House of Representatives
2 October 1906

2nd Parliament · 3rd Session



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

page 5855

TASMANIAN CABLE RATES BILL

Assent reported.

page 5855

PETITION

Mr. McWILLIAMS presented a petition from the Municipal Council of Hobart, praying that provision might be made in the Lands Acquisition Bill for the protection of the interests of municipal bodies holding lands in trust for the public.

Petition received and read.

page 5855

QUESTION

COMMERCE ACT

Mr WILKS:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It is reported in this morning’s Argus that the Minister of Trade and Customs, whilst in Sydney recently, referring to the Trade and Commerce Act, said -

We are not going to enforce its provisions very strictly at the start, the object being to give those interested time to understand the working of the measure. Of course, if it is found that any person is deliberately trying to make a breach of the law, action will be taken, but for the first month or two we shall be very easy, so that no hardship will be done to any one.

I wish to know whether the Minister made such a statement, and, if so, whether it was intended as an invitation to the trading community to ignore the provisions of the Commerce Act, and was meant to convey that he would “ wink the other eye” at any evasion of the Act. I should like to know, further, whether the Minister’s statement is an admission that he finds it impossible to administer the Act which he himself introduced?

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

– It is quite true that I made the statement quoted. I also made a similar statement in Melbourne before I left for Sydney. I do not intend, as the honorable member suggests, to “ wink the other eye “ when attempts are made to evade the Act. We are making a most important departure in connexion with a number of exports and imports, and I do not wish to take any undue advantage of those who may not be sufficiently acquainted with the regulations. If the regulations are broken without intent, the officers of the Department will explain what ft is necessary to do to comply with the Act. Unless the regulations are deliberately broken, no extreme action will be taken until a full opportunity has been given to all persons affected to make themselves acquainted with the working of the measure.

page 5855

QUESTION

VOTING MACHINES

Mr WATSON:
BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister of Home Affairs whether he has considered the advisability of affording opportunities at the forthcoming elections for the trial of voting machines such as have been submitted for the inspection of honorable members. I understand that some of the patentees are willing to subject their machines to a trial without cost to the Commonwealth ?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– Only yesterday, inpursuance of a promise I made in the House, I mentioned the matter to the Chief Electoral Officer, and asked him to consider the possibility of doing what the honorable member has suggested. Of course, equal treatment would be accorded to the proprietors of all voting machines.

page 5855

QUESTION

CASE OF CAPTAIN CROUCH

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I should like to know if the Vice-President of the Executive Council can say whether the Minister of Defence has vet perused the papers in connexion with the Crouch surrender case, and, further, whether it is the will of the Minister that the papers shall be placed upon the Library table?

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The matter stands in the same position as when I last had the pleasure of replying to the honorable member. I shall ask the Minister again to-day whether he has finally made up his mind.

page 5856

QUESTION

TARIFF AGREEMENT: COMMONWEALTH AND NEW ZEALAND

Mr LIDDELL:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to know from the Minister of Trade and Customs whether the duties now imposed in connexion with the Tariff agreement with New Zealand will continue to be levied after the lapse of this Parliament in the event of the Bill now before us not being passed into law?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– So far as I understand the law, unless the Bill referred to is passed the duties will cease to be operative at the termination of this Parliament.

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

– Has anything further been heard from New Zealand?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I cannot say.

Mr Deakin:

– Nothing further.

page 5856

QUESTION

SECRETARY TO THE POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

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

– I desire to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is a fact, as stated in the newspapers, that, notwithstanding the fact that he has attained the retiring age, the secretary to the Post and Telegraph Department is to be retained in the service? If so, what is the reason for creating such, a precedent?

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

– The honorable member is not quite correct in saying that the retention of Mr. Scott in the service after he has reached the retiring age creates a precedent. I think that Sir Charles Todd, the Postmaster-General in. South Australia, was retained for some time after he had reached the retiring age. Mr. Scott is to be retained for another year, in the public interest. The Public Service Commissioner has furnished the necessary certificate. There are many reasons which actuated me in recommending this course, and- 1 shall be glad to communicate them to the honorable member in detail if he wishes it.

page 5856

QUESTION

TARIFF PREFERENCES: COMMONWEALTH AND GREAT BRITAIN

Mr JOHNSON:

– I desire to know if the Prime Minister can inform honorable members whether Germany has accorded the most favoured nation treatment to imports from Australia into Germany? I wish also to know whether he has seen the statement, in this morning’s newspapers, that an influential section of the German press is urging upon the Government of that country- the advisability of making reprisals in connexion with the proposal to increase the duties upon German goods imported into the Commonwealth, and whether he thinks that the action taken by us is calculated to promote friendly feelings between ourselves and that nation?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I am not sure whether we receive the most favoured nation treatment from Germany, but know that .many important articles of export from Australia are not allowed to be carried to Germany in the subsidized ‘German steamers sailing from our ports. I may point out that when the United States last revised its Tariff a number of protests were received from other nations to -which the United States Government replied that the course they were pursuing was not an unfriendly act towards the nations affected, but in the discharge of what thev conceived to be a duty to their own people.

page 5856

QUESTION

TASMANIA AND THE OCEAN MAIL SERVICE CONTRACT

Mr WILKINSON:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I desire to nsk the Postmaster-General whether it is true, as has been repeatedly stated from public platforms in Queensland, that Tasmania has got .£11,000 out of the Federal Government in connexion with the new ocean mail service?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

– I hardly know what the honorable member is referring to. So far as I am aware, Tasmania has not received anything from the Commonwealth beyond that which she is entitled to.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Tasmania is -not connected with the new mail service at all - that is what we are complaining of.

page 5857

QUESTION

CLOSE OF THE SESSION

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

– I should like to know whether the Prime Minister is able to say when the session is likely to close ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I should like to be able to say that our business will be completed at the end of this week. If we are not able to bring our labours to a close then we shall be able to do so immediately afterwards. The business before Parliament is now making such progress that we may possibly rise at the end of this week.

Mr McWilliams:

– The Government are sending up enough business to keep the Senate going for three weeks.

page 5857

QUESTION

CORRESPONDENCE WITH POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

In reference to recent communications from the Deputy Postmaster-General of Victoria, in reply to correspondence, that “ the matter “ (its subject-matter) “has been submitted to the Secretary, Postmaster-General’s Department, who will communicate with you “ -

Is this in consequence of instructions to theDeputy Postmaster-General ? 2.Why were these instructions given, and what are they ?

Will not this additional circumlocution lend to additional delay, expense, and trouble?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

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

  1. No. The Deputy Postmaster-General, Melbourne, has reported in the matter to the Acting Secretary as follows : -

Mr. Crouch wrote first to me and then communicated with you on two questions. As I was required to report to you, I thought it would be improper for me to anticipate your reply by communicating direct with Mr. Crouch. 2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.

page 5857

QUESTION

QUEENSCLIFF CANTEEN

Mr CROUCH:
for Mr. Maloney

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

  1. With reference to the statements (made by Senator Styles in his report based upon the evidence before the Hawker inquiry), showing that officers and gentlemen obtained their alcoholic liquors and teetotal drinks, such as lime juice, &c, at cheaper rates than the rankers and men, will the Minister be good enough to say whether these statements are correct or incorrect ?
  2. Would the Minister lay on the Table of the House the several price lists used in the Queenscliff canteen for officers and men respectively for July, 1904, July,1905, and July, 1906?
Mr EWING:
Protectionist

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

  1. Senator Styles’ statement is correct, but admits of the following explanation : - The difference in prices charged to the men as distinct from those charged to the officers and to such men as produced a written authority from an officer to purchase liquorby the bottle is due to a rule made with the object of keeping a check on the sales at the canteen. When liquor is sold to a private who does not present an order from an officer, the man in charge of the canteen is required to charge a price equal to the aggregate number ofnobblers that the bottle contained. All privates who produce a written authority obtain liquor in bottle at the same price as the officers. The Minister has placed on the Library tablepapers which willgive the honorable member this information in detail.
  2. Price lists for 1905 and1906 are herewith. The officer commanding states that a copy of the 1904 list is not now in existence.

page 5857

PAPERS

Mr. DEAKIN laid upon the table the following papers : -

Report of the Royal Commission on Ocean Shipping Service, with proceedings, minutes of evidence, and appendices.

Further correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Premier of South Australia relative to the transfer of the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth.

Ordered to be printed.

The Clerk laid upon the table:

Return to an Order of the House, dated 27th September, relating to Excise Inspectors in Victoria and South Australia,

page 5857

TARIFF AGREEMENT : COMMONWEALTH AND BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA

In Committee of Wars and Means:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– I move -

That, from the first day of October, 1906, at Nine o’clock in the forenoon, Victorian time, Duties of Customs -on the dutiable goods specified in the Schedule shall, when those goods are imported from, and are the produce or manufacture of, any of the British South African Colonies or Protectorates which are included within the South African Customs Union, be in accordance with the rates specified in thefourth column of the said Schedule :

Provided that nothing in this resolution shall have the effect of imposing any duty on any goods which are free of, or exempt from, duty under theCustoms Tariff1902.

page 5858

QUESTION

THE SCHEDULE

" N.E.I." means not elsewhere included in this Schedule or the Customs Tariff 1902. " Proof " has reference to spirit of a strength equal to that of pure ethyl alcohol compounded with distilled water so that the resultant mixture at a temperature of 60 deg. Fahrenheit has a specific gravity of 0.9198 as compared with that of distilled water at the same temperature. Import Duties on floods produced or manufactured in the Colonies or Protectorates comprising the South African 'Customs Union. Copies of the schedule will be laid upon the table very shortly. {: #subdebate-14-0-s0 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist -- We are entering into a reciprocal Tariff agreement with South Africa. We propose to reduce the duties which were formerly operative upon goods from that country, and in return its duties upon our goods are being decreased. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Reductions are to be made upon both sides, and there are to be no increases ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Exactly. I wish honorable members to clearly understand that we export largely to South Africa, and import very little from it. Consequently, under this agreement, our export trade will be afforded a greater opportunity for development than it has hitherto enjoyed. The exports of the items mentioned in the schedule from Australia" to South Africa for 1905, were valued at £2,040,000, and the total imports of the same items into South Africa for six months amounted to £4,482,000, which is equivalent to £9,000,000 for the year Assuming that the proportion of imports for six months would be approximately doubled in twelve months, I should like honorable members to understand what thev are compared with the total import into South Africa. Australia exported to that country" £207,000 worth of butter, which represents nearly half its total import. In the matter of cheese, our export was practically nil, as against ,£172,000 worth of imports. Of flour, we exported .£310,000 worth out of £474,000 worth imported. Of wheat, we exported ,£680,000 worth out of ,£900,000 worth imported. In jams and jellies our export amounted to about one-quarter of the imports. In leather, our exports were valued at £46,518, as against ,£153,000 worth of imports. Of frozen meats, we exported ,£520,000 worth out of a total import of nearly ,£2,000,000. I have supplied these figures with a view to assisting honorable members to follow the schedule which has been placed in their hands. The effect of our proposal will be to give to our export trade to South Africa a fillip which it has not previously" enjoyed. The country has agreed to reduce its duties upon our exports, and we have consented to decrease a number of the duties hitherto collected upon its imports. At present, however, the reduction of our own duties will -affect us only very inconsiderably. Under the agreement we shall gain nearly everything, because our importations from South Africa do not amount to very much. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Practically South Africa is reducing^ its Tariff against us ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Yes. That country takes a great deal from us, and we take very little from it. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- How will the Minister distinguish between South African sugar, which is grown by white labour, and South African sugar, which is produced by black labour ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I do not think that we import any sugar from South Africa. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- Does the column of the table which is headed "imports from all sources," refer to imports from all other sources ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I have not the paper to which the honorable member refers before me. I will go into that question presently. I shall content myself for the present with proposing the motion. I hope to proceed with its discussion at a later stage to-day, or perhaps upon a future date. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 5860 {:#debate-15} ### LANDS ACQUISITION BILL {:#subdebate-15-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 22nd August *(vide* page 3211), on motion by **Mr. Groom** - >That the 1311 1 bc now read a second time. {: #subdebate-15-0-s0 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- This is one qf those Bills which in their operation will undoubtedly infringe State rights. This view is, I believe, shared by the various States Governments- {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- By what State Governments ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The Government of New South Wales, I know, object to it, and I think that a petition in opposition to it was received from the State of Tasmania only this afternoon. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The statement contained in that petition, to the effect that, in the event of resumption, we would pay no compensation, is not correct. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Vigorous opposition is being manifested to the Bill. That fact is evidenced by the petitions against it which have been received. The AttorneyGeneral of New South Wales has also requested the representatives of that State in this Parliament to oppose it for what are regarded by him as very vital reasons. To anybody who takes the trouble to peruse it, the measure must convey the impression that it is one-sided and unjust. One of the features peculiar to it is that it does not discriminate between dealings with the State and dealings with private individuals. To my mind that is a very serious objection to it. In dealing with lands the property of private individuals no provision is made for reserving to t;he Crown all mineral rights. Sub-section xxxi. of section 52 of the Constitution provides - >The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to : - > >The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or persons, for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws. The objection urged to this Bill is that it is not just in its terms, because it seeks to infringe State rights in that it does not reserve to the States' Crown rights in respect of minerals which may be found upon any land acquired by the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- We have never received a complaint from the States that they have not been justly compensated for any land which the Commonwealth has acquired. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Clause 5 of the Bill says - >In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - " Crown land " means any land the property of a State, whether reserved or dedicated for any public purpose or not, but does not include any estate or interest granted by the State to any person. Very grave objection is urged against that provision, which empowers the Commonwealth to acquire lands which have been dedicated to public recreation purposes. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I propose to submit an amendment in respect of that. The existing provision, however, is merely similar to that of the New South Wales Act in that connexion. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The circumstances are different. The State Act deals with lands under its own control. The Commonwealth Bill proposes to deal with lands now under Slate control. According to the Bill - >* Public Purposes " means any purpose in respect of which Parliament has power to make laws, but shall not include the acquisition of territory (or the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth under the Constitution., What are the public purposes for which the Commonwealth has power to acquire lands ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- They are denned by the Constitution. We do not seek any powers outside those conferred upon us by the Constitution. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- It is held by a competent authority that under this Bill the Commonwealth powers may be extended far beyond the apparent intentions of the framers of this Bill. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- That opinion is erroneous, and I do not think that on reconsideration the authority in question will continue to hold it. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I am referring to the opinion expressed bv **Mr. Wade,** the AttorneyGeneral of New South Wales, who points out that - >Such matters as obtaining land from either a State or private individual for mining purposes is clearly outside the scope of the Constitution. On the other hand, the policy and practice of this State for many years on the alienation of Crown lands has been to reserve all minerals to the Crown. Under this Bill, that right of Crown! reservation is sought to be ignored. **Mr. Wade** goes on to point out that - >Bearing in mind these two propositions, it is clear, from many sections of the Bill, that if it passes without amendment the Commonwealth will be empowered to compulsorily obtain mineral-bearing lands and work them as Commonwealth concerns. Now this may not be contemplated bv the the framers of the Bill, but will the Minister say that the Commonwealth will not have that power? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Under this Bill the Commonwealth will not have the power suggested in the memorandum from which the honorable member is reading, to acquire mineral lands. We can acquire lands only for, public purposes as denned by the Constitution. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- It is extraordinary that such a mistake should have been made. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- It is an extraordinary mistake. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I do not think there is any mistake. **Mr. Wade** proceeds to point out that - >Thus the Commonwealth may compulsorily acquire land belonging to this State which has been dedicated to one of the many public purposes known to our law, and, according to section 14, that acquisition need not be for a public purpose as known to the Commonwealth Constitution. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- That is incorrect; the land must be acquired for public purposes. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- But what is the meaning of the words " public purposes "? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- That defined by the Constitution. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The Constitution is not really definite on the question. **Mr. Wade** proceeds to point out that - >This same section empowers the Commonwealth to acquire land belonging to a private individual. That land may contain minerals which were reserved to the Crown on alienation by the State. There is another objection to this Bill. No attempt is made to safeguard the rights of the States in respect of minerals that may be found in the lands acquired. Does the Minister propose to submit an amendment that will meet that objection? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I shall deal later on with that point. I can assure the honorable member that there is -an answer to each of the points he has raised - an answer that I think will satisfy him. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The Minister will have an opportunity later on to deal with these matters. **Mr. Wade** also holds that clause 14 is *ultra vires.* He says - >In my opinion, section 14 is *ultra vires* in not defining that the land to be acquired must be for some public purpose within the meaning of section 51 of the Constitution Act. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The Act relates only to land acquired for public purposes. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- We need to clearly define in the Bill the public purposes for which the land is to be acquired {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The Bill defines them in the words of the Constitution. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- And who interprets the Constitution? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Possibly the High Court. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- That is the point. Under cover of this Bill the Commonwealth may seek to acquire land for alleged public purposes, not defined clearly by the Constitution, but which, in the opinion of the Government of the day, are within the limits of the Constitution. In this way disputes may occur and give rise to much litigation, to determine what are public purposes under the Constitution. That is one reason why it is advisable to clearly define in the Bill itself for what public purposes lands are to be acquired. If that step be taken there will be no room for doubt, and no excuse for litigation to settle such points. If the Government simply desire at present to acquire lands for certain public purposes clearly defined by the Constitution they ought to provide accordingly in the Bill. So far as I can see, the power of the Commonwealth is limited to acquiring land in respect of which Parliament has power to make laws. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Has the honorable member read the definition of " public purpose " given in clause 5? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I have. Has the Commonwealth power to make laws with regard to matters dealing with minerals found all over the States? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- We have no power to enact general mining laws. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What about clause 62? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- That relates only to the making of regulations and the leasing of lands of our own. The honorable member for Lang was inquiring whether we had power to pass laws dealing with mining generally. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- If we have power to acquire lands for mining purposes- {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The Bill does not give us such a power. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- All that the Commonwealth has to do is to find the minerals and then acquire the land. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- It seems to me that the Commonwealth will have power under this Bill to acquire lands, and, if it thinks it desirable, to mine upon them, as long as the High Court is not moved to intervene. Then the High Court itself may decide that the Constitution does not debar mining from the definition of " public purposes," because it is not specifically excluded in the definition. There may be some provision in the Constitution that I have overlooked, but I have not been able to discover any section prohibiting the Commonwealth from exploring land for minerals. If the Commonwealth Government acquired land for the purpose of a Customs house or some other public building, and excavations upon it revealed a mineral belt, would there be anything to prevent them from working that belt, or leasing the land for mining purposes? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The clause dealing with mining was inserted at the special request of the States Governments, to enable the States laws to operate. Clause 62 carries out the arrangement made. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- And it incidentally establishes the right of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- So far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent the Commonwealth from acquiring land for special purposes, and subsequently diverting it to purposes that were not contemplated at the time of the passing of the Bill. That is why I think the rights of the States to all minerals that may subsequently be found upon such land should be preserved. We have power to acquire land for the erection of Customs houses, defence works, postal buildings, lighthouses, Federal Courts, astronomical or meteorological observatories, docks, and other works of public utility or convenience for carrying out the administration of the Departments and the Government of the Commonwealth. But there is nothing in this Bill or the Constitution that would prevent us from either working lands so acquired or leasing them to others desirous of working any mineral deposits found on them. Dealing with the treatment of the States, **Mr. Wade** proceeds to point out that - >Again, let us see how this State is treated in respect of compensation. Take the case of land alienated by the Crown to a private individual, with reservation of minerals. His interest in the land is consequently exclusive of the minerals upon the land. If the Commonwealth acquires that land by compulsory process, a notification in the *Gazette* of such acquisition vests the land in the Commonwealth. (See section17.) The legal estate therein, withall rights and powers incident thereto or conferred by this Bill, are vestedin the Commonwealth. Section 18 provides that, on the publication of this notification, the estate and interest of the person entitled to the lands isconverted into a claim for compensation. Section 27 provides that the owner shall be entitled to compensation ; thus, in the case- stated, that private individual may be compensated for his interest in the land, minus the minerals. There is nothing in the Act to enable the State to step in and establish a claim in respect of these minerals; and the general purpose of the Bill would seem to be, in the first place, to vest the property and the minerals in the Commonwealth, to enable them 10 work these minerals subsequently without providing for any compensation to the State. It is absolutely essential that a provision Be inserted in this Bill reserving the right of the State to all minerals known to exist or to any minerals that mav be discovered in the future. It is no part of the policy of the Commonwealth to cary on mining operations, and the giving of this "power may lead, in the course of time, to the Federal authorities acquiring mineral-bearing areas belonging to this State and working them on socialistic lines. If it is not the desire of the Government 10 acquire lands for other than the purposes specifically mentioned in the Constitution, there can be no reasonable objection to so amending the Bill as to secure this protection of the rights of the States. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The honorable member does not think that there is a scheme afloat to acquire the whole of a State and to work its mineral deposits on socialistic lines ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Certainly not, so far <is the Minister is concerned, but developments on those lines .are possible under the Bill. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- There is a Bill before the Senate authorizing us to take power to. do such a thing. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- But only after a successful appeal has been made to the States and electors. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- There is a tendency on the part of a section of this Parliament to pass legislation in socialistic directions. Si far as a certain section of the Legislature is concerned, efforts are being persistently directed towards the attainment of socialistic ends, and we who are opposed, to Socialism must see that safeguards are inserted in the measure to prevent it from being, used to further schemes which were never contemplated when the first Bill was drafted. What I propose will nol' alter the character of the Bill or interfere with any vital principle; on the contrary, it will emphasize its aims and purposes, and strengthen, rather than weaken, it. If the Minister does not propose to amend the Bill, I shall move to do so with a view to securing the recognition of State rights to the minerals in any land which may be acquired. The Attorney-General of New South Wales in another portion of his memorandum, says - >Again, the whole method of compulsory acquisition is humiliating to the dignity of the sovereign State. According to section 16 it rests with the Governor-General to direct that any land may be acquired from the State by compulsory process; thereupon he may, by notification in the *Gazette,* declare that the land has been acquired under this Act. The publication of this notice vests the land in the Commonwealth. That seems a reasonable objection. It is derogatory to the dignity of the States to put them on the same footing as private individuals. Proposals for the acquisition of land from them should be subject of negotiations; the Commonwealth should not enforce any arbitrary process. The AttorneyGene/ral of New South Wales is right in protesting against the indignity which is sought to be put on the States. He continues - >Moreover, under section 17, sub-section 2, the Commonwealth is empowered by a stroke of the pen to become the owner, bv proclamation, of Crown lands of' the State, which are dedicated or reserved ; in other words, they may acquire any of our public parks in this summary manner. . {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The clause referred to reproduces a provision of the law of New South Wales. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- But that law applies to lands under the control of the State authorities. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- We propose to modify the provision so that there may be no cause for complaint against the Commonwealth. The Bill only re-enacts the Act of 1902. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- With what object? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- To put it in better administration, and to secure a few technical amendments. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I have received several communications in reference to the Bill. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- There is no ground for the apprehensions which are being expressed in regard to it; but we are prepared to do what we can to allay them. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- To voice the opinion of the largest municipal trustee in New South Wales, the Municipal Council of Sydney, I wish to read the following letter which I have received from the Town Clerk: - >I have been instructed by the Municipal Council of Sydney to call your attention to the farreaching provisions of the " Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Bill " lately called the " Eminent Domain Bill," which has passed the Senate and is now before the House of Representatives. The power conferred by the Bill to compulsorily take and resume lands extends to the Crown lands of the several States of the Commonwealth, and the words " Crown lands," under section 5 of the Bill, include land the property of a State whether reserved or dedicated for any public purpose or not. > >The principal public parks in the city of Sydney are now controlled by the council, and Crown lands, as defined above, would appear to include these. The council has incurred a capital expenditure of many thousands of pounds in improving and otherwise beautifying these parks and installing electric lighting therein, and annually expends large sums of money in their lighting, upkeep and improvement. > >Apart from the question as to the expediency of empowering the Commonwealth to compulsorily take from a State its Crown lands (upon which, and other aspects in the Bill, I understand that the Honorable the Attorney-General of New South Wales has written a lengthy minute and addressed same in circular form to the members of the House of Representatives), the council and the ratepayers of the city of Sydney may suffer great injustice if the Bill passed in its present form, inasmuch as the Commonwealth may resume the whole or portions of the public parks under the control of the council, and there appears to be no provision in the Bill for compensation to the council in such an event. > >There is certainly a provision in section 19 that, in regard to land dedicated for a public park, either House of Parliament may, within thirty days after a notification of resumption has been laid before it, pass a resolution that the notification shall be void and of no effect, but there is no provision for notice being given of the resumption or intended resumption to the council or other trustees of the parks, who in that capacity represent the public. > >I therefore suggest, that if Parliament desires to give the Commonwealth power to resume the public parks in any State, it should amend the Bill by extending the time within which Parliament may render the notification void, or provide that notification of the resumption shall be given to the council or other trustees for the time , being of the parks. > >The council will be obliged if you will take steps to have the Bill altered, so as to present less objectionable features. Is there any objection to providing for the notification of resumption asked for in that letter? It is only reasonable that the Sydney Municipal Council, or other park trustees, should receive a notification of an intention on the part of the Commonwealth Government to resume park land. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Clause 13 provides for the acquisition of land by agreement with the owner. The procedure is first to open up negotiations. Failing a satisfactory arrangement with the owner, the Commonwealth may acquire land by compulsory process, {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- If the Commonwealth desired to acquire part of the New South Wales National Park, all the protests on the part of the public, the trustees of the park, or other State authorities would be without avail. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- We intend to deal separately with park lands. There is no desire, a"nd no attempt has ever been made, to acquire such land. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The Minister is viewing this matter in the light of past experience only, and ignoring the possibilities of the future. He may remain in office a very long time, though I hope not, but he cannot live for ever, and the views of his successor may be very different from his own. We cannot pay regard to the views of the Ministry in office in considering proposed legislation, but must apply general principles. When provisions are seen to threaten public rights and interests we must provide reasonable safeguards against mischievous elements in "them. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- I have an amendment which will meet the case. I took the point in 1 901. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I shall be very glad to hear the amendment read. Although the Minister says that there is no "desire on the part of the Commonwealth to acquire park lands, it is not very long since it was proposed to erect barracks on a piece of land which was part of the area originally dedicated as a commonage reserve, if, indeed, it was not actually portion of Moore Park, Sydney. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The State Government asked us to give up the site of the Victoria Barracks, and we replied that we were prepared to do so if other suitable land and buildings were given in exchange. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- The new site mentioned was the old rifle range. The present nark would not have been interfered with. **Mr. JOHNSON** The land .which was formerly a rifle range is part of the area originally dedicated as a park, or a common. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- It has not been used as a park. A portion of it has been sold since. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I remember reading a lot of correspondence in the Sydney newspapers some years ago, in which it was pointed out that all these lands were originally part and careel of one reserve, a portion of which is now known as Moore Park. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- We are just as eager as are the States authorities to preserve the public reserves, and we are prepared to do more than they are. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I am very glad to hear that, though I would like to see some evidence of it in the Bill. I wish to direct attention to the last paragraph of **"Mr. Wade's** memorandum, which reads as follows : - >Again, the existing Property for Public Purposes Acquisition Act of the Commonwealth, No. 13 of 1901, section 5, provides that, in the case of any Crown land- of the State purchased under that" Act, the Government of the State may grant such land in the name of the King to the Commonwealth. Section 6 of the proposed Bill provides that the Governor of a State, with the advice of the Executive Council, may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the law of any State, sell or lease 'to the Commonwealth any Crown land of the State which is required for a public purpose. This last-mentioned section is clearly a violation of the terms of the Imperial Act, iS and 19 Viet., eli. 54, which conferred the Constitution on New South Wales. Section z of the Imperial Act states the entire management and control of the waste lands belonging to the Crown shall be vested in the Legislature of this Colony. Moreover, I think this same section is *ultra vires* of the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth, because section 61, sub-section 31, provides for the acquisition of property from any State. I am strongly inclined to read "State" as meaning the Parliament of the State and not the Executive Government. I do .not wish to offer any comments upon these remarks, but I would commend them to the consideration of the Minister. I take it that the opinions expressed bv **Mr. Wade,** not in the heat of debate, but after a calm, careful, and judicial investigation, should be treated with the consideration due to opinions of a legal expert, expressed only after the most careful investigation of this proposed measure- {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Thev have been carefully considered, and the reply of the AttorneyGeneral upon every point has been forwarded to the New South Wales Government. A copy of that reply has been laid upon the table. {: #subdebate-15-0-s1 .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS:
Dalley -351- - It appears to me that this measure has a very important bearing upon the relative powers of the States and of the Commonwealth. Although it has an innocent appearance, it deals with a very serious subject. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- It is merely a reenactment of the existing law. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Then why does the Minister persist in pressing it? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Because several of the provisions are very important from the point of view of administration in the interests of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- If the Bill merely reenacts the existing law, it is very strange that so much concern should have been displayed in nearly all the States, and particularly in New South Wales and South Australia. The impression is that States rights are in danger of being seriously invaded. In Adelaide, public feeling has been so greatly excited that one of the largest petitions ever presented to this House was placed in the hands of the honorable and learned member for Angas. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- Yes, and the signatures were collected within a few days. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Yet the Minister wishes us to believe that this is a perfectly harmless measure. Only last week a Ministerial supporter in the New South Wales Assembly moved the adjournment of the House in order to permit of a discussion upon this measure. The Attorney-General of New South Wales, who took part in the debate, re-echoed the fears which have been expressed by a number of honorable members during the very disjointed debates which have taken place in this House. The Attorney-General, who was supported bv the deputy leader of the Opposition, used these astonishing words - >He regarded the question as a very serious and far-reaching one, which affected the community as a whole. The vital question was the public interest, and he would tell the House what the Government had done to protect it. He regretted that the course which the Government took, although it was prompt, had produced no effect. The Government had received the ordinary courteous Ministerial reply - "Your recommendations will be considered " - and that was all. The State's representations had apparently been, absolutely ignored. The Bill was entirely unnecessary. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- A reply was sent to **Mr. Wade** before- the 27 th September, and a copy was laid on the table last Friday. At a later stage of his speech, **Mr. Wade** admitted that he had received a reply. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- The Government were very tardy in sending a reply. **Mr. Wade's** memorandum was received bv the Government some two months ago, and a reply should have been forwarded long before it was. A number of representatives of New 'South Wales have received letters pointing out that the Bill is a serious menace to the rights of the citizens of that State. Among others who have protested against its provisions are the members of the Sydney City Council, who consider that their control over the Sydney Domain and other public reserves will be seriously interfered with. A similar feeling exists in Adelaide and Hobart. The Commonwealth desire to obtain power to take over certain lands for the purpose of erecting Customs houses, quarantine stations, post-offices, and defence works. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- For all the purposes in respect of which we have power to legislate. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Yes; they also wish to be in a position to obtain sites for lighthouses. Now it is feared that the Government might acquire ostensibly for defence or for quarantine purposes, valuable mineral lands at such places as Newcastle and Broken Hill, and proceed to exploit the mineral wealth lying thereunder. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Does the honorable member share that fear? {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- I am perfectly entitled to express the fears that are entertained by the people of New South Wales. The Attorney-General of New South Wales believes that if this Bill be passed, the Commonwealth powers will overlap those of the States, and it is desired that provision shall be made against any invasion of States rights. The municipal authorities desire that parks and public reserves which have been dedicated for public purposes for all time shall be protected. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Provision of that kind is not made in the States resumption Acts. I promised to meet that case. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- But the Minister is not going far enough. He proposes to deal with the matter by proclamation. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- I think that the honorable and learned member for Angas is perfectly right in urging that specific provision should be made in the Bill that public reserves shall not be interfered with. The complaint which has been received from Adelaide coincides with that which has been urged both in Sydney and in Hobart. I do not pretend to possess the necessary legal knowledge to enable me to determine whether the Bill will have the" effect which the Attorney-General of New South Wales apprehends. But I do know that alarm is being occasioned in the different States, and I have vet to learn why the Minister could not rely upon the provisions of the principal Act. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- We are not asking for more powers in that respect ; we are merely seeking an extension of power in connexion with powers of administration which .are hampering us. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It is a singular circumstance that all the States have been scared by the Bill. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- It is. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I prefer to believe that there is some reason for them being scared. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Then the honorable member will be able to supply it. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- The Minister has declared that the Bill is intended to amend certain technical defects. I should like to know what are those defects? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- When the Bill reaches Committee, I will tell the honorable member {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- It will be difficult for the Minister to do that, seeing that the keen eyes of the Attorneys-General of the States, have not been able to discover them. The States fear that the Bill is intended to enable the Commonwealth to arrogate to itself powers which are not conferred upon it by the Constitution. They apprehend a struggle between State rights and Commonwealth power. I "cannot vote for the measure unless some amendment of the character indicated by the honorable and learned member for Angas be embodied in it, and unless State rights in respect to any minerals found upon land acquired by the Commonwealth be preserved. To my mind, the Government are blameable for the scant courtesy which has been accorded to the Attorney-General of New South Wales in connexion with this Bill. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The honorable member is in error. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- At .any rate, this is what is said - >When the Bill was before the Federal Parliament objections were drawn up by him and forwarded to each of the New South Wales members, pointing out, among other things that the Bill would give power to the Commonwealth to filch park lands in the heart of the city. He also made representations to the Prime Minister and suggested certain amendments which should be made in the Bill in the interests of the States, and to protect the States against possible invasion by the Federal Government. That communication was acknowledged, but apparently the amendments suggested were not going to be given effect to. I respectfully ask whether effect is to be given to those amendments? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I will reply to the honorable member later on. The answer to that question is contained in a letter which was forwarded to the Government of New South Wales, and dated the 20th September. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- But the speech from which I have quoted was deliverd subsequent to that date. It was made four or five days after the Minister alleges that a letter was forwarded to the New South Wales Government. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The Attorney-General of that State, on the 27 th September, admitted having received it. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Apparently, there was some delay in the receipt of the correspondence to which, the Minister refers. At any rate, the fact is undeniable that alarm is being created by this Bill in the differ-t ent States - alarm which, I trust, the Minister will be able to .dispel. Earlier this afternoon, the honorable and learned gentleman admitted that the measure was not important. If that be so, why should it not be removed from the business-paper? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- It is important. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- The Minister now affirms : that it is important. I cannot understand how he can reconcile such contradictory utterances. I shall reserve to myself the right, in Committee, to take whatever action I may deem to be necessary in respect of this measure. {: #subdebate-15-0-s2 .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX:
Kooyong .- This Bill very properly originated in the Senate, because it seems to me that, underlying it, there is an attempt to interfere with the separate privileges of the States. I am aware that considerable attention has been paid to the wishes of the States by the Government, but I do think that the measure is deserving of our very closest consideration. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It is not likely to receive it in a House constituted as this is. {: .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX: -- It is unfortunate that the measure should have been introduced in the closing hours of the session. It is quite true that it merely proposes to deal with properties which are acquired by the Commonwealth for purely public purposes, but, as the honorable and learned member for Angas has repeatedly pointed out. the municipalities, and especially the metropolitan municipalities, are very seriously exercised in mind as to how it will affect them. I am glad to learn from the Minister that it is not proposed to interfere with the mineral rights at present possessed by the States. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- This Bill is not intended to acquire land for mineral purposes, nor have we the power under the Constitution to do that. {: .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX: -- I entirely agree with the Minister. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Does the Minister say that, under this Bill, a State Government could mine upon Commonwealth land without its permission? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- This Bill meets the request of the Victorian Government to allow the States laws to prevail subject to regulation. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is quite .another question. {: .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX: -- It is a measure which ought to have received close consideration at the hands of the Senate. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- It has received it. It was debated there for a very considerable time. {: .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX: -- And very properly sp. The Bill involves numerous legal difficulties concerning which I ami not qualified to speak. In Committee, I shall certainly support the proposal which has been outlined by the honorable and learned member for Angas. We must allay the suspicion entertained by the States and by many of the municipalities, that under this Bill we shall interfere with properties which they possess, and that we shall be clothed with coercive powers which are not contemplated by "the Constitution. ' It is quite true that an interpretation may be read into the measure which would permit land to be acquired for purely experimental purposes. For instance, it might be held that land acquired for the purpose of establishing a great socialistic colony had been acquired for " public purposes." I wish to clearly indicate that I shall oppose any proposal which has for its object the enlargement of the powers of the Commonwealth in that direction. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Any Bill which infringed the provisions of the Constitution would be *ultra vires.* {: .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX: -- I am quite aware of that. No doubt an appeal to the High Court would set matters right. This Parliament appears to be setting the individual States bv the ear. bv arrogating to itself powers which they are unwilling to concede. With an earnest desire to see the Legislature Derforming the magnificent work which has been committed to it, I say that we should seek to avoid disturbing the harmonious relationships which ought to exist between the Commonwealth and the States. I am perfectly satisfied that at the Conference of Premiers which will be held in Melbourne next week it will be conclusively shown that the States are opposed to the passing of such measures. At the present stage I merely desire to indicate my position, and to express the hope that the Minister will recognise that the amendment which has been outlined by the honorable and learned member for Angas is deserving of very serious consideration. I regret that another branch of the Legislature which was specially created to safeguard the rights of the States should have subordinated those interests to party considerations. That, I think, is an evil which must inevitably create dissension between the Commonwealth and the States. {: #subdebate-15-0-s3 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I do not intend to occupy many minutes in debating this Bill, because I recognise that constituted as it is it is idle to address any argument to the House. I wish to say, however, that, in my judgment, it is wrong to seek to push this measure through the House at the fag end of a Parliament, a large number of the members of which have had to leave to prosecute the campaign now upon us. Parliament ought not to be sitting at the present time. The Government seem to be infinitely more anxious - no doubt for political purposes - to place a number of measures upon the statute-book than to secure the. welfare of Australia by allowing members ample time and opportunity to carry on the election campaign. At the fag end of the Parliament, and with not half as many honorable members present as is necessary to constitute a quorum, we are discussing a proposal affecting the fundamental differences between the functions of the States and those of the Commonwealth. There could be no more important proposal than this, but there does not appear to be the slightest interest in it on the part of honorable members. If this attitude will contribute to the confidence reposed in the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth by the various States Governments. I do not know how to beget confidence. I oan conceive of nothing which can so tend to destroy the confidence of the States in the Commonwealth as the treating of such matters as those now before us in this perfunctory w av. There is nothing more calculated to destroy that feeling that ought to exist between the States and the Commonwealth. The States have every reason to complain of the scant courtesy we pay them, and of the cavalier way in which we are treating their requests. They certainly have a right to object to the way in which we propose to take to ourselves powers which they consider rightly belong to themselves. It seems nowadays to be an accepted maxim in this House that there should be no discussion of important measures. As soon as an important proposal is submitted the House empties itself, and remains practically empty as it has been during this afternoon. It is time for the States to look after their powers and privileges when they are treated in this way by the Commonwealth Parliament, which is set to guard their interests as sacredly as it guards its own. The Minister said that in moving the second reading of this Bill he explained the reasons why it ought to be passed. I have read his speech, and can find onlyone or two vague hints that some of the sections in the Property for Public Purposes Acquisition Act are not so clear as they might be. The honorable and learned gentleman, however, has not pointed out any section that is defective, and requires to be amended. This Bill comprises sixtythree clauses, and is not merely designed to remedy the defects of a former Act. It seems to mean the enactment of a new Lands Acquisition Act. If that is not the case, why should we find in this measure so many machinery and other clauses? When we have a Bill of such "dimensions brought before us, the least we can do is to give it the attention it deserves. The number of honorable members present should be sufficient to make it worth one's while to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. But in this Legislature parliamentary discussion has been absolutely destroyed. That is one of the outstanding complaints that the electors have a right to allege against the conduct of this Parliament. The Minister tells us that there is no justification for the scare on the part of the States in connexion with this Bill. Their Attorneys-General, however, are as keen, and, I believe, as sincere and industrious in the performance of their functions as is the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or the Minister in charge of this measure, and I cannot believe that they have all been seized by an empty scare. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Only one State AttorneyGeneral has forwarded a complaint to the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That may be, but in all the States there is an agitation against this Bill. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The honorable member said just now that the Attorneys-General of all the States had joined in the scare. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I presume that the Attorneys-General of the States would have taken action to put down the scare regarding this Bill if they had noi: believed' that there was something in it. Thev are charged with the duty of guarding State rights, and I should not imagine that thev would permit to continue a scare for which there is no foundation. We find, however, that those members of the States Parliament who have dealt with this question ha.ve expressed themselves warily. The fact remains that in nearly all the States there have been agitations and protests against some of the provisions of this Bill. Many of its provisions are certainly debatable. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth has addressed to **Mr. Wade,** the Attorney-General of New South Wales, a communication in reply to his memorandum of protest. It "does not appear, however, that that statement has convinced **Mr. Wade** that his former assertions were erroneous. As a matter of fact, he still stands by most of them, and does not consider that an answer has been furnished. After looking over the memorandum prepared by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, I have come to the conclusion that it is not an adequate reply to the criticism that has been launched against the Bill by the Attorney-General of New South Wales. It has been compressed into the smallest possible space, although that in itself would not be an objection if the substantive matter of the argument were such as would commend it. I venture to say, however, that in that reply difficulties are brushed aside' and overlooked in a way that is not likely to satisfy any one whose special duty it is to guard the interests of a State. I do not think that the statement ..made to-day by the Minister of Home. Affairs that this Bil! carries upon its face the fact that, under it. lands are to be acquired only for public purposes, is conclusive. The title of the Bill does not govern all its provisions. The Minister would not contend for one moment that the whole contents of a measure, when it has to be interpreted, must be read absolutely in the light of its title. Bills have been passed the contents of which have absolutely belied their titles. Such an occurrence would argue nothing except that they had been dealt with in a slovenly and clumsy fashion. Is it not a fact that points of order are taken which sometimes result in the destruction of a Bill, because its contents do not conform to the title? But because in this case the title of the Bill is all right, the Minister would have us believe that the Bill itself is satisfactory. Apart from the title, there is hardly a provision in which the term " public purposes" appears. If its clauses are to be limited to the acquirement of land for public purposes, why should we not remove all ambiguity, and make the Bill what the title declares it to be? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- In the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill it was provided that it was being enacted under the Constitution. It was not really necessary to take such a step, but that provision was inserted for greater security. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- It is not necessary. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- But we find no such provision in this Bill. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- A definition would not alter the fact that we cannot go beyond the purposes mentioned in the Constitution. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Is not that an absurd statement? The honorable and learned gentleman practically says that, because of the Constitution we should be safe in passing even "tomfoolery" legislation. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The honorable gentlemanis wrong. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable and learned gentleman says that the Constitution saves us. It may save us from the consequences of many of the laws we have passed.. Many people hope that it will, and are appealing to the High Court to test the constitutionality of many measures hurriedly passed by this Parliament. Is it reasonable* however, that we should rely upon anything of the kind? If we have to rely on the High Court to interpret the Constitution, why should we not adopt the Canadian practice, and first obtain from the Court a definition of our powers with respect to any matter in which we are in doubt, instead of legislating in the dark, and making all sorts of blunders in the belief that they will be corrected by that tribunal, and that the Constitution will prevent us from going far wrong? In spite of the Constitution, some strange things occur - things to which it is absolutely opposed. The existence of the Constitution does not constitute an argument in reply to my assertion that the powers that we take under the Bill should be explicitly defined in it. Unless clause 13 is amended- {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I am prepared to accept the honorable member's amendment on that point. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- We do not want to take any advantage. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I am glad to have that statement. I should say that the amendment is necessary. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Then let us insert it. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The title would go for nothing in a Court of Law. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I do not think that the honorable member is right, but if he so desires, we will insert his amendment. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Most of the present members of the High Court Bench are old politicians, and I should think that they would take the point that I am now putting. The Court would say that the fact that the title of the Bill did not square with the body of it, simply argued that the whole measure had been clumsily drawn and passed. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I think that the Court would use a more polite expression. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I do not think so. The honorable gentleman has known many a case in which Bills have been destroyed in this House, because their provisions have not been in accord with their titles. Therefore I ask him to see that the provisions of the Bill are in agreement with its title. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I promise that. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- A power is being taken which the Constitution does not give to us. It is taken incidentally to the exercise of some other power which the Constitution gives. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- As a matter of fact, we are merely re-enacting the present Act. We are not taking any new power on the points raised. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It does not matter whether we are taking a new power or re-enacting an old. It may be that our fresh incursion into the region of State rights has led the State authorities to examine provisions which before were not examined. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- I raised the point in 1901. but honorable members were incredulous then. **Mr. JOSEPH** COOK__ Probably they were displaying as little interest in vital matters affecting the relations of the Commonwealth and the State as they do now. Nothing could be more undesirable than the slipshod manner in which this and other, important measures are being treated. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- That is shown by the poor attendance. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Apparently it is of little concern to honorable members generally that the Government purpose to acquire land from the States without consulting the State authorities. We cannot wonder that the State authorities criticise the Commonwealth harshly. We give them every excuse for doing so, by the inattention which we bestow on the measures coming before us. By clause 62 the GovernorGeneral is expressely authorized to grant leases or licences for mining purposes, in regard to any land the property of the Commonwealth. . Clearly, then, it is proposed to acquire the minerals under the ground as well as the surface of the land needed for any public purposes. In the second place, it must be intended thar the Commonwealth may mine in such land or authorize private individuals "to do so. It seems impossible to escape the conclusion that, under this provision, the Commonwealth may arrange for mining on its own account. The expression " public purposes " in the title will not hinder that, because mining is a public purpose. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- " Public purpose " is defined in the Constitution and in the Bill. It must be a purpose connected with our powers of legislation. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I have already heard it argued in this Chamber that incidentally and impliedly the Constitution gives the Commonwealth power to take over and operate business enterprises of many kinds. I have heard that argued by the Attorney-General. Any difficulties could be got over bv making the powers incidental to powers plainly conferred by the Constitution. It is argued that there are implied powers in the Constitution which gc verv far, and reach .to nearly every commercial relation. Are not candidates already advocating the enlargement of the powers of the Commonwealth, with a view to allowing it to enter upon industrial enterprises? Within the last fortnight I have read that two candidates standing in the interests of the Government are advocating ihe nationalization of mines by the Commonwealth. Therefore, the provisions of the Bill assume a seriousness in the eyes of the authorities of the States which they would not otherwise have. If another Parliament like this were elected, it might not be long before these powers were taken, whether given by the Constitution or not. Already, on more than one occasion, this Parliament has not scrupled to exercise powers of doubtful constitutional validity, and a statement bv the Attorney-General that the exercise of certain powers might be constitutional, might be enough to secure parliamentary sanction for certain enterprises. Therefore, the States do well to be cautious. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- I do not think that the authorities of the States believe that we are going in for the nationalization of mines. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is a contingency considered by **Mr. Wade** in his memorandum. He says that under the provisions of the Bill the Commonwealth could do so. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- I think that he is mistaken. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- He may be, but he is regarded as one of our soundest lawyers, and does not usually make rash" statements. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- Neither the Government nor their supporters advocate the nationalization of mines. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I spoke of Ministerial candidates. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- Some of the supporters of the Opposition advocate the imposition of the single tax. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- It does not matter what they advocate. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- If they were returned in sufficient numbers to carry their opinions into effect it would matter very considerably, just as it would be a serious matter if a large number of members were returned pledged to bring about the nationalization of mines. I referred to the subject 'to show that it is not beyond the range of possibility that an attempt may be made to secure the nationalization of mines, and to exercise other similar powers. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- **Mr. Tom** Mann, the leader of the Socialists in Victoria, has publicly abandoned the advocacy of the nationalization of mines. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Only this morning I read that a candidate at Bendigo is advocating the nationalization of mines. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- He is not supporting the Government. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- If he were a member of the House he probably would be. Are not the Labour members supporters of the Government? They have supported the Government far "more strongly and vigilantly than have the Ministerial supporters during this Parliament. They could be relied upon through thick and thin. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- They have been very good. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- No doubt. The Government Whip speaks with feeling, and is right in making that acknowledgement. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- They have helped us to defeat the Opposition many a time, and will do so again. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 **- Senator Pearce** has, with the approval of the party to which he belongs, introduced a Bill- {: #subdebate-15-0-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I ask the honorable member not to refer to the proceedings of another place. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The measure to which I refer provides for the taking of power which the Minister says the Commonwealth already possesses. When the authorities of the States see preparations for giving effect, if need be, to powers of this kind, they have reason to endeavour to ascertain their rights and privileges under the Constitution. If the Government do not wish to make inroads upon State rights, why do they not make that plain? If they do not wish to acquire park lands, why do they not say so in the Bill? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I have already drafted an amendment to meet the case. It was circulated on the 25th of last month. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I propose to fellow the honorable and learned member for Angas in this matter. In my opinion, his amendment meets the case. With regard to mining, I think that it cannot do harm to make it clear in the Bill that the Commonwealth has no intention of undertaking mining operations, but leaves control of mining to the States. However, it is of not much use to address the House in regard to the provisions of the measure, because only the slightest interest seems to be taken in the discussion. {: #subdebate-15-0-s5 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- I wish to refer to one or two points raised by honorable members opposite. To repeat what I said in introducing the Bill, the present Act has been re-drafted on the advice of tha law officers of the Crown to improve the phraseology, to make it simpler, and at the same .time effect alterations necessary for administrative purposes. We are not seeking for new- powers, and the statement that we are attempting to filch powers which the Constitution does not give us is absolutely incorrect; no matter whence it comes. We are nor asking for any greater power than exists in the present Act with regard to the acquisition of either park lands or mineral properties. The opinion of **Mr. Wade,** the Attorney-General of New South Wales, has been extensively quoted by honorable members; but I am sure that if that honorable and learned gentlemans would only reconsider the Bill, he would find that his criticism was not substantiated. I ask honorable members to exercise their own judgment after reading the Bill, the Constitution, and the reply of the AttorneyGeneral to **Mr. Wade.** {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- We have not had any opportunity of seeing the Attorney-General's reply. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It has been printed and circulated. It was laid on the table last Friday. I shall give honorable members the substance of it. The honorable member for Lang stated that the Bill was onesided. The Commonwealth AttorneyGeneral, in his minute, pointed out - >The provisions of the Bill affect the State of New South Wales in precisely the same manner as they affect the other States - without discrimination of any kind. I am not aware that they are one-sided, except in the sense in which any provision for compulsory acquisition must be initiated by one side, and if necessary for the public interest carried through, notwithstand. ing the objections of another. But even here I am unable to detect any injustice, because the fullest compensation is provided for. The same principle is embodied by New South Wales itself in ils State Act for compulsory acquisition of land *[Public Works Act* 1900). {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- That is within her own territory. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Exactly ; and we propose to operate in our own territory. We have power under the Constitution to acquire lands for public purposes ; that is, for any purpose for which this Parliament has power to make laws. We are not asking for power to acquire land for any other than public purposes. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- But it will be possible for the Commonwealth to do so. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The honorable member is quite wrong. The view of the AttorneyGeneral of New South Wales surprises me. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- What does clause *62* mean ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- That clause was inserted for this reason: By virtue of the 'establishment of the Commonwealth large areas of land, including rifle ranges, passed over to us. The sole power to make laws with respect to these areas rests with the Commonwealth itself. In administering the Act I was confronted with this position : In the State of Victoria no less than twelve or fifteen applications were made bv persons who desired to lease lands vested in the Commonwealth. The State Government could not deal with these matters, because the lands were exclusively under Commonwealth control. We had power to grant certain leases, but no express power to insure that any mining carried on upon our property should be conducted properly. The Victorian Government brought the matter before the Conference of Premiers. After the matter had been brought up by **Mr. Bent,** I made the following statement : - >The matter has been before me. The position we find ourselves in is this, that where land is vested absolutely in the Commonwealth it becomes the subject of exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, but it seemed to me it was not desirable that the Commonwealth should retain large areas of land, containing within them great sources of wealth, and not put them at the disposal of those who could win the gold, subject, of course, to certain regulations. It did not seem to me that, as a Commonwealth, we could .introduce a Mining Act with conditions as to inspection, safety of mines, and so on. It seems more advisable for us, as a Commonwealth, to pass an Act dealing with the lands of that description of which we are in possession, and which belong exclusively to the Commonwealth. We can provide that the State laws in which the particular land is situated shall operate with respect to mining. The matter might then be administered by the State authorities; and, as regards royalties, there should be a mutual arrangement. The matter is receiving consideration at the present time. That statement was made at a Conference of States Premiers, at which the Premier of New South Wales was present, and it appeared satisfactory to them. Clause 62 embodies the very words to which I there gave utterance. The lands in respect to which clause 62 will operate are ours, because they pass over to us by virtue of the Constitution. We say, in effect, that *i* any individual wants to mine upon our lar.ds We will have to make an application to the Commonwealth for a lease. When the lease is granted subject .to regulations, the laws of the States in which the land is situated wil'l operate, and will be administered by the States' officers. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- - But the State will have no right in regard to the revenue derived from such land. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- By the Constitution these lands are vested absolutely in us. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- They are supposed to have been paid for. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- My statement appeared to satisfy the States Premiers that we were proposing to treat them fairly, and all I am asking honorable members to do is to agree to the proposition that I placed before the Premiers. It is peculiar that the Attorney-General of New South Wales should refer to this section in connexion with his statement as to the Federal authorities working the mines on socialistic lines. That seems .to me to be an extraordinary view to take. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- **Mr. Wade** mav have referred to our powers to acquire, but not by compulsion - there is no doubt he is right there. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- **Mr. Wade,** dealing with this Bill, says - {: type="1" start="5"} 0. In the next place, section 22 *[b)* enables the Minister, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to sink pits and examine the soil of any kind acquired ; and finally, section 63 (now 62) enables the Governor-General to authorize mining on any land, the property of the Commonwealth. That particular clause which authorizes mining upon land belonging to the Commonwealth was introduced on the motion of Victoria, with the approval of the States. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What has that to do with it? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We are charged with having inserted in the Bill certain provisions which give evidence of a socialistic design. **Mr. Wade** says - >Bearing in mind these two propositions, it is clear from many sections of the Bill that if it passes without amendment the Commonwealth will be empowered to compulsorily obtain mineral-bearing lands and work them as Commonwealth concerns. > >It' is no part of the policy of the Commonwealth to carry on mining operations, and the. giving of this power may lead, in the course of time, to the Federal authorities acquiring mineral bearing areas belonging to this State, and working them on socialistic lines. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- He says nothing about socialistic design. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No, but that suggestion has been made pretty freely in this House. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- We could not do as has been suggested by compulsion, but we might do so by agreement. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Perhaps. I desire to show that the clause upon which the arguments of honorable members are based was introduced with an intention opposite to that which has been ascribed to us, and there is no doubt that it carries out its intention honestly and fairly well. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- But our argument is borne out by sub-clause 3 of clause 27, which denies the States compensation for any loss of the rights of taxation or revenue. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The honorable member misunderstands the meaning of that clause, which is merely a re-enactment of the existing law. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- It is none the better for that. " {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It has nothing to do with any intention to acquire land for socialistic purposes. The other clause to which **Mr. Wade** refers is clause 21. paragraph *b,* which empowers the Minister to make surveys, take levels, sink pits, .and examine the soil. The object of that provision is to enable us, before we acquire any land for a public purpose, to thoroughly examine it, and ascertain whether it is suitable for our purposes. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is what it is intended to do, but how much more does it mean ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Does the honorable member desire that that provision should be struck out? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Yes. because I believe that it is unnecessary. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Then, according to the honorable member, if we desired to acquire a site for a fort where heavy ordnance would be mounted, we ought not to have the power to even make a geological survey to ascertain whether the site was suitable. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- We have the power already, without expressing it in that war. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I say that we have not. All that this clause does is to give us the power to make an inspection before we acquire the land. A similar power is contained in every State Act. I would ask the honorable member to look at this matter carefully and quietly. By some extraordinary process, the idea has become prevalent that we have socialistic designs, because we desire to sink pits in order to ascertain whether certain sites are suitable for public purposes. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- I think that idea arises more in connexion with clause 62. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I have already pointed out that clause 62 has an intention the very opposite to that attributed to it. **Mr. Wade,** in pointing out that land might be acquired for certain public purposes, said - Such matters as obtaining land from either a State or private individual for mining purposes are clearly outside the scope of the Constitution. On the other hand, the policy and practice of this State for many years on the alienation of Crown lands has been to reserve all minerals to the Crown. Bearing in mind these two propositions, it is clear from many sections of the Bill that if it passes without amendment the Commonwealth will be empowered to compulsorily obtain mineral-bearing lands, and work them as. Commonwealth concerns. The Attorney-General, in reply, stated - I agree with **Mr. Wade** that the acquisition by the Commonwealth of land from a State or person for mining purposes is outside the scope of the Constitution - and I am equally satisfied that it is outside the scope of the Bill. No indication can be found in the Bill that the Commonwealth is ever to take lands for mining purposes. Then again, with respect to clause 14, **Mr. Wade** said - {: type="1" start="4"} 0. In the first place, section 14, which provides for the different modes of acquisition, simply speaks of land without qualification. Land, according to the definition of section 5, includes Crown land whether reserved or dedicated for any public purpose or not. Thus the Commonwealth may compulsorily acquire land belonging to this State which has been dedicated to one of the many public purposes known to our law, and, according to section 14. that acquisition need not be for a public purpose, as known to the Commonwealth Constitution. This same section empowers the Commonwealth to acquire land belonging to a private individual. That land may contain minerals, which were reserved to the Crown on alienation by the State. In reply to that, the Attorney-General points out - The title of the Bill, and the whole tenor of its provisions, show clearly that it applies only to acquisition for public purposes, as defined in clause 5, that is to say, national purposes. It is quite unnecessary to repeat those words in every clause of the Bill. Clause 14, for- instance, is merely a clause, specifying the two modes of acquisition - by agreement and by compulsory process. It has no relation whatever to the purpose of acquisition. The clause certainly applies to any land, without exception - as the corresponding section in the existing Act of 1901 does. The next point dealt with by **Mr. Wade** relates to the sinking of pits, and the Attorney-General in reply shows that that provision is contained in every State Statute relating to the acquisition of land at the present time, and the clause is only a re-enactment of the present Act, section 49, sub-section 1. Then **Mr. Wade** proceeds - It will be seen from the sections quoted that the Bill will enable the Commonwealth to acquire mineral-bearing lands, and to mine upon them, and to receive all the profits resulting from the operation. In reply, the Attorney-General says - If this criticism means that the Bill empowers the Commonwealth to acquire land for the purpose of carrying on the business of mining, I differ entirely. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- That is merely a matter of opinion. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- There is no doubt about it. We have no power to acquire land for mining purposes. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Clause 62 will confer that power. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It will do nothing of the sort. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Then it ought to be made clear that it will not. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I think it is sufficiently clear already. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- What **Mr. Wade** fears is that the Commonwealth may acquire land, and use it for mining purposes. Undoubtedly there is some force in that contention. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- If that be so, the power must be conferred upon us by the Constitution. **Mr. Wade** says that the measure may do that. I say that it does not. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The New- South Wales Attorney-General does not say that. Why does the Minister continue to make statements which are not correct? He has quoted the Attorney-General of New South Wales incorrectly. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I have quoted his opinion. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The Minister did not. He spoke of him as having alleged socialistic designs against the Government. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- If the honorable- member would listen more attentively he would know exactly what I 'said. In the first instance, the Commonwealth can only acquire land for public purposes. We take from the' States grants containing their usual reservations. We have taken from New South Wales land down to a certain depth but we have no desire to acquire more land than we need for our Commonwealth purposes. The honorable member for Parramatta suggests that we should not reserve to ourselves the right to acquire the whole of a piece of landed property. But let us suppose that we wish to erect a very large building. We must of necessity acquire the land upon which to erect it, and the rights under that land. We cannot allow anybody to mine under that land, and thus destroy the foundations of our building. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I have never said anything to the contrary. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It has been repeatedly suggested that when we take a grant of land we should on no account take over the right to prevent others from mining upon it. What would that mean if, for example, we had erected a large fort? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- We should not allow mining operations to proceed if they would threaten the safety of the building. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- In some instances we could on no account allow mining operations to be carried on. Could we permit them to be carried on under a powder magazine? We must ask power to take from the States ' a grant of so much land as Is necessary to preserve our own properties. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The whole point is whether the acquisition of land for public purposes cannot be provided for without taking over the whole of these rights. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- In the first instance, the land must be acquired specifically for public purposes, and we can acquire only what is necessary for those purposes. Suppose that we erected a post-office in a certain place, and that the building was afterwards found to be unsuitable for the purpose. In all probability we should revest the land upon which the Building stood in the State Government. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- That could be expressly provided in clause 63. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The provision in, the Bill is ample to meet the case. The principal Act has been administered for some years, and the principle adopted has worked without any trouble. The opinion of the Commonwealth Attorney-General upon this matter is as follows: - >I quite agree that a construction of section 14 which would extend its application to acquisition for other than a public purpose as defined, would make it *ultra vires* to that extent. But such a construction is, in my opinion, impossible, and the notion that the Commonwealth would ever attempt to take land for other than public purposes is not to be attributed to it. I cannot agree that when the Commonwealth has acquired land for a public purpose it has not full rights of proprietorship. The argument that it has not would apparently lead to the conclusion that the Commonwealth cannot *(e.g.)* give licences to depasture cattle on a rifle range. Speaking of the question of compensation of the States, the Commonwealth AttorneyGeneral says - >There again appears to be a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Bill. " Land," as defined, means land in the legal sense, not in the geographical sense - *i.e.,* it means estates, interests, &c, in land. There may be several owners of several estates or interests in respect of the same area. Each is entitled to full compensation for his estate or interest. The Commonwealth can acquire from an individual nothing more than the individual has. If it acquires from the estate any interest reserved by the State, it must similarly compensate the State in full. > >This is a distinct requirement of the Constitution itself (sec. 51, sub-section xxxi.), which provides that the acquisition must be on just terms, and which stands as a complete safeguard to the Stale. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Paragraph 3 of clause 27 provides that no compensation shall be payable to the States in respect of the loss of any rights of dominion, taxation, or revenue. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Because they are not assessable. If we acquired land for a post-office the State Government could not levy a land tax upon it. The honorable member seems to forget that, after all, the Commonwealth and the States - although technically separate entities - are made up of the same people {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- But they have separate rights. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Those rights have been fully observed in the interests of the people as a whole. Reference has been made tothe humiliation of the sovereign States. On this the Commonwealth Attorney-General says - >I fail to see the humiliation. The State is not " sovereign " as against the Commonwealth, within the sphere in which the Commonwealth has paramount legislative power. The invariable practice is to treat before compulsory acquisition. But apparently the suggestion is that, if the treaty fails, no power of compulsory acquisition should remain, except by leave of the Supreme Court of the State. In other words, the determination of a question of Commonwealth public policy - the necessity of the acquisition - would be transferred to the State Judiciary. The mere statement of this proposition is a sufficient answer to it. I do not understand the suggestion that the power to dispose of the land does not cover the case of returning it to the State. Under a precisely similar provision in the present Act, it is a frequent practice to return land to the State. He further says - speaking of certain minor matters which have been referred to - >This is a misunderstanding. In the case of a Crown lease, the Commonwealth, if it acquired the land, would acquire the lease from the lessee, the reversion from the State, and compensate both. As regards the last point raised by **Mr. Wade** that clause 6 of the proposed Bill is a violation of the Imperial Act 18 & 19 Vic, chap. 54, the Commonwealth, AttorneyGeneral says - >The Constitution of New South Wales must now be read subject to a later Imperial Act - the Commonwealth Constitution Act. > >If the criticism means that the Commonwealth can only acquire land from a State with the consent of the State Parliament, I disagree. The Australian Constitution would in that case be singularly weak and defective. > >Clause 6 of the Bill, which from the beginning practically did nothing more than formally recognise and emphasize the power of the Stale to deal with its own lands, if it so wished, has, since its introduction, been altered to a form which may probably be thought even less open to objection than at first. The object of the clause was, and is, to avoid the necessity of compulsory acquisition where the parties voluntarily agree. To my mind, the Attorney-General has fully answered all the objections which have been raised. The doubts which have teen expressed are surprising, because whatever powers are alleged to be conferred bv this Bill in respect of the taking over of park lands and of the acquisition of mineral rights are contained in the existing Commonwealth laws. There was no cause whatever for the alarm which has been created. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Will the Minister refer to the letter which was written to the Prime Minister by **Mr. Carruthers?** {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: **- Mr. Carruthers** wrote urging that certain amendments should be made in the Bill, and that the mining rights of the State might be preserved. He plo.ceeded - >My Government is of the opinion that - in so far as isolated areas which may be acquired for post offices, military purposes, &c, are concernedthe "Notification" should apply only to the surface, and the land to such a depth (say, 100 feet) as would ensure the stability of the buildings to be erected thereon, as there does not appear to be any good reason why, if the land is mineral-bearing, the right to grant leases to remove the minerals from under the land should be taken from the State, which has really to provide the compensation for the resumption. That is to say, we were asked to fix under this Bill a depth of, say, 100 feet. The Commonwealth cannot do that. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- If they did so, they could not carry out the socialistic project which was mentioned by the AttorneyGeneral. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- As a rule the honorable member treats subjects very seriously. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- Read the last paragraph of the New South Wales AttorneyGeneral's minute. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I have. It is no part of the policy of the Commonwealth to carry on mining operations, and the giving of this power may lead, in the course of time, to the Federal authorities acquiring mineral bearing areas belonging to this State, and working them on socialistic lines. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- The Attorney-General of New South Wales does not charge this Government with socialistic designs, but he points out that the Bill may lead to the adoption of such a system. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- If a Parliament is ever elected by the people to carry out such a project and the Constitution empowers it to do so, then the electors must be responsible for their own action. I do not think that the honorable member would find fault with that position. Unless there is power under the Constitution to take action in this direction nothing can be done. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent it. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I am not responsible for the Constitution. I can assure the honorable member that this Bill, like the original Act, is intended only to provide for the acquisition of lands for public purposes as defined by the Constitution. It will give us only that power. The Commonwealth has never acquired lands for other than such purposes, and to try to restrict the power of acquisition within much smaller limits would be to seriously interfere with our power to acquire land for the purpose of erecting forts, and might lead to action which might interfere seriously with the foundations of some of our great braidings. We must have power under this Bill to acquire such lands as are necessary to preserve our public buildings. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Would the honorable and learned gentleman object to the insertion of a provision requiring that all lands not used for the specific purpose for which they were originally acquired shall be returned to the States? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I shall stand by the Bill. As a matter of fact, some of the States have already complained of our action in returning properties to them, and have asked us to fix a time after which it shall not be competent for us to return them. There is nothing in the point raised bv the honorable member. The Commonwealth, as a whole, has dealt fairly with the States. It has shown every consideration for States rights, and, above all, it has always conserved the interests of the people of the Commonwealth. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In Committee :* Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. Clause 5 - >In this Act. unless the contrary intention appears - " Land " includes any estate or interest in land (legal or equitable), and any easement, right, power, or privilege over, in, or in connexion with land, and also includes Crown land ; " Lease" includes an agreement for a lease ; "Owner" includes, with respect to land, any person who under this Act is enabled to sell or convey the land to the Commonwealth, and means, with respect to 'Crown land, the State to which the land belongs; " Public purpose " means any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws, but shall not include the acquisition of territory for the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth under the Constitution. {: #subdebate-15-0-s6 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- I have circulated a proposed amendment of the definition of "land." {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- I have given notice that I intend to raise the question as to the acquiring of park lands. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- This amendment relates to park lands. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- I think that my amendment ought first to be submitted. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The honorable member may move it as an amendment of my amendment. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- The Minister's amendment should properly follow mine. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I move- >That after the word " land," line 7, the following words be inserted : - " but shall not include such parks or other lands dedicated to or reserved for the use and enjoyment of the people as have been specified by Proclamation. Some doubts have arisen as to the preservation of the integrity of the park lands of Australia. I may say at once that no one has a greater desire to preserve to the people the parks of the people than has the present Administration. We realize that ' unfortunately the number of park lands in Australia is far too small, and that it would be a calamity if any of the parks of the people were taken from them, except in the very gravest national emergency. This Bill re-enacting the existing law, follows the somewhat similar provisions of the New South Wales Act of 1 900, which ' provides that when land is Crown land, or vested in any corporation for public purposes, dedication or reservation may be cancelled, and the land taken without a special Act of Parliament. We have followed that provision. Under the existing Act there has never been any attempt to compulsorily acquire park lands of any description. We have always regarded them as sacred. Trie point has been raised, however, that we should put the matter beyond all doubt bv expressly providing in the Bill, that our power to acquire land shall not apply to park or other lands set aside for the use of the people In these circumstances, therefore, I have submitted this amendment. The form which it takes is dictated bv the fact that we have to deal, not with one State, but with six. An attempt to define . the park lands of one State might not be sufficient to preserve the park lands of another. We therefore desire to have exactly the same cower as have the Governments of Victoria and Western Australia. The Government of Victoria have power by Executive act to set aside lands in the first place for temporary purposes, and, secondly, for permanent purposes. Lands permanently set aside cannot be touched except bv special Act of Parliament. The lands of Western Australia are also divided into two classes, and class A includes all parks and public lands which, having been once proclaimed, cannot be interfered with except bv special Act of Parliament. We think that we should adopt the same course, and obtain in the first instance from all the States a satisfactory definition of what are their park lands. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- They are always adding to their nark lands. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Exactly. And we should have a definition that will cover future reservations of lands for the use of the people. If my amendment be agreed to it will enable the Government to proclaim future park lands as well as those now existing. Park lands may be field by a municipality, but other park lands of equal importance, such, for instance, as the National Park of New South Wales, need to be preserved just as much as do the park lands of the city. There are national reserves for the preservation of the flora of Australia. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- As, for instance, the Kuringai Chase. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Quite so. Un'der this clause we shall have power to proclaim these lands so that they cannot be taken over for defence or other purposes, except by special Act. If we attempted to apply one definition to park lands generally we might tie our hands. What might be an adequate definition in one State might be injurious to others, and I therefore hope that the Committee will accept my amendment. {: #subdebate-15-0-s7 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- This seems to be a halting recognition on the part of the Government of the very important suggestions made to them by various public bodies since the introduction of this Bill. Apparently, with some reluctance, the Ministry have seen fit to give way to the views expressed, not only in the public press, but by very influential bodies, who have presented petitions to this House. ' I had the honour of presenting a petition from Adelaide to which there were no less than 8,338 signatures. These had been collected in the course of a few days, and when the petition was sent to me for presentation, I was assured that had time permitted the signature of practically every adult citizen of Adelaide could have been obtained to it. That was the impression of those who set out to secure the strength of numbers necessary to back up the appeal made in this petition to the reason of the House. The Ministry, whilst apparently giving way to this demand, take up a rather foolish 'attitude. With the pedan try of a schoolmaster, rather than with the policy of a statesman, they have proclaimed from the housetops that " we, the great Commonwealth of Australia, ought to have these powers; we do not' desire to exercise them," and they insist on this assertion of power, although at present .the susceptibilities of the States are touched, and very properly touched, by their inclusion in this Bill'. The Minister said in the first instance that the Government had not the remotest intention of taking over the public parks, but that they must for the sake of the dignity of the Commonwealth provide in the Bill for the necessary power to do so. That was the attitude first adopted by the Ministry when the reasonable request was made that we should exclude from this Bill the power to take over by compulsion the dedicated lands of the States. I suggested a month ago an amendment which the Ministry opposed until last week, when, under additional pressure, the Minister of Home Affairs circulated an amendment in which it is proposed that this exemption shall be made, not by Bill, but by the Executive by proclamation. In other words, the park lands to be preserved under the operation of the Bill are to be declared, not by Parliament, but by the Minister for the time being. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The Minister should withdraw his amendment until the feeling of the Committee has been tested in regard to the proposal of the honorable and learned member. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The Minister may say that he cannot in anticipation frame a definition which will go beyond the scope of my amendment. I am trying to keep within the lines of the requests respectfully made to the House, and backed up by petitions, and the Minister, while saying that he wishes to go further, purposes to do practically nothing. Because he cannot frame a definition which will do more than he is asked to do, he wishes to do at present nothing at all, his proposal being to settle the matter subsequently by a proclamation, which may or may not be issued.. I suggest that we should, so far as we can, define what we mean. If the Minister wishes to go beyond my definition, let him add his amendment to it. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Does the honorable and learned member desire to modify his amendment? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- No. There is a direction in which it could be modified, but the Minister does not seem willing to agree to that. As the honorable and learned gentleman acknowledges that there is something inthe petitions which have been sent in, and has expressed himself ready to allay the not altogether unjustifiable anxiety of the citizens of the States, I ask him to accept my amendment, amplifying it as he may see fit. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The honorable and learned member's definition also includes more than I think should be included. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- That has not been made plain. As the Minister does not provide for purchase by agreement, I have not done so. We have the inherent power to acquire land by agreement. We could not exercise against the State of New South Wales, for example, the power of compulsory acquisition except for purposes prescribed by the Constitution; but we could purchasefrom private individuals, or that State, enough land to carry on, say, the manufacture of tobacco until our power to engage in such an industry were challenged. The Bill, however, is to deal with compulsory acquisition. The Minister's amendment does not provide for the acquisition for public purposes of park land by agreement with the authorities in whom they are vested, though I should be willing to do so. I ask the Committee to accept my amendment with a view to excluding from the operation of the measure park lands dedicated to municipalities or townships under any State Act, or as a direct gift from the Crown. It preserves the dignity of the Commonwealth, because it does not say that its powers shall never be exercised. Under the Bill the mere issue of a proclamation is sufficient to divest park lands from the body in which they are vested, and to vest them in the Commonwealth. In my opinion, the acquisition of such lands should be by Act of Parliament, which would give opportunity for opposition, if necessary. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Where does the honorable and learned gentleman propose to move his amendment? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I think that it. should precede the Minister's amendment, which might very well be tacked on to it. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- It will not shut out my proposed amendment in regard to minerals ? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- No. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- What is the difference between the honorable and learned member'samendment and that of the Minister ? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I wish to provide in the Bill that " land " does not include for the purposes of this measure park lands or reserves included in or adjoiningany municipality or township, whereas the Minister is unwilling to exclude such lands by a definition in the Bill, but is ready to empower the Executive to do so by proclamation. My amendment is in the present tense, in conformity with the rest of the clause, whereas the Minister's amendment is in the future tense. A "proclamation" is defined in the Acts Interpretation Act as a proclamation by the Governor-General published in the *Gazette,* so that the proclamation mentioned in the Minister's amendment is a proclamation of the Commonwealth, not of a State. A proclamation under a State Act would not avail against a Commonwealth proclamation. If the Minister's amendment is carried, it will rest with the Executive to give effect to it, and the people of the States desire that we shall provide in the Bill that certain dedicated lands and reserves do not come within its scope. Therefore I move - >That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word " but " the words, does not include park lands or reserves included in or adjoining any municipality or township which already are or hereafter shall be declared or set apart for the use and enjoyment of the inhabitants of any municipality or township, or which may be vested in or under the control and management of the corporation or council thereof." {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- Does that amendment cover all park land? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- All park land connected with municipalities or townships. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- Including land which may be hereafter reserved? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Yes. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- In framing the amendment, did the honorable and learned member consult the definitions contained in State Acts? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I looked at the definition covering the municipal park lands of Adelaide, and I think that the words which I have used are sufficient to embrace all the park lands connected with the townships and municipalities of the Commonwealth, though not a reserve like the National Park in New South Wales. I had no wish to exclude such reserves, and if the Minister wishes to provide for them he can do so, either by adding to my amendment, or by issuing a proclamation. I think that the amendment should be carried, in view of the very strong opinion which prevails that the Commonwealth should not be empowered to acquire park land. I communicated with the right honorable member for Adelaide in this matter, not only because of his representative character, but because he is the son of the late **Sir George** Kingston, to whom, I understand, the dedication of the park lands surrounding Adelaide was due. He sent me a very long, telegram expressing his deep sympathy with the movement that is being made to protect park lands dedicated to the use of the people against acquisition by the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The existing law was passed by the Administration with which the right honorable member for Adelaide was connected. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- No doubt. But I would point out that when the Property for Public Purposes Bill was before us in 1901, honorable members did not notice that park lands were included among those, which could be acquired by the Commonwealth. There was then no definition of the word II land." On that occasion, I pointed out that the Bill did apply to park lands, but honorable members merely expressed surprise or incredulity. At page 5460 of Volume IV. of *Hansard.* j 901. my remarks are reported as follows: - >Tn clause 8 power is taken to compulsorily acquire land which has been dedicated under a State Act to some public purpose ; but I fail to see why such power should be taken. Whyshould the interests of the 'Commonwealth be paramount to the interests of the public of a State in a matter of that sort? Under that clause, the Commonwealth could acquire a pleasure ground or park land dedicated to the public under a State Act. {: #subdebate-15-0-s8 .speaker-KU9} ##### Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT -- Surely the Bill does not go so far as that. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Yes it does. The park lands which surround Adelaide have been dedicated under a State Act, but this clause gives power to the Commonwealth to acquire them notwithstanding such dedication. Mv impression is that honorable members voted for the Bill without a due appreciation of the effect of its provisions, and, therefore, I do not think it can be said that it was the deliberate intention of the right honorable member for Adelaide that the Commonwealth should have the power to acquire Dark lands. I would ask honorable members to assist me in securing the insertion of my amendment, which will give the public the protection for which they are now asking. {: #subdebate-15-0-s9 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- The honorable and learned member and myself are at one in our desire to preserve the public parks of the Commonwealth; but we differ as to the terms of the provision which should be inserted in the Bill. I think that my amendment will meet the case fully and completely. I certainly could not accept one portion of the honorable member's amendment, because I am advised it wouldexempt large areas of waste lands from the operation of the compulsory clauses. In some of the States there are, in the neighbourhood of many townships, large commonage areas which are reserved for the use of the residents. If the amendment were inserted, we could not acquire a piece of such land for the purposes of a rifle range. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- The Minister does not contend that ray amendment would apply to all Crown lands ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It would apply to all lands " set apart for the use and enjoyment of the inhabitants of any municipality or township." Within that description would be included the commonage areas to which I have referred. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Does not the Minister think that such areas should be preserved for the use of the people? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Not in all cases. In some instances, the areas are very large, and in others rifle ranges are already located on commons. We have permissive occupancy only, and we desire to have the right to acquire the properties if we think it necessary. As settlement increases and townships grow, these commons cease to serve the purposes for which they were originally reserved. In Queensland, many of them have recently been cut up and sold for fanning purposes. In every instance in which it has been necessary to acquire land, we have been most careful to see that no injustice was done. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- I know that some of the municipal bodies are very much concerned about the powers which it is sought to take. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The Hobart Council objected to park lands being acquired without notice being given to them, and without compensation. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- They do not want the Commonwealth, to take their park lands at all. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The Sydney City Council also asked for notice and compensation. I would point out that we never acquire land without giving compensation to those who are being deprived of it. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- The representations made by the Sydney Corporation cover a good deal more ground than the Minister has indicated. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I have mentioned the principal points. It will be very difficult to adopt a satisfactory definition of lands which should be excluded from the operation of the compulsory clauses. I have looked into this matter very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that if we adopted a hard-and-fast definition we should probably exclude from the operation of the Bill lands which we should have the power to acquire, whilst, on the other hand, we might take power to acquire lands which should be permanently reserved for the use of the people. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- How did the Commonwealth get hold of the commonage land now used for the purposes of rifle ranges? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We hold them only under permissive occupation. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Does our dignity suffer because of that fact? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No, but when we spend large sums of money upon rifle ranges, we should have some security of tenure, and the Department are making arrangements in that direction as far as possible. We might want to acquire for rifle range purposes some land which could not be regarded as park lands or recreation reserves, and I think that we should have the power to do so. I should like honorable members to look at clause 19, which provides that where Crown land is dedicated for a public park or for the recreation or amusement of the people, either House of the Parliament may pass a resolution declaring that its acquisition shall be null and void. Therefore, either House will have the power to set aside any acquisition that may be deemed improper. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- That is all very well so far as the Federal Parliament is concerned. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Honorable members seem to think that the Federal Parliament has no desire to conserve the rights of the people, but I have never known any Legislature to be so keenly alive in that regard. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- What would a' Parliament meeting in the bush know about the dedicated park lands of, say, Adelaide?" {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The Parliament which the honorable member describes would be composed of representatives of all the States, and probably the honorable and learned member would be one of its most notable ornaments. There would be nothing, to prevent a Parliament meeting in the bush from acquiring a proper knowledge of any case that might arise under this Bill. I am afraid that the amendment proposed by the honorable and learned member would hamper, rather than assist, the Administration. We are making an honest attempt to meet the wishes of the people whose fears have been excited by our proposals. I do not think that their interests are in any danger, but, perhaps, it is as well that their minds should be made eas- {: #subdebate-15-0-s10 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The Minister has, in the course of his speech, supplied the best of reasons for inserting the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Angas. Large areas of land are dedicated for recreation and other public purposes, and it seems to me that if the Minister will accept the amendment of the honorable and learned member for Angas, and thus limit the scope of the Bill, we shall be able to preserve to the people all park lands and reserves until we declare bv proclamation that some of them are required for public purposes. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- Or we might declare it by Act of Parliament. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I think that Acts of Parliament would be required verv rarely if the amendment of the honorable and learned member upon the proposal submitted by the Minister were accepted. The two proposals are really complementary, and are in no way antagonistic to each other. {: #subdebate-15-0-s11 .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr CARPENTER:
Fremantle -- When the Minister submitted his amendment, I thought that he had gone as far as possible to meet every possible objection which could be urged against the powers which will be conferred by; this Bill. I quite agree with those who suggest that in the absence of such an amendment there may be friction between the local governing bodies and the Department of Home Affairs. But from what I know of the very keen manner in which honorable members watch the interests of municipalities and of other public bodies likely to 'be affected by Federal proposals, I do not think - even in the absence of this amendment - that there is any chance of injustice being done byreason of the Commonwealth acquiring land necessary for the purposes of public recreation. In my opinion, the amendment of the honorable and learned member for Angas does not go so far as does that of the Minister himself. There are limitations about his amendment which <lo not apply to the proposal submitted by the Minister. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- The Minister thinks otherwise. {: .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr CARPENTER: -- I do not know what he thinks. But certainly the limitations proposed by the honorable and learned member for Angas apply only to reserves within a municipality or adjoining it, or to reserves adjoining a township. Now, it is quite possible that there may be reserves which do not adjoin a municipality, which are not included in it, and which do not adjoin a township. The amendment of the honorable and learned member for Angas would allow these to be ac quired by the Commonwealth, whereas the Minister's proposal puts the matter in a simple form by declaring that the lands acquired shall not include park lands or any other lands which have been dedicated to the use of the public. I know of no provision which could be wider in its application than that. My experience teaches me that this Parliament is keener to preserve the rights of the people in respect of their park lands than are some of the States, Parliaments. It would be a great deal more difficult to persuade a majority of the Commonwealth Parliament to agree to the acquisition of any reserve in opposition to the wish of the people concerned than it would be to secure a majority in favour of that course in a State Parliament. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- But a State Parliament can always make a grant of other park lands to the people in lieu of those which have been taken from them, and we cannot. {: .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr CARPENTER: -- But the States Parliaments do not always do that. Only a few years ago an attempt was made in the South Australian Parliament to grant to a certain cricket club an additional piece of the park lands. The project was so skilfully engineered that when the Bill was presented we were assured that it Was idle to fight it, inasmuch as the numbers were up. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- But we did fight it. {: .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr CARPENTER: -- I know that the Labour Party was the only solid party which opposed the proposal. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Do thev do those sort of things, in South Australia? {: .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr CARPENTER: -- Upon that occasion they did. I mention the matter with a view to showing that the States Parliaments are more amenable to influences of that character than is this Parliament. Seeing that the Minister has gone so far as to exclude from the definition of " lands " not only park lands, but all' other lands which may have been reserved, I am of opinion that the Committee should be satisfied. If we go further, we shall only complicate matters. {: #subdebate-15-0-s12 .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX:
Kooyong .- Personally, I believe that the Committee would act wisely if it limited the definition of the word "lands" to a specific schedule, which might have been attached to the Bill. If the whole object of the measure is to enable us to acquire from the States for Commonwealth purposes, lands which it may hereafter be found necessary to acquire, I do think that even with a limitation of the definition, we shall still have power to secure lands for purposes which are foreign to the original intention of the measure. For instance, it would be quite possible for us to obtain a large area for the purpose of carrying out a socialistic experiment. I therefore feel that the Committee would be justified in asking the Minister to attach to the Bill a schedule of the properties which it is proposed to take over. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I do not quite follow the honorable member. {: .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX: -- The object of the measure *is* to! acquire certain Specific properties which are already known to the Department of Home Affairs. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- In clause 19 we provide that when the notification is laid upon the table of Parliament, either House may declare it to be void. {: .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX: -- I quite recognise that. But I would point out that that notification mav be overlooked. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- When we are touching proprietary rights, those persons who object to our action will soon make the fact known. {: .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX: -- I think that instead of any lands being acquired for Commonwealth purposes by proclamation, the acquisition should receive the authoritative sanction of Parliament under a separate Act. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- If we adopted that suggestion, the carrying out of public works, such as the erection of telephone exchanges, &c, would, in many instances, be delayed for months. {: .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX: -- Nothing of the kind. I merely wish at this stage to repeat the statement I made on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, that there is a disposition to encroach upon the rights of the States, and to enlarge the powers of the Commonwealth in a direction which I think is at present undesirable. As a compromise has been arrived at which is fairly satisfactory, I shall not take the responsibility of suggesting an amendment ; but I wish to place on record my belief that the definition of the word "land," even as proposed to be amended, will place in the hands of the Government of the day a power which was not contemplated when the Constitution was passed. I enter my protest, and signify my dissent from what I believe the unnecessary enlargement of our present powers. Although I recognise that the Ministry make this proposal in perfect good faith, I feel that hereafter this great power - notwithstanding the qualification to be imposed - may be used disadvantageously and for purposes altogether foreign to our intention. {: #subdebate-15-0-s13 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- Whilst satisfied with the arrangement that has been made to blend the amendments proposed by the Minister and the honorable and learned member for Angas into one harmonious whole, I think that the addition of a few words is necessary to preserve the right of the States to maintain control over the minerals in the lands acquired from them. The amendment deals with commonage lands and reserves adjoining municipalities or townships. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- It deals with those vested in local authorities, inclusive of shires. " Local -authority " means any local governing body. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Would the Minister be prepared to extend it to lands held by trustees ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Certain lands .dedicated for the enjoyment of the people would be covered by proclamation. As soon as this Bill is passed negotiations will be opened up with the States to enable us to pro claim parks, such as the national parks I have mentioned. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- There are reserves that are not national parks. Lands set apart for commonage purposes do not come within the category of lands dedicated as parks for the use of the people. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I have expressly worded the amendment so that it will cover lands dedicated for the use of the people, if it be considered advisable to exclude them. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Then I am satisfied. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- All that we consider necessary will be covered by those words. {: #subdebate-15-0-s14 .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby .- I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the honorable and learned member for Angas. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- We both have the same object in view, and have agreed upon the best way to secure it. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- The Minister refers to the desire to preserve intact the parks and gardens dedicated to the people of the States. In view of his intimation, I shall refrain from further addressing myself to the question. Amendments, bv leave, withdrawn. Amendment (by **Mr. Groom)** agreed to - >That after the words " Crown land;" the following words he inserted : - " but does not include public parks vested in or under the control of municipal or local authorities, and dedicated to or reserved for the recreation of the people, or such other lands dedicated to or reserved for the use and enjoyment of the people as have been specified by Proclamation." {: #subdebate-15-0-s15 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang -- I move - >That after the word "Proclamation," the words "and does not include minerals either known to exist or subsequently discovered in any such land," be inserted. I dealt fully with this matter in the course of my speech on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, and, therefore, do not propose to enlarge upon it. I do not think that the reply made by the AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth to the memorandum submitted by the AttorneyGeneral of New South Wales satisfactorily disposes of the objections raised in it to these proposals. Two clauses in this Bill seem to make it necessary to insert such a provision as I propose. Sub-clause 3 of clause 27 provides that - >The State shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of the loss of any rights of dominion, taxation, or revenue. That clause must be read in conjunction with clause 62, which gives the Commonwealth absolute power to conduct mining operations on their own account without any regard to State rights; and it is to safeguard those rights that I have proposed this amendment. {: #subdebate-15-0-s16 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- I trust that the honorable member for Lang will not press his amendment. The Commonwealth Government have no intention of undertaking mining operations on their own behalf. We have at the present time power to acquire land expressly for public purposes, and many of the States insert , all sorts of reservations and conditions in their grants. We invariably enter into a voluntary agreement with them, and never resort, unless compelled to do so, to the power to compulsorily purchase land. In one or two instances the States Governments have asked us to exercise that powder, because, owing to the peculiar conditions associated with the negotiations, they have considered that they have not the power to give us the necessary grant. I have already pointed out that the power to grant mining leases was inserted in this Bill at the request of the Stales. The request was made originally by the Premier of Victoria at a Conference presided over by the Premier of New South Wales, and the provision was expressly inserted to enable mining operations to be carried on. From a departmental point of view; it will be a misfortune if this Bill is not passed. It is urgently needed to meet applications which we have received for the issue of mining leases in respect of land in this State, and which we are at present unable to grant. The amendment would seriously interfere with our powers. We must preserve the foundations of our buildings. Are we to say that the Commonwealth shall not take a grant from a State unless it gives that State the right to undermine Federal property? If we do anything of the kind, we shall place ourselves in an unfortunate position. Having administered the existing Act, I cannot advise the Commonwealth Parliament to pass legislation under which, if we took from a State a grant of land necessary for the erection of a great fort, that State would have power to, perhaps, mine under it for coal. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- If the Commonwealth reserved to itself the right to use the land to a depth of .100 feet, that would be sufficient. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I can assure the honorable member that it would not be sufficient. Under section 71 of the Victorian Mines Act 1897, it is provided that leases to mine under private land shall not be granted except at depths exceeding, in the case of a garden, orchard, or vineyard, 100 feet, and in the case of a city, town, or borough, or under a public building, &c, 400 feet. Under the New South Wales Mining on Private Lands Act of 1894, no attempt is made to fix an arbitrary minimum depth for mining under land, power being given the Governor to fix the minimum depth in each case. The honorable member for Lang will see that it would be inadvisable to agree to the limitation he proposes. By arrangement with New South Wales, and other States, we acquire from time to time a depth of land that is merely sufficient for our own purposes. We have always met the States in a reasonable way. The honorable member has spoken of the sovereign rights of the States ; but what would be said of the sovereignty of a national Parliament which could not be trusted with the power to take steps to preserve the foundations of its own buildings. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- The national Parliament should not override the States authorities. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We do not desire to do that. We are providing for the acquisition of land on such conditions as are necessary for the preservation of our public buildings. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- But it is proposed to take from the States rights which they enjoy in regard to minerals. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We merely ask the Committee to re-enact the present law. Would a depth of 100 feet be sufficient in, say, coal country? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- I am willing to make any reasonable reservation. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- In acquiring land from the States, we have taken a grant with the reservation of minerals. We try to meet the States in every way, and hitherto have had no difficulty in doing so,' though in some of the States they have extraordinary reservations in their public grants. The honorable member wishes to reserve to the States the right to grant leases to mine on Commonwealth property. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- My desire is that the States shall be fully compensated for any land taken from them. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- The Bill provides for compensation on acquisition. Where the acquisition is by compulsory process, the States estimate the value of the land {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- But sub-clause 3 of clause 27 provides that the States shall not get compensation. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- For "rights of dominion." which means the right to pass laws in respect to it. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- What about royalties on minerals and the right to impose taxation? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We cannot give compensation for the loss of taxation rights. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- The States could be given the right to collect royalties on any minerals obtained from land conveyed to the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- In the issue of licences and the granting of leases under clause 62, arrangements would be made with the States. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- It is not compulsory to make such arrangements. What is there in that provision to prevent the Commonwealth from giving the right to mine to private individuals, and collecting royalties from them ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Under sub-clause 2 the States laws will operate. If clause 62 is not agreed to, I shall be unable to carry out my undertaking with the Premiers of the States. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Does that clause preserve the rights of the States in respect to minerals ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Section 52 of the Constitution gives this Parliament exclusive power to make laws with respect to " all places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes," and unless we pass the provision contained in clause 62 the States laws in respect to mining will not operate on lands which passed under the Constitution. That provision has been inserted at the instance of the States, as the honorable member will see by looking at the report of the Premiers' Conference. I ask him to assist us in, giving effect to it. {: #subdebate-15-0-s17 .speaker-KYT} ##### Mr KNOX:
Kooyong -- I share with the honorable member for Lang the desire that the Commonwealth shall acquire as little land as possible,; but where it is necessary that the Commonwealth shall acquire land, it should acquire ail rights of ownership in that land. Clause *62* very properly provides that any mining done on Commonwealth lands shall be subject to the conditions of the laws of the States, because it would be ludicrous to permit it to be done under laws which differed from those applying to the mining in adjoining land. While the Commonweal thi should not acquire more land than necessary, when land is required" for public purposes within the meaning and intention of the Constitution there should be no reservation. All rights should pass with the transfer. {: #subdebate-15-0-s18 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I am not sure that we should give to the Commonwealth all the rights which the honorable member for Kooyong thinks should pass to it under a conveyance of land. I find that at the Premiers' Conference the Minister suggested that the right to mine should be leased out by the Commonwealth on royalty, and a mutual arrangement made between the States and the Commonwealth in regard to the matter. It was evidently contemplated that the Commonwealth should enter upon mining enterprises. But there is another question to consider, and that is the safety of some of the most important State enterprises. For instance, the catchment area of the Svdney water supply covers several hundred square miles, and it has often been suggested in the State Parliament that persons should be permitted to mine within it. It has been calculated that the minerals under the surface are worth something like ^20.000,000 *;* but, hitherto, the State authorities have resolutely refused to grant permission to mine there. If the Commonwealth acquired part of that reserve, and permitted mining, the position might be serious. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- In the arrangements' we make with the States, we accept a 'grant with the reservation of minerals to the States, and I think that any Adminstration would have regard to the purity of the Sydney water supply. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I hope so. But there is already great difference of opinion on this question, and the Commonwealth Government, being further removed from the scene, might be more likely than a State Government to yield to pressure, and allow mining, possibly to the danger of the water supply. The honorable member for Lang is trying to guard against that. *Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7-4-5 f-m.* {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It is well known that underneath the whole of Sydney there are large and valuable coal deposits. A shaft has recently been sunk to a depth of 3,000 feet in the electorate of the honorable member for Dalley, and a very valuable coal seam has been struck. If the Commonwealth acquired a large area of land in or near Sydney, and proceeded to exploit the mineral resources underlying the surface, the interests of the whole city would be affected. The honorable member for Lang desires that in respect to land acquired by the Commonwealth the States shall have reserved to them the mineral rights, so that they may exploit them in such a manner as they may think fit, or prevent them from being exploited if they consider that the public interest would be detrimentally affected. The Minister told us that the Commonwealth would not be* likely to interfere with the rights pf the States, but in the past many strange things have happened. Other strange things are likely to happen in the future in connexion with the exercise of two conflicting jurisdictions, based on other than friendly relations. I have no doubt that the Minister would make legitimate use of the Commonwealth powers, but we have heard some of his colleagues talking about what they would do with regard to the States and States rights if they had their way. I shall support the amendment. {: #subdebate-15-0-s19 .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS:
Dalley -- I trust that the Minister will accept the amendment. I am surprised that the Senate did not see that the rights of the States, of which they are the special custodians, were fully protected. I do not consider that there is nearly as much danger of an invasion of their rights as some of the States authorities seem to think. A large section of the public, however, appear to be very much exercised bv fears that the Commonwealth will endeavour to usurp powers to which thev are not entitled, and they wish the Federal authorities to be kept strictly w thin their own domain. Much of the alarm which has been expressed is due to the impression that the Commonwealth might acquire, ostensibly for public purposes, large areas of valuable mineral lands, and proceed to exploit their mineral resources, without regard to the interests of the State in which the property was situated. The honorable member for Parramatta has mentioned the case of a coal mine in my electorate. Over £250,000 has been spent in sinking a shaft to a depth of 3,000 feet. A valuable seam of coal has recently been struck at that depth, and within a very short time vessels of the largest draught will be loaded with coal at what is practically the pit's mouth. It is only natural that the States authorities should seek to prevent any interference by the Commonwealth with valuable mineral resources of that character. It may shortly become necessary to acquire large areas of land at Newcastle for defence purposes, and it is considered that the Commonwealth authorities might, unless some restriction were placed upon them, enter upon extensive coal mining operations there. Similarly, they might acquire land at Broken Hill or Cobar, and avail themselves to the fullest extent of the mineral resources of the property purchased bv them under the compulsory provisions of the Bill. I do not for one moment suppose that the Commonwealth will ever attempt to engage in extensive mining operations in any part of the Commonwealth, or that any undue advantage would be taken of any powers conferred by a Bill such as that now before us ; but Ave shal'l do well to allay any fears, however ill-founded, that mav be entertained bv the States authorities in regard to the probable infringement- of their rights. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- Any arrangement under which the Commonwealth held the title to the surface, and the State held the title to the mineral resources underneath, would be absolutely unworkable. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Possibly some difficulties might occur, but we should do our best to allay the jealous feeling which is evinced in some States authorities in regard to the Commonwealth: {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- It is hysterical jealousy. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- I admit that it is; but we cannot altogether ignore it. The honorable and learned member and myself, as citizens of the Commonwealth, know very well that there is no danger to be apprehended, but the States authorities wish their position to be set forth in black and white. I believe that the proposed provision would be verv much like a "chip in porridge." but it would at least restore the equanimity of the States , authorities. I believe that underlying the agitation in the States is the apprehension that the Commonwealth' mav. under cover of this Bill, attempt to acquire large areas of land for the purpose of carrying on large national enter- prises upon socialistic lines. The Minister has seen his way clear to protect the interests of the municipal authorities who stand in the position of trustees in regard to land set apart for public purposes, and I think that he might also agree to accept the amendment of the honorable member for Lang. {: #subdebate-15-0-s20 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- I think it is desirable to press the amendment, because it is important that in the definition of the word " land" some such provision should be included. We should make it absolutely clear that it is not the intention of the Government to engage in mining operations. Subsequently, provision, can be made to extend the surface rights of any lands which may be acquired by the Commonwealth to any depth which may be considered necessary to insure the stability ofany building which the Commonwealth may choose to erect upon them. In the absence of a clear definition of what the term "public purposes " embraces, it may be held to include purposes which at present are not in contemplation. I desire to preserve the rights of the States in respect of minerals, and for that reason I intend to press the amendment. {: #subdebate-15-0-s21 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas -- I do not think that the honorable member ought to press the amendment. I cannot see that the States are inany danger of being robbed of their mineral rights if the clause be retained in its present form. The lands whichmay be acquiredby the Commonwealth for public purposes cannotby any stretch of imagination include a wide area of mineral -bearingcountry. I am somewhat doubtful whether the Commonwealth can compulsorily acquire - as against the States - any rights in respect of minerals. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- If it is doubtful, is it not better to make the matter clear? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The amendment of the honorable member would lead to all sorts of complications. If hereafter we were foolish enough, to contemplate passing a law under which the mines throughout the Commonwealth would be nationalized, we might require to do what is suggested by the honorable member. But I do not think there is the remotest danger of any such legislative enactment. I cannot see how such a Bill could be supported by any logical reasoning. But even if such a law were passed the amendment would simply mean that it would be neutralized by this anticipatory provision. If anything is to be done in the direction suggestedby the honorable member, the Minister might endeavour to amend clauses 62 and 63. Under them, if minerals are discovered upon lands acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes, the State laws are to apply. But the Commonwealth will retain those lands. I have suggested that when minerals are discovered upon lands acquired by the Commonwealth, it might be better to prescribe that a lease ofthem shall be granted to the State concerned. That State could then provide that lands so leased should be subject to State laws. The minerals would thus be re-acquired by the State, and the profits, if any. would belong to it. But under the Bill in its present form, the Commonwealth would receive all rents or royalties for mining operations which are conducted upon lands acquired by it. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 12 agreed to. Clause 13 - >The Commonwealth may acquire any land. . . Amendment (by **Mr. Joseph** Cook) agreed to - >That after the word " land " the words " for public purposes," be inserted. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 14 to 20 agreed to. Clause 21 - >The Minister and all persons authorized by him may - {: #subdebate-15-0-s22 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- I do not know whether it is necessary to limit this clause in the way we have qualified clause 13. Strictly speaking, the limitation inserted in clause 13 ought to have been embodied in a separate clause, so that it would govern the rest of the Bill. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- This clause merely gives power to enter upon lands for the purpose of ascertaining their suitability. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- This power to enter upon land is not necessarily incidental to lands about to be acquired. It may be in relation to work which is about to be carried out on adjoining lands. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The next clause deals with adjoining lands. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I do not wish to make matters worse by risking an amendment. We have passed clause 19, but I should like to point out incidentally that it was intended to cover the original definition of "land," which was far more comprehensive than the definition as amended. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I think it is only an additional safeguard, but I will consider the matter. {: #subdebate-15-0-s23 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Apart from its merits, the wording of the clause is very abrupt. Should we not notify the State Government concerned of our intention to go upon their lands in the way proposed in this clause? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The same provision appears in States Acts. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- But the position of the States is different. They take this power to deal with their own lands, whilst we are dealing with lands that are not our own. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- They constantly exercise their power to go on private property.We must have the power to examine lands. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Is the phraseology of this provision similar to any section in a State Act? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I am informed that it is. I havenot the States Acts at hand, but the honorable member will find that a similar provision is to be found in some of them. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- We ought to notify the States of our intention to go upon their lands. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -They are always notified. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I propose to move that after the word " may " the words " after notifying the State Government " be inserted. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- The land proposed to be entered upon might be private property. In that case the honorable member's proposal might simply mean the piling up of red-tape rules. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- This provision applies to both State-owned and privately owned lands. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Then it would be better for the honorable member to move the insertion of the words " after notice to the owner." That would cover a private owner as well as a State Government. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I propose to move that after the word "may " the words " after notice to the occupier ' ' be inserted. {: #subdebate-15-0-s24 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- I ask the honorable member not to press his proposal. There are many technical difficulties connected with the service of notice. Land proposed to be entered upon might be abandoned, or the owner of it might be away. Then, again, it might be held by trustees who were absent. No one would think of going upon a man's land without giving him notice, and, after all, this provision relates only to a proposed inspection that would not involve anyserious injury to a property. I will consider the point raised by the honorable member, but I think that the proposed amendment is unnecessary. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I shall not press it. Clause agreed to. Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to. Clause 24 - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The amount of rent shall be paid quarterly or half-yearly, and shall be settled by agreement..... {: #subdebate-15-0-s25 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- I move - >That the words "shall be paid quarterly or half-yearly and," be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words " and times of payment." It sometimes happens that lands are occupied for less than three months, and we might require to make monthly or weekly payments. The words that I propose to omit were intended only to insure the regular payment of rent, and I think that the object may be better provided for in the agreements arrived at. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to. Clause 27 - {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The State shall not be entitled to compensation 'in respect of the loss of any rights of dominion, taxation, or revenue. {: #subdebate-15-0-s26 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- I move - >That sub-clause 3 be left out. I have already stated my reasons for opposing this provision and shall content myselfby saying that I desire to preserve Staterights. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 28 to 39 agreed to. Clause 40 (Interest on compensation). {: #subdebate-15-0-s27 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- This clause provides that where the compensation awarded is not more than the amount offered by the Minister in satisfaction of the claim, it shall bear interestonly to the date when the offer is communicated to the claimant. That seems to me an unfair provision, because the judicial proceedings in an action for compensation may occupy months, and even years. . {: #subdebate-15-0-s28 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- I think that the provision is a fair one. Sometimes claims are made for five or six times the value of the land acquired, and it is not desirable to encourage that sort of thing. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- The claim may be a *bond fide* one. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Yes; but nevertheless in excess of what is declared by competent authority to be the value of the land. Therefore, the claimant would get full value, and interest to the date of the offer of that value by the Minister. In any case, the loss of interest is not likely to exceed 3 per cent, for a period of two or three months, because we have given even the smallest Courts jurisdiction, and in some cases claims can be settled by magistrates. One of the reasons for the Bill is to allow of the speedier settlement of claims for compensation. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- The Minister's explanation alters the complexion of the matter. Clause agreed to. Clause 41 (Payment of compensation to a State). {: #subdebate-15-0-s29 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- The clause provides for the payment of compensation to a State, at the option of the Governor-General, by the Commonwealth becoming responsible to the State for its liability for principal and interest in respect to part of its public debt. It may be that the responsibility should be to the creditors of the State, though I shall not dwell on that point. Apparently the clause is intended to apply to land which has become vested in the Commonwealth by virtue of section 85 of the Constitution, because clause 64 provides that any land which so becomes vested shall, " for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been acquired under " it. But sub-section 11. of section 85 of the Constitution provides that the value of property acquired by the Commonwealth by reason of .the transfer of a Department, shall, if no agreement can be made, be ascertained in as nearly as may be the manner in which the value of land or of an interest in land taken by the State for public purposes is ascertained under the law of the State. In view of that provision, I do not see how this clause and clause 64 can operate. Again, I do not know how we can vest in the Governor-General power to declare the mode of compensation, seeing that there is no provision in the Constitution enabling us to do so. The Property for Public Purposes Acquisition Act contains provisions similar to those contained in the Bill ; but if I am not mistaken, they could not be used without the consent of a State Parliament. I very much doubt whether the clause could be enforced against a State. However, if it is futile, it can do no harm. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- It is a re-enactment of the existing provision. Clause agreed to. Clauses 42 to 56 agreed to. Clause 57 (Incorporation of Commonwealth). {: #subdebate-15-0-s30 .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS:
Northern Melbourne -- I wish to know why, for the purposes of this Act, the Commonwealth is to be made a corporation with power to acquire and hold land? We have hitherto been treating the King as the owner of all land acquired by the Commonwealth, just as he is treated as the owner of all land acquired -by the State. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The provision is a reenactment of the existing Jaw. I understand our titles are in the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I would ask the Minister to look into this matter, because I know that great difficulties will arise if some titles are in something called the Commonwealth, and others are in the King, acting .through the .Commonwealth. {: #subdebate-15-0-s31 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- This clause is a re-enactment of the provision in the original Act. It was considered advisableto vest all lands in the Commonwealth asa corporation, and we are registered in all! the States as the corporation of " the Commonwealth of Australia." I promise thehonorable and learned member that I will look into the matter, and consult .the law authorities. **Mr. GLYNN** (Angas) [8.<7>-I think that the Commonwealth is already a corporation under that name. Section 3 of the Constitution states that we are united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. It seems to me that all titles should be made out in the name of the Commonwealth, rather than in that of the King, because the King is only a part of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- I understand that the honorable member argues that there is no need for the clause? {: #subdebate-15-0-s32 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- Either there is no need for the clause, or it is an improper clause. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I think it is a case of unnecessary repetition. Clause agreed to. Clauses 58 to 6 1 agreed to. Clause 62 - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Governor-General may authorize the grant of a lease or licence to any person to mine for any metals or minerals on any land the property of the Commonwealth. 1. Subject to the regulations, the laws of the State in which the land is situate relating to mining shall, so far as applicable, apply to leases and licences under this section and to mining carried on by virtue thereof. 2. The Governor-General may enter into any arrangement with the Governor in Council of any State for carrying this section into effect by State officers. {: #subdebate-15-0-s33 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Under this clause it is proposed to give the Commonwealth the full control over all mining rights upon land vested in them. My object is to reserve all mining rights to the States, and I propose to vote against this clause, and to insert a new one, which, will effect my purpose. **Mr. GLYNN** (Angas) '[8.51]. - I think that the wishes of New South Wales would be met if it were provided that the sub-soil might be leased to the State in perpetuity. The State could then deal with the sub-soil as if it were its own property. This would overcome the objections raised bv the Attorney-General of New South Wales, in which there is not, in my opinion, very much substance. {: #subdebate-15-0-s34 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- We own very small areas of land, and the money involved in the shape of rent or royalties would be trifling. The only point put before us by the States authorities was this : We have rifle ranges in the gold-mining districts. Men obtain mining leases 'upon adjoining properties, and work upon them until they reach the boundary of our property at which thev are brought up standng. We were asked to provide means by which leases could be granted, so that the mining for metals might be carried on underneath the surface of the land under our control. The amount represented by royalties would be very small, and would in no case represent any serious loss or great gain to either of the parties concerned. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- That would depend upon the area leased. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We hold large areas of land of value for mining purposes only in cases where we have rifle ranges. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- I think it would be better for the clause to stand as it is. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I think so. We did not insert it with a view to filch any revenue from the States. We quite foresaw that if we did grant gold mining leases some injury might be done to the surface, and that compensation would have to be paid. Our sole idea was to facilitate the granting of mining leases. If we passed an elaborate set of mining laws to cover the conditions prevailing in different parts of Australia we should be using a steam hammer to crack a nut, and we thought the best course to pursue was to allow the States laws to operate in respect to mining operations carried on upon land held by us. {: #subdebate-15-0-s35 .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS:
Northern Melbourne -- I understand that the object of the honorable .member for Parramatta is to strike out this clause and insert another one which would vest the power to grant, mining rights in respect to Commonwealth lands in the Governors of the States, instead of in the Governor-General. If such provision were made, we should have two authorities exercising jurisdiction over the same property, and nothing would lead to more friction and difficulty between the States and the Commonwealth. Those who had leases of the surface would be in frequent contention with others who under the State authority had the right to mine below the surface. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- But could we not overcome that difficulty by restricting the right to mine to a certain depth, to say, 200 or 300 feet below the surface? {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I do not know that we could, because a restriction of that kind which might be suitable for one part of the country would be entirely unsuitable for another. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- In some cases, the surface would not be affected bv mining operations carried on 50 feet below, whilst in other cases safety might be assured only if mining were restricted to a depth beyond 200 feet. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr HIGGINS: -- I do not think that it would be advisable to do anything that would tend to create friction, and I would ask the honorable member to consider this aspect of the matter. {: #subdebate-15-0-s36 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I have considered the point referred to, and I think I can answer the honorable and learned member, by quoting the actual experience that has been gained in New South Wales. As a matter of fact, under the New South Wales Mining on Private Property Act two kinds of ownership are provided for. The surface may be owned by an orchardist or a farmer, whereas mining operations may be carried on below ground by other persons. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- But both owners derive their title from the same source. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Yes, speaking in a broad sense; but one title is granted by the Lands Department, and the other by the Mines Department - two distinct administrative authorities. There is no friction engendered there. The arrangement seems to work smoothly, and I do not see why it should not work equally smoothly under our Commonwealth conditions. As the Minister has pointed out, we shall acquire only small areas for rifle ranges, or upon which to erect our buildings. We shall not take over sufficient land to warrant us in interfering with its surface. Indeed, my object is to prevent anything being done to the surface, and to confine the operations of the States to the minerals which are beneath. The Minister has put the case in a nutshell.He said that sometimes a miner comes to one of our reserves, . or rifle ranges, and cannot proceed further because he has no right to do so. I wish to give him the right to conduct his operations upon land acquired by the Commonwealth so long as he does not interfere with the safety of our buildings. Subject to such a provision, it seems to me that no complications could arise from vesting in the States the mineral rights which are underneath any lands which may be acquired by the Commonwealth. Clause agreed to. Clause 63 - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. If any land acquired or deemed to have been acquired under this Act, or under any Act repealed by this Act, is not required for any public purpose - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the Governor-General may authorize the disposal of it as he thinks fit; or 1. where the estimated annual value of the land does not exceed Fifty pounds, the Minister may authorize the leasing of the land for such period not exceeding three years and on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit, and the land may be disposed of accordingly. 1. A return of all land disposed of under this section, showing the manner of its disposal, shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within thirty days after the disposal if the Parliament is then sitting, and if not then within thirty days after the next meeting of the Parliament. {: #subdebate-15-0-s37 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- There is not very much wrong with this clause, but I am sorry that the draftsman has not followed the lines which have been followed in some of our State Acts, which provide that when a surplus of land has been acquired, an option of six months shall be given to the person from whom it has been purchased. It seems to me that a similar option ought to be given in respect of lands purchased from the States. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- There is no provision of that kind in the Victorian Act. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- If such an optionbe given to private persons, there is all the more reason why it should be extended to the States. {: #subdebate-15-0-s38 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It seems to me to be only fair that we should allow the States the option of repurchasing any surplus lands which have been acquired by the Commonwealth for its own purposes. We exercise no power over the landsof the States except such as are requisite for public purposes. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- The honorable member means that if the Common wealth wishes to sell land which has been acquired froma State, that State shall have pre-emption ? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Yes; upon tendering a reasonable payment for such land. My proposal is to revest in the States any surplus lands which have been acquired by the Commonwealth upon payment of the amount which was given by the Commonwealth. I therefore move - >That the following new sub-clause be inserted : - " (1a.) But if any such land was so acquired or deemed to have been acquired from a State, the Commonwealth shall, at the request of the State, take proper steps to re-convey such land to and re-vest the same in the State, on tender or payment of the amount of the compensation (if any) paid to the State in respect of the land."' The amendment, I understand, accords with the provisions of laws which are already in existence in several of the States. {: #subdebate-15-0-s39 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- I think it would be wise to insert in the Bill a provision of the character proposed by the honorable member for Parramatta. The Minister has already told us that in dealing with the States, it has been the practice to follow the course which is laid down in the amendment. But what may be the practice of the present Government may not be the practice of future Ministries, and, therefore, I think that it is advisable to safeguard the States in the way proposed. Seeing that the amendment accords with the practice which the Government have hitherto adopted, probably the Minister will offer no opposition to it. {: #subdebate-15-0-s40 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- I am afraid that the amendment is of a rather hardandfast character. Under it, the Commonwealth would, on request of the State, be compelled to reconvey any lands which it had acquired, and which it did not need; but the State would not be compelled to accept. It might easily happen that after we had acquired a piece of land for apost-office, we might desire to effect an exchange for another piece which was more suitable for our purposes. The amendment would prevent that being done. Further, it would require us to hand back to the States any landwhich we had acquired in excess of our requirements for the same amount that we paid for it. In other words, its increased value would be ignored. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- The Commonwealth would have to purchase at the increased value. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Exactly. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- Its value ought to be ascertained under the provisions of this Bill. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -Whereverwe can do so, we make arrangements for revesting surplus lands in the States. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- If it is just to give this right to the States, it is equally just to extend it to individual owners. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Certainly. I promise the honorable member for Parramatta that I will look further into the clause, but in its present form the amendment would be altogether too rigid. I can assure him that no injustice is being done to the States. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Will the Minister agree to recommit the clause? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I am very anxious to dispose of the Bill this evening. If the Commonwealth has any surplus lands to sell, and the States are prepared to pay the best market price for them, I can see no objection to giving them the pre-emptive right of purchase. At the same time, it does not occur to me that there is very much in the point which has been raised. In all our arrangements with the States in the matter of the acquisition of land, we have not attempted to bargain with them. Whenever we have a piece of land which they want, we re-convey it to them without any trouble whatever. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- We do not give it to them ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No. The principle of give and take is observed. This subject was mentioned at the Premiers' Conference, and the States asked us to fix a limit to the period within which we should be at liberty to hand back properties to them. The matter was dealt with in the recent report relating to transferred properties. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- Is this Bill to be applied to the acquirement of the Federal Capital Site? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No; such land is specially exempted. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I understand that the properties acquired are valued as at the date of transfer. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- But we hold many Customs houses and post-offices that we no longer require, and we are re-conveying them to the States. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Under what conditions ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- There is a mutual arrangement that when we hand back such properties to the States, they shall make no charge for them as transferred properties. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Why not deal with them all in the way proposed by me? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The principle involved in the honorable member's amendment is altogether different, and the point which he has mentioned will rarely arise. The land that we now acquire is secured for definite purposes, and whilst the honorable member's proposal might prove inconvenient, it would serve no useful purpose. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Does the Minister say that the price of the large properties is the price that is actually paid? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- But the Minister says that he is revesting various properties in the States. That being so, he is neither depreciating or appreciating their value. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- That is so. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Why should we do so in this case? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We do not acquire land at the present time with a view to re-conveying it to the various States. We acquire only that which we need for a special purpose, such as the erection of a Customs House, a post-office, or a rifle range. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- My provision means that if the Commonwealth do not wish to use land so acquired, they ought to return it to the States. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- There will be no difficulty in arranging matters with the States. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What objection is there to the amendment? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The objection that it would compel us to re-convey these lands on payment of the amount of compensation paid to the States. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It only provides that the Commonwealth shall do what the Minister says he is proposing to do. If the Commonwealth have surplus lands, and are proposing to dispose of them, the States concerned should have the first right to acquire them, {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- But the honorable member proposes that they shall acquire them on handing to us the compensation originally paid. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I do not see why we should expect to make something out of that which the States have given us. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- We have to pay for these newly acquired properties. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- And my proposal is that on the Commonwealth re-conveying this property to the States, they shall hand over all that the Federal Government has paid for it. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- When we acquire land, and pay for it, we should1 be entitled to the benefit of any increase in value which takes place. "Why should we hand back such properties to the States without receiving anything in respect of their increased value. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Because the Commonwealth took them over when it ought not to have done so. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- After all, the .Commonwealth agent and the State agent are both working for the people of Australia as a whole. If the Commonwealth pays money to a State, and the State hands over something to the Commonwealth, the trans action simply means a payment by one set of agents to another set of agents for the people of Australia. Too much is being done to show that we are distinct entities. As a matter of fact, we are one people. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- And why should the one people try to chouse the one people out of this unearned increment ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Exactly. The honorable member's proposition is an unusual one, and I fail to see why, he should press it. {: #subdebate-15-0-s41 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is really the Minister's scheme. He says that the Commonwealth is entitled to the unearned increment, although the Commonwealth and the States Governments represent one people.* {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The honorable member does not propose that when property which we have acquired from a State depreciates in value, and we have no further use for it, the State to whom we re-convey it shall make good any loss so incurred. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The States say that when we have taken over land that we do not need, we should re-convey it to them on their handing to us the money that we have paid for it. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- If the same principle were applied to the private ownership of land - the return of the original purchase money - the land question would soon be settled. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The position in the two cases is not the same. The Minister has pointed out that the Commonwealth and States Governments are dealing with the same people, so that what John Jones surrenders in his Commonwealth capacity, he still retains in his State capacity. It seems to me only reasonable that mv amendment should be inserted. {: #subdebate-15-0-s42 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- The 'Bill will probably be on the statute-book at a verv early date, but I understand that the Minister 'says that he will seek to draft a suitable amendment. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- I find some difficulty in drafting, one. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- In an earlier provision, it is declared that where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, it shall be assessed at its value on 1st January preceding the date of acquisition. A similar provision ought to be made in this case. I think that the position would be met by inserting after the word "shall" in the amendment the words " unless such land is to be disposed of bv way of exchange for other land." . {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- At present, when we acquire land from a State we pay its present value. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- And they say, " We will give you back whatever you have paid for it." {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- In my suggested amendment of the amendment, I use the words " disposed of," because the clause under consideration refers to the " disposal " of the land. Why should we not add the words " on payment of the value of the land, to be ascertained, in default of agreement, by arbitration." {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Possibly by a judgment of the High Court. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- That would do. {: #subdebate-15-0-s43 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I desire, by leave, to amend my amendment by inserting after the word " shall " the words " unless such land is to be disposed of in exchange for other land." Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly. Question - That the proposed new subclause, as amended, be inserted - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 9 NOES: 24 Majority ... ... 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 64 to 67 agreed to. {: #subdebate-15-0-s44 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The proposed new clause of which I have given notice affects State rights in a very material way; but I shall not do more than formally move my amendment, because the proceedings have shown that it would be absolutely futile to deliver any long speech in its favour. Honorable members scorn to listen to the arguments addressed to them, the usual attendance being about half-a-dozen, others trooping in when the division bells are rung, to sit behind the Government. I move - >That the following new clause be inserted to follow clause 13 : - > >Acquisition of land by the Commonwealth shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions : - > >If the land is Crown land of a State, the Governor-General shall first notify to the State Governor that the Commonwealth seeks to acquire the land by agreement. If, after the expiration of a reasonable time for negotiations the Minister shows to the satisfaction of the Chief Justice ofthe High Court that the Commonwealth has failed to acquire the land by agreement with the State, and the Chief Justice so certifies, the land may be acquired by compulsory process ; > >If the land is Crown land of a State, no more than the right to the surface and to a depth below the surface necessary, in the opinion of the GovernorGeneral to secure the surface and any buildings and works thereon from damage by mining operations, shall be compulsorily acquired; > >If the land is other than such Crown land, the Commonwealth may acquire the land to a limited depth only or without any limit as to depth ; > >In any case the Commonwealth will not acquire any right of the State to minerals on or in the land ; > >In any case the land acquired shall be open as Crown land to mining under the law of the State, but only at such depth below the surface as the GovernorGeneral deems necessary to secure the surface and any buildings and works thereon from damage by mining operations ; > >The Commonwealth may grant such leases or licences of or over any part of any land acquired tinder this Act as the Governor-General may think fit to enable the land in and below the said land to be mined for any minerals thereon and for other purposes in connexion with such mining. > >The above provisions shall apply and be deemed to have applied to land deemed to have been acquired under this Act or under Act repealed by this Act ; and any conveyance or assurance of such land shall contain suitable provisions to carry the same intoeffect. {: #subdebate-15-0-s45 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- As the whole matter has been fully discussed, I shall not do more than ask the Committee to reject the amendment. {: #subdebate-15-0-s46 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang -- I shall support the proposed new clause. It is not one which has been idly drafted, but has been suggested by the Attorney-General of New South Wales after a careful consideration of the Bill. It is evident from his memorandum that the provisions of the measure tend to encroach upon the rights of the States, and as the Minister has asserted that he does not claim for the Commonwealth ownership in the minerals contained in land acquired by it, his opposition is unreasonable. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Apparently the honorable member thinks that an individual should be allowed to acquire greater rights in land than the Commonwealth should acquire. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The position of those who support the amendment is that the Commonwealth acquires land only for certain public purposes, provided for in the Constitution, such as the erection of post and telegraph offices, Customs houses, fortifications, lighthouses, and so on ; and that the amendment is necessary to preserve to the States, the minerals in* that land. If the Government is sincere in maintaining that it is not the intention of the Commonwealth to enter upon mining operations, or to lease its lands to private individuals for mining purposes, it has no good grounds for objecting to the amendment. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Does the honorable member desire that the States shall have power to authorize mining on Commonwealth property ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Subject to arrangement with the Commonwealth. I take it that the States will not wish to mine or to authorize mining on land acquired by the Commonwealth for the legitimate purposes which I have named. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- Then what need is there for the amendment? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Because the Commonwealth may acquire more land than is actually needed for these purposes, and provision is made in the Bill for disposing of such surplus land. Suppose that instead of disposing of the surplus land, the Commonwealth upon finding that some of it was rich in minerals, decided to lease it for mining purposes, or to work the mineral deposits as a national enterprise. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- Would that be a crime? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I do not say that it would be a crime, but the Commonwealth would not be acting within the scope and intention of the Constitution, and would be abrogating State rights in the minerals. In view of all the possibilities of the case, we are justified in trying to safeguard the rights of tHe States. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- The honorable member would give the States, the right to mine under the fortifications of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- There . is no reason why the States should not have that right provided that some agreement could be arrived at under which the safety of the Commonwealth works would be assured. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- By whom should the profit be derived, if the Commonwealth, after acquiring a piece of land, and devoting it to the purpose for which it was originally designed, discovered a valuable mineral deposit ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- By the State. I might point out to the honorable member that in New South Wales the State when alienating land reserves, to itself all mineral rights. This matter affects not only New South Wales, but all the States. It seems that one needs only to mention any matter in which New South Wales is interested in order to arouse the most bitter opposition and to cause the most un-Federal spirit to be displayed. We have heard a great deal about provincialism and the necessity for displaying a Federal spirit, but it seems to me that the people of New South Wales are expected to adopt a more unselfish attitude than those of any other State, and to make all sorts of sacrifices for the sake of the Commonwealth. I trust that honorable members, will consider this matter as one affecting the whole of the States, and that they will provide safeguards against any encroachment upon the State domain. . {: #subdebate-15-0-s47 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay .- If any special want of sympathy with New South Wales is displayed honorable members who represent that State are very largely to blame. They are always crying " wolf," and honorable members sometimes have difficulty in realizing that a real grievance is being brought under their notice. I think that the Commonwealth should be placed in the same position as any other person who may acquire land. If the Commonwealth should by the expenditure of money . contributed by the whole community discover minerals upon Commonwealth property, any profits arising should certainly be applied for the benefit of the citizens of the Commonwealth as a whole, instead of passing into the pockets of the residents of the State in which the property was situated. It seems to me that the contention of the honorable member for Lang is absurd. {: #subdebate-15-0-s48 .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS:
Dalley .- A passing glance at the amendment will suffice to show that it has been drawn up with unusual skill, and is of special importance. It bears the *imprimatur* of the AttorneyGeneral of New South Wales, who is fully qualified to express the wishes of the people of that State. Serious doubts and fears are entertained with regard to the powers now sought to be acquired bv the Commonwealth, and I think that we are fully entitled to place these before the Committee. The Attorney-General' of New South Wales has sought to protect not only the rights of the State, but also those of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- The clause is very fairlydrafted. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- I am very glad to have that assurance from the honorable and learned member for Angas, who cannot be regarded as unduly prejudiced in favour of the mother State. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable and learned member voted with us upon the last division, whereas a majority of the New South Wales representatives voted against us. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- If the amendment will favour one State alone, by all means let us know it. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- I am considering the State rights of New South Wales. To my mind, the amendment fully protects the Commonwealth. It provides that the Commonwealth shall first seek to acquire land from the States by means of friendly negotiation. Should it fail to -do so, provision is made for a reference to the High Court. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- For litigation. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Where industrial matters are concerned, the honorable member is in favour of referring them to the High Court. The amendment provides that under no circumstances shall the Commonwealth acquire any right of the State to minerals on or in the land. New South Wales entered the Federation upon a definite understanding, and the Attorney-General of that State fears that the Commonwealth is now seeking to arrogate to itself powers which the Constitution does not confer upon it. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- I think that this matter is of such importance that we ought to have a quorum present. *[Quorum formed.]* {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Paragraph^, to which I have already referred, simply seeks to continue to the States the rights in respect of minerals which they enjoy to-day. It has been suggested that it is necessary to take power to prevent the undermining of fortifications. But I would point out that that contingency is fully provided for in paragraph *b* of the amendment. Paragraph / states - >The Commonwealth may grant such leases or licences of or over any part of any land acquired under this Act, as the GovernorGeneral may think fit, to enable the land in and below the said land to be mined for any minerals thereon, and for other purposes in connexion with such mining. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Provided always that the rents are paid to the State. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- There is no provision of that sort contained in the amendment. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- What is its intention? {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- It simply declares that the Commonwealth may grant such leases or licences. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- If Commonwealth money were expended in sinking a well, and minerals were discovered, to whom ought they to belong? {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Undoubtedly, to the States. {: .speaker-L0Y} ##### Mr Wilkinson: -- Then what is the use of paragraph *fi* {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- The Attorney-General of New South Wales fears that the Bill seeks to accomplish, in an indirect way, what we cannot achieve in a direct way. The honorable member for Parramatta recognises that this is a serious matter, but, in view of the composition of the House, is not inclined to waste time in fighting it. I simply rose to make these few observations, and to add that I have yet to learn that it is a heinous offence for an honorable member to say a word on behalf of the rights of his State. I trust that the amendment will be pushed to a division. The proposal embodied in the Bill merely represents one of those pin-, pricks which so frequently arouse the resentment of the States against the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General of New South Wales has declared that we are endeavouring to " filch " from the States powers which we have no right to exercise. Honorable members must recognise that we ought not to infringe the provisions of the Constitution. Personally, I hope the amendment will be pressed to a division. Question - That the proposed new clause stand part of the Bill - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 5 NOES: 26 Majority ... ...21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed new clause negatived. Bill reported with amendments. Motion (by **Mr. Deakin)** proposed - That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the Bill to pass through its remaining stages without delay. {: #subdebate-15-0-s49 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Why is this motion submitted? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- It is now the usual motion in connexion with every Bill. {: #subdebate-15-0-s50 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- There is a contingent notice of motion on to-day's business-paper. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Why do we need to suspend the Standing Orders? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- In order that the Bill may be sent without delay to the Senate. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I see no reason for resorting to these extreme measures, except in cases of urgency. There is not a tittle of justification for suspending the Standing Orders in this case, since the Senate will not be able to deal with the Bill for some time. {: #subdebate-15-0-s51 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- Seeing that the business of another place is already congested, I do not think that they will have an opportunity for some time to consider our amendments in this Bill. I therefore object to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 5897 {:#debate-16} ### SPIRITS BILL *In Committee* (Consideration of Senate's amendments) : Clause 3 - >In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - "Article of food or drink" includes . . any article . . . used in the composition or preparation of food . . . "Australian standard brandy" means . > >Australian blended wine brandy " means. . . " Australian standard malt whisky " means whisky . . . distilled ... at a strength not exceeding forty-five per cent.over proof. " Australian blended whisky " means . . . whisky . . . distilled ... at a strength not exceeding forty-five per cent. over proof. > > *Senate's Amendments.* - After "food," line 5, insert "or drink"; before "Australian," line 6, insert "pure"; leave out "wine," line 7; leave out "forty-five" and insert "thirty-five," lines 10 and 13. Motion (by **Sir William** Lyne) proposed - >That the amendment inserting after the word "food," line 3, the words "or drink" be agreed to. {: #debate-16-s0 .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle .- I think that we ought to have some statement from the Minister as to whether he intends to agree to all the amendments made by the Senate. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I propose to ask the Committee to accept some and to reject others. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- I thinkwe ought to have a quorum before we proceed to consider these matters. [Quorum *formed.]* Motion agreed to. {: #debate-16-s1 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I move - >That the amendment inserting before the word "Australian," line 6, the word "Pure" be agreed to. I do not know why this amendment was inserted. It seemed to me that no objection could be taken to the paragraph as passed by us, but perhaps the addition of this word will be an improvement, and I therefore ask the Committee to accept the amendment. {: #debate-16-s2 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- It might be well for the Minister to tell us what he intends to do in regard to the next amendment. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I shall deal with that presently. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- This amendment bears on the next to be considered. The word " pure " is inserted in the definition of "Australian standard brandy," in contradistinction to the next definition relating to "Australian blended wine brandy." The word " wine " has been struck out of the latter definition. If the two labels are to be published, the public will assume that the one relates to brandy and the other to something that is not brandy.I do not know why these amendments were made. It seems to me that they will give rise to confusion. {: #debate-16-s3 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Again we are left to find out the meaning of a proposal without a word of explanation from the Minister in charge of the measure. This is about as unintelligent a way of getting through business as could be adopted. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I hope that the honorable member will not be insulting. I shall not stand it. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The trouble is that the Minister, instead of standing, sits like a. Jeremiah Dumb-dog. If he would explain his measure he would get on much better. {: #debate-16-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I ask the honorable member to withdraw the expression which he has just applied to the Minister. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I withdraw it. Other Ministers would have recognised that courtesy, if nothing else, required an explanation from them; but the Minister of Trade and Customs has a method of his own. He does not attempt to argue, he "bullocks" through his proposals, sitting in his chair, and saying nothing, quite secure in the support of those who only grin while we on this side discuss matters. It seems to me that the amendment strikes a blow at the classification of brandy adopted by this House after a full debate. The Minister talks about being insulted, but he insults the Committee by his attitude. I cannot conceive of anything more calculated to bring our proceedings into contempt- {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Than the honorable member's behaviour. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Than this bullocking on the part of a bullocking Minister. He accurately described himself to his constituents the other day as the Minister who " bullocks " things through. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- That is not so. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member is conducting this business with the intelligenceof a bullock. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The honorable member is insulting all the time, and I think that you, **Mr. Chairman,** should keep him in order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable gentleman must withdraw that imputation on the Chair. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I am prepared to withdraw any remark that may be a reflection on the Chair; but all I said was that he is always insulting, and I wish that you would keep him in order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- That is a reflection on the Chair, and I hope that the honorable gentleman will withdraw it. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I have done so. I ask you to keep the honorable member for Parramatta in order in the future. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Will the honorable member for Parramatta now withdraw his statement in regard to the Minister? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Certainly. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- This is one of the results of trying to force through legislation at an unusual hour. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It is rather the result of the action of the Minister in declining to make any explanation in regard to the Bill. This is a travesty on legislation. We decided that thereshould be two standard Australian brandies, and apparently the omission of the word "wine" from the name "Australian Blended Wine Brandy " will allow other than wine spirit to be used in its composition. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- I do not think so. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The amendment does not affect the subsequent provisions of the clause. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- Then why could not the Minister say so before? Mr.JOSEPH COOK. - I see now that that is so ; but asthere is so much work before honorable members that they have very little time to look into thesematters before they come on for discussion, the least the Minister could have done would have been to explain the effect of the amendment. {: #debate-16-s5 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- The amendment does not affect the clause in any way, and that seemed so evident as not to require an explanation. Australian blended brandy must have been distilled wholly from grape wine, and comply with the other requisites of the clause. Motion agreed to. Motion (by **Sir William** Lyne) agreed to - >That the amendment leaving out the word " wine." line 7, be agreed to. {: #debate-16-s6 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I move - >That the Committee disagree with the Senate's amendments leaving out " forty-five" in lines 10 and 13, and inserting " thirty-five." The Bill requires that Australian standard malt whisky and Australian blended whisky must have been distilled wholly from barley malt, at a strength not exceeding 45 per cent. over proof. The Senate have amended that to read 35 per cent. ; but the mover of the amendments, **Senator Sir Josiah** Symon, has written me a letter, in which he says there was some misunderstanding, and that the strength should be at least 40 per cent., though apparently he would not object to 45 per cent. Motion agreed to. Clause 6 - >The Distillation Act1901 is amended as follows : - > >byomitting from section fifty-eight the words " and of a strength of at least thirty degrees above proof in the case of wine spirit and of at least sixty degrees above proof in the case of any other spirit"; > >by omitting from section fifty-nine the word " thirty-five " and inserting the word " forty " in lieu thereof ; and > >by omitting from section seventy-six paragraph (ii.) the word "thirty-five" and inserting the word " forty " in lieu thereof. > > *Senate's amendment.* - Leave out paragraphs *b* and *c.* {: #debate-16-s7 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- The paragraphs proposed to be left out have reference to the amount of spirit which wine-makers, are permitted to use for fortifying purposes. It was proposed to amend the Distillation Act by permitting wines to be brought up to a strength of 40 per cent. instead of 35 per cent. of proof spirit. It was represented that it was necessary to fortify wines to the higher degree for the purposes of export. In view of the fact that wines containing 40 per cent. of proof spirit are imported, the Senate's amendment would have the effect of discriminating to the disadvantage of the local wines. I move - >That the amendment be disagreed to. Motion agreed to. Consequential amendments in clauses 7 and9 agreed to. *Senate's amendment.* - After clause 9 insert the following new clause : - "9a. No spirit described as brandy shall after the first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and seven, be delivered for human con sumption until the Collector is satisfied by the production of an official certificate given in the country of origin that the spirit is distilled wholly from grape wine." {: #debate-16-s8 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I move - >That the amendment be agreed to. I think the clause is a very good one, because it will make still further provision that spirits described as brandy shall be produced from grape wine. {: #debate-16-s9 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I should like to know whether the Minister has satisfied himself as to the practicability of this provision. What would be done in the case of brandy manufactured in Great Britain ? Whence would the certificate come, and what would be regarded as an official certificate? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- That would be prescribed by regulation. I think that the Tariff Commission dealt with this matter and made some recommendation upon the lines adopted by the Senate. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I do not remember anything of the kind. When we discussed the question in this Chamber, some doubt was expressed as to whether it would be possible to obtain any such certificates in Great Britain. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- There is no difficulty in obtaining them in France, because they are supplied to exporters who ask for them. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -Yes; but the position is different in Great Britain. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Grape wine brandy is not produced in Great Britain. {: #debate-16-s10 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- In connexion with the provisions of the Commerce Act, I may inform the Committee that I have instructed the ComptrollerGeneral to obtain a communication from the Prime Minister to the Home authorities in regard to the certificates which are to accompany exportation s. I am assured that there is no difficulty experienced in France in this connexion. Motion agreed to. Clause 10 - >After the twenty-eighth day of February, One thousand nine hundred and seven, no imported spirits shall be delivered from the control of the Customs for human consumption unless the Collector of Customs for the State is satisfied that the spirits have been matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than two years. > >Provided that this section shall not, until the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and eight, apply to gin, Geneva, Hollands, schnapps, or liqueurs. > > *Senate's amendment.* - Leave out " twentyeighth day of February," and insert " thirtieth day of June." {: #debate-16-s11 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist . ^ - I propose to make a slight alteration in the amendment which has been effected bv the Senate. That Chamber has altered the date after which no imported spirits 'shall te delivered from the control of the Customs for human consumption until it has been matured by storage in wood for not less than two years to the 30th day of June, next year. If honorable members will look at the next clause, they will find that the provision relating to the maturing of spirits distilled in Australia is suspended until the 1st day of January, 1908. I propose to make the period when the clause shall come into, operation uniform in the case of imported spirits and spirits of local manufacture. I therefore move - >That the Senate's amendment be amended by omitting the words " thirtieth day of June," with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words " first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eight." Motion agreed to. *Senate's amendment.* - Line 3, after "spirits" insert (" other than gin, Geneva, Hollands, schnapps, or liqueurs"). {: #debate-16-s12 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- It seems to me that the form in which the clause left this Chamber was preferable to its amended form. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- The amendment will have the effect of permanently exempting gin, Geneva, Hollands, schnapps, and liqueurs. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- The Senate has made the amendment because it is urged that gin cannot be improved bv maturing. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The matter was discussed very fully in the Senate, and it has been reported to me that the amendment is a good one. I have had it analyzed by my officers, and they are in favour of it. Under the circumstances, I move - >That the' amendment be agreed to. {: #debate-16-s13 .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON:
Bland .- The amendment of the Senate would permanently exempt from the provisions in the Bill relating to the maturing of spirits, gin, Geneva, Hollands, schnapps, and liqueurs. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- It is said that they cannot be benefited bv maturing. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- If we admit that, we ought also to exempt patent still whisky horn those provisions. That whisky is distilled under exactly similar conditions. Further, rum is always distilled by means of the patent still, and, upon the assumption of the Minister, it is just as good when it is a month old as it is when it has attained the age of two years. With all deference to the experts, I do not think that that is so. I am of opinion that maturing counts for something, and I do not see why the clause should not be applied to gin as well as to whisky. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I am in a difficulty about the matter, because all the experts in my Department are in favour of the amendment. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- There is no possible reason for making a distinction between whisky and rum - which are distilled by means of the patent still - and Geneva spirits, which are distilled by the same process. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- They are not all highly rectified spirits. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- As a matter of fact, gin is usually one of the worst spirits distilled. It is flavoured with juniper, and is supposed to possess medicinal qualities on that account, but, as a matter of fact, the commonest spirit made from potatoes is put into it. Although it may be nearly chemically pure alcohol, I do not see why it should enjoy any advantage over other spirits in respect of its age. I object to a distinction being drawn between the two classes of spirit. In the Bill as it left the House a very liberal provision was made, about sixteen months' notice being given of our intention to insist upon only matured spirit being offered the public. The statement that the maturing of gin in wood would cause discolouration is contradicted by men in the trade. They say that if gin be matured in casks that have contained dark wine it will be discoloured, but that casks which have not been used for other purposes may be used without any risk of the spirit being discoloured. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will adhere to its decision. {: #debate-16-s14 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- If it be true, as the honorable member for Bland has said, that, except in the matter of flavour, there is practically no difference between gin and whisky, there is something in his argument; but. without posing as an authority on distillation, I may say that, having read the evidence given before the Tariff Commission, and the views of medical experts, I came to the conclusion that the best interests of the consumer would be conserved by allowing gin to go into consumption as soon as possible after being distilled. It has been pointed out by experts that, apart altogether from the question of discolouration, the juniper and other alleged valuable properties in gin would be lost if it were matured in casks that had been used for other purposes. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- A lot of experts have informed me that that statement is incor- rect. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Experts on the other side have 'expressed a contrary opinion. I attach little value to spirit even from a medicinal stand-point, but the balance of evidence seems to me to be in favour of gin going into consumption as soon as it is distilled. {: #debate-16-s15 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay .- The Minister has stated that the experts of the Department consider that the amendment is a very proper one. I notice that it was made on the motion of the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place, and I trust that, except for good and sufficient reasons, the Minister will not go back on it. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Why does the honorable member and other teetotallers wish to foist a lot of raw spirit on those who take alcoholic drinks? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I do notdesire that an inferior article shall be placed before the public, but I presume that the honorable member has no wish to tie up any commodity when its quality is not improved by its being kept. I trust that the Minister will not object to the amendment. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I have stated that I shall not do so. Motion agreed to. *Senate's Amendment.* - Leave out - "Provided that this section shall not, until the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and eight, apply to gin, Geneva, Hollands, schnapps, or liqueurs." Motion (by **Sir William** Lyne) proposed That the amendment be agreed to. {: #debate-16-s16 .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson .- I was under the impression that, from (he date of the passing of the Bill, the public would be able to procure pure spirit, but the Minister has agreed to an amendment that, until January, 1908, spirit that has not been properly matured may continue to go into consumption. We enhanced our reputation by enacting in the Bill as it left this Chamber that in the future only pure spirit would go into consumption. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- It was discovered that if we immediately enforced the provision that spirits shall be matured for two years, we should prevent all dealings in this class of spirit. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- Such a provision would have prevented those who have been poisoning the public with immature spirit from continuing to do so. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- If sufficient twoyearold spirit had been available, that provision would have been adhered to. We find that there is not in stock sufficient spirit that has been matured for two years to enable such a proposal to be carried out. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- I accept the Minister's assurance, but why should we go beyond the 30th June ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I have simply brought the one provision into harmony with the next. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- Then for twelve months the distillers will continue to distribute their vile stuff? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Some of the spirit is good. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- Yes; but a very great deal of it is not. I have been poisoned twice, and I take very little spirit indeed. Motion agreed to. Amendments in clause11 agreed to. Reported that the Committee had agreed to some, disagreed to others, and amended another of the amendments of the Senate. {: .page-start } page 5901 {:#debate-17} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Mr. Deakin)** agreed to - >That the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow at 2.30 p.m. {: .page-start } page 5901 {:#debate-18} ### CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATE DEBTS) BILL Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. {: .page-start } page 5901 {:#debate-19} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-19-0} #### Order of Business: General {:#subdebate-19-1} #### Elections : Tariff Agreement - Commonwealth and New Zealand Motion (by **Mr. Deakin)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-19-1-s0 .speaker-K87} ##### Mr CULPIN:
Brisbane .- I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the House an idea as to when the general elections are likely to take place ? {: #subdebate-19-1-s1 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist -- We propose to proceed to-morrow with the South Africa Tariff agreement, and then to resume the consideration of the business on the notice-paper. The date of the general elections will necessarily be determined by the time when we finish our work. I hope that we shall very speedily rise, but of course the longer our sittings are protracted the further the date of the elections is pushed off. I shall be able in a day or two to give the honorable member for Brisbane much more definite information. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What about the New Zealand Tariff agreement? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -I have received from the Prime Minister of New Zealand a telegram informing me that the Select Committee has presented its report. I find that I have not the telegram at hand ; but its effect was reported in to-night's *Herald* in the following terms: - >The committee states that, while recognising the desirability of promoting reciprocal relations with Australia, it regrets that it is unable to recommend the ratification of the treaty drawn up by the late **Mr. Seddon** and **Mr. Deakin.** > >The ground for the committee's finding is, that, in its opinion, the advantages to be gained by New Zealand would not compensate for the sacrifice involved. The report is to be considered, I am informed by **Sir Joseph** Ward, in the House of Representatives to-morrow night at halfpast 7 o'clock, so that we may expect' to get some intimation as to the decision either to-morrow night or on the following day. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- It is all "off"? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I am afraid it is. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 October 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1906/19061002_reps_2_35/>.