House of Representatives
22 September 1908

3^rd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- SYDNEY-KATOOMBA TELEPHONE LINE
QUESTION
- CAPITAL SITES: WATER SUPPLY
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION
QUESTION
- NAVAL DEFENCE
QUESTION
- MILITARY SCIENCE LECTURES
QUESTION
- MILITARY TRAINING
PAPER
QUESTION
- INSPECTIONS BY DISTRICT COMMANDANTS
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
QUESTION
- TENDERS- BRITISH PREFERENCE
QUESTION
- SURPLUS REVENUE ACT
QUESTION
- SALARIES OF SORTERS
QUESTION
- CRIMEA AND INDIAN MUTINY VETERANS
QUESTION
- CANCELLED MAIL CONTRACT
QUESTION
- PAPUA: GIRA GOLD-FIELD
QUESTION
- STATUTORY RULES
QUESTION
- PUBLIC TELEPHONE BUREAUX
QUESTION
- GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH : ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
SUPPLY
WAYS AND MEANS
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT BILL
ORDER OF BUSINESS
- Notices of Motion
- Notices of Motion
MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL
TEMPORARY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
ADJOURNMENT

– All the papers received or exchanged on that subject are being copied with a view to laying them before Parliament.

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister seen the following comments in the Age newspaper, upon the despatch from the British Admiralty, relating to the Australian Naval Defence: -

While, as was indicated yesterday, it is true that the advances made in the Admiralty’s latest communication towards the Australian stand-point are very considerable, it is doubtful whether the Government will be able to accept them without a further effort to induce Mr. McKenna and Sir John Fisher to realize how absolutely determined the Commonwealth is to secure an adequate coastal navy of her own. . ‘ . . The Australian Naval Agreement will, if the Admiralty’s alternative to Mr. Deakin’s scheme be accepted by the Government, be profoundly modified, though Sydney Harbor will not be entirely depleted of British warships.

Do these comments reflect the views of the Government? If so, will the honorable and learned gentleman state when the Commonwealth “absolutely determined” to ‘ secure an adequate coastal navy of her own?” Have the people of the Commonwealth everbeen consulted on the subject ? Has the Government proposed, or ‘does it contemplate proposing, to the British Government any reduction of the British Fleet in Australian waters?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Answering the last question first, the Government has not suggested, and is not likely to suggest, any reduction of the British Fleet in Australian waters; quite the contrary. The comments in the Age express the opinions of that newspaper, but are without authority from the Government, whose intentions in this matter will be shortly made known to the House.

page 189

QUESTION

MILITARY SCIENCE LECTURES

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that some time ago the Sydney University engaged Colonel Foster, an officer of the Imperial Service, to deliver to its students a series of lectures on the subject of military science? Is. he also aware that these lectures have been published from time to time, duringa period extending over about two months, and, if so, will he consider the advisability of having them printed for the information of the House.?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I am aware of the facts mentioned, and will consider the request.

page 190

QUESTION

MILITARY TRAINING

Dr LIDDELL:

– Seeing that the Bill providing for universal service, in connexion with which Lt.-Colonel Legge has done a great deal of detailed work, will be laid on the table this week, will the Minister of Defence let us have the advantage of reading the address which that officer was to have delivered last evening to the members of the United Service Institute, but which, I understand, was by the Minister’s orders not delivered?

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The address was not delivered ; but I have not seen it, nor do I know what was in it. My feeling is that the less military men talk about matters the better:

Dr CARTY SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister or the Government at any time expressed an intention to introduce a Bill to provide for compulsory military service?

Mr EWING:

– The proposed Bill is to provide for universal training.

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Arising out of the question just put to the Minister of Defence, I should like to ask him whether the universal training which he states the new Bill will provide for will be compulsory on the Australian citizen or will provide for voluntary training.

Mr EWING:

– Parliament will decide that question.

page 190

PAPER

Mr. EWING laid upon the table the following paper: -

Defence - Visit to England of the InspectorGeneral (Major-General J. C. Hoad) - Papers relating to.

page 190

QUESTION

INSPECTIONS BY DISTRICT COMMANDANTS

Mr COON:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Whether the inspections directed to be held by District Commandants under Part III., sec tions 8 and 9, of the Regulations, are to be held by him independently or in conjunction with the Inspector-General?
Upon what dates during the last three years have inspections been held, by past and present Victorian District Commandants, of the Metropolitan Militia Corps, independently of the Inspector-General, in the duties laid down in Regulations 9A and 9c respectively for him?
How many times during the present State Commandant’s appointment have his proposed inspections of such corps been postponed, and why?

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

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

Such inspections are usually held independently by the Commandant, but occasions have arisen when the exigencies of the service demanded that they should be held in conjunction with those of the Inspector-General.

page 191

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Survey of Proposed Route

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What progress has been made with the survey of the proposed railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie?
Will he obtain and place on the table of the House progress reports from the Western and South Australian Railway Departments, giving information as to the progress being made with the work, and when it is likely to be completed ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The answer to the right honorable member’s questions is as follows : - 1 and 2. A progress report will be laid upon the table of the House. Meanwhile Mr. Deane, Consulting Engineer for the Commonwealth in connexion with the survey, who is at present in Perth, telegraphs that on the Western Australian side plans and sections have been plotted for 200 miles, and a preliminary traverse made to 385 miles. On the South Australian side satisfactory progress is being made, and a. report from the Inspecting Surveyor is now on its way. According to last advices the country had been examined and line located from Port Augusta to Tarcoola, and the country between Tarcoola and Nullarbor Plains was being examined.

page 191

QUESTION

TENDERS- BRITISH PREFERENCE

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether, in regard to tenders of imported goods’ for Government requirements, the preference deliberately fixed by Parliament is to be that granted, or is there to be a secret and varying preference?
Does he not consider that any uncertainty in this respect is unfair to tenderers, and may prove detrimental to the Commonwealth and give rise to abuses?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– Premising that the position of Government Departments in this respect differs widely from that of private firms, and that the granting of the preference referred to is almost confined to the General Post Office which has granted the same preference - 10 per cent. - ever since Federation, I would inform the honorable member in reply to the first and second questions, that there is no secrecy associated with these tenders. They are all advertised. *

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– But the rates vary.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is a different question. Recognising that circumstances have changed since the action of Parliament, to which the honorable member has called attention, I have issued instructions that whenever any future preference of this kind is granted particulars shall be laid on the table of the House. Parliament will then be able to judge whether the practice is justifiable in the special circumstances that govern those cases. Having obtained a good deal of information, I find that action in the past has been taken from very “different considerations and1 in widely different cases. It would be extremely difficult to attempt to lay down a rule in set terms.

Mr Mahon:

– The Reid-McLean Adminstration granted a 25 per cent, preference.

Mr DEAKIN:

– In some cases.

page 192

QUESTION

SURPLUS REVENUE ACT

Proceedings before the High Court.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether he will place on the table of the House any correspondence that has taken place during the late recess between the S lates and Commonwealth, as to the validity of the Surplus Revenue Act?
Whether the States have commenced an action against the Commonwealth to recover the amounts which have been retained and placed to a Trust Account by the Commonwealth under the powers of the Surplus Revenue Act?
When is it probable the action will be dealt with by the High Court?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

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

There has been no such correspondence.
Actions have been commenced against the Commonwealth by three States.
The date cannot be fixed at present, but correspondence is now proceeding, with a view of obtaining as early a reference a’s possible.

page 192

QUESTION

SALARIES OF SORTERS

Public Service Regulations

Mr BATCHELOR:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether it is a fact that under the Amended Public Service Regulations raising the minimum salaries of sorters, Grade I. sorters receiving less than the minimum reach that standard only by annual progressive stages, while those in a similar position in Grade II. had their salaries raised to the minimum of their Grade from 2nd March of this year. Is there any reason why the lower-paid officers should not immediately receive the minimum salary attached to the positions they occupy?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– The Public Service Commissioner has furnished the following information -

The provision for increasing salaries of sorters . by annual progressive stages until the minimum of ^138 had been reached was made in order to preserve the seniority , of officers who would otherwise have been passed over. Numerous anomalies resulting from State practice have thus been rectified since the classification of the service was issued, and as there are now only a few cases to be adjusted, the question of advancing sorters in all States to the recently increased minimum of ^144 is under consideration.

page 192

QUESTION

CRIMEA AND INDIAN MUTINY VETERANS

Sir JOHN FORREST:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

What steps have been taken for ameliorating the condition of the veterans of the Crimea and Indian Mutiny, now resident in the charitable institutions of Australia, as promised last session ?
How many are so resident, and how many individuals have been attended to?

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

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

Although in full sympathy with the right honorable member in his desire to do something for these veterans, I find very great difficulty in determining upon any procedure of a practical nature. The veterans referred to are being cared for in the several States in various institutions. The right honorable member desires some further amelioration of their condition. I should be pleased to give immediate consideration to any suggestion with which any honorable member favours me. Definite suggestions would help me in determining action to be taken in detail with regard to an end with which we are all in sympathy.
New South Wales, 20 ; Victoria, 22 ; Queensland, 23_; South Australia, 5; Western Australia, 18; Tasmania, 3. - Total, gi.

page 193

QUESTION

CANCELLED MAIL CONTRACT

Mr JOHNSON:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Has the .£25,000 guarantee yet been recovered by the Commonwealth in respect of the. abortive mail contract with Sir James Laing and Sons?
If not, what is the present position in regard to the matter?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– The Crown Solicitor has furnished the following information, namely -

No.
The statement of claim has been delivered, and the statement of defence received. The defendants obtained an order from the Court for fuller particulars of damages claimed. . The solicitor acting for the Commonwealth wrote out for same, and all particulars have been sent by Hie Commonwealth Crown Solicitor. A commission to take evidence in Melbourne will follow.

page 193

QUESTION

PAPUA: GIRA GOLD-FIELD

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What was the date of the last report of the Chief Medical Officer of Papua on the Gira gold-field?
1. Has that report yet been published?

Mr DEAKIN:

23rd March, 1907.
No. That and later reports from several officers are available at the Department of External Affairs.

page 193

QUESTION

STATUTORY RULES

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he see that in future all statutory rules, especially amending rules, prepared under various statutes and laid before Parliament, are sd drawn up that they may be intelligible in themselves without tedious and difficult comparison with other documents?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I have issued an instruction to the Departments that in future Statutory Regulations laid before Parliament shall be accompanied by a) departmental memorandum stating their effect.

page 193

QUESTION

PUBLIC TELEPHONE BUREAUX

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– In reply to a question put to me by the honorable member for Cook on 29th May last, I beg to lay on the table a return showing buildings other than those belonging to the State or Commonwealth in which public telephone bureaux exist.

page 193

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH : ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Debate resumed from 18th September (vide page 188), on motion by Mr. Chanter -

That the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency’s Speech, as read by the Clerk, be agreed to by the House.

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

.- The programme submitted by the Government for the consideration of Parliament during the present session is so well filled with problems for solution that I am not at all surprised at their anxiety to curtail debate at this stage as .much as possible. There are, however, two or three omissions from His Excellency’s Speech, as well as two or three matters touched upon in it that are worthy of passing reference. Dismissing the reference in it to the visit of the American Fleet with the remark that in connexion with that visitation much credit is due to J the Prime Minister, I would point out that we find ourselves face to face with what to many honorable members is an old friend - the question of the selection of a site for the Federal Capital, I do not think that the present Administration has done what it might have done to bring about a settlement of the question, and that remark will apply also to its immediate predecessor, I have hitherto adopted the view that in the determination of the site on which the Federal City shall be built, this Parliament should be allpowerful, and I do not intend to depart from that position. I repeat, however, that the Government has not done as much as could have been done to- secure a definite settlement of the question. It was hi 1904, I believe, that we passed a Bill selecting a site; but in 1908 we find ourselves exactly in the same position that we were in then.

Mr Mcdougall:

– Why?

Mr FRAZER:

– Because, I believe the Governments of the day have not devoted that energy to the settlement of the question that should have been devoted in the first place, and also because of the somewhat unreasonable attitude of the Government of New South Wales.

Dr Liddell:

– Does the honorable member think that the present Commonwealth Government is in earnest on this matter?

Mr FRAZER:

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Nationalization is to the honorable member what King Charles’ head was to Mr. Dick. I agree with him, and with some of the more outspoken journals which support his party, such as the Brisbane Worker, that all legislative attempts to regulate rates of wages, and to control industries, are mere palliatives; but, before we can have complete and effective machinery to guard us from the danger which is so menacing in America, it will be necessary to amend the Constitution to enable this Parliament to deal, not merely with the commerce between the States and withother countries, hut with commercial relations generally. Further, although for reasons which I hope in a few moments to lay before the (House, I am opposed to any attempt now to increase our powers by an amendment of the Constitution, I believe that, when the time comes, it will be wise to ask for the power to legislate in regard to not merely commercial relations, but probably also industrial relations generally. I did not intend to dwell on these points at such length; but the visit of those whom we have called our American cousins, and from whom we have had an opportunity of learning something about the actual conditions of things in their own land, must have impressed us all with the importance of these questions, with which, at some period of our career, we shall Have to grapple more effectively than we have yet done. I find in the very carefullyworded speech of the Governor- General - because, although the Ministerial programme is short, I venture to say that it has gone through the mill a good many times - the following statement relating to the new protection -

Recent decisions of the High Court render necessary the submission of an amendment of the Constitution relating to the “New Protection,” which will be laid before you when measures defining the Seat of Government and providing for National Defence are sufficiently advanced.

I agree with those who have criticised that statement on the score of its vagueness; but 1 think it a mistake to deal with a policy which is not yet before us. I would, however, refer for a moment to the rather remarkable explanatory memorandum placed before the House in December last, in which provision was made for the creation of a Board of three omniscient archangels, whose duty it would be to watch over the industrial interests of Australia, to see that the wage-earners got good wages, the manufacturers fair profits, and the consumers cheap wares - in other words, to bring about the industrial millennium. I do not suppose that we shall hear more of that scheme, and never regarded it as a serious political proposition.

Mr Deakin:

– There the honorable member is wrong.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I looked upon it as a rather highly-coloured balloon, sent up to amuse a House jaded with the discussion of the Tariff. It has been punctured in a good many places since then, and is now rather flabby.

Mr Deakin:

– If ithas been punctured, it will not float.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It will take more gas than the united efforts of Ministers are capable of to make it float again. When the Government bring forward serious proposals regarding the new protection, I suppose they will include the taking over, under an amendment of the Constitution, of some power of general control in regard to a portion, at all events, of industrial legislation.

Mr McDonald:

– Why not the whole?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Perhaps the whole; I suppose that is in the minds of Ministers. The need of dealing with the matter as it has been dealt with was due to the fact that the Constitution contains no direct power for legislating in regard to it. I have already made my views on the point clear. It may be necessary, at some future time, that we should possess the power of control in all industrial and commercial relations. But that is far from saying that it is desirable and justifiable for us now to attempt to wrench this power from States which are unwilling to cede it to us. It would be most disastrous if we used the power given to us to meet cases of extreme necessity in order to avoid the infinite evils which may threaten us, a power to be used in the last resort - that of amendment - simply to get Over a difficulty which a majority of honorable members have found in giving effect to their ideas;

Mr Hall:

– Why does the honorable member say that the power is to be used only in the last resort? Why should not the people express their will at any time?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I should like an early opportunity to give more than an outline, but that I cannot do at the present moment. What I now say is that to allow this question to drift and drag until the last moment - right to the edge of the precipice - is the worst course this Parliament can adopt ; and I. believe that if we realize to the full extent our duty at ‘this moment to the people of Australia, we shall determine that this is the problem we should first attack, and that we should attack it in a spirit of honesty and courage.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

.- The honorable and learned member for Flinders has made a most interesting speech, but I do not intend to traverse the arguments he has advanced. The honorable member probably laid most emphasis on the inadvisability of, at the present time, doing anything to alter the Constitution - that we ought rather to suffer our present ills than venture to alter the conditions.

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

– Why not give the complete quotation?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– The honorable member’s literary knowledge renders the complete quotation unnecessary. The honorable member for Flinders suggests that it was the intention of the framers that the Constitution should be altered, not readily, but only in cases of emergency. I do not contest that view for a moment, but I would point out that amongst those who took part in the Federal Convention, was Sir William McMillan, at one time acting leader of the Opposition, and he offered some remarks on the following motion submitted by Mr. - now Justice - Higgins -

That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient for the Parliament of the Commonwealth to acquire (if the State _ Parliaments see fit to grant it, under section 51, sub-section (37) of the Constitution Act) full power to make laws for Australia as to wages and hours and conditions of labour.

The idea of this motion was that the States should be asked to agree to the granting to the Commonwealth power to make such laws. I make’ the honorable member a present of that, but it does not affect the question of Sir William McMillan’s views. That honorable gentleman said -

Since we met in the Federal Convention, which framed this Commonwealth Constitution, there has been a very considerable evolution of thought with regard to certain matters that were then discussed. I confess myself, by reflection, and by listening to arguments, to be more convinced than previously of the necessity of including certain powers in the Commonwealth which we decided to leave in the States.

That was said as early as June 28, 1901 -

I hold generally that everything that affects the rights and liberties - especially the industrial life of the community - ought to be in the hands of the national Parliament. I have seen, since that Convention, certain attempts at legislation in some of the local Parliaments. I am not going to say whether that legislation is sound or not, but it certainly is of such a far-reaching character with regard to the liberties of the people in their industrial life - and, after all, Australia is an industrial community - that I do not think those great subjects should be settled except by a national Parliament. . . . Anything that enters into the national life - the industrial life of the individual - anything that may affect a man’s liberty or his industrial interests, ought to be relegated to this Parliament.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Was not Sir William McMillan saying it was desirable that the Parliament should have these powers?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Certainly, and that in his opinion the framers of the Constitution had made a mistake in not including them. His remarks have a bearing on the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. He spoke for his party, the Opposition. Sir Edmund Barton, who spoke for the Government side of the House, also laid down the same proposition. He said he had come to the conclusion that the power of legislating on industrial matters should be in the hands of the national Parliament. His words were : -

That there ought to be such a power exercised, I am now convinced, and for this reason : that the grant of Inter-State free-trade, which follows the adoption of a uniform Tariff, is likely, in many_ respects, to be crippled, unless the Commonwealth has power to deal uniformly with the conditions of employment throughout Australia.

– Do we refrain from criticism because the person whom we desire to criticise is not present to answer? So far. as I know, though the press criticises members of Parliament, newspaper proprietors are not very anxious to give them an opportunity to answer their criticisms. I am sure that in the course of our electioneering speeches we do not, because our criticisms may not be answered, refrain from criticising each other.

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

– I am sorry the honorable member does not make a greater distinction. To my mind there is a very wide difference between the position of a Judge and a Treasurer. I am not saying that a Judge should not be subject to criticism.

Mr HALL:

– During an election in New South Wales, about four years ago, the

– That is a parliamentary law. I am showing that laws which are made by Judges operate against the workers. In the case to which I have referred Baron Alderson, in making the. exception in the case of a’ fellow servant, gave this as the explanation -

He knew when he engaged in the service that he was exposed to the risks of injury, not only from his own want of skill and care, but also from the want of it on the part of his fellow servants ; and he must be supposed to have contracted on the terms that as between himself and his master he would run this risk.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.

Mr HALL:

– Before we adjourned for tea it was suggested by the honorable member for Wilmot that in the course of my remarks I had cast personal reflections on some of the Judges. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I had been attempting to show that in the development of some of our common law doctrines, notably the doctrine of common employment, judge-made law had worked .out unfairly to the workers. May I. say that my language and judgment on the matter will not go further than that of the leading text-book writer on the subject of employers’ liability. 01 refer to Mr. Ruegg, K.C. I purpose quoting briefly the language of that writer regarding the reasons that actuated the Judges in devel-oping the remarkable doctrine of common employment, and his view as to the nature of it. Having traced its establishment in a way that I have attempted very briefly to imitate to-night, he says* -

In this manner came the doctrine of common employment to be fully established as part of the common law of England. That the doctrine was unjust to workmen, and can only be defended upon illogical reasoning, is now almost universally admitted, but, except in so far as it is affected by the Employers’ Liability Act 1880, and the Workmen’s Compensation Acts T897 and r900, it : still exists, and may be set up as a defence by an employer.

– That may well be; I am dealing with Australia as a whole. This increase in expenditure is exclusive of the expenditure directly due to Federation. It may be replied that our population greatly increased during the period with which I am dealing. Well, let us look at the figures. In the year

T900 the population of Australia was 3-765,339, and in the year 1907, 4.;ii9,48i, an increase of 354,142. But of those 354,142 no fewer than 347,988 represents the excess of births over deaths, that is, they are me-e infants, only 6,154 having been added to the population by the excess of arrivals over departures.

Mr Roberts:

– Infants are a very costly item.

Mr MAHON:

– They do not add much to the cost of governing the country, since they do not make it necessary to carry out railways, to build post offices, or to undertake other public works. The fact is important in that it is not an increase of adults, capable of paying their share of taxation. Leaving out for the moment the cost of the services of which the States have been relieved, they have spent £8 6s. per head of the increased population.

Mr J H Catts:

– There has also been an increase in loan expenditure.

Mr MAHON:

– I am coming to that. It may be advanced that the State Parliaments have been busy extending their railways, and constructing other public works. But the capital cost of the railways of Australia was £124,041,792 in 1901, and £137,196,168 in 1907, an increase of £13>I54)376- I’1 the interval, the Governments of the States have expended no less than £40,959,143 out of loan funds, though I am unable to learn from the statistics available in the Commonwealth Year-Book how the difference of £27,804,767 is to be accounted for.

Mr Sinclair:

– Was not a great part of it used for conversion purposes?

Mr MAHON:

– No. I am not dealing with loans for conversion purposes. I am quoting the actual expenditure of loan funds on public works.

Mr Glynn:

– The indebtedness of the States at the time of Federation was only

£202,000,000.

Mr MAHON:

– Yes. The figures I have given take no account of the interest due on the debts of the States, to which I propose to allude later, in connexion with a further remark of the- Prime Minister. The honorable and learned gentleman, in his speech the other night, said -

If the States complain that they have unproductive but necessary Departments that must be maintained at increasing cost as the population increases, let the Commonwealth itself undertake to maintain those Departments.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– It ought to be abolished.

Mr.- “STORRER.- Certainly it ought, and until that is done it cannot be said that we have true federation. An entry has to be passed for every little parcel which enters Victoria from the other States, even though it is valued at only is. 6d. This necessitates the employment of a staff of officers. If the system were abolished we should save thousands of pounds annually. In pre- Federation days when goods entered Port Phillip, no inquiry was made as to whether they were intended for Melbourne, Ballarat, or Bendigo. Why, under Federation, should a question be raised as to whether their destination is Melbourne, Launceston, or Perth? I trust that before the session closes we shall deal with the very important question of the financial relations of the States to the Commonwealth, and, incidentally, that we shall abolish the bookkeeping system, which inflicts great injury upon the whole of Australia and tends to prevent the realization of that ideal of which we have heard so much - “ One people, one destiny.”

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 229

SUPPLY

Motion (by. Mr. Deakin), agreed to -

That the House will, to-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the supply to be granted to His Majesty.

page 229

WAYS AND MEANS

Motion (by Mr. Deakin), agreed to -

That the House will, to-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Ways and Means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.

page 229

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT BILL

Motion (by Mr. Groom), agreed to -

That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to determine more definitely the Seal: of Government of the Commonwealth in the neighbourhood of Dalgety, and the territory there within which it shall be, and to provide for the grant to and acceptance by the Commonwealth of the territory, and to provide for other matters in relation thereto.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 230

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) agreed to -

That on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday in each week, until otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence of all other business; and that on each Thursday until halfpast 6 o’clock, until otherwise ordered, General business shall take precedence of Government business.

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That on Thursday in each week, until otherwise ordered, General business shall be called on in the following order, viz. : -

On one Thursday -

Notices of Motion

Orders of the Day.

On the alternate Thursday -

Orders of the Day.

Notices of Motion

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

– I should like to point out that the session just commencing is in the very nature of things to be a very short one, and we should insist first of all upon business being so arranged that time will not be wasted. There seems to be no advantage in devoting a portion of the Thursday’s sittings to private members’ business at the beginning of the session, and taking away that privilege from private members later on. Would it not be better for all practical purposes, seeing that we are to have so short a session, and that very important work is to be undertaken, to ask private members to forego their rights on Thursdays f rom the commencement ? It seems to me that that would be far preferable.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member will look at the motion which the House has just passed, he will see that it has been determined that on each Thursday private business shall take precedence of Government business. The motion now before the House is simply as to the order in which private business shall be taken on alternate Thursdays.

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

– I am aware that we have already partly dealt with the question, and that a motion has been carried ; but we have not fixed on the order of business for alternate Thursdays. It was quite an oversight on my part to allow the previous motion to be adopted without calling attention to the matter. I would ask the Prime Minister, even although the previous motion has been carried, whether it is worth while commencing with private business during this session?

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

.- I desire to say that I do not agree with the views expressed by the honorable member for Parramatta.

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

– What is the honorable member’s little lot?

Mr FRAZER:

– I have a couple of proposals as to which it is highly desirable that the House should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion. The time allotted on Thursdays affords the only opportunity that private members have of submitting to the House questions that are not included in the programme of the Government. I think that up to the present the practice has not resulted in an undue expenditure of time ; because in the event of this privilege being taken away other means would have to be devised to secure discussion of the questions, and that would probably lead to a greater expenditure of public time. The motion only involves the application of three or four hours of time on one day in each week, and I consider that private members have a right to ask for the support of the Government in retaining that privilege.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Fawkner

.- I trust that the Prime Minister will give us an opportunity of devoting to public business the time proposed to be given to private members on Thursdays. It seems to me that the practice leads to a ridiculous waste of time. I remember that while I was a member of the State Parliament I, as a private member, had a measure called the Ancient Lights Bill on the noticepaper. But nothing came of it. It would be better to give private members a day or two towards the finish of the session for discussion of the questions in. which they are interested.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I pointed out just now to the honorable member for Parramatta that the motion which has just been adopted has disposed of the question whether time shall be allotted to private members on Thursdays. I cannot allow that question to be further discussed on the present motion.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I wish to explain that I felt under an obligation to propose this motion, because last session, when inviting honorable members to sacrifice the right that they then possessed, I indicated that if it were at all possible we would make up the time to them during the coming - that is, the present - session. When that promise was made, it was not supposed that the session would linger on as it did almost to the end of the financial year, or that we should now be faced with a short session. However, having given that undertaking, I did not feel that I could ask the House to withdraw the time from private members at once. I should, however, be only too delighted if, instead of holding me to that engagement, honorable members could see their way to release us from it, so that we might devote the whole of our time to Government business ; on the understanding that if there be any time available towards the close of the session, we shall devote some portion of it to private business.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 231

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– On behalf of my colleague the Treasurer, I trust that the House will consent to allow this motion to be adopted. The effect of it will be to place us in the same position in regard to the Manufactures Encouragement Bill - that is, the measure generally known as the Iron Bounty Bill - as we were at the close of last session. I beg to move -

That the proceedings on the Bill intituled “A Bill for an Act for the Encouragement of Manufactures in the Commonwealth,” which were interrupted by the Prorogation of Parliament last session, be resumed at the stage then reached in connexion with the said Bill, and that the further consideration of the Bill in Committee of the whole House be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting.

The Bill in question did not lapse because of a count-out, but, so far as I remember, we have always applied the rule with regard to there being no discussion on certain motions to this one.

Mr McDonald:

– I thought that the motion could be objected to as formal.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the motion were not moved after notice, objection could be taken to it, but it has stood upon the businesspaper for two or three days, and therefore it does not seem to me that objection can be taken to it. What will happen as the result of passing the motion will be that the Bill will appear upon the businesspaper to-morrow.

Mr McDonald:

– Will it be taken at the stage at which it was left last session?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is certainly so under standing order 214A.

Mr Watson:

– Do I understand that if this motion be carried we shall tomorrow go into Committee on the Bill, and that the consideration of it will be resumed at the point where we left off when proceedings came to an end last session?

Mr SPEAKER:

– If this motion be carried, the Bill will appear upon the noticepaper to-morrow just as if we had been proceeding with it during the present session. As far as I can see, there will then be no opportunity for debate except on the matter actually before the House or on the necessary message from the GovernorGeneral. This procedure is not new. We have already followed it on several occasions in previous sessions.

Mr McDonald:

– I desire to speak to a point of order, because I think that there has been a misinterpretation of the rule of the House concerning the matter. I point out that the standing order to which von have referred honorable members was passed in regard to business interrupted l-y a count out, and with the object of replacing such business on the business-paper without debate. lt must be understood that that standing order was passed, not exactly as a closure measure, but to prevent discussions taking place on a motion to restore business to the paper in the event of the House being counted out, as had occurred on several occasions. But it was never intended that the standing order should apply to a Bill that had lapsed owing to the close of the session. ‘ It was never intended that the standing order should apply to a motion concerning a lapsed Bill, but the object was that the House might not lose the valuable time that had been expended on the discussion of a measure proceedings upon which had not been finished at the end of a session. The standing order was brought in to enable such a measure to be resuscitated after it had lapsed in a previous session. I may say that in every Parliament in Australia in which that standing order is in force the motion for the replacing of the business on the paper is debated, and in many cases the debate occupies as much time as the original debate on the second reading of the Bill. On this account, the wisdom of such a standing order has been questioned bymany parliamentarians. With all respect to roll, sir, I maintain that it was never intended that the standing order preventing debate on a motion to restore business lapsed by reason of a count-out should apply to a motion for the resuscitation of business under standing order 214A. We have here a most contentious measure, and, in my opinion, it would be entirely wrong to deprive honorable members of the right to discuss the wisdom of restoring it to the business-paper in the way proposed. Such a motion may in the past have been agreed to without debate, but if that be so it must have applied to a measure to which there was no opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– During the time the honorable member for Kennedy has been speaking, I have had some of the precedents looked up. I see that at least on one occasion, when it was proposed to restore the Papua Bill to the business -paper after it had lapsed in the previous session, there was debate <>n the motion. That being so, if the honorable “member for Parramatta desires to move the adjournment of the de bate, or the Government desire to adopt some other course, I shall offer no objection.

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

– I intend neither to move the adjournment of the debate nor to debate the proposal further than to say that, so far as I know, not the slightest obstacle will be interposed from this side of the House to the restoration of this business to the paper. But I certainly do desire to protest as strongly as I am able against statements made immediately after the prorogation last session by the Minister in charge of this measure, in which he blamed the Opposition for the lapsing of the Bill on that occasion. As the most cursory glance at Hansard will show, no more incorrect statement was ever made from a platform in this country. I protest most strongly against a Minister permitting such a Bill to lapse when every opportunity was afforded for passing it, and then going before the people and blaming his opponents, who, on that occasion, as on this, interposed no obstacle to the consideration of the measure. We are as anxious as the Government can ever be to see this matter disposed of. I repeat that it is a most unfair proceeding for the Government to seek to saddle the blame upon the Opposition for the failure of their measure 011 the last occasion as the Treasurer so despicably tried to do.

Mr Deakin:

– If my memory serves me, what the Treasurer did was to complain of a particular amendment moved from the other side.

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

– And the honorable gentleman blamed, honorable members on this side for defeating the measure.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- I wish to say that when it was first proposed to permit the moving of motions to restore lapsed Bills to the stage which they had reached in previous sessions, I was entirely against it. I believe such a practice to be inconsistent with proper parliamentary procedure. It is certainly out of place in the case of measures which require the appropriation of money. Since last session a new member has been returned to this House, and the possible election of new members during a recess is one of the objections to the adoption of such a. practice. It has always been a strong point with me that any Bill involving the appropriation of revenue should be completely dealt with in one session. So far as the Manufactures Encouragement Bill itself is concerned I hold definite views on the subject* and when it comes on I shall take definite’ action. It is a very important measure, and it is for the Government to pursue the policy they consider best, and accept responsibility for their action. Speaking from memory, I think that last session we had reached the schedule of the Bill.

Mr Fairbairn:

– Yes, we were dealing with wire netting.

Mr FISHER:

– I do not care what the particular matter dealt with was ; we are here to perform our public duties, and happily all that is done must be done openly. I am, of course, for the nationalization of the iron industry.

Mr McDonald:

– But there will be no opportunity to secure the nationalization of the industry if this motion is carried, because we must take up the Bill at the stage which it reached last session, when the schedule, was being considered in Committee.

Mr FISHER:

– If what the honorable member for Kennedy says is right, I might move the adjournment of the present debate.

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

– I hope the honorable member will not do so, as we shall be blamed for it if he does.

Mr FISHER:

– I shall take some further opportunity to deal with the matter.

Mr WATSON:
South Sydney

– Like the honorable member for Wide Bay, I should prefer to see the iron industry nationalized rather than conducted by private people under any form of public encouragement. But one has to recognise that there appear to be certain difficulties in the way of achieving the nationalization of the industry at the present time. I shall, of course, have to support such a proposal if it is made, but I do not believe that there would be much advantage in - taking any step now for the nationalization of the industry, in view of the state of parties in this House, and possible constitutional difficulties., But, apart from my preference for the’ nationalization of the industry, I emphatically object to the Manufactures Encouragement Bill for other reasons. I should like the Minister in charge of the measure, or the Ministry, to give the people some indication of where they propose to get the money necessary to finance the various schemes they have in hand. The honorable member for Flinders brought up this question some time ago, but twelve months or more before he spoke I had taken the same attitude with regard to the indif- ference to the question of the finances disclosed by the Government, and indirectly by the House. I enumerated a large number of commitments, which required to be undertaken in the near future, and some of them were of much greater importance to the future of Australia than even the establishment of the iron industry, important as that undoubtedly is. When this Bill was before the House on the last occasion, just before the prorogation, I referred to its probable effect on the finances if carried. We cannot, during the next two and a half years, expect to obtain any more from the Customs than we have been getting, if we are likely to get so much. I am inclined to think we shall not get nearly as much as we have recently been getting.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Government estimate is that we shall get £2,000,000 less.

Mr WATSON:

– That is so. We have already incurred the responsibility of providing the balance of the money that will be necessary for the payment of old-age pensions. It is true that a little time ago some of the States Premiers indicated their willingness to do something in that direction by allowing us to take a portion of the three-fourths of Customs and Excise revenue returnable to their States’, but no practical effect has been given to that suggestion. As a matter of fact, there is no present indication that the States Governments are prepared to assist the Commonwealth, so far as provision for the payment of old-age pensions is concerned, before July, 1909-, the date we have set down for commencing their payment, and they are very unlikely to do much then. This, in itself is a. grave responsibility on the shoulders of the Government. The old-age pensions scheme we have adopted is so liberal, and properly so, I think, that f believe it will require considerably more than the sum at first estimated as adequate for the purpose. I am convinced that the amount required will be more nearly £2,000,000 than £1,800,000.

Mr Hedges:

– It will be more than £2,000,000. We are providing pensions for invalids also.

Mr WATSON:

– I will not say that more than .£2,000,000 will be required, but the amount will certainly be more nearly £2,000,000 than £1,800,000. That being so, it is right that we should consider what was our balance last year. I believe we obtainedan enormously increased revenue, and a much higher revenue than we are likely to receive this year, or in the succeeding year, and we had not even then such an enormous balance that we could afford to play fast and loose with the money. In addition to that big responsibility, we have other claims upon us equally pressing in the acquisition of the Northern Territory, the defence proposals, and the taking over of lighthouses.

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

– And the appointment of a High Commissioner.

Mr WATSON:

– Yes ; that is a very important matter. I trust that we shall pass the High Commissioner Bill, and have the appointment made, because, in the meantime, Australia is suffering. There are these matters of real urgency from a national stand-point staring us in the face, and it is due to the country that the Government should give some indication of where the money to finance them iscoming from. If the Manufactures Encouragement Bill is carried, it will involve claims upon the Treasury to the extent of at least £250,000, assuming that the manufacture of wire netting, and trivial matters included in the schedule are left out of account altogether, and only the £250,000 bonus for the manufacture of iron is provided for. As the industry is in some measure already in existence, it is certain that the Treasurer will be asked for that money. Personally, I view with some concernthe question of where the money is to come from. If we are to impose direct taxation, I shall not grumble, but I do think that we should know exactly where we are being landed. I said before, at the close of last session, that I thought the Government were unwisely saddling themselves with expenditure. There is a means for establishing and encouraging the iron industry, for which preference has been expressed by those most vitally interested, which involves no charge upon the revenue - the imposition of a small duty. Preference for that means was expressed by Mr. Sandford, Mr. Jamieson, and others when the matter was inquired into some considerable time ago.

Mr Bowden:

– Mr. Sandford afterwards withdrew his statement.

Mr WATSON:

– Of course, Mr. Sandford and the Messrs. Hoskins will take what they can get, and do not wish to place any obstacle in the way of a Bill granting bounties. I do not blame them for that. They are worthy gentlemen, and the Messrs. Hoskins deserve credit for their pluck on entering into the undertaking, ‘ for which I wish them all success. The duties for which preference has been expressed by Mr. Sandford are 12½ per cent. against the foreigner, and 10 per cent. against Great Britain.

Sir John Quick:

– To impose such rates itwoul d be necessary to re-open the Tariff.

Mr WATSON:

– I think not. We increased the duties on machinery, and provision was made for a further increase under certain conditions. It must be remembered that the makers of machinery - the secondary users of iron - are in a better position now than they were in before the last Tariff was passed, and the proposed rates would handicap them very little, even if they had to pay the full amount. The difference between the value of raw iron and that of iron in its manufactured state is so great that in some cases a duty of 10 per cent. on raw iron would not amount to1½ per cent. on the manufactured article.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– In most cases it would be inappreciable.

Mr WATSON:

– Quite so. When a member of the Iron Bonus Commission, I examined some engineers on this question, and one, who was in a very big way of business in Sydney, said that he could afford to pay 5 per cent. more for iron if he could obtain a local supply which would be always available, because that would render it unnecessary to carry such large stocks as are now requisite. That accounts for half of the duty right away. It seems to me that the Government ought either to tell us how they propose to make good the deficit which must stare us in the face if we are to have only one-fourth of theCustoms and Excise revenue at our disposal, and yet carry on the various enterprises essential to the welfare of Australia, or why they are not prepared to adopt, in this instance at any rate, a method of assistance involving no drain upon the Treasury, and, in the opinion of those who are in a position to know, one likely to achieve the desired object.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We require a finan cial statement which will not be confined to this year.

Mr WATSON:

– I do not think that the Government can be expected to give a financial statement for a period manyyears ahead; but we should know how Min- isters propose to finance the undertakings immediately in view. The taking over of the Northern Territory would involve a very large annual expenditure, and one well justified from an Australian stand-point. The establishment of the Federal Capital will mean another big outlay, and there are other huge expenditures staring us in the face which are not a question of years ahead, but of to-morrow.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– There is the penny postage proposal.

Mr WATSON:

– That, I think, is useful only for placarding purposes. I do not suppose that it will be carried in this House in our present financial condition.

Dr Liddell:

– Would the honorable member support it?

Mr WATSON:

– No. We cannot afford penny postage at present.

Dr Liddell:

– I understand that the Labour Party is divided on the subject?

Mr WATSON:

-It is not a party question. As for party division, I am credibly informed that there is nothing upon which the members of the Opposition can agree, except, perhaps, the need for a change of Government. Before proceeding further with the Bill, we should have a statement as to how its administration is to be financed. No doubt, as honorable members voted for the measure last session, it will be carried, and I do not wish to offer factious opposition to it ; but I desire to know how it is proposed to find the money to administer it and other measures which will involve a big expenditure in the immediate future. If a statement is not given, I shall be content to record my vote against the motion..

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

.- Ministers might well give their serious consideration to this matter.

Mr McDonald:

– Move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr FRAZER:

– I do not wish to do that. 1 think that a reply should be given to the case so ably presented by the honorable member for South Sydney. Some honorable members took the view, a considerable time since, that the Government should present a definite statement of its intentions for the next few years before the House engaged itself to these big responsibilities. Honorable members are not at the present time thoroughly cognisant of the details of the measure, and much might depend, under ordinary circumstances, upon the statement of the Government as to the attitude adopted in regard to important provisions in it. But if the motion be carried, the only thing left to be considered will be part of the schedule, affecting proposals for bounty on wire netting and one other production. The Bill has practically been passed.

Mr McWilliams:

– Why did not honorable members take up this position last session ?

Mr Watson:

– We did.

Mr Tudor:

– The Bill was rushed through in three or four hours.

Mr FRAZER:

– I made a speech in connexion with the measure which led to the demand for a financial statement made by the honorable member for Flinders. I gave a long list of works pressing for consideration, many of which have to-night been referred to by the honorable member for South Sydney ; but the Government would not inform us how it proposed to get the money necessary to carry out its obligations, or how it would dispose of the funds at its disposal. To ask honorable members to pass the motion without dealing with the merits of the proposal lying behind it is to handicap us in a manner in which, I am sure, the Prime Minister does not desire. He will recognise that if this motion be agreed to the Bill will be taken up at a stage at which discussion would be practically useless. Honorable members have made up their minds as to the merits or demerits of the proposal, and the question is, chiefly one of ways and means. I am unable to agree with the honorable member for South Sydney that a duty is preferable to a bounty. I favour the granting of a bounty until the industry is able to meet the necessities of the secondary industries of the Commonwealth. The question is one on which honorable members should have an opportunity, if they desire, to speak and to vote. If we agree to this motion they will be deprived of the chance of declaring for a duty instead of a bounty to assist the industry, although they may have an opportunity to vote “for or against the Bill in the form in which it is passed.

Mr Roberts:

– The honorable member should ask leave to continue his remarks so that I may have an opportunity to look into the Bill.

Mr FRAZER:

– That suggestion comes from the latest addition to our ranks. The Bill has been out ofhand for some months and, in view of our altered financial position, I think the honorable member’s proposal is a reasonable one. Honorable members have either to reject the Bill which has practically been disposed of–

Mr Deakin:

– No, I am perfectly prepared to say that if this motion be agreed to we shall’ not proceed further with the Bill until the Treasurer has made a financial statement, and that if it be necessary to enable clear effect to be given to it, and my colleague will consent, to recommit any portion that will be necessary to enable the House to decide.

Mr FRAZER:

– I am prepared to accept the Prime Minister’s assurance.

Mr MCDONALD:
Kennedy

.- The statement just made by the Prime Minister affords sufficient reason for the adjournment of the motion. He tells us that there is no hurry.

Mr Deakin:

– I have not said so.

Mr McDONALD:

– The Prime Minister has just said that if the motion be agreed to the Government will not proceed with the Bill until the Treasurer has made a financial statement. That must necessarily mean some delay, and in the circumstances why should the motion be pressed to-night? One honorable member has entered the House since the Bill was. last before us, and consequently has not had the opportunity which others have enjoyed to discuss it. If this motion be passed he will be confined to a discussion of a few details of the measure in Committee.

Mr Deakin:

– He will be able to discuss it generally on the motion for the third reading.

Mr McDONALD:

– I can well imagine what the honorable member would say if he were in the Opposition and were told by a Minister that he would have an opportunity to discuss some measure on the motion that it be read a third time.

Mr Frazer:

– The Prime Minister says that he will agree to a recommittal if requested to do so.

Mr McDONALD:

– Even so, honorable members will not be able to discuss the general principles of the Bill. On the motion itself that might be done, but it has been sprung upon us to-night, and honorable members have not come prepared to discuss it. Some honorable members have referred to the big obligations that the Commonwealth has undertaken. It appears to me that the Government are prepared to undertake obligation after obligation without considering where the money is to come from. We have already passed a Bounties Bill under which there will be a disbursement of a large sum, and we are now practically passing a measure to give one particular firm £304,000. We have no right to give any firm, by way of bounty, such an enormous sum at the expense of the people. If we are to assist the iron industry, then the proper course to adopt is that suggested by the honorable member for South Sydney - to do so by means of a duty. It is extraordinary that honorable members of the Opposition who two or three years ago opposed the Bill are now in favour of it.

Mr McWilliams:

– Not all of them.

Mr McDONALD:

– I admit that the honorable member and one or two others are not, but the change of attitude on the part of many members of the Opposition is certainly remarkable. If we were likely to have a number of firms competing for the proposed bounty on the production of iron I could understand the proposition, but as a matter of fact we have only one established firm in the iron industry, and it must reap the whole benefit. The Parliament ought not to give any person or firm such an enormous sum. I intend to call for a division upon this motion, believing that its adoption will do away with the opportunity to discuss the whole Bill in the light of our present financial position. We were more than half through the schedule when we dropped its further consideration last session. The Treasurer, in his second financial statement last session, quoted a table of figures prepared by the Secretaryto the Treasury - though, I must say, the Treasurer did not wish to commit that gentleman definitely to the figures - showing that our revenue from the Customs must gradually diminish so that in the second or third year we should be receiving about £2,000,000 less than we were then receiving. Under the circumstances, it is only right that the House should clearly understand what the Government are doing ; and, personally, I hope that this motion will be postponed so that the matter may have the fullest possible consideration.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- To use mild language, I think the Government are most unfair in their present proposals. Shortly before the adjournment on the Friday evening prior to the prorogation we were given to understand that nofresh business would be undertaken ; but the next day we learned from the newspapers’ that this Manufactures Encouragement Bill had been brought in, and rushed through an empty House. Having got the measure to its present stage the Government now try to manoeuvre it through practically to the last of the schedule. Seeing that we are promised a financial statement, which may influence honorable members on this question, it is only fair that there should be a postponement. In view of what took place when this Bill was last before us, one cannot altogether rely on assurances that are given. I know that, personally, I have had assurances on other matters, and have found the Government not holding to an honorable understanding given in the House.

Mr Fuller:

– And yet the honorable member keeps on supporting the Government !

Mr J H CATTS:

– I can say that my liking for the Government is not increasing with acts of this kind ; and, if I were not confronted with the Conservative spectre of the Opposition, I might take a different view. It is not often that I say anything harsh about the Government, but I think it is most unfair to treat honorable members in this way. When the Government arrive at an understanding, honorable members ought not to “ have a march stolen upon them “ after they have left the House.

Mr Fuller:

– That is pretty hot !

Mr J H CATTS:

– Well, what was iti’ We were told that nothing but formal matters would be dealt with, and yet next morning we found that this Bill had almost gone through. We are proposing to give a bounty without any guarantee of proper management for the business. I heard it said the other day that certain machinery which had been imported was not understood, and that, consequently, the work expected was not done, with the result that there was financial loss; and it would appear that the Commonwealth Parliament is to be called upon to make good that loss. Before any bounty is paid we ought to have some guarantee that the business will be properly conducted. There ought to be some inquiry into the management of the industry. There are now new proprietors, and we do not know but what there may be great mismanagement.

Dr Liddell:

– They desire to reduce wages.

Mr J H CATTS:

– That is so.

Mr Bowden:

– There is a Wages Board to look after that,

Mr J H CATTS:

– No Wages Board can provide good management ; and if there is bad management those responsible ought to bear the loss. At present the proposal seems to be to take money, by means of the Customs duties, from the poorer classes and give it to those who have more than enough.

Mr Fuller:

– Why did the honorable member not think of that when he was voting for protective duties?

Mr J H CATTS:

– So far as I could see I voted for keeping down the revenue resulting from protective duties. As a matter of fact, it is not protective duties which produce revenue, but rather the duties on rice and other products which are consumed largely by the poorer classes. There is no guarantee that this industry is going to be managed in a business-like way, nor is there any guarantee that, when the period of the bounty expires, it further claim will not be made by those conce’rned in the industry. It may be that the bounty will simply mean the working profit of the company, and that the moment the bounty period expires1 we shall be told there is a further loss as an excuse for the expenditure of another quarter of a million of public money. For twenty-five years that has been the experience in Canada.

Mr McDonald:

– Would the company give the Commonwealth 250,000 shares in the venture?

Mr J H CATTS:

– I think that is a good suggestion. If we contribute £250,000 we ought to have as many shares, with Government representatives on the board of directors.

Mr Fowler:

– Just as the British Government hold shares in the Suez Canal.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Exactly. It would also be some guarantee against the watering of stock, and the consequent unfair burden upon the industry in respect of capital charges which have no right to be made. But, apart altogether from the merits of the bounty, it is most unfair, after an undertaking is given to an honorable member that matters of this kind are not to be gone on with, when there are various clauses in the measure upon which honorable members have varying opinions, and which they might wish to amend, and when members have gone to their homes, that the Government should introduce the Bill, rush it to an advanced stage, and desire to push the remaining parts of it through at this stage of the new session. By that means honorable members will have been deprived of the right to criticise or move amendments on the clauses. I hope that the Government, seeing that something further is to be said about the finances/will postpone consideration of the motion so as to give honorable members an opportunity, before they finally vote either upon the remaining items of the schedule or upon the Bill itself, of knowing exactly what the financial proposals of the Government are for the immediate future.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I should not have spoken but for a remark of the honorable member for Kennedy, who seemed to infer that everybody on this side of the House intended to vote for the measure.

Mr McDonald:

– It was not in my mind if I did so. I did not intend it.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I, who opposed similar bounties and other assistance being given to the manufacturers of other parts of Australia, am not going to support this assistance being given to a manufacturer in New South Wales. But honorable members who gave every support to industries and firms in other parts of Australia, are now expressing their readiness to oppose the extension of that assistance to this industry. That is where the inconsistency lies, and certain! v not in the attitude that I will take. While I have opposed this Bill in previous Parliaments, and will vote against it now, having expressed my reasons fully on many occasions, I quite agree that it is high time the matter was settled. Those engaged in the industry have a right, when they see how persons engaged in other industries have been treated by this Parliament, to expect the prompt settlement of the question, and an early knowledge of what their position is to be. ‘

Mr Watson:

– My suggestion is to treat them on similar lines.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– We hive had two lines. We have given bounties as well as duties. Personally I would oppose either the giving of a bounty or the imposition of a duty. But after every industry that is covered by the Tariff has been dealt with, most of them very liberally - in fact, we have been piling on duties where large profits were manifestly being made under the lower duties - those engaged in this industry have a right to know whether the members who supported that policy will continue to support it in this case, and whether their industry- is or is not to receive assistance. I would, therefore, be at one with the Ministry in reaching the earliest possible decision. I am glad that notice has been at once taken of the remarks of the honorable member for South Sydney as to the necessity for some forecast of where the money is to come from to meet the various commitments we have already made, and those other schemes which the Government have expressed themselves in favour of. We have urged, more than once from this side of the House - the honorable member for Flinders and other honorable members have done so, and I have done so - thatthere should be some better handling of our finances than is being exhibited by this Ministry. If there is not, if the House permits proposals such as this and others to go forward and blindly accepts them, we shall be committed to a serious financial position which will end in a crisis, and the loss of the reputation in financial matters of the Federal Parliament. I quite agree with the honorable member for South Sydney. I remember his urging something of the sort before, and he repeats it now. We as a Parliament have no right, whether we are supporters or opponents of the Government, to accept every scheme that is brought forward, even if a majority are in favour of it, unless we know how the finances are going to meet the strain imposed by our legislation.

Mr Fisher:

– The Prime Minister has premised that the Treasurer will make a financial statement.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I know. I am pleased that the honorable member for South Sydney has added this pressure to what he exerted before, and what otherhonorable members have exerted since, sothat a promise has been given which we could never procure, although our arguments were on the same lines.

Mr Watson:

– It is about two yearssince I made a similar speech about thefinances from this corner.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I know it is a long time ago. I remember that speech, and quite, agreed with the tenor of it. It has been a long time in taking; effect, and if the honorable member has by this other speech produced a late repentance on the part of the Ministry, weshall be only too happy that He has produced repentance at all. I hope the PrimeMinister will amply fulfil the promise that he has. made. He must see himself the necessity for it. He knows we aTe getting so seriously near to the exhaustion of all margin that it is high time we looked the matter in the face. I intend to assume with regard to the Bill the attitude that I took up before, but I do think that those engaged in the industry have a right to know as early as possible what is to be . their fate in the distribution of assistance that has been going on.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– The principal point of the last speaker was a charge that those who have supported the giving of assistance to other industries by means of protection through the Customs House now refuse altogether to give protection to the iron industry.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I did not say that they refused.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I took the honorable member to mean that we were opposed to conceding to this industry what was conceded to others. I may say at the outset that if I had thought that a certain decision was to be given in a certain Court I would not have voted for most of the duties that I supported in connexion with other industries.

Mr Fuller:

– The honorable member finds at last that he has been fooled.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I find that I have, and I do not intend to be fooled much longer. The Government wish to take up this Bill where it was left prior to the close of last session, but there is quite a different face on the matter now. I should have been willing to support it, failing the nationalization of the iron industry, but for the future I shall trust nobody who promises me anything, unless I have an absolute assurance that that promise will be carried out. I shall vote for no Bill of a protective character unless I have a positive, and not a possible, assurance that it will not come into operation until an Act, which is constitutional, to give effect to the new protection, is placed side by side with it on the statute-book. I admit that the production of iron here should be encouraged just as much as, perhaps more, than other industries, but having regard to our past experience, I am rather doubtful about approaching the question at the present time. Seeing that we discussed the Bill, and got so far as we did, with the hope that labour conditions might be attached which would be not only carried out by those who were getting the protec tion, namely, the manufacturers, but also upheld at law, until I can be satisfied that the workers will be assured good wages and fair labour conditions, I shall not vote for a bounty upon the production of iron. One of the reasons why I submit that the Ministry should not persist with their desire to take up the Bill where it was left last session is because honorable members have had great reason for altering their opinions. If we had had a few more hours to spare, and honorable members who had left for their homes had been present, it is quite possible that the Bill might have been put through the House, but ‘ that would have been done by the votes of men who had hoped that the workers as well as the manufacturers would receive a benefit.

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

– There is a wages provision already incorporated in the Bill.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Yes, there is a wages condition attached, but the moment we passed the Bill, we might find that it was unconstitutional. Not being a legal man, I do not propose to air my knowledge of constitutionality, as I said here once before.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is quite an open question.

Mr MATHEWS:

– In spite of the decision that was given, I am satisfied that the intention of the people of Australia was that the employes, as well as the employers, should be protected. That question has already been discussed, and the honorable and learned member for Werriwa has given an exposition of judge-made law which I, as a layman, think would appeal to any body of men possessing an ordinary amount of common sense. While I have always given fair support to the Government on this question, it is not my intention to follow “their lead unless they can, not promise, but satisfy me, that there is in the proposal something which will be beneficial to the workers as well as 10 the manufacturers. I admit that as a representative my first thought, as well as my last thought, has always been to secure good wages and fair conditions for the workers, always being satisfied that a man who has his money invested in a_factory shall receive a fair profit. I am here because the wage earners in my electorate were not satisfied that they received their share of the protection which was given to their employers. Therefore, it is quite natural that in all these matters my first idea is to consider the rates of wages and the conditions of the workers. In view of that fact, and seeing that we have had evidence that possibly that portion of the Bill which relates to employes may be declared unconstitutional, I suggest to the Ministry that they should allow its provisions to be discussed from the present stand-point. Not because this industry is located in New . South Wales, but because I know that the workers of that State deserve protection just as do the workers in Victoria, or any other State, it is my intention to vote against the proposal to take up the Bill at the stage where it was dropped last session. I have my doubts - and I do not stand alone in that respect - as to the financial possibilities. We have been promise’d by the Prime Minister a financial report, and I suppose that the Treasurer is satisfied that these is in hand a certain amount of money which is ear-marked for a certain contingency. I place before the sanction of an iron bounty the introduction of a system of old-age pensions. Last session we passed a Bill for that purpose, and I want to be assured that we shall have the wherewithal to pay the pensions when the time for their payment arrives. Without a doubt the passing of that measure by the House was hailed with delight by the people of Australia, and I doubt if any of the honorable members opposite, who, while they said that they supported the payment of old-age pensions

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

– The honorable member voted over £300,000 for other kinds of bounties without once mentioning old-age pensions.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Perhaps I had better withdraw my assertion that honorable members on the other side voted for old-age pensions. What I meant to say was that they were all in favour of the principle - but when we came to make arrangements for financing a scheme, they perceived so many difficulties that, according to their view, it was impossible. There may be something in the warning which they then gave me. I wish to have it more explicitly explained to me - and I take it that other honorable members are of the same opinion as myself - that the wherewithal with which to pay the old-age pensions will be available. For the reasons I have given, I wish to discuss the Bill again fully, with a view to forming a judgment from the present stand-point.

Mr BOWDEN:
Nepean

.- I am rather surprised at some of the expressions of opinion which have come from my honorable friends in the Labour corner. I want first of all to correct what I am sure was an unintentional misstatement made by the honorable member for Cook in reference to the way in which the Bill was brought before the House, and dealt with on the closing day of last session. It is true that we all felt that the Government should have brought the measure forward earlier than they did j but it is not true that it was dealt with after the Sydney train had left. It was brought .on in an earlier portion of the sitting, and then put on one side, and the Estimates were brought on before the train for Sydney left. 1 have a distinct recollection of the circumstances, because I stayed to see the Bill, and also some of the Estimates put through before the train left. The question of finance, which is troubling certain honorable members so much now, did not seem to trouble them then to anything like the same extent when they were asked to vote £400,000 to encourage the production of sisal hemp, mohair, coffee, peanuts, linseed, rubber, fish, dates, and other articles which, to my mind, are not of nearly as much national importance as is the production of iron.

Mr McDonald:

– The honorable member opposed the payment of a bounty upon the production of those commodities.

Mr BOWDEN:

– I opposed the whole of the bounty proposals. What I cannot understand is the attitude of those honorable members who supported the payment of a bounty upon these twopennyhalfpenny, trumpery articles, and who are yet so consistent in their opposition to an industry which above all others is a working man’s industry. For instance, the total cost of the production of pig iron is about £3 10s. per ton, of which wages and material absorb £3 5s.

Mr Fisher:

– That cannot be the wages cost.

Mr BOWDEN:

– I said that the cost of wages and material was ,£3 5s. per ton. The material in question consists of ore, flux, coke, and other commodities the cost of which is almost entirely made up of wages. I am quoting from the figures of Mr. Allard. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports appears to be very much concerned about the welfare of the workers. But he knows perfectly well that unless this Bill be passed some 600 or 800 men will be thrown out of employment.

Mr Mathews:

– What assurance have we that those men will be continued in their employment at proper rates of wages if the Bill becomes law?

Mr BOWDEN:

– In New South Wales a Wages Board has been appointed in connexion with this particular industry, and at the present time that Board is sitting to determine the rates of wages which shall be payable in it. The ironworkers are very well satisfied with their power to safeguard their own interests.

Mr Mathews:

– They may get an award similar to that under which ironworkers’ assistants in Victoria were granted 6s.9d. per day.

Mr BOWDEN:

– They may and they may not. The ironworkers of Lithgow are quite satisfied with their power to secure proper wages at the hands of the Board.

Mr McDonald:

– The honorable member may safely leave that question to the workers. They will look after themselves-

Mr BOWDEN:

– That is exactly what I suggest. If the interest of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports in the wage earners of New South Wales is as great as his interest in the workers of his own electorate, I do not see how he can oppose the passing of this Bill.

Mr Mathews:

– The honorable member did not vote in favour of certain articles being manufactured from the iron in his own electorate.

Mr BOWDEN:

– The honorable member may charge me with inconsistency if he chooses, but if he wishes to be a model of consistency he will support the passing of this Bill. He was consistent in voting to protect every conceivable industry, and he also supported the payment of every bounty proposed by the Government. Yet he now says that he will not vote for a bounty upon the production of iron.

Mr Mathews:

– I did not say so. I merely said that I wish to consider the matter in the light of any further knowledge that may be available.

Mr BOWDEN:

– Where is the honorable member’s consistency if he does not vote for this measure?

Mr McDonald:

– Is there a moral to this tale?

Mr BOWDEN:

– The moral is that consistency is a very good thing, and if members of the Labour corner wish to be consistent, they will support this measure.

Mr Roberts:

– Is it not a question of consistency if the honorable member votes for this proposal?

Mr BOWDEN:

– It may be. I am not cancerned with whether or not I am charged with being inconsistent. There is another aspect of this matter which I desire to bring under the notice of the House. Although the sum of £250,000 is specified in the Bill, honorable members must recollect that its payment is to be distributed over a period of five years.

Mr Watson:

– It may be paid in one or two years.

Mr BOWDEN:

– No, the Bill provides for the payment of a maximum sum of £50,000 annually for five years - a total of £250,000.

Mr Watson:

– I do not think so.

Mr BOWDEN:

– Speaking from memory, that is my impression.

Mr Watson:

– There is no provision in the Bill for the payment of only £50,000 a year.

Mr Deakin:

– No; it provides for the payment of a lump sum.

Mr BOWDEN:

– Then my memory was at fault. But the probability is that the £250,000 in question will be distributed over a considerable period, because those engaged in the industry will not be able to manufacture sufficient pig; iron to claim the whole of the bounty in one year.

Mr McDonald:

– Would any firm other than that at Lithgow be afforded a chance of securing the bounty?

Mr BOWDEN:

– Certainly.

Mr McDonald:

– Would it not take twelve months to erect the necessary plant ?

Mr BOWDEN:

– Yes. But the persons who are at present engaged in the industry could not manufacture sufficient pig iron in one year to claim the whole of the bounty.

Mr McDonald:

– They would run their furnace to its full capacity, and they would be very bad managers if they did not.

Mr BOWDEN:

– The output of the furnace at Lithgow is limited to about 800 tons per week. It is limited not only by the capacity of the blast furnace itself, but by the ability of the manufacturers to obtain the coke and ore necessary for the production of the pig iron, so that it will be found that it will not be so serious a matter as some honorable members think, and it cannot possibly adversely prejudice a huge expenditure like £2,000,000, such as will be necessary in connexion with the old-age pensions. Whether the bounty is voted or not, I wish to impress upon honorable members the necessity for dealing with the matter one way or the other without delay. As the honorable member for North Sydney so well put it, whatever the decision of Parliament may be, the proprietors are entitled to know what is intended to be done with the least possible delay. The Messrs. Hoskins have put into the enterprise between £220,000 and £230,000, or undertaken liabilities to that amount. They are justified in asking Parliament to let them know without delay whether they are going to receive a bounty or a duty, or no assistance whatever. The least we can do is to remove uncertainties, because while uncertainty exists, things are more or less in a state of flux, and there is not the same facility for proceeding with the work as there would be if they knew what assistance, if any, they were likely to receive from the Commonwealth. The matter is one of serious importance to Lithgow. I hope that honorable members in the Labour corner will realize that unless this bounty or some other assistance is given to the industry, it probably means closing it altogether, and throwing out of work hundreds of men, besides the miners and others employed indirectly. Consequently, it will be realized that the matter is one of very great importance to that portion of the Commonwealth. I trust that the motion before the House will afford an opportunity of determining one way or the other what we are going to do with reference to the question.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Roberts) adjourned.

page 242

TEMPORARY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr. MCDONALD (Kennedy) [10.40I- I do not wish the Prime Minister to think for a moment that I believed he desired to sneak this measure through. When the standing order for the restoration of lapsed business was adopted I anticipated

[”]-*

that trouble would arise from it, because there is always difficulty attending such matters. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports put quite a new complexion on this matter to-night, and it can readily be seen that were the measure brought forward now in the ordinary way quite a different vote would be given concerning it. I did not get up to reply to the Prime Minister, but to say a word or two concerning the conduct of business in this House. I do not see how you, sir, are to effect any alteration in the matter, but from time to time when the Tariff was going through, and other measures in which certain persons, were specially interested were under consideration we found the galleries full. I regret to have to refer to this matter now, because a little while ago a gentleman interested in this particular Bill was in the gallery. Some time ago, on the 19th of this month, I think, a statement appeared in the Age newspaper that a member of a certain firm, the name of which I need not mention, but which will probably benefit by the passing of the Manufactures Encouragement Bill, was in Melbourne at the present time interviewing members concerning the measure. Whilst I am prepared to give the gentleman every credit as an interested party, if he is here merely to lay his views before honorable members, I still think it is not the correct thing to do. I do not believe that any one pecuniarily interested in the passing of a measure should go round personally interviewing members in connexion with it. If that is permitted in this instance we may have a repetition of a scene which occurred in this Chamber some little time ago, when honorable members supporting a particular duty were told that some persons had them “ in the bag.” I think that this inter-‘ viewing of honorable members is politically immoral, and ought not to be allowed. I may say that I have not personally been approached in connexion with this matter, nor do I know of any other honorable member who has, but the statement appeared in the Age that a gentleman interested in it was interviewing members. Whether he has done so or not, I cannot say, but I regard it as an immoral thing to do, and if there were some way in which this House could prevent the practice, I should like to be able to take the earliest opportunity of doing so.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- We are still working under temporary Standing

Orders, which, were frequently discussed in the two Parliaments preceding the present. I have mentioned that in my opinion the practice of bringing down a message from the Governor-General, recommending the appropriation of revenue in connexion with such a Bill as that under discussion, is the most lax that I ever read or heard of in any Parliament. It is, I think, a dangerous and an intolerable practice that a Bill involving the appropriation of a large amount of revenue should be introduced and carried almost to the third reading before any message recommending the necessary appropriation is brought ‘down. The practice is absurd and unreasonable. I have risen to impress upon you, sir, and the members of the Standing Orders Committee the desirability of getting to work at once to bring down an amendment of the standing order, so as to compel the advisors of the Crown to bring down the message from the Governor-General, recommending the appropriation of revenue, with the Bill, so that it may be discussed when the Bill is introduced. I trust that this will not be lost sight of. I wish only to add this regarding the restoration of the Manufactures Encouragement Bill to the paper: The measure may be said to be improperly before Parliament, inasmuch as no message recommending the appropriation involved has been submitted. It is true that the Standing Orders permit this to be done, but that only shows the necessity for more care in cases of this kind.

Mr STORRER:
Bass

.- With reference to the presence of interested persons in the Strangers’ Gallery, I wish to say that the gentleman referred to in connexion with this Bill has never said a word to me. Honorable members are very sensitive about the presence in the gallery of persons who differ from them in opinion. That is what we found when the Tariff was being considered. When free-traders were in the gallery the free-traders in the House did not object, and when protectionists were in the gallery protectionist members offered no objection.

Dr Liddell:

– That is not correct.

Mr STORRER:

– So far as-1 am concerned I regard this as an open Parliament. I believe that every elector has a right to come here, and if he thinks fit, to interview honorable members. If the are so weak-minded as to be influenced by the statements of interested persons, it says little for the intelligence of the electors who returned them. If fifty people, interested in a particular industry wished to interview me, and I had sufficient spare time, I should be prepared to hear their statements, because I believe I should then be in a better position to give an intelligent vote on the question involved. I do not object to persons interviewing members of Parliament, but I do object to misrepresentations, such as that made by the honorable member for Cook, being made in this House, when he referred’ to these measures being dealt with on the last day of the session after the Sydney train had left. This Bill was before the House between the hours of 12.32 and 3.49 p.m. on the Friday. I object to the statement being made that the Government have attempted to sneak measures through in this House.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I have no wish to cast any unfair reflections upon any honorable member, but I was told on the Thursday before the House adjourned last session that it was not intended to bring forward any fresh business.

Mr Deakin:

– But Sir William Lyne made a statement when the House rose the night before.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable gentleman made a number of conflicting statements. He was on several occasions asked what business would be taken, and it was well known that he had some doubt as to what measures would be taken during the remaining hours of the session. I cannot speak with certainty, but I believe I consulted the Government Whip before I left on the Thursday afternoon.

Mr Storrer:

– The honorable gentleman said Friday a little while ago.

Mr J H CATTS:

– If I did, it was a mistake. I should have said Thursday, because it was on the Thursday I left. I conceived the idea, from something said on behalf of the Government, that only two or three unimportant and noncontentious measures were to be proceeded with. When, next morning, I learned from the press that the Manufactures Encouragement Bill had been dealt, with, I was staggered. Had I known that it was to come on, I should have stayed, because I wished to speak on several of its clauses. However, the quotations which have been made from the Hansard report as to statements made by the Treasurer have created some doubts in my mind, and, therefore, I withdraw my statements as far as be is concerned. I certainly left on the Thursday afternoon under the impression that the Iron Bounties Bill would not be proceeded with.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before putting the question, I draw the attention of the honorable member for Wide Bay to section 56 of the Constitution, which provides for recommendations of the Governor-General before the passing of any Act relating to appropriation. He will see there the principles on which the whole thing rests.

Mr Fisher:

– But may not we deal with the matter by standing orders?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No standing order could be considered for a moment which would have the effect of amending or modifying any part of the Constitution.-

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.52 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 September 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1908/19080922_reps_3_47/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives22 September 1908

QUESTION

SYDNEY-KATOOMBA TELEPHONE LINE

Mr BOWDEN:NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAUGER:Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

CAPITAL SITES: WATER SUPPLY

Mr FULLER:ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION

Mr J H CATTS:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

NAVAL DEFENCE

Dr LIDDELL:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

MILITARY SCIENCE LECTURES

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

MILITARY TRAINING

Dr LIDDELL:

Mr EWING:Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Dr CARTY SALMON:LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:

PAPER

QUESTION

INSPECTIONS BY DISTRICT COMMANDANTS

Mr COON:BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Sir JOHN FORREST:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

TENDERS- BRITISH PREFERENCE

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Mahon:

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

SURPLUS REVENUE ACT

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

SALARIES OF SORTERS

Mr BATCHELOR:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

CRIMEA AND INDIAN MUTINY VETERANS

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

CANCELLED MAIL CONTRACT

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

PAPUA: GIRA GOLD-FIELD

Mr MCWILLIAMS:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

STATUTORY RULES

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

PUBLIC TELEPHONE BUREAUX

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH : ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Mr FRAZER:Kalgoorlie

Mr Mcdougall:

Mr FRAZER:

House of Representatives
22 September 1908

Mr BOWDEN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr J H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Dr LIDDELL:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Dr CARTY SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr COON:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr BATCHELOR:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

Mr TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917