of one case in which, whilst I was in office, I refused to sanction a very large expenditure upon the erection of a new post office, upon the ground that the report of the inspector showed that the existing building was adequate to meet all requirements. Yet the work in question has since been put in hand. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Where? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not wish to particularize, but I can give the Treasurer the information later on. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Probably the necessity for its erection has become more pressing since. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- /Upon the inspector's report, it was estimated that with a very small expenditure, the old building could be made to serve its purpose for another ten years. There is need for us to carefully scrutinize the items of proposed expenditure under that head. But I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Treasurer estimates .that at the end of the current financial year, he will have a surplus - out of our one-fourth of the net revenue from Customs and Excise which we are empowered to retain under the Constitution - of £311,000. It is well, therefore, for us to give some thought to the other items of expenditure which are practically inevitable, especially m view of the fact that the Government propose to sacrifice a very large sum of money, which is easily collected, and the payment of which is practically felt by nobody. In the expenditure which seems to me to be inevitable, I put nothing down for the establishment of an ammunition factory and a small arms factory. It is impossible for me to estimate how much their establishment would cost, or what sum we should require to spend on their maintenance. But first of all, we have to provide for old-age pensions. The Government tell us that they intend to do something tangible in that direction. I do not know of any particular method of raising money for that purpose which can be counted upon to yield all that is required. I know of no special source which will provide the necessary sum in the absence of contributions from other sources. The cost of providing for oldage pensions is estimated at £1 500,000 annually. .Payment for the transferred properties, it is calculated, will involve us in more than £300,000 per annum. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Not so much as that, if we adopt the balancing method. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- If we adopt the balancing method, I admit that the cost will not be so much. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That is the only method which "we can adopt. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Personally, I am in favour of a modification of the proposal which was put forward by **Mr., now** Justice, O'Connor, . when he represented the Government in another Chamber. But, even upon the basis of any reasonable modification of that scheme, a fairly large sum will still have to be taken from the Commonwealth Treasury for some time before those properties can be paid for. Any scheme which is likely to meet with acceptance by the States, will involve us in an expenditure of at least £50,000 annually. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- What is there to be gained by paying foi those properties? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- There is nothing to be gained from the stand-point of the Federal authorities ? {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- What is to be gained from the people's stand-point? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- So far as the people as taxpayers are concerned, it does not matter whether they are paid for those properties or not. But the provision is contained in; our Constitution, and it is extremely doubtful whether the States - if any of them cared to take action - could not compel us to deal with the question of paying for them. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- If we fail to agree the mode of compensation is left to this Parliament to determine. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am aware that in default of any agreement being arrived at, this Parliament has the power to decide the manner in which the debts shall be liquidated. But that does not afford an excuse for Parliament delaying a settlement of the matter. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We are not delaying its settlement. The States have not been very anxious to make their valuations. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- At any rate, after the lapse of five years, we ought to have formed some idea of what we are going to do' in the matter. Under the most favorable scheme that we can put forward the transferred properties will involve us in a payment of at least £50,000 annually. The cost of coastal defence I set down at a minimum of £100,000 per annum, in addition to the amount which is already being spent. {: .speaker-KRQ} ##### Mr Skene: -- That sum would not go very far in building the fleet that is necessary. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I take it that any scheme which we can adopt in regard to naval defence must be upon the lines of making steady provision in that direction. Personally, I would prefer to see a much larger sum spent, but I recognise that there is not much probability in the near future of our getting more than an additional sum of £100,000 or £150,000 per annum. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- How many craft could we obtain for that amount? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- We can get a firstclass torpedo boat for about £20,000, 1 think. {: .speaker-KRQ} ##### Mr Skene: -- I thought that they cost about £60,000. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- A good torpedo boat can be built for £20,000, but I understand that torpedo destroyers cost somewhere about £60,000. But even if we only spent £100,000 annually, in addition to our present expenditure, it would be better than doing nothing. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- Could net we hire the vessels ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- When I was in office, 1 did suggest to the Admiralty authorities that we would be prepared to hire boats of that description, but for various reasons, they were not able to fall in with the suggestion, and so we must have recourse to building them to meet our own requirements. Then there is the question of the construction of the transcontinental railway. If that undertaking is to be regarded as a possibility, it will involve the Commonwealth in a fairly large deficit for some years after its completion. I do not think that even our optimistic Treasurer will argue that it will pay from the start. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- It would pay within three years of its completion, I think. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not think so. It would be a most remarkable circumstance if it did. In any case, we should have to face a deficiency in connexion with it. The engineers who reported upon it as men who are accustomed to making estimates of that character, bearing in mind the country which it would traverse, and the population which it would serve at either end, calculated that it would involve us in a loss of £60,000 annually for ten years. I am net arguing that that is a loss which the Commonwealth should not be prepared to face. The New South Wales Government constructed a line of railway down the south coast upon which they lost £60,000 annually for a good many years, and upon which they still lose a very large sum. For the Commonwealth to be called upon to face a similar1 annual loss upon a railway constructed for developmental purposes would be a comparatively small matter. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I do not think that the loss would be anything like that amount. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- That is a matter of opinion. I have merely quoted from the testimony of experts. There is no doubt that some loss would have to be faced in connexion with that line, and it is well for us to keep it in mind. Then there is the sugar bounty. The Treasurer estimates that during the current year we shall have to pay about £278,500 in this connexion. There is a very large increase in the sum payable this year, as compared with the amount expended last year, owing to the expected increase in the quantity of sugar produced by white labour. No doubt theTreasurer anticipates that next year the expenditure in that direction will be still larger. As I have said, it is estimated that the expenditure this year, when black labour will be in some measure available for the production of a large proportion of the sugar, will amount to £278,500. But next year black labour will not be available in the same degree, and consequently we shall have a larger expenditure, since every grower who employs white labour exclusively will naturally apply for the bounty. As we receive only £1 out of the £4 per ton Excise duty, and have to pay from the Federal Treasury £3 per ton by way of bounty, it stands to reason that there will be a largely increased demand upon the onefourth of revenue retained by the Commonwealth. I do not know whether the Treasurer has looked ahead to ascertain how far his revenue will be affected in this way. I am inclined to think that, owing to the greater proportion of sugar grown by white labour, he will expend next year at least ^£150, 000 more than he is paying away this year in respect of the bounty. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- That is to say, the States will get it. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Quite so. I am only pointing out that we have ahead a number of commitments: that will affect our power to expend the one-fourth of Customs and Excise revenue to which we are entitled. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We must try to make the payment a rebate. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- In the first instance it was passed as a rebate, but the Crown Law officers said that that was unconstitutional. We had therefore to retrace our steps, and describe the payment as a bounty. The right honorable gentleman may find some method of overcoming the difficulty. The leader of the Opposition once said that when he came to a stile over which he could not jump, he crawled round it. In the same way, apparently, the Treasurer thinks that if he runs himself into financial difficulties, instead of meeting them boldly, he will get round them in some peculiar way. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- He has large ideas about money. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Evidently. There are some other items of expenditure in respect of which we may expect an increase. We have to remember the natural growth of the Departments. Some of them should grow. They have very important duties to performin the interests of the people, and it is only natural that the number of their officers should be increased as opportunities for benefiting the people present themselves. We have, for instance, such proposals as the establishment of a Bureau of Agriculture in connexion with the Department of Home Affairs, and the taking over of the Department of Meteorology, which will involve an increased expenditure. That increased expenditure is essential to secure increased efficiency. And so in other directions the Departments will naturally grow. We are told by the Government that it will cost something to advertise the Commonwealth in connexion with the immigration proposals ; and a much larger matter which will demand attention in the near future is the taking over of the Northern Territory. I do not know whether the Treasurer has considered how far the taking over of the Territory will detrimentally affect the finances of the Commonwealth. SirJohn Forrest.. - The question has not vet come before me. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Every honorable member must be convinced that we are doing a wrong to the people of Australia by allowing that large area to remain in the hands of one State, and practically undeveloped. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Unoccupied, practically. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- It is undeveloped, and we are practically holding out an invitation to the hordes of people living to the north of Australia to occupy it. The taking over of such a Territory must inevitably involve for some time a considerable expenditure withoutany immediate result. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We should need a loan for that purpose. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The improvident financieralways falls back on a loan. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We could not provide for the development of the Territory out -of the revenue. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I hope that the Commonwealth will not have to resort to bor rowing for some years. It is all very well for the right honorable gentleman to speak in this light-hearted fashion about resorting to loans, whilst at the same time he is prepared to throw revenue into the sea. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Do not say that. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Practically that is what is proposed to be done. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Why does the honorable member say that? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- We have to face the enormous prospective expenditure to which I have briefly alluded, and vet the Ministry are quite prepared to forego a revenue of£300,000per annum now raised by the Post and Telegraph Department in a way that has, aroused no dissatisfaction on the part of the people. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We must observe the Federal spirit,and give some conveniences to the people. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I agree with the right honorable gentleman that we should afford conveniences to the people ; but I am afraid that what he now terms a proposal to grant a convenience to the people will be used as a reason for denying conveniences to those who most deserve them, and who most need assistance at the hand of the Commonwealth. What is the invariable excuse for refusing to grant a request by country members for increased postal facilities? When an honorable member asks for an additional mail service to a collection of settlers on the rim of civilization, he is told that it will not pay, or that the Department have not sufficient money for that purpose. I am prepared to say that if the average city man were asked to choose between the granting of increased facilities to settlers in the back-blocks on the one hand and penny postage throughout Australia on the other, he would declare for the former. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The residents of nearly all the towns in the different States have penny postage, and those in the country do notenjoy that privilege. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Those living within the radius of towns, or within a certain area in country districts, in most of the States today enjoy penny postage. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -Why should people in country districts be denied that which is given to those residing in the towns ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The denial of penny postage throughout Australia is. a small matter when compared with the denial to country districts of facilities in the way of postal and telephonic extension' to which they are justly entitled. The complaint will possibly come from those who to-day are quite prepared to pay the additional penny per letter. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- It is unfederal to require one man to pay 2d. for a letter, and another to pay only1d. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I think that the right honorable gentleman is allowing himself to be swayed by a number of sentimental considerations which need have no place in our deliberations with respect to the financial problem. The suggestions he has made as to falling into line with the rest of the civilized world and other vague generalities of that sort do not seem, from my stand-point, to be of importance in the consideration of a matter that is, after all, one of practical working politics. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We must cast our bread upon the waters. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am afraid that it will bemany days before this particular bread will return to us. I have no objection *per se* to penny postage. If we were makingmoney out of the Post and Telegraph Department I should say at once, " Reduce the postage, and give increased facilities in every direction." But as a. matter of fact, as has already been shown, the Department is to-day losing very considerably. As the honorable member for Parramatta mentioned, . it has lost £1,750,000 in five years, because, although the Postmaster-General talks of his Department being apayable one, he knows full well that it can only be said to be paying when we leave out of account the interest on the capital expenditure that has been incurred in respect of it. The immense capital sum that is being spent on the Department generally returns no interest, and is, therefore, contributed by the taxpayers generally for the benefit of those who use the Post Office. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Surely the honorable member does not say that the Post Office ought to be made to pay ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Not at all. The Post Office should be run in the interests of the people, and afford ascheap and easy facilities as possible. But. while that is so, we ought to exercise some discretion as to the sacrifice of an immense sum of money, such as is proposed on the present occasion. Mir. Austin Chapman. - Wouldthe honorable member mind saving what he would dointhe case of Victoria? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I should let Victoria remain as at present. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Does the honorable member not approve of uniformity? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not think that uniformity is so essential as seems to be supposed. In my opinion, it does not matter particularly, so far as the people of the Commonwealth are concerned, whether there is absolute uniformity or not. It would be preferable, I admit, to have uniformity, if it could be obtained without any undue sacrifice; but when it means giving up £300,000 of revenue-- {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Not so much as that. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- With all due deference to the right honorable gentleman, I prefer to accept The opinion of experts, rather than his opinion, or that of any one else. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The experts have not taken into account any increase of business. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- What does the increase of business amount to? {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- A good deal. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Every one know that there were special circumstances in Victoria, where, owing to the protectionist policy, there were manufactures in proportion largely in excess of those of the other States, and, because of its central position, the State had a larger share of the distributing business than fell to her neighbours after Federation. The increase in the Victorian business is largely accounted for by the fact that Federation opened up *new* markets which previously had not been available. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- And then there must be added payment for services which was not received prior to Federation. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am glad that the honorable member has reminded me of the fact that before Federation all departmental letters were franked through the post, whereas now every letter has to be paid for, as, for instance, the enormous number of communications connected with the Electoral Department. During the short period I was at the Treasury I discovered that on the Estimates for thatyear was an item of £16,000 for postage in connexion with electoral business. That was a direct contribution in regardto one Department only ; and the greater part of that postage was in Victoria, from whence most of the communications were sent to the departmental branches throughout Australia. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Why should the people of Victoria have an advantage over those of New South Wales ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -The right honorable gentleman knows that no figures have been submitted in regard to New South Wales ; but, if there had been, I am inclined to think they would have disclosed quite as large an increase as we find in the case of Victoria. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The people of Victoria have an advantage over those of New South Wales and all other States. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The people of Victoria have to pay for the loss on penny postage at present. The large proportion of the increased business in Victoria is due to the expansion consequent on Federation, while a fair amount is due to the fact that the Commonwealth Departments nowpay postage. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- And the States Departments also. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Both Commonwealth and States Departments have now to pay postage. Itwill be a proper thing for thePostmaster-General to analyze the figures, and ascertain exactly what the departmental postage amounts to. It could be easily ascertained how much the States Departments contribute to the postal revenue now, as compared with the contribution before Federation. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Would the honorable member apply the same argument to the reduction in the charges for Tasmanian cable messages? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- No; I think we ought to treat Tasmania as we treat the other States. There are a number of long land lines which do not pay. and the loss on which is borne by the Commonwealth generally ;and if there is a short section of cable that is not remunerative, I do not seewhy there should be any distinction drawn between that and non-paving lines on the Continent. I see no difference in principle; and, therefore, I say that in this connexion Tasmania should be placed On the same basis as are the other States. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- That is uniformity. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- It is uniformitv in that regard,simply because it would be unfair todeny to Tasmania a privilege which is granted to other. States. But in the caseofVictoria, thepennypostage ispaid for by the people of that State.I doubt very much whether the Treasurer and my self will see the end of the bookkeeping system for some little time to come. We may talk about the desirability of abolishing the system, but I see no prospect of any alteration for a long tune ahead. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- We are surely not going to have the system in perpetuity ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- So long as there is such a marked disparity between the contribution per head of the people of Western Australia, and the contribution of the people of Tasmania, for instance- {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- The Western Australian contribution is going down rapidly. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- It is still double that of Tasmania. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- There is an enormous difference still, and the bookkeeping system must be continued. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Tasmania is getting close up. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Tasmania is still a long way behind Western Australia with a contribution of, I think,£116s. per head, as against£3 odd per head. {: .speaker-JZT} ##### Sir Philip Fysh: -- The difference is only about 3s. 6d. per head. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Does the honorable member say that that is all the difference between the contribution per head of Tasmania . and the contribution per head of Western Australia? {: .speaker-JZT} ##### Sir Philip Fysh: -- I am leaving out Western Australia, and comparing Tasmania with the other States. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- There is not such a difference on that comparison; but the people of Western Australia have a reasonable and proper objection to the money which they contribute being divided amongst the people of the other States. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Then they are not Socialists ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- They are not Socialists to that degree. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Western Australia cannot afford to lose the money. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- What I want to say is that, so far as the Post and Telegraph Department is concerned, we already grant reasonable facilities. We have the cheapest telegrams, I think, that are to be found anywhere in the world so far as I have been able to ascertain. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- There are sixpenny telegrams in England. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Considering the distances and our population, I think our telegrams are cheaper than telegrams else- where. ' I do not know any place in the world where it is possible to telegraph sixteen words for is. for such a distance as that from Tasmania to the Gulf of Carpentaria or Port Darwin, or from Brisbane to _ Perth. That in itself is an extremely cheap rate; and 1 am doubtful whether we did not go too far in that direction. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The cheap rate is very useful. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- In any case, great facilities are granted to the people in this way. Our mail services generally are, very properly, I think, even at a loss, taken right to the doors of our back country selectors, and further facilities in this connexion should be granted. But no reason has yet been advanced in favour of penny postage, other than the extremely illogical or sentimental reason that its adoption would place us in line with the rest of the world. Our expenditure must inevitably expand almost by leaps and bounds; and in view of the fact that a vast amount of administrative work, which should be taken over by the Commonwealth, has not yet been taken over, we are not justified in giving up the £200,000 odd, " which is the modest estimate of the Postmaster-General of the loss likely to result from the adoption of the penny postage. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The PostmasterGeneral's estimate is less than that. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The PostmasterGeneral estimates the loss at ,£209,000. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That is my estimate. - {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- That would pay our contribution to the Naval Subsidy. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- I wish we could knock off that subsidy. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I trust, therefore, that, in spite of the fact that the Treasurer points to an expanding revenue, honorable members will hesitate before they approve of any such scheme of penny postage. We have all those additional items of expenditure which have been mentioned, and, in addition, the Government say that within a short time they intend to introduce a Tariff that will have greater protective incidence than the present Tariff. That must mean a falling off in revenue. If it does, what becomes of the glowing anticipations of the Treasurer? If the revenue contracts, where is he going to find the money to meet this inevitable expenditure? Is ha going to confess to the people of Western Australia that the transcontinental railway will have to stand aside because there is no possibility of meeting the loss in connexion with it? {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- He will - fall back upon direct taxation. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am extremely doubtful whether he will ; but I see no chance whatever of raising sufficient money by any. scheme of direct taxation that I can contemplate, to carry out the things which I have enumerated, and which I regard as essential for the proper development of this Commonwealth. Even though we do obtain some help from direct taxation, we shall still require all the legitimate revenue we can get hold of, if we are to carry out the many functions which are demanding attention at our hands. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- We have hot touched direct taxation yet. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I know that; and when the Commonwealth does touch it, we shall have to supplement it before we can carry out the proposals I have indicated. I do not intend to say more with regard tothe Budget, but there are one or two other matters to which I should like to refer, and upon which the Treasurer touched in his speech. He mentioned the question of the States debts. I wish to say that I for one appreciate highly the care that has been expended in the consideration of this question, both by the Treasurer and bv the honorable member for Mernda. The two memoranda submitted by those gentlemen are highly interesting, and give evidence of most careful thought having been devoted to the question. I do not think that any one can deny them that meed of justice. I admit at once that there is an extreme difficulty in dealing in any satisfactory way with a problem with so many facets as this presents. For myself, I do not pretend for a moment to be a financial expert. I approach the question as a layman. But I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with either of the proposals that has been put" forward up to the present. The Treasurer proposes that we shall take over the debts as they mature. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That we should take power to assume responsibility for them when they are converted or redeemed. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- So far as that bare proposal is concerned, I am quite at one with the right honorable gentleman. It has always appeared to me that it would be extremely unwise on our part -to assume responsibility for the debts, even to the extent that theConstitution permits us to do - that is for the debts as existing at the date of the establishment of the Commonwealth - in any lump fashion. I remember that when the Convention was debating this point, the presentleader of the Opposition stated, as his opinion, that to take over the States debts in one lump, or to assume responsibility for them as a whole, would mean making a present to the bond-holders of an immense sum of money, represented by the difference between the price that could be obtained for Commonwealth bonds and that which could be obtained for the bonds of the States. ' {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The honorable member will notice that the financial authorities in London are of the same opinion. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Quite so. When that statement was made by the right honorable member for East Sydney in 1897, it struck me as being an extremely sensible remark. If we say that we as a Commonwealth will pay the interest on the debts of the States, and will be responsible for them when the money becomes due, we assume the whole responsibility for them. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- How much is to be paid for them when they are due? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- That is not the question. We pay par for them when they become due unquestionably; but does not the honorable member see that if we took over the debts to-morrow - if we assumed responsibility for them to-morrow - it would not be a question of how much we should have to pay, but of how much we were presenting free of encumbrance to the bond-holders, who are now the creditors of the States? {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- I cannot see that at all. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- It means, it seems to me, that we forgo the opportunity of making the better terms which we have a right to expect from a Commonwealth security. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- That idea prevailed when it was expected1 that the Commonwealth would convert on a large scale. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- AsI understand the proposal of the Treasurer, it is that we should take legislative power to convert and renew maturing loans. Well, I quite agree with him in that. I mentioned my belief in that method two or three times during the recess. At Hobart, for instance, and also at Adelaide, I spoke in favour of that course being taken. ButI disagree from the Treasure in thinking that that can be done without an amendment of the Constitution. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- Hear, hear; quite right. {: .speaker-JZT} ##### Sir Philip Fysh: -- The Treasurer, in his memorandum, proposes to amend the Constitution. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- No; not in this regard. The Treasurer says that legislation by this Parliament is sufficient for that; but he proposes to amend the Constitution in another matter. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That is in taking over the whole of the debts. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Yes.. . {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I think the Constitution is quite wide enough for what I propose. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not think so. Section 105 lays it down that the Parliament may take over from the States the public debts as existing at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or a proportion thereof, according to the respective numbers of the people as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth. The Treasurer will see, I think, that there are only two alternatives - (1) To take over the whole of the debts as they existed on the 31st December, 1901 ; ' or (2) to take over a certain proportion of the debts of each State. I contend that neither of those two courses would be wise. Therefore, in my view, an amendment of the Constitution is essential before the best course can be taken ; that is, that Parliament - whether Parliament sees fit to delegate that power afterwards to the Treasurer is another question - should be endowed with power to take over as much or as little of the debts of each State as it thinks desirable. Theremay be a difference in regard to the details, but the main thing is that the Federal Treasurer, with the authority of Parliament, should be enabled to step into the market at a favorable moment if he wishes to convert, and that the same authority should be able to step in and buy State bonds, keeping them up to a certain level, or taking an opportunity of, perhaps, saving some hundreds of thousands of pounds because of a temporary fall in price ; and, on the other hand, there should be power to renew on Commonwealth security State loans' as they mature. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We have thatpower under the Constitution. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not think so.It must be done in certain regular proportions. The Treasurer must see that, if in Victoria a £5,000,000 loan, were falling due next month, it might be - it would be, I think - desirable for the Commonwealth to take it over and renew it on its own security, but it would hamper the business to say that, at the same time, we should make ourselves responsible for a similar proportion of the debts of every other State. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That is not proposed at all. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- That is what the. Constitution provides. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The Constitution says that the Commonwealth may take over the debts which had been incurred at the time it was established; but we propose to amend the Constitution, with a view to take over the whole of the debts. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- As a layman, I speak with diffidence, but I think the Treasurer will find that a further amendment of the Constitution will be required. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · PROT; WAP from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I am advised not. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The right honorable gentleman may be a much better authority on this point than I am. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The terms of the provision in the Constitution are pretty wide. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- As I read the Constitution, there seems no doubt but that we are confined to two courses, neither of which, in ray view, would be wise, or likely to prove economical. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- In what way does the honorable member suggest it ought to be done? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- What I suggest to the Government is that, before this session closes, they should put forward a proposal to amend the Constitution so as to give this Parliament thepower to deal with the debts in the manner I have indicated. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We may do that yet. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I think that it ought to be done, so as to allow the Commonwealth to start at once with the renewal of maturing loans, and not to bother about the proportion which it is to take over. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- That would simplify matters a good deal. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I think so. The first thing to do is to get legislative power to deal with this big question in a way which would commend itself to the Parliament. If wegot that power there would be no trouble at all, I think. We should soon learn, from experience, what would be the best thing to do. In the meantime, the question of. renewing maturing loans would be quite enough for us to take up as a problem. If we were to deal with all loans as they matured we should gradually reach a position when, as was indicated by the honorable member for Mernda, the financial conditions as between the different States would have so changed that there would be no need to consider these questions at all. He put forward many other admirable suggestions. For instance, his proposal to establish a sinking fund, and to place the money in the care of debt commissioners - that is, permanent individuals, with the assistance of the Treasurer, but in the main independent of politics- is an excellent suggestion. I do not think that any sinking fund, would be safe so long as it was at the mercy of a temporarily embarrassed Treasurer. {: .speaker-KRQ} ##### Mr Skene: -- Or any one who could lay his hands upon it. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Exactly, and I do not suppose that any one of us could be trusted in that regard. To secure ourselves against temptation, it would be wise to create a body which, in a measure, would be independent of Parliament, and which we could trust to perform this very important duty. It need not cost a great sum, and it would be a wise course to take. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- It would not cost very much. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- No. Then, with regard to the right of the States to borrow, Ido not think that a great deal can be said for the suggestion which the honorable member put forward in that regard. It is quite hopeless to expect that any great benefit would result from the Commonwealth taking over the States debts if the States are to continue as competitors in the London market. For that reason, there ought to be some constitutional barrier placed in the way of their' appealing to that market, perhaps in competition with the Commonwealth acting on behalf of all the people of Australia. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- They should borrow through the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Yes. I am inclined to think that some such arrangement would be a wise one. There is a great need for early action to be taken in the direction of amending the Constitution. As the honorable member for Mernda very properly said, it is becoming a matter of reproach against the Parliament,- that, although this question has been in our hands for so long, we have done actually nothing towards its solution, except to talk. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We have had three conferences. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Yes, but we have taken no active steps in the direction of solving the problem. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We are commencing now. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The honorable member might just as well say that we commenced when the honorable member for Balaclava, as Treasurer, put forward a scheme the details of which had much to commend them, but we got no further ; and so we are likely to go on. I would urge upon the Government that the first step to be taken is to secure such an amendment of the Constitution as would allow a freer hand to Parliament than it possesses. There is another aspect of. this financial question which I think merits a little consideration, and that is the suggestion of the Treasurer to get over the operation of trie Braddon section. If, as I understand, it is put forward as a matter of Government policy, I am very sorry indeed that that course has been adopted. The scheme, as was pointed out by the honorable member for Mernda, seems to be so arranged that the Commonwealth ' would take all the risk of loss, while the States would take all the chances' of profit. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We do not consider that there would be any risk. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am inclined to think that the right honorable gentleman is unduly optimistic in that regard. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- It is quite safe, we think. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I notice that despite all his experience as a Treasurer, it never strikes the right honorable gentleman that it is a wise thing to start in a fat year to build up a reserve which would tide us over the lean year, which must inevitably come.' {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Yes; we are purposing to do that under this scheme. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not understand that. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- It is proposed to have independent finance, and not to return any surplus of the Commonwealth onefourth to the States. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- This print must be rather badly arranged - by the typesnatchers, I suppose. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- No; the honorable member has not, I think, understood it properly. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- As I understand it, the Commonwealth' is to start with a fixed payment to the States from the end of 1910. The only reason which can be given for adopting a fixed payment is that it should take effect immediately. What is the objection to the Braddon section? The objection - is that it unduly hampers the Parliament of the Commonwealth in the exercise of the functions intrusted to it by the people of the States. Apart from that, there is no objection to the section. Those of us who object to it say that we are " cabin'd, cribb'd, cornfin'd," because it lays down that the Commonwealth may use only one-fourth of the net revenue from Customs and Excise duties. On principle, I, for one, object to any constitutional provision which ties the hands of the people in .. future. I object on principle. I have been prepared for some time past to support a proposal for the substitution of a fixed payment for the returns under the Braddon section, but merely as the lesser of two evils. The Treasurer wishes to provide for a fixed payment after the termination of the Braddon provision. This Parliament, however, representing the broader aspirations of the people of Australia, will have the right to please itself as to what it will do with the Commonwealth revenue after the Braddon provision has ceased to have effect. At the end of 1910 the Parliament will be free from the restrictions imposed by the Braddon section. The Treasurer wishes to make provision for a fixed payment, to take effect after that date ; but I shall resist that proposal with all the energy of which I am capable. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We cannot provide for a fixed payment earlier, because of the Braddon provision. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- A fixed payment has been suggested to the Premiers of the States as something which could be substituted for the Braddon provision, to take effect at once, which would give them asecurity they do not now possess. The payment need not necessarily be the *payment* of a fixed sum ; it mav be a fixed proportional amount. But, if substituted for the Braddon provision, it would give us a free hand so far as the expenditure of the balance of our revenue was concerned. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -i have not heard anything about any proposal for the repeal of the Braddon provision. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Then the right honorable gentleman has been inattentive on some occasions. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The existence of the Braddon provision is one of the conditions under which the States federated. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- In New South Wales, one of the chief objections taken to the draft Constitution was that it contained the Braddon provision. I do not think that the people are fond of it. They object to it as strenuously now as they did seven years ago. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The members of the Convention desired that the Braddon provision should have perpetual effect. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Fortunately for the welfare of Australia, their wishes will not be carried out. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We must keep to the bargain or substitute something equally good in its place. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am prepared to do so; but if the people of Australia are prepared to make the constitutional change necessary to alter this arrangement, I shall beready to help them. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I should not advise it unless every one is agreed as to its expediency. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- If the Treasurer intends to substitute a fixed payment for the Braddon provision only after 1910, why does he trouble us with the proposal now, when so many pressing problems are awaiting solution? {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Surely the honorable member does not object to my action in making plans for the future ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not believe in meeting the devil half way. The right honorable gentleman proposes to pay to the States annually for ten years after 31st December, 19 10 - >A fixed sum equal to the average annual amount of three-fourths of the. net revenue from Customs and Excise. That means, broadly, that we shall continue to pay what we are now paying. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Yes; butwe should not return any portion of the remaining one-fourth, as we do now. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- This is the second proposal - >If three-fourths of the total net revenue received by the Commonwealth from Customs and > >Excise in any one year after 31st December, 1910, exceeds the aggregate amount of the annual fixed sum guaranteed to all the States, any such sum in excess to be distributed among the States *per capita.* There it is provided that any surplus is to be returned to the States. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- But we shall have one-fourth intact, which is not the case now. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The right honorable gentleman ignores the fact that the onefourth would be mortgaged up to the hilt. Most of the expenditures to which I alluded the other night are inevitable, and will cause the one-fourth to disappear. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Even admitting that that may be so, there is a third proposal. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The third proposal is that- >After 31st December, 1910, the Commonwealth may impose additional Customs and Excise duties for specific purposes, and may specially appropriate and retain and "earmark" the whole of the revenue. There are to be no duties for specific Commonwealth purposes until after 19 10. Everything involving expenditure of importance must wait until then. The right honorable gentleman is so anxious about the States, and so fearful of building up a reserve fund in the interests of the Commonwealth, to enable it to tide over lean years, that he insists that - >If any surplus remains in any year after providing for such specific purposes from the revenue derived from such special appropriations, three-fourths of the surplus to be annually returned to the Statesper *capita.* {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We shall keep, our one-fourth. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- But there would not be any balance. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- There would be a balance if specific duties were levied. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not think that the Treasurer can indicate specific duties which would yield anything like enough to provide an old-age pensions fund, for instance. The Government's proposals in regard to the alteration of the Tariff, so far as they can be understood, make it unlikely that the revenue from Customs duties will increase. Every step in the direction of higher protection should, and must, mean a decrease in revenue. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- But population will increase. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- If the population grows the charges on the Federal Government will increase, quite apart from any additional Departments that may be taken over by the Federation. The charges in connexion with the existing Federal Departments will grow at least in proportion to any increase of population. I should like to see submitted to the electors by means of a referendum the question of whether we should not have the power to deal with this question at a date earlier than that indicated by the Treasurer. I do not, for a moment, advocate that the States shouldbe left absolutely in the lurch. Indeed, I am quite prepared to make something like reasonable provision with respect to their finances for a considerable time ahead. But I contend that it is against the interests of the Commonwealth and of the people of Australia that we should be bound down in an iron-clad fashion as at present by the Braddon section. I understood the Prime Minister to suggest in Sydney that the fixed payments to the States should begin at once. I had no idea that they were proposed to be entered upon only at the expiration of the Braddon section. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- If we paid the interests on the States debts we could easily overcome the difficulty, because we should absorb the money. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- That would introduce another complication. If we forthwith assumed the responsibility for the States debts - setting on one side the question of whether that would be a wise financial operation, and whether we could not make a more profitable arrangement - a complication would arise, because the interest charges in one State exceed by£750,000 the amount of Customs and Excise revenue to which the States are entitled. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- The States would have to pay that amount in excess to us, instead of to their creditors. SirJohn Forrest. - The proposal made at the Hobart Conference was that the operation of the Braddon section should be extended until 1920. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Yes, and I took every possible opportunity to denounce that proposal. SirJohn Forrest. - My proposal is better than that. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- If is so little better that it is not worth marine an attempt to carry it into effect. Ihopethat Parlia ment will never consent to extend the operation of the Braddon section, or to doanything that would have the effect of hampering the activities of the people in any direction. I am speaking quite apart from any narrow party aspect of the caseIt is with me a basic principle that, oncethe people have made up their minds, they should be allowed to go in whatever direction they desire in the matter of legislation. If they wish to become free-traders, well and good; if they desire to becomeprotectionists, also well and good. They have a perfect right to please themselves as to the manner in which they raise their revenue, whether it be by means of Customs and Excise duties, or by direct taxation. The people should be allowedthe utmostfreedom, and they cannot exercise perfect freedom underthe Braddon section. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- The best way in which to get rid of the Braddon section is to adopt an absolutely free-trade policy. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The honorable member's associates have never voted for, nor even advocated, absolute free-trade, so Far as the Federation is concerned. If the honorable member were ready to lead a crusade in favour of absolute free-trade and direct taxation, a number of honorable members who are not behind his leader would be ready to support him. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- I am very pleased to hear it. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- It would, however, be rather a novelty for any Honorable member on that side of the Chamber to show that he had the courage of his convictions. We are in danger of being led into a serious dilemma. We shall have to provide for a number of items of expenditure which seem inevitable, and even desirable, in the interests of the people as a whole, and with these possible commitments right ahead of us, it would be unwise to forego a large source of revenue in the manner proposed in the Budget. I hope, therefore, that when we discuss the Estimates in detail, the Committee will insist upon considerable modifications of the proposals embodied in the Treasurer's statement. {: #subdebate-7-0-s5 .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS:
Northern Melbourne -- I have had the advantage of reading the speech of the Treasurer, and of likening- to the thoughtful and valuable contributions of the honorable members for Merndaand Bland. I am pleased that, after a long interval of talking against time, honorable members are again alert to the importance of transacting public business. The Treasurer has adopted a policy upon lines similar tothose suggested by me during the previous Budget debate, and has approached more closely to a solution of the problem than has any of his predecessors in office. However we may differ with regard to the details of his proposal, there is no doubt that the right honorable gentleman has applied his mind to this matter, and has contributed some valuable suggestions. I am glad to gather from the Prime Minister that there is no truth in the statement published in the newspapers this morning to the effect that he had stated that no proposal would be made for taking over the States debts until 1910. If that were true, this would be nothing more than a mere academic debate. I think that the Prime Minister, and the honorable member for Mernda. recognise that the question of reducing the burden of interest payments upon loans is of tremendous and immediate importance. For instance, if we could reduce the rate of interest payable on our loans by1/2 per cent., we should save the people of Australia over £:1 , 000,000 per annum. If we could reduce the interest charge by 1 per cent., we should lighten the burden of the taxpayers by over £2,100, 000 per annum. A reference to the Budget papers will show that next year £5,000,000 will have to be provided for the repayment of loans. In the following year, £7,000,000, in the next year, £3,000,000 ; in the succeeding year, £5,000,000 ; and in the ensuing twelve months, £6,000,000or £7,000,000, will have to be found for the renewal of loans. Thus, every year large loans are falling due, and the whole question will have to be tackled. If the situation is not faced by the Commonwealth, the States must act on their own behalf under all the disadvantages attached to having to go into the London market as competitors, without the backing of the Commonwealth. This problem can be dealt with, irrespective of any amendment of the Braddon section. That provision in the Constitution is an important one, but its amendment is not essential to enable the Commonwealth to take over the States debts. The Braddon section provides that the three-fourths of the Customs and Excise revenue which is now paid over to the States, may be disposed of either in that way, or by being applied to the payment of the interest on the States debts taken overby the Commonwealth. The Treasurer clothed the dry bones of his figures with a good deal of flesh and blood. He has put his whole heart into his subject, as he always does. Having said that, it is, perhaps, quite pardonable to find that he devotes one of his valuable two eyes to Western Australia, and a good portion of the other also. At all events, I shall show presently that, very naturally, he feels great concern lest his State should get the worst of the bargain. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I do not want to see any injustice done to it. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- There is one important feature of the Treasurer's scheme which differentiates it from all other schemes - it has the approval of the Government. That means that it is to be taken up by the Government, and it is extremely important, therefore, that honorable members should offer such critiques as they may think necessary before it is placed before the people in a definite form. The Treasurer proposes to make one amendment only of the Constitution. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Two. I thought that there might be one. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- Then, I understand that, in view of what has been said, the Treasurer recognises that it will be expedient to. make a second amendment of the Constitution ? {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I said in my Budget speech that only two sections of the Constitution are affected,namely, sections 94 and 105. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I think, it will be necessary for the right honorable gentleman not only to amend the Constitution, so as to permit the Commonwealth to assume the responsibility for the debts which have been contracted by the States since Federation was accomplished, but to amend it in such a way as to enable the Commonwealth to take up the States loans as they approach maturity. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We intend that, as will be seen by reference to my Budget statement, page 2034 of *Hansard.* {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- Quite so. I am very glad to find that the Treasurer, as the result of his visit to London, has arrived at the conclusion which I ventured to urge at this time last year. He has put it in very apt words. He says - >The financial authorities whom I consulted in London were unanimous in the opinion that it would be disadvantageous to place the Commonwealth brand on State stock before conversion, as such action would prevent the possibility of any profitable conversion, and would be making to the existing holders a present of any increase in price caused by the additional Commonwealth security. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- That is, if they are converted. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- No. If the Commonwealth were to say, " We will see that these debts are paid," it would send up their value at once. I recollect the case of a young nian who had got into debt through extravagance. His creditors were willing to sell his debts for a shilling in the pound, but his aunt stepped in and said, " I am going to see that all of Edward's debts are paid." The result was that the creditors would not accept less than 20s. in the pound. Of course, I recognise that I am putting an extreme case ; but, after all, this is only a matter in which we must exercise common sense. The meaning of the words " take over " is perfectly clear. They do not mean that a State shall not continue to be liable to its creditors. It will still be liable. But the Commonwealth will have practically said, "We will also be liable." My point is that the creditor of any State will then know that in addition to the liability of the State there will be the liability of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- But a creditor cannot get more than £100 for £I00 worth of stock. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- If the honorable member will permit me to develop my argument, he will see that I have taken into consideration everything that he has said. I embodied my conclusions in an article which appeared in the *Daily Telegraph* and the *Age* of last year. Rightly or wrongly, I hold that there will be a most material improvement in the stocks of the States, when once they are backed by the Commonwealth guarantee. It now appears that the Treasurer, as the result of the interviews which he had with financial men in London, has come to a similar conclusion. The point which, the late Treasurer ignored in all his interviews with the Premiers has been seized very thoroughly and clearly by the present occupant of that office. The only thing that I wish to say to the right honorable gentleman is that he must recollect that the only power which the Constitution .gives us for taking over the States debts is contained in section 105. That power is to take over either all or a proportionate part of the debts of the States. In other words, what we do for one State we must do for all. When the Constitution was being framed, the fear was expressed that one State might get more advantage from the Commonwealth backing than would another State. That was the reason why the clause was drafted in its present form. If we take over all the debts of the States at one swoop, we shall be giving the existing bondholders a ' big premium for nothing. Let us suppose that a Tasmanian bond1 carrying interest at 4 per cent, is worth £100, or par to-morrow. If the Commonwealth were to declare, " We will assume responsibility for the payment of that bond," I venture to say that it would be worth at least £102. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- How would that affect either the Commonwealth or the Tasmanian Government? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I say that it is something to bargain with, and' that as a result the Commonwealth could give a bond carrying a lower rate of interest. I have in my mind an instance of a Queensland loan which will mature in 191 5. In that year a debt of £11,400,000 will fall due. If that debt were taken over in, say, 1907, the State of Queensland would still remain liable for it, but the Commonwealth would have pledged itself to see both the principal and the interest upon it paid. In other words, there would be behind that debt, not only the Queensland promise to pay, but also the Com-, monwealth promise - the better security of all the States. Moreover, in London, the stock would be more marketable, because we should have a large uniform stock. I am told upon very good authority that just as consols are used in London to-day for mercantile transactions - in the knowledge that there are plenty of consols available so long as people are willing to pay the price demanded for them - we shall find, so long as Commonwealth stock is uniform and invariable, and there is plenty of it to be had upon the market in time of stress, that not only investors, but financial men also will purchase it. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- What disadvantage will there be to the States or to the Commonwealth if we do not take over their indebtedness at once? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- If we said to the holders of £100 worth of these Queensland bonds, which carry interest at 4 per cent., "Your debt will fall due in 1915. We are prepared to give you the same amount of Commonwealth stock at *si* Per cent. if you will exercise your option to convert within a certain time." they would see the advantage. A large number of investors hold trusts for long terms, and do not like changes; they do not like being paid off. They would much rather have a bond which, as proposed by the Treasurer, is not to be paid for a period of say, thirty years, . or is interminable, than one which is to be paid off within a few years. And so they would say, " The rate of interest is still falling, no matter what we do, and we cannot obtain better rates. We will exchange the Queensland £100 bond for a Commonwealth bond at a lower rate, but issuedfor a longer term." {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- They might do that when the loans are approaching maturity. But I do not think they would do it during the next seven years. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I am quoting an extreme case. I know that as the bonds get closer to maturity there will be more likelihood of securing an exchange. The honorable member is aware that in London there are investors of all sorts. There are big companies and societies, and also big investors who want nothing so much as a fixed investment. The amount of interest payable is not so material as is the requirement that they shallnot be disturbed, and, as the time approaches for payment of the bonds, they are extremely likely to be willing to make an exchange. As soon as all the stock has been taken over, as it is to be hoped it will be, we shall have a stock representing no less than. £236,000,000 to work upon. That is a huge sum. The larger it is the better for the purposes of investment, and for those who are engaged in finance. At present, a number of men do not touch Australian securities because of the trouble experienced in ascertaining the terms - the various States issuing them, the rates of interest payable, and the general conditions. All these conditions are embarrassing, and consequently, these men invest in consols or something else simpler. It is an immense advantage to have a uniform stock with an undoubted security and simple conditions. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- British trustees were barred from investing in Australian securities. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I understand that they now have limited power to invest in them, but that power has not been largely used. In consequence of my law associations. I have a good deal of experience in these matters, and I know that it is largely because of the differences in the conditions and terms, and the uncertainty with regard to the different States issuing bonds, that so many people in the old world do not take them up. The people of England are far more likely to understand what " Australia " means than what "Tasmania" or even " New South Wales " means. We should alsogive bond-holders an option. We should advertise that holders of bonds representing the £11,400,000 should apply, say, within six months to the AgentGeneral, or whoever may be appointed, who will give them, if they wish it,Commonwealth stock in exchange for their bonds. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- At a lower rate of interest ? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- They would be nearing maturity. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- That is so. The nearer they are to maturity the more likely we are to secure an exchange. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- If we gave the investor a bond for £100 he would take it. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- There are many who would prefer a bond of £100, having a Currency of thirty years, and bearing interest at 31/2 per cent., to a bond for £100, payable in two years, and bearing interest at 4 per cent. If we could next year convert the Queensland loan to which I have referred into one at31/2 per cent., we should save £57,000 per annum. If we could convert it at par, bearing interest at 3 per cent., we should secure a saving for the year of £114,000. In the four years that must elapse before the expiration of the Braddon section we should, by means of a reduction of1/2 per cent. in the rate of interest, save Queensland £228,000. It will be seen, therefore, that I thoroughly concur with the Treasurer's proposal as to only taking over those bonds step by step. As an amendment of the Constitution is required, let us have it quickly. I feel convinced that if the Government put a complete, well-recommended scheme before the people, they would be given *carte blanche.* {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Would it not be sufficient if we struck out of section 105 of the Constitution the words " as existing at the establishment of the Commonwealth "? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I must ask the right honorable gentleman to again consult his advisers. I think that he must have misunderstood. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I certainly was informed that we could do this. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS:
NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · PROT -- There is no power under the Constitution to carry out the scheme that the Treasurer has very properly suggested for taking over the debts as they mature or approach maturity. **-Sir** John Forrest. - Has the honorable and learned member read what I propose in sub-clause1 of clause 8 of my memorandum? It is to be found at page 2034 of *Hansard.* {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I have noticed that the right honorable member proposes that a law be passed enabling the whole of the States debts to be converted or redeemed " by such successive operations as may be thought fit." That is a proper idea, but effect cannot be given to it under the Constitution. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- Does not section 105 authorize the taking over of the debts as they mature? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- No; it merely allows the taking over of all the debts, or a proportion of them, at the one time. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The clause in my memorandum to whichI have directed the honorable and learned member's, attention was carefully settled. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- But without regard to the constitutional question. SirJohn Forrest. - We always kept our eyes on the Constitution. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- There is no power to take over each debt as it matures. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- Although there is a general power to take over the lot? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- We can merely take over all the debts at the one operationor a proportion of them. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The Constitution does notsay so. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I shall leave the right honorable gentleman to consult his advisers. I shall not venture to say that he has not received advice as good as that which I can give him, but I feel convinced that my contention is correct. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- A layman would certainly think that the debts could be taken over asthey matured. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -My honorable friend is the first layman I have met who takes that view. As to the Treasurer's proposed substitute for the Braddon section, I think that the objection of the honorable member for Mernda is a just one. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -In the Constitution we have the words " take over." Can we not legislate as to the way in which we shall take over the debts? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- We can legislate only as allowed by the Constitution. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- In section 105 of the Constitution we have the words " take over," but nothing as to how we shall take over the debts. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- It says, in effect, that we must take over the whole or a proportion of the debts. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That is what we are going to do. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- If we took over the whole, we should give to the bond-holders the present that the honorable member for Mernda has mentioned. We are in the dilemma that, if we took over the whole, we should put the Commonwealth brand on the States debts, without any equivalent, while if we did not take over the whole, we should be going against the Constitution. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The honorable and learned member will see that sub-clause 2 of clause 8 of my memorandum provides exactly for what we want to do. We propose, to. do it by successive steps. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I understand that the Treasurer wishes to have successive steps ; and that the only question between us is whether what he proposes can be done without an amendment of the Constitution. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I shall look into, the point. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- As to the substitute for the Braddon section, I must say that I think that the criticism of the honorable member for Mernda is right and just. If there were a reduction in our revenue receipts, the Commonwealth would have to bear the whole brunt of it. If we had bad times, and if, as the honorable member for Mernda says, there were a fall in revenue from £8,000,000 to £7,000,000, then the States would get their fixed proportion, while the Commonwealth would receive only half of what it receives to-day. That would put the whole brunt of the difficulty on the Commonwealth. I am as hopeful as any one that we shall not have a great reduction of the kind in our receipts; but, having regard to the experience of Victoria, with which the honorable member for Mernda and myself are most acquainted, I mustsay that such an event is quite possible. I recollect that in a boom year the revenue in Victoria was £9,000,000. whereas a few years later it was only £6,000,000, showing a fall of one-third. The Treasurer has had his lines cast in pleasant places in the glorious West, and can hardly understand what it is to have a deficit. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I was looking at the probable increase of population. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- But the more the population increases, the more women and babies there will be, and, therefore, the less revenue per head. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I do not think so. I was taking into account new people. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- The reason that there is such an expanding revenue in Western Australia is that in that State there are more men who drink and smoke ; and I must say that the Treasurer is right when he reminds us that it is the drinking men and the smoking men who keep the Commonwealth solvent - that but for such men we should be in, sad case. As a solution of the difficulty to which the honorable member for Mernda alluded, I suggest that there should be some slight modification of the Treasurer's proposal for fixed payments. That proposal has much to recommend it, inasmuch as it would make for certainty for the States Treasurers, and would tend to do away with quarrelling and trouble. Every year we are told that we are spending too much, but if there were fixed payments the fact would diminish immensely the friction between the Commonwealth and the States. I should like, however, to see some provision made by which, if the revenue were to fall considerably below, say, for example, £8,000,000, there should be a proportionate reduction in the fixed payments. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I have no fear of that occurring. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I am very glad to hear the Treasurer say that, and I hope he is right. I only say that I should feel more secure if there were a provision that if the revenue fell considerably below, say, the £8,000,000 standard, which the honorable member for Mernda mentioned, there should be a proportionate reduction in thepayment to the States. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- An automatic reduction? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I did not propose such a provision, because I do not think the circumstances arelikely to arise, and, in any case, do not think it necessary. **"Mr. HIGGINS.-** But I am sure the Treasurer has no objection to any sugges tion which may help his scheme to a consummation. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- If there were a deficiency we have specific powers to finance ourselves ; we are responsible, like the States, for making both ends meet. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I am exceedingly anxious that the relations of the Commonwealth and the States should go on with diminished friction; and I think fixed payments would help to that end. At the same time, if a crisis ever does occur, I do not want the whole brunt to fall on the Commonwealth Government, because any difficulty ought to be shared by both States and Commonwealth. I think I am not wrong in saying that the proposal of the honorable member for Mernda depends on his reading of section 96 of the Constitution. The honorable member regards that section, which gives power to the Commonwealth to grant financial assistance to any State, as involving the further power to take over the debts, practically irrespective of section 105. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- I regard the section as giving the Commonwealth power to lend the States money. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- That was to me a new aspect of section 96, which I thought was well worth looking into, and' I have come to the conclusion, right or *wrong,* that we cannot give financial assistance in that way by practically taking over the debts. If there were no section 105 in the Constitution, there would not be so much difficulty in coming to the conclusion presented to us by the honorable member. But section 105 sets forth the conditions under which we may take over the debts, and we must give effect to that section equally with section 96 - we must read them both together. I have no doubt that the Court would come to the conclusion that section 105 provides the only way in which we can take over the debts, and that the granting of financial assistance was meant primarily to apply to the case of a State which threw out the flag of distress, and asked for help. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That was the reason for the section. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- But, according to the honorable member for Mernda, the section means that we may grant assistance to all the States, and in the same degree, without being asked. That is not the granting of financial assistance which was meant. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- It would involve an amendment of the Constitution? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- Yes. We all recollect the circumstances of the insertion of section 96. It was not passed by the Convention, which is, therefore, hot responsible for it. It was a provision inserted by the Premiers in 1899 after the first referendum, at the instance, I believe, of New South Wales. That State felt that a low Tariff would suit its purposes, but recognised that, at the same time, a low Tariff would almost ruin Tasmania, and, perhaps, Queensland and South Australia. On behalf of New South Wales it was then said, "Well, in place of being coerced into a high Tariff, let us have a provision by which the Commonwealth can assist a State." I do not know who was the exact propounder or proposer of section 96, but I apprehend it must have been the honorable member who leads the Opposition. No doubt that was the intention of section 96, namely, to avoid the pressure of the argument that there ' must be much Customs taxation in order to meet the needs of the poorer States. I admit that thehistory of the section does not affect its interpretation ; we must take a section as it stands in the Constitution. But I have little doubt that the interpretation of the two sections would be that the only power to take over the debts is that conferred by section 105, and that the only application of section 96 is to enable the Commonwealth to hold out a hand to a State which cries for aid. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- Not to lend money simply. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I may also point out that it is not enough for our purposes to exercise a power which we believe we have. It is too doubtful a power to exercise. In London investors and others will obtain advice about these things, and if a doubt is thrown upon what we are doing, it will mean that many investors will fight shy of this security. It is not enough for us to mate a safe security, but we must make a security which also seems to be safe. On these grounds, I do not think that it would be well for us to attempt the experiment the honorable gentleman has referred to. My feeling is that the sooner we get to a *per capita* distribution, the better, and that we ought not to be deterred by any difficulties with regard to small sums, of money. Still, it must be rememberedthat Western Australia is in an exceptional position. Her revenue for next year is estimated to be £3 14s.10d. per head of the population, whilst that for New South Wales is only £2 3s. 4d., and for Tasmania£1 16s. There is the difference of more than double between Tasmania and Western Australia, owing to the habits, right or wrong, wicked or 'good- {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The reason is, I think, that there are more men than women and children in Western Australia. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- Exactly; because where there are more men there is more drinking and more tobacco is smoked. As the Treasurer properly says, the greater part of our revenue is derived from the consumption of alcohol and narcotics. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- Women and children also consume less than men. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- The more women and children there are, the smaller the consumption, because women and children do not consume drink and tobacco as men do. Why, I myself, in company with the Treasurer, saw in Kalgoorlie, men four deep waiting for drinks around a bar. The Treasurer need not think that his favorite Western Australia will always consume at such a great rate. He himself has told us that in the first year of the Commonwealth the consumption in Western Australia was not £3 14s.10d., but £5 16s. 4d. per head. In other words, when the Commonwealth started five or six years ago, Western Australia had per head two and a half limes the revenue of Tasmania. Now she has only one and a half times as much revenue, a falling off of 50 per cent. I expect that when we reach the year 1910 the States will have approached very near to an equality. The Treasurer, at page 2032 of his Budget statement, said - >My confidence is somewhat shaken, however, when I notice that resolutions have been passed in Conference and in Parliament asking for a *per capita* distribution, under which the State of which I am a representative would suffer *a* loss of about£300,000 a year. Those figures show that we are approaching very near to the state at which we ought to have a *per capita* distribution. For that reason, I think that the Treasurers scheme based upon a five years' average is not a sound one. Suppose that by 1910 the consumption of Western Australiahas approached almost to an equality with that of Tasmania? {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I have thought of that. But Western Australia is more likely to increase in population than any other State. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- But there is population and population. The more babies, then are, the smaller the revenue in proportion. The Treasurer's proposal is this : He says, " Fay to the States a fixed sum from 1910 to 1920 based upon the five years from 1905 to 1910." But that would mean that Western Australia Would get for the ten years 1910 to 1920, payments upon the basis of 1905 to 1910, which might not l« fair to the other States. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I think it would be. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I venture to say that, as the disproportion in Western- Australia has been lowered by '50 per cent, in the last five years, it will probably Le lowered bv 50 per cent, in the next five years. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- But there will be more people there. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- What I suggest to the Treasurer is that we should have a sliding scale after 1910 for the term of five years. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That is a matter of opinion. I merely suggested a means. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I think that the Treasurer is anxious to have a *per capita* system as soon as it would be fair to the States. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I agree with him that it would not be fair for us to force upon Western Australia a *per capita* distribution unless the people of « that State recognised that it was fair. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We want to be fair - that is all. The question is : How are we to arrive at it ? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- It is extremely important, as soon as we can, to have a *per capita* distribution. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I think so. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I suggest that after 1910 we should have a sliding scale, by which the proportion of extra payment to Western Australia would be gradually diminished. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- There is a difference of 8s. or 9s between New South Wales and Tasmania now. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- There is a difference,, but it is not very great. I think that New South Wales and Victoria would be willing to forego some of the advantages which they now get from their greater receipts per head, as long as there were not such an extreme disproportion as there is now in the case of Western Australia. In regard to the White Australia policy, Victoria, Tasmania, and the other States have shown that they are not by any means without generosity. The only States which benefit from that law are Queensland and part of New South Wales. The growers of sugar get a good deal of money from it, whilst Victoria and Tasmania get nothing. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Nor do Western Australia or South Australia. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- Western Australia, I suppose, would be very glad to get the use of the kanakas, because the climate of that State is warm. But I am putting the extreme case of Victoria and Tasmania. They get no advantage, direct or indirect, from our White Australia legislation, but they wish to see Australia! kept white. Victoria has paid £219,000 to keep Australia white and free from the kanakas, and she has not grumbled a bit. Tasmania has paid £32,000 up to the present for the same purpose, and there is no grumbling. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Nev South Wales pays a larger bill. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- The honorable member knows why I have not mentioned New South Wales. She has paid a larger bill because she has a larger population; but I have not mentioned her because it would be said that New South Wales gets back through her sugar-growers a larger proportion of the money which she pays, and she also gets her borders freed from the invasion of the kanakas. {: .speaker-L0Y} ##### Mr Wilkinson: -- What has Queensland paid back? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I have not said a word against Queensland. We are only too glad to make these payments to secure a White Australia. I was not going to say a word about coastal defence until I heard the honorable member for Bland refer to it. If I had any weight, I should like .to throw it strongly into the scale in favour of my honorable friend's argument.. do not think that we have yet rightlygrasped the nettle of our defence system. I said last year that with an island continent, the first thing to be ' looked for is coastal defence. Notwithstanding all the rifles, guns, and forts, nothing compares in importance with coastal defence. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The honorable anr! learned member has not listened to the honorable member for Wentworth on this question. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I would listen to the honorable member for Wentworth more frequently if he did not falk *so* often. At all events, I shall Be very glad indeed to find that I am in accord with him on this matter. We have great difficulties, because we are paying for our post-offices and other buildings from revenue. I am very glad that we adopted that policy. I feel certain that whether the Commonwealth borrows or not, it should never borrow until it has begun to float) loans for the conversion of the States debts. It wants to get its foot firmly established on a creditable foundation in the London market. This system of paying from revenue for post-offices and the like is a strong factor in the economy which has marked our Federal system hitherto. Some years ago, I went into calculations, and I found that, notwithstanding that the object of borrowing is to relieve the tax-payers, yet they have actually paid more in interest than they would if they had paid for all their works from revenue. I have verified the figures for Victoria in particular, but the same remark applies in a greater degree to the other States, because Victoria has borrowed less per head. It is an extraordinary thing that what was meant to be a relief to the tax-payers has not been so in the long run. In conclusion, I feel that we have good reason for hopefulness in regard to Australia. A country with an oversea trade of £95,000,000, a trade per head of £23 9s. 9<i, is one which, although it has only 4,000,000 people, is not to be despised. We have great troubles and great difficulties to face; we have our problems to solve, but there is no doubt that Australia is a country which is as likely to make progress as is any country in the world. I feel convinced that if the Treasurer could -see his way at the next election to put before the people a well-framed constitutional amendment - not a partial or piecemeal one, but one which- would enable a candidate to . say to the electors, " Look, if you pass this, you will have the problem of States debts solved " - it would be ratified. {: #subdebate-7-0-s6 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- As the usual hour for adjourning on Tuesday has arrived, I would ask the Treasurer to consent to progress being reported. Progress reported. House adjourned at zo.26 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 August 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1906/19060807_reps_2_32/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 7 August 1906

QUESTION

CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS AT PORT ADELAIDE

Mr HUTCHISON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

PAPER

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL PROBLEMS

Mr KNOX:KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Sir JOHN FORREST:Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

LAUNCESTON MAILS

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

BRITISH OFFICIALS IN PAPUA

Mr WEBSTER:for Mr. Brown

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

HAWKER BOARD

Mr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

MAJOR BRUCHE

Mr MALONEY:

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

BUDGET

In Committee of Supply:

Mr HARPER:Mernda

Mr Fisher:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Fisher:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Fisher:

Mr HARPER:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HARPER:

Sir Philip Fysh:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Knox:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HARPER:

Mr Higgins:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Higgins:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Watson:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr Watson:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr Fisher:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir JOHN FORREST:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · PROT; WAP from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr HARPER:

Sir John Forrest:

House of Representatives
7 August 1906

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr KNOX:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr WEBSTER:
for Mr. Brown

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · PROT; WAP from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917