House of Representatives
23 September 1908

3rd Parliament · 3rd Session



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

page 263

THE LATE RIGHT HONORABLE C. C. KINGSTON

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Recently, in speaking, to the motion of condolence with the widow of the late Right Honorable C. C. Kingston, I suggested that the time had arrived when the Commonwealth should take steps to commemorate the statesmen who have done so much for Federation, and I now ask the Prime Minister if the Government has taken into consideration the desirability of perpetuating, by a bust, or some other suitable memorial, the memory of that distinguished politician, who gave such great services to the Commonwealth and to his native State.

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

– The Government considered the wisdom of taking such a step, and are favorably disposed to the provision of a memorial ; but it was 264 Public Service Examination. [REPRESENTATIVES.] Queensland Immigrants. thought best not to interfere while there was a private movement in Mr. Kingston’s native city, and a later proposition before the State Government which has in view the same object. Regarding the matter broadly, it seems to us, that this Parliament would desire to have memorials in its own house of the right honorable gentleman, and, possibly, in the future of other men of the same distinction.

page 264

PUBLIC SERVICE DISABILITIES

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the PostmasterGeneral consult his colleagues with a view to securing an amendment of section 33 of the Public Service Act, so as to remove the disabilities now imposed on persons who have been employed in the military service which debar them from being employed in other Departments of the Federal Public Service. I would remind the honorable gentleman of a case of great hardship which I personally brought under his notice in Sydney.

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

– The matter is one for the Public Service Commissioner to deal with. I shall draw his attention to it.

page 264

MANUFACTURES . ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

Mr J H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Treasurer been drawn to a paragraph in this morning’s Age, in which the honorable member for Balaclava is reported to have said at Moorabbin -

The bankers were saying one could get anything but money. Yet the Federal Treasurer had told him Australia ought to borrow , £20,000,000.

Is it the intention of the Government to pay bounties for the production of iron from borrowed money?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I have not seen the paragraph, and know nothing about it.

page 264

PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATION

Assistant Supervisors : Post and Telegraph Department

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I wish to know from the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs if the examination for the position of Assistant Supervisor in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in Victoria is confined to Victorian officers.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The honorable member was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question, and I have, therefore, been able to ascertain that the examination to which he refers was held two years ago last August; the vacancies being those of Assistant Supervisors in the Postmaster-General’s Department, Victoria. It is true that the examination was confined to officers in this State. The reasons for this course are given by the Public Service Commissioner, in a memorandum on the subject, which is as follows -

I may add that had the examination been thrown open to the whole Commonwealth it would have been necessary to make arrangements to relieve and bring to Victoria for examination any candidates who entered from outside that State. Having in view the fact that, in order to be successful at the examination, an intimate knowledge of the postal routes and mail ramifications of Victoria (and especially of the metropolis) was essential, it would be manifestly impossible for any officer, without a practical acquaintance with local conditions, to have a chance of passing the examination; and, in the circumstances, the exclusion of candidates from other States was no hardship to them.

page 264

PAPER

Mr. DEAKIN laid upon the table the following paper -

Federal Capital Sites- Water Supplies- Report of the Acting Chief Engineer for Rivers, Water Supply, and Drainage, New South Wales, on the Gaugings of the Cotter and Mowambah Rivers for period February to September, 1908.

page 264

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND IMMIGRANTS

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the fact that not enough care is taken in the selection of immigrants for Queensland? I have here a newspaper account of the conduct, in the streets of Fremantle, of immigrants on their way to Queensland, which I shall be glad to place at his disposal. Can he say if it be not a fact that the Queensland Agent-General is not required to make any investigation as to the character of persons sent to his State, all that is necessary being to ascertain whether they are able to pay part of their passage money ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– Does the honorable member allude to a case which happened two or three months ago?

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No; to one which happened three or four weeks ago.

Mr DEAKIN:

– In regard to the only previous case of the kind, the captain of the vessel by which the immigrants against whom the complaints were made were travelling categorically denied on arrival at Adelaide or Melbourne the newspaper statements. He declared that the men had returned on board at F rem an tle in most or derly fashion and at a reasonable hour. If complaints have been made since then, I shall have them investigated.

page 265

QUESTION

DISABLEMENT OF STEAMERS: PROPELLERS

Mr JOHNSON:

– Can the Prime Minister inform the House when the return for which I moved the other day relating to accidents to the machinery of steamers is likely to be laid on the table?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– As to obtain the information, it is necessary to communicate with the Governments of the States, it cannot be received speedily ; but it will be laid on the table as soon as possible.

page 265

QUESTION

WELLSFORD RIFLE BUTTS

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

When will additional targets be provided at the Wellsford Rifle Butts, Bendigo, in order to meet the requirements of the Cadets and the Light Horse Cavalry?

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

– In reply to the honorable member’s question, I have to say that some time ago an application was received for additional target accommodation to be provided on the Wellsford rifle range, Bendigo. On going into the matter, it was found that the existing targets were sufficient for the local Light Horse and Infantry, and the Department is now endeavouring to arrange for the cadets to use the rifle club’s range at Grassy Flat, where, I am informed, there is ample accommodation for both rifle club and cadets. The objection to the rifle club range is’ that its use means a walk of about twoandahalf miles, which it is advisable to avoid, if arrangements can be made for a nearer site for operations. I will inform the honorable memBer when this point is decided. Failing some such arrangement, additional targets will probably be required at Wellsford.

page 265

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

British and French Settlers

Mr JOHNSON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has he read the article recently published in the Sydney Morning Herald, concerning the position of British and French settlers in the New Hebrides, including the following statement attributed to a prominent French official at Vila, viz., “ We have cause to be very thankful to your Commonwealth Government for imposing their Tariff on the products of their subjects in the New Hebrides, as it profits us not a little, especially so in the case of coffee “ ?
  2. Is it a fact, as asserted by many persons familiar with the conditions of settlers in the New Hebrides, that in order to escape ruin from the operations of the Commonwealth Tariff, and participate in the trade advantages afforded to French settlers by the French Government, many British settlers have transferred their allegiance from the British to the French flag?
  3. What were the estimated numbers respectively of British and Australian’ settlers in the New Hebrides in the years igoi-2-3-4-5-6 anil 7?
  4. As far as can be ascertained what are the total numbers of British and French settlers respectively at the present time?
  5. In view of the importance, from a naval as well as a commercial point of view, of effective British occupation of the more important islands of the New Hebrides group, as well as of other islands in the Southern Pacific, will the Government seriously consider the advisability of encouraging British settlement in those islands by rebating the whole, or the major portion at least, of duties on British-grown products ?
Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Not that I am aware of. No facts supporting such an assertion are available. 3 and 4. The Government have no information from which exact statements on these points can be made.

The article to which the honorable member refers contained an estimate given by the British Resident, which differs from other estimates in our possession, but it is probable they are not very materially wrong.

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

– They cannot very well be wrong.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am more concerned with the ratio than with the precise numbers. The answers continue -

  1. So far as the New Hebrides are concerned the Government are now asking for an increase in the vote from which rebates are paid on produce grown by British settlers.

The general question of modifying certain duties in favour of produce from Papua, the Solomons, New Hebrides, and Fiji, is receiving the attention of the Government. It must be recollected that the products referred to as British-grown, like all other products in the group, are grown by Polynesian labour.

page 265

QUESTION

TELEPHONE : BENDIGO AND RAYWOOD

Sir JOHN QUICK:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he will take action to establish telephonic communication between Bendigo and Raywood ?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– Yes, as soon as circumstances will permit. 266 Visit of British Fleet. [REPRESENTATIVES.] Postal Voting.

page 266

QUESTION

TELEPHONE WIRE MANUFACTURE

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

In view of the unsatisfactory tenders received for wall telephones and parts, will he take early steps to establish a Departmental factory for the manufacture of same, also for the manufacture of telephone wire?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

In view of the tenders referred to and my desire to as far as possible have manufactured in the Commonwealth all articles required by the Department I am having careful inquiries made and reports obtained as to the best method of accomplishing this object. Inquiry made some short time since as to the manufacture of wire for telephone and telegraph purposes showed that the lowest output on which it is economical to start wire-drawing mills is 100 tons per week, whereas the requirements of the Department is about 357 tons per annum.

page 266

QUESTION

VISIT OF BRITISH FLEET

Mr JOHNSON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has he been in communication with the British Government with a view to the visit of a British naval squadron under Admiral Sir Percy Scott, to Australia, and is he in a position to say whether an invitation to visit Australia is likely to be favorably considered by the British Government?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– No formal invitation to a British Fleet or to the Admiralty is called for, seeing that the Fleet isconstantly moving from place to place within the Empire. It is not like a fleet of vessels belonging to a foreign Power, which may require, if it comes in force, a special invitation. But, as a matter of fact, for a long time past, successive Governments, including this Government, have conveyed to the Admiralty the general desire of the Australian people for a more imposing display of British naval power than we have hitherto been privileged to witness.

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

– Permanently, or only temporarily?

Mr DEAKIN:

– A temporary display - a visit. As I am reminded, the Treasurer and myself repeated this when in London. I myself approached the First Lord of the Admiralty, and others, in this connexion; and, from time to time since, similar intimations have been, in an indirect fashion, conveyed. The last occasion was when the American Government had accepted our request for a call from their Atlantic Fleet. I feel sure that the Admiralty are thoroughly seized of the fact that the most cordial welcome possible would be given to a visit of any British Fleet to these waters. But, for obvious reasons, a formal communication on the subject can hardly be made. It would be undesirable to send such an invitation until there was a certainty that it was a proper time for such a demonstration to be made, so as to meet the convenience of the Home authorities. I learn that the cruisers under Admiral Sir Percy Scott have a definite fixed tour, and that it is very unlikely they can be diverted. I see from a statement in the press - than which I have no other authority - that a visit of more importance is projected for next year, and sincerely hope that is correct. But, so far, we have felt that, having given these assurances that a visit at any time of any British Fleet of any size will be most cordially welcomed by the whole of Australia - that we should be most anxious to receive, and feel honored by their visit - we have taken all the steps desirable, seeing that we are addressing our Mother Country, and not an outside Power.

page 266

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT : ANNUAL REPORT

Mr McDONALD:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is it the intention of his Department to issue an Annual Report showing the work done, and the financial position of the Post and Telegraph Departments ?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– Yes, as soon as possible after the value of transferred properties has been settled, so that the financial position of the Department can be ascertained. The necessary data has been collected for this purpose.

page 266

QUESTION

POSTAL VOTING

Sir JOHN QUICK:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether his attention has been directed to complaints, published in the press, made by a ratepayer at Eaglehawk, to the effect that postal officers at South Richmond and Melbourne recently refused to comply with the requirements of State law to enable him to record a postal vote in connexion with the late election of Councillors for the Borough of Eaglehawk, and will postal officers be instructed to afford every possible information and facilities to the public in conformity with State as well as Commonwealth laws.

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– In reply to the honorable member’s question, I have to say that my attention had been previously drawn to the matter, and I , find, on inquiry, that

*Small-pox on a Steamer.* [23 Sept., 1908.] *New Protection.* 267 postal officials are not authorized to witness signatures of electors who vote by post at municipal elections in Victoria. {: .page-start } page 267 {:#debate-14} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-14-0} #### SMALL-POX ON A STEAMER Japanese Passengers in Quarantine. {: #subdebate-14-0-s0 .speaker-KQP} ##### Mr McDONALD: asked the Prime Min ister, *upon notice -* >With reference to the following newspaper paragraph : - " Queensland - Small-pox outbreak on a Steamer. > >Brisbane, Sunday. The Department of Public Health has been advised from Thursday Island that an outbreak of small-pox has occurred onthe steamer *Changsha.* The patient was a Chinese, who was landed at Manila on 5th September. The boat was thoroughly fumigated, and some of the passengers vaccinated. *Ten Japanesepassengers were landed, in quarantine, and the boat left for the south." -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he inform the House if the education test was put to these ten Japanese, and with what result? 1. If the education test was not put, what was the reason ? {: #subdebate-14-0-s1 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. They were landed with a view to signing articles on pearling vessels. A bond is given by the employers for their return to Japan at the expiry of their agreements. {: .page-start } page 267 {:#debate-15} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-15-0} #### FUNDS FOR POSTAL AND TELEPHONIC SERVICES {: #subdebate-15-0-s0 .speaker-JZF} ##### Mr FULLER:
for Mr. Bruce Smith asked the Postmaster-General, *upon notice -* >In view of the stereotyped answer which is being given by his Department to requests for additional postal and telephonic services required in different parts of the Commonwealth, will he say whether he is, pending the Royal Commission inquiry, having placed at his disposal by the Federal Treasurer what he himself deems to be sufficient funds for the proper administration of his Department, and for the satisfactory performance of its services to the people ? {: #subdebate-15-0-s1 .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist -- I am not in a position to answer this question until the Estimates have been prepared and laid before Parliament. {: .page-start } page 267 {:#debate-16} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-16-0} #### TELEPHONES: FLAT RATE SYSTEM {: #subdebate-16-0-s0 .speaker-KQT} ##### Mr McDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA asked the PostmasterGeneral, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Whether it is true, as alleged, that the Department, under the flat rate system, is providing certain subscribers with a telephone ser vice for£9 a year, worth to them individually about£250 a year? 1. If it is true, will he lay on the Table of the House a list showing the names of the persons so benefited ? 2. How long does he propose to allow the flat rate system to continue in use? 3. Doeshe propose to introduce the toll sys tem of telephone rates ; if so, when ? {: #subdebate-16-0-s1 .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It is true that the Department, under the flat rate system, is providing certain subscribers with a telephone service at £9 per annum. The Department is not in a position to say what the service is worth to them individually. 1. See answer to No. 1. 2. This has not yet been determined, but the matter is under consideration. 3. The toll system of telephone rates was in troduced on 1st February, 1907, under which all persons connected to Exchanges subsequent to that date became subscribers under that system. {: .page-start } page 267 {:#debate-17} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-17-0} #### NEW PROTECTION {: #subdebate-17-0-s0 .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: asked the Prime Minister, *upon notice -* >Whether, in view of the fact that a number of honorable members voted for certain duties in the Tariff on his assurance that New Protection should operate concurrently, and that if any circumstance beyond his control should prevent this being done, an opportunity would be given to members to reconsider their Tariff votes, does he propose to give effect to his part of the understanding by which certain Tariff votes were cast in favour of the Government? {: #subdebate-17-0-s1 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist -- In reply to the honorable member's question, I have to say that the proposals of the Government for giving effect to the new protection will presently come before Parliament in the shape of an amendment of the Constitution. When this has been sanctioned, the only reconsideration by members of their past Tariff votes needed will be with a view to perfect the present schedule of duties for the better development of Australian industries. {: .page-start } page 267 {:#debate-18} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-18-0} #### IRON INDUSTRY: INTERVIEWS WITH MEMBERS {: #subdebate-18-0-s0 .speaker-KQT} ##### Mr McDOUGALL: asked the Prime Minister, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Whether his attention has been drawn to anarticle in last Saturday's *Age,* which states - " **Mr. Hoskins,** of the Lithgow Iron Works, is now in Melbourne, and has. had interviews with members who are specially interested in the development of the iron industry " ? 1. If the Minister has seen the statement referred to will he say how far it is proper for a person who may be interested in the passing of a Bill for the appropriation of public money for any purpose to " interview " members of Parliament whose votes may afterwards be given to make such Bill law? {: #subdebate-18-0-s1 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist -- My attention has been drawn to the fact, not only by **Mr. Hoskins'** presence, but by ocular demonstration last evening, and I have seen the statement referred to. It would, however, occupy something like a disquisition i'f one were to endeavour to exactly define the point at which the operations openly, frankly, and avowedly made by an interested person are to be interpreted as improper. When the interest of a person is clear, I take it that those who listen to him can make a fait allowance for necessary deductions in such case. If we were to shut off all the persons interested from all communications we should deprive honorable members of a good deal of valuable information which they ought to, possess. On the other hand, of course, it is undoubted that advantage is taken of such opportunities to abuse them in certain cases, but of those abuses members themselves must be the judges, and they are perfectly in a position to protect themselves against improper advances from any quarter. After all, most of us have arrived at what may properly be described as years of discretion. {: .page-start } page 268 {:#debate-19} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-19-0} #### TOWNSVILLE MAILS {: #subdebate-19-0-s0 .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist -- On Thursday last, the honorable member for Herbert asked a series of questions relating to the late delivery at Townsville of mails carried by the *Bingera,* and other contract steamers, *(vide Hansard,* page 102). The following information has now been furnished by the Acting Deputy Postmaster-General, Brisbane : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Twenty-six times. 1. Eighteen times, as follow : - {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Sixteen times. 1. Cost of special trains on each occasion was : - {: .page-start } page 268 {:#debate-20} ### SEAT OF GOVERNMENT BILL {:#subdebate-20-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- In moving - >That this Bill be now read a second time, I desire to express the sincere hope that the House will assist us in coming to a final decision upon this - great question. Through no fault of ours this is the third time that we have faced the House with this Bill and endeavoured to obtain finality, but I confidently expect on this occasion that we shall be able to settle this vexed issue, so far as this House is concerned. It is highly desirable, from a national point of view, that any outstanding question that is giving rise to feelings of dissatisfaction in the community should be determined by Parliament as soon as possible, as far as lies in its power. It is realized that the fact that this measure has not been finally passed is giving rise to dissatisfaction in certain quarters. The Seat of Government is an important national question. My own view is that the sooner it is established the better. I have long and strongly held the view that it is not proper that the Seat of Government of the Federation should be located in any of the large centres of population in any of the States. It should be in neutral territory, where the consideration of Australian questions should be conducted upon purely national grounds. I believe that that view is widely expressed, and we rely upon that feeling when we ask. the House to proceed to settle the matter. Before submitting the Bill to the House there are one or two preliminary considerations which I should like to mention. Four questions are being raised upon this matter. In the first place, the power of the Australian Parliament to determine the matter has been questioned. In the second place, it is urged that a certain compact is in existence, and that the selection of Dalgety is a breach of it. The third point is that we have not endeavoured to deal with the Bill as expeditiously as we might have ; and the fourth is that the site itself is not proper and suitable for the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth. With regard to the. first point, I submit .that the proper view of section 125 of the Constitution is that the determination of the Seat of Government is a matter entirely for the national Parliament; and that the Commonwealth, restricted only by the conditions of the Constitution, should determine the Seat of Government entirely on national considerations. The opposite view has been raised. It has been contended that this Parliament has only the right to put the Seat of Government in a. particular area that has been granted to the Commonwealth by the State of New South Wales, and that our determination of this site is conditional upon that grant being made to us. I submit that the proper view of section 125 is that the first thing to be done is that the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth should be determined by the Australian Parliament. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Does the honorable member mind saying who has ever put forward the view that any one else should select it? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- If the honorable member will read through the correspondence he will see it, but I am glad to find that the House is at one. with me on that point. I submit that the Seat of Government has fi be determined by this Parliament, that the second step is for us to define and determine what our territory should be, and in the third place, we have to obtain that if possible by grant, and if not by grant by acquisition. Having obtained the territory, we have to establish the Seat of Government - the particular site of the city, with its streets, buildings, and so forth, within the territory which has been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth. The procedure adopted by Parliament so far is the right one. In 1904, this Parliament determined by Act that the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth was to be' within 17 miles of Dalgety in the State of New South Wales. The Commonwealth has determined that it shall be so. The point of procedure was admitted by the Conference of the Attorneys-General of New South Wales and the Commonwealth. **Mr. Wade,** the then Attorney-General of New South Wales, in his memorandum, says - >Whichever view is correct is really immaterial at the present time, because both Governments seem now to agree that the next step is to define some area by metes and bounds ; next to open negotiations for the grant or acquisition of that territory, and finally when such territory becomes the property of the Commonwealth in terms of the Constitution it will be necessary for Parliament by formal Act to determine the seat of Government within that area. We have already decided in general terms where the Seat of Government shall be. It is our duty now - and we are asking the House in this Bill - to define as stated here the metes and bounds of that particular territory. When that is determined, it will be for us to call upon the State of New South Wales to grant us the particular area in question. It has been contended that the Parliament in selecting Dalgety has committed a breach of compact. I desire, therefore, briefly to put on record exactly the nature of that so-called compact, and what transpired in connexion with it. I desire to do so because we see from time to time fragments from documents, and it is desirable to have the matter completely stated in order that we may understand the nature of the contention raised. When the Constitution Bill was passed by the Convention, it contained a clause as follows - >The seat o"f Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory vested in the Commonwealth. Until such determination the Parliament shall be summoned to meet at such place within the Commonwealth as the majority of the Governors of the States, or in the event of an equal division of opinion among the Governors of the States, as the Governor-General shall direct. Therefore, the intention of the Convention clearly was that the Seat of- Government should be ' determined by the Parliament, and be within territory vested in the Commonwealth. The intention was to leave entirely to the Parliament itself the selection of the site in such place as Parliament thought suitable for the purpose of the Seat of Government. The Bill went to a referendum, and came before the New South Wales Legislature. Resolutions were submitted by **Mr. G.** H. Reid, and the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales adopted the following - >The Capital of the Commonwealth. - That clause 124 should be amended and provision made in the Bill for the establishment of the Federal Capital in such place within the boundaries of New South Wales as the Federal Parliament may determine. 270 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* The Commonwealth Parliament was thus to be left free to select either Wentworth or Sydney, for example, as the site of the Federal Capital. It was to have an entirely free hand. The Legislative Council, however, by a majority of one, rejected that proposition, and carried a resolution that the capital should be in Sydney. Those were the two resolutions passed, the one by the people's House-the Legislative Assembly - and the other by the nominee Chamber, and they were subsequently considered at a Conference of the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia. Queensland was also represented. The outcome of the Conference was that it was determined that the following clause should be substituted for the draft clause 124 as passed by the Convention The Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, and shall be vested in and belonging to the Commonwealth, and if New South Wales be an original State shall be in that State, and be distant not less than 100 miles from Sydney. Such territory shall contain an area of not less than 100 square miles, and such portion thereof, as shall consist of Crown lands, shall be granted to the Commonwealth without any payment therefor. If Victoria be an original State the Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meet at the Seat of Government. In connexion with this proposed clause an explanatory memorandum was issued in the following terms: - >It is considered that the fixing of the site of the capital is a question which might well be left to the Parliament to decide ; but in view of the strong expression of opinion in relation to this matter in New South Wales, the Premiers have modified the clause, so that while the capital cannot be fixed at Sydney or in its neighbourhood, provision is made in the Constitution for its establishment in New South Wales at a reasonable distance from that city. That was the whole of the explanation given by the Premiers of the States. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Does the word "reasonable" appear in italics? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- Was the explanation submitted to the people? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The Premiers' Conference sat with closed doors. It was presumably a confidential gathering. No report of its proceedings was issued save that which I have here, and I have read the only reference to the capital site which it contains. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- That memorandum was issued all over New South Wales during the second campaign on the Constitution Bill. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Possibly it was. It was not a secret document. It appeared in Quick and Garran's work, which was issued in 1901. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I think that it was published in the press. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I believe that the right honorable member was the first to make the memorandum public by laying it on the table of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Then he should consider himself bound by it. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It was intended as an explanation of the amended clause proposed by the Premiers. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- But that memorandum did not purport to be a complete report of the proceedings at the conference. It was only an official report. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It was issued as being what the Premiers thought fit to publish as a report of their proceedings. What took place behind the doors of the conference we cannot say. We cannot say whether there was a fight over the question of whether the capital should be not less than 100 or 200 miles from Sydney, or whether there was a conflict as between State and. State, or what were the reasons that actuated one Premier in voting for the proposed new clause and another in opposing it. The only report of the proceedings issued to the public was that contained in the document circulated for their information, all of which I have now placed on record, so far as it relates to the question. It is now said that we have in it a compact of so binding a nature that notwithstanding that the Imperial Parliament, by passing the Commonwealth Constitution, gave us absolutely the powers vested in us by section 125, we should not exercise them except strictly in accordance with what is to be found in this official memorandum. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- It embodies the same moral obligation that was said to rest upon us to agree to the construction of the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I can tell, from the interjections of honorable members, that there are two ways of putting the position. Some contend that we are bound by this document, while others declare, " We admit that *Seat of* [23 Sept., 1908.] *Government Bill.* 271 the Commonwealth Parliament is free to do as it pleases; that legally New South Wales has no power to interfere; but inasmuch as the statement appearing in the memorandum was held out to the people of New South Wales as an inducement to support the Constitution Bill, we ought to try to comply with the spirit of it." My own opinion is that if it can be shown distinctly that in connexion with so important a question as a proposal to federate the States, a statement was held out to the people, and that they acted upon it, Parliament should endeavour, as far as possible, to hold to it. But the question is, " what is the spirit of it " ? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- There is no doubt that this representation was held out. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I agree with the honorable member that it may have been, but what is the interpretation to be placed on this explanatory memorandum? Does it say that the site, when selected, shall be not less than 100 miles from Sydney, and shall be as close to that limit as we can fix it? That certainly is not the construction to be placed upon it. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- I think that it is. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Honorable members must place their own interpretation upon it. I am merely submitting my own view. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- The honorable member is omitting to mention the statement which has been published that a resolution was passed that the site of the Capital should be not less than 100 miles from Sydney, and not more than 125 miles. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Where was that resolution passed? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- At the Conference in question. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I have not heard of it before, and do not know whether any other honorable member can vouch for the accuracy of the statement. When such an assertion is made the resolution itself should be produced. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- How could I produce the resolution? I could produce the statement itself, which was published in a Sydney mewspaper, and contained the definite announcement I have mentioned. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Who was credited with the statement that such a resolution was passed at the Conference? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- I cannot say. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The right honorable member for East Sydney, who was then Premier of New South Wales, moved for a 75 mile limit, and **Sir George** Turner, then Premier of Victoria, moved for a limit of 125 miles being fixed. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -They may have moved those propositions ; but the honorable member for West Sydney says that aresolution in the terms he has mentioned was actually carried. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- I understand that a resolution was moved, providing that the Capital should be not less than 100 miles from Sydney, and that, as a compromise, a further proposition was submitted, that it should not be more than 125 miles from Sydney, and so on. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- But that further proposition was not passed ? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- I am given to understand that it was. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- What the honorable member says is probably based on a statement of the honorable and learned member for East Sydney. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- And by **Sir George** Turner. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Yes. Those were not the statements circulated amongst the electors prior to the Federal referendum, but the verbal accounts of two members of the Conference given five or six years later. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- As we are reopening the case, we ought to act on the fresh information available. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I am dealing with the representations made to the electors when they were asked to vote for or against the acceptance of the draft Constitution. Statements made subsequently are in a different category. The point is: Did we, in selecting Dalgety, act in violation of the Constitution, or of the alleged agreement with those who voted for its acceptance? The Premiers, in conference, desired that the Constitution should be altered in the manner I have explained, and circulated a memorandum declaring - >That while the Capital cannot be fixed at Sydney or in its neighbourhood, provision is made in the Constitution for its establishment in New South Wales at a reasonable distance from that city. There is an absolute limit of 100 miles. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- A limit of 200 miles was rejected by the Premiers as unreasonable. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The Premiers decided that the Capital must be at a reasonable distance from Sydney. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- A reasonable distance means at least 100 miles from Sydney. 272 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Yes. The statement put before the public of New South Wales was, that the Capital was to be in that State, but at a reasonable distance from Sydney. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- " And at a reasonable distance." {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The point is that it must be at a reasonable distance. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- No; that it must not be within 100 miles, and at a reasonable distance. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Under the Constitution the Capital of the Commonwealth can not be situated in any of the Capitals of the States, the object of its framers being, no doubt, similar to that of the framers of the Constitution of the United States - that it should be placed where it could not be dominated by the influence of any of the Capitals, or by demonstrations of force in any particular city, but should stand entirely by itself, in a territory of its own. In the selection of a site, the first point to be borne in mind was that it must be in New South Wales. That State was entitled to whatever prestige would come from the selection of a site within its territory. I do not think, however, that it was intended that the Federal Capital should be so placed that Sydney should benefit any more than any other part of the State. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Why does the Minister say that the State should have the prestige and not the material advantages arising from the location of the Federal Capital within its territory ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The State, but not necessarily Sydney, should get whatever material advantage flows from that. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Has a site been chosen in a corner of New South Wales so that the whole State may benefit? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Each member must interpret the Constitution for himself, and decide whether the proposed site is at a reasonable distance from Sydney. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- If Canberra, as some of the representatives of New South Wales admit, is at a reasonable distance from Sydney, Dalgety is so, too. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The Parliament, in selecting Dalgety, chose a place at a reasonable distance from Sydney. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Then what would be an unreasonable distance? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The chosen site is 30 miles nearer Sydney than one of those offered by the Government of New South Wales. The ex-Premier of that State, **Sir Hector** Carruthers, speaking of Bombala, which is 30 miles further from Sydney than is Dalgety, said - >If the Federal Government had accepted Bombala, this State would have been out of court, because practically in offering Bombala our position was compromised. The point that it was not fair to New South Wales to choose Dalgety as being a breach of the alleged compact was not raised until 1904, after its selection, when the honorable member for North Sydney spoke of the existence of a memorandum of the Premiers. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- I understood that there was such a memorandum, but could not get a copy of it. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No objection came from the New South Wales Parliament or Government; the point was first raised by the honorable member for North Sydney. After Dalgety had been chosen, we were charged with a breach of faith in selecting it; but between 1901 and 1904 no objection of the kind was raised, and we were permitted to take steps to choose any site we liked. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Objection was taken to the selection of Dalgety as not fulfilling the spirit of the Constitution; but the document referred to was not produced because it was out of print. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It is contained in Quick and Garran's *Annotated Constitution,* a book available to every one. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- I did not know that. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It seems now to be admitted by all that the Parliament was within its legal rights in selecting Dalgety. Since then it has been attempted to show that the selection of this site was practically an act of injustice to the State of New South Wales, as breaking a compact with it. But the proper interpretation of this document does not support that contention. The merits of Dalgety as a site are another question. Coming now to the criticism that the Commonwealth Parliament is to blame for not having dealt with this matter before, I refer honorable members to theprecis of the correspondence, which shows that it has been dealt with as expeditiously as possible. This is made plain in a letter, addressed by the Prime Minister to the Governor-General, dated 6th May, 1906, and in another letter, dated 28th November, 1907. In the beginning of 1901, the Prime Minister of the day invited the Premier of New South Wales to submit sites for selection and determination. Three were submitted, two more being added afterwards, together with a complete report by **Mr. Oliver,** a most competent and just officer. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Who, as a tourist, had strong predilections* for Monaro. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- At any rate, they were founded on reason. Amongst the sites which he submitted was an area in southern Monaro. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Bombala? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No; an area including both Bombala and Dalgety. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Dalgety was not known then. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It was known as Buckley's Crossing. Member's of both Houses of P ar 1 i anient visited it and other sites submitted . In 1902 it was decided to appoint a Royal Commission, and by that body the site of Dalgety was inspected, and its suitability investigated. In 1903 the House of Representatives decided on Tumut, while 'the Senate decided on Bombala. The New South Wales Government went so far as to reserve from selection all the Crown lands within the Dalgety area. In 1904 we, as a Parliament, fixed upon Dalgety as a site. Up to that date the Commonwealth Parliament was permitted to make a free selection, and to spend large sums in investigation ; and it was not until after Dalgety had been selected that any objection was raised on the part of New South Wales. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- Was that site not offered by New South Wales"? ' {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I say that it was offered in the area of Southern Monaro. There are many other facts which confirm the short *precis* I have given, and honorable members who have been some time in Parliament will know that what I say is correct. In 1904 the honorable member for North Sydney became Minister of Home Affairs, and communicated with the New South Wales Government on the subject. It was then pointed out by that gentleman that the Seat of Government Act of that year was mandatory on the Executive of the day. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- And so I say now. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The honorable member, as Minister, approached the Government of New South Wales, and endeavoured to arrive at a settlement; and the evidence shows that he did his best to carry out the wishes of the House. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Although 1 was against that selection. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- That is so ; and I think: it was about that time that the right honorable member for East Sydney advised, that the Dalgety site should be approved, because it was possible another so advantageous might not be obtainable. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Just as the AttorneyGeneral is doing now - he does not believe in the Dalgety site. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- At present I am only recounting facts. When the present Government took office, in 1905, the New South Wales Government invited us to deal with the question, and raised constitutional issues, 'questioning the validity of the Act we had passed. Up to the end of the year we endeavoured to arrive at a settlement so that these issues might be decided, and we submitted a Bill, the consideration of which was adjourned, practically at the request of the leader of the Opposition. In 1906 we were proceeding to deal with the question again, when we were invited by New South Wales to consider new sites. :The inspection of those sites carried us up to. the time when the House had to be dissolved, in view of a general election. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Does the present Bill not differ very materially from the Bill introduced last vear? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The only difference is the omission of the appropriation of "a sum of money for the purposes of the measure. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- That enables the opponents of the site originally selected torepeat their former action. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No, it does not. The New South Wales Government complain that the three sites they offered were not considered by us, but it was pointed out that we were prepared to give the fullest opportunity for the discussion of those, areas, and that is the position to-day. This Bill is introduced at the earliest possible time, and the stoppage of the progress of the measure last session is so well known to honorable members that I need not refer to it further. I ask the House to proceed with the consideration of this Bill as quickly as possible. It is only fair to say that we know the site is to lie attacked ; and the procedure, if that site is not adopted, will be to give the House an opportunity to express an opinion on any site, and not only as between two 274 *Seat of* . [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* particular sites - there will be the fullest opportunity for arriving at a fair and unbiased judgment. The site of Dalgety was, however, chosen after fair and full consideration. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Dr Wilson: -- The Minister must not say that, because the honorable members for East Sydney and North Sydney voted for Dalgety, although they did not believe in the site. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- The Attorney-General himself voted against that site twice. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -I voted for what I believed to be the right site. I admit that the site I desired was not selected; but honorable members opposite will not give any consideration to the sites I favoured. Colonel Foxton. - And what were they? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Armidale and Lyndhurst. I am satisfied, however, that,so far as this House is concerned, Dalgety was selected on its merits on a fair and frank vote. The selection was not made hurriedly, but after full consideration ; and I am prepared to stand by the decision then arrived at. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- What is the proposed procedure in case Dalgety is rejected? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- The same procedure that we proposed on a former occasion. If any step is taken which indicates a desire to review the selection, the Bill will be immediately reported, when fresh names may be nominated and an exhaustive ballot taken. Colonel Foxton. - How will the AttorneyGeneral vote? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- It will be time enough to announce my vote when the time arrives; but I hope that the honorable member will always do as I do, and give a truly national vote. I claim perfect freedom of action myself, and I am prepared to allow the same to others. The House has already decided this question on its merits after full and complete investigation, and, as I say, I am prepared to stand by the decision. {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr Hall: -- Are the Government responsible for the map which is displayed in the lobby, and which shows every site except that of Canberra? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- I do not know who placed the map there, but I have no doubt that if the honorable member communicates with the Department of Home Affairs, any desired correction will be made. The clauses of the Bill itself are few, short, and simple. They provide that the territory of the Seat of Government shall be the territory described in Schedule A; that territory was defined on the advice of the New South Wales surveyor, **Mr. Scrivener.** That gentleman reported that if he were asked to select an area suitable for a Federal Capital in this particular part of New South Wales, so as to give the city complete control over its water supply, he would recommend an extent of 1,550 square miles, so as to embrace the whole of the catchment area of the Snowy River, and render impossible the pollution of the waters. {: .speaker-L1H} ##### Dr Liddell: -- That does not correspond with **Mr. Wade's** statement. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- Iam now dealing with the evidence of an expert. If honorable members have regard to the map they will see that 900 square miles is not an extraordinarily large area. We have to consider that, wherever the Federal Capital site is situated, and even if only 100 square miles be devoted thereto, there must still be reserved a large catchment area. In the case of Canberra, for instance, we would require an enormous catchment area in order to keep the supply absolutely pure. We propose, therefore, to ask Parliament to define the area of 900 square miles, the area specified in the Seat of Government Act . 1904. Clause 3 empowers the Government to obtain a grant of a particular area, and then follow clauses dealing with existing interests in the land, its valuation, continuance of the State laws, and so forth. I ask the House to affirm the principle of the Bill by passing the second reading. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is precisely what we do not desire to do. Why not take the test vote on the motion for the second reading ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- For the reason that it is desirable to advance the Bill as far as possible. If an attempt to attack the clauses in Committee is not successful, we can send the Bill expeditiously to the Senate, our desire being to deal with the subject as quickly as possible. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- But supposing the Dalgety site be omitted, all the preliminary work will go for nothing. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- What I suggest is the simplest and best mode of procedure; and I ask the assistance of honorable members in speedily deciding this vexed question. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- As a point of order I desire to ask you, **Mr. Speaker,** who is responsible for the exhibition of a map of New South Wales in the corridor? Apparently the Government are responsible! but I wish to be sure, and not do any injustice. This map clearly shows every proposed site with the one exception of that upon which much stress has been laid by a large section of the House, namely, Canberra. {: #subdebate-20-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have not seen the map, and I was not aware that there was such an exhibit hanging within the precincts of the House. I think it would only be courteous, before a map or any other exhibit is displayed, that the matter should be mentioned to the Speaker. **Mr. GLYNN** (Angas; [3-40]. - I am afraid that the clauses of the Constitution dealing with the Capital area are not very clear in their expression. The Attorney-General, in his speech, referred to the question whether it is for us not only to determine the site, but to select the territory within which the site is to be. That question was mooted a few years ago, when the first Bill dealing with the Federal Capital was introduced. Looking at the sections in the Constitution now, it would seem that we have power to determine the site within the territory, and to acquire by law, or to accept a grant of, the territory. The Constitution provides that we can acquire on just terms land from the States for any purpose in relation' to which the Federal Parliament has power to make laws. That is provided by one of the sub-sections of section 51. In a later section - I think section 52 - the Federal Parliament has power to make laws in relation to the territory of the Commonwealth or the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth and in relation to any land that may be acquired for public purposes. It would seem, therefore, speaking hurriedly, and, of course, subject to any more matured thought one might acquire by looking more closely into the question, that under section 125 and those other sections of the Constitution, we have power to acquire the territory, and that if we happen to acquire territory which comprises Crown lands it is the duty of the State of New South Wales to grant us those lands free of charge. If the grant is not made by the Executive of the State, of course the High Court may find a method of carrying out the intent. Subject to what I have said - that section 125 is not the most clear exposition of the intention, not so much of the people as of the Premiers who dictated the 100 miles limitation, and thus interfered with the wording of the section - I think it will be found that we have, as we ought to have, the power to acquire the territory and afterwards determine the site. They are two independent powers. That really was, I think, what was done in America. Through following, possibly, the phraseology of some of the American Acts, we have used the word " grant." Maryland and Virginia granted lands for the site of the Capital upon the Potomac, but the actual determination of the territory, and also of the particular location upon which the Capital was to be erected, was within the power only of Congress. The only promise that was *made* to these two States - and this, I believe, was the first instance of log-rolling in the history of Congress - was that when a site was determined - unfortunately in the wilderness - it would be upon, the banks of the Potomac. I regret that the matter of the abolition of the 100-miles limit has not received more attention at the hands of the electors at the invitation of public men than it has. With any knowledge of the pulse of Australia in this matter that I have - and it is not very great - I should be inclined to risk the opinion that if a proposition were made to abolish the 100-miles limit, and let the original desire of New South Wales to have the site near or in Sydney be carried out, it would be passed. The dog-in-the-manger policy, or the policy of continued jealousy, which seems to have inspired the limitation introduced in connexion with the Premiers' Conference I am sure no longer remains. The desire of the people is that this Parliament, subject to the obligation of putting the site in New South Wales, should have the greatest liberality of choice that the circumstances of the time will permit. I said that the sections are not very lucid, and really, if one looks into them, he will find that the amendments made by the Premiers render two or three things doubtful. One, for instance, is whether we are bound to go to the Seat of Government at all. As the Constituti'on was originally drafted, the site of the Seat of Government was to be determined by the majority of the State Governors, or, in case of a difference of opinion amongst them, by the Governor-General of the Commonwealth, and their determination was to be the site until the Seat of Government was fixed by. Parliament. After that, of course, Parliament had to go to the Seat of Government because no other, location was fixed bv the Constitution. But as the Constitution is now drafted Parliament is to remain in Melbourne until it goes to the Seat of Government - not until the Seat of Government is determined. I pointed out this looseness in drafting, before the Constitution actually became law. I was one of those who watched' pretty closely the amendments after the document passed out of our hands. So, as a matter of technical construction, which, candidly, [ do not think the High Court would adopt, we may sit here until Parliament says that we are to go to the Seat of Government ; but as the Constitution was originally drafted we had to go to the Seat of Government as soon as it was fixed upon. I am sorry to have to quote from myself, as one who was in the Convention, and watched operations afterwards, but somewhere about May, 1900, I said - and this indicates the spirit apart from the mere technical reading that I should like to apply in the interpretation of the text of the Constitution - Of course, it would be unfair to the Federal Parliament to take advantage of a slip in drafting, and by ignoring the spirit of the Premiers' resolutions, deny to New South Wales the full price of its adoption, or rather to politicians the full terms of their support, of the Commonwealth Bill. The Premiers probably intended that Parliament, after the interval required for necessary arrangements was to sit at the Seat of Government. But the possibility of there being two seats, one of the Executive, the other of Parliament, and the constitutional obligation to at once fix the first, may force the reconsideration of the whole question of the Federal Capital, as it is referred to colloquially, and procure for it more adequate discussion than it has hitherto received. [ regret that up to the present it has not received that broader discussion which would enable the original desire of New South Wales to be gratified. It is, as I said, open to us to say that there may be a Seat of Government which is to be the seat of the Executive, and not necessarily the seat of Parliament. That condition of affairs applies to the Netherlands, where the two bodies are separated, and they could be separated in connexion with other federations. Of course, that is only by implication, and therefore I say candidly that I. do not think that that technical reading, although it is open, would be the one that the1 High Court would .hit upon. They would regard the Seat of Government as including the seat of Parliament, and not as being merely what it might be technically - the seat of the Executive. The wording of the Constitution was intended to mean that we should go to the Seat of Government as soon as it had been determined upon, and, of course, the Capital built. What I would suggest is that we should return to the original idea of New South Wales so far as it was expressed at all - it was only after the first rejection of the Constitution that the pretext of the Capital was introduced - and abolish the 100-mile limit. The equitable settlement of this matter, or its settlement from the point of view only of national interest, has been prevented by local jealousy from its first mention) in the Adelaide Convention down even to the present. **Sir Edmund** Barton, in the Adelaide Convention, when the Capital was first mentioned, referred to local jealousies in these words, to be found on page 1020 of the official report - I am inclined to the opinion myself that it would be a good thing, in order to avoid IntelColonial jealousies, that the site of the Capital should not be in one of the present centres. He begged the Convention, instead of fixing it in the Constitution, to allow the greatest liberality to the Federal Parliament, our idea being then that, idealizing its Constitution, the Federal Parliament would always act from the very highest dictates of rectitude, as of course we do - on. this side. Immediately afterwards, **Mr. Carruthers,** who, I think, was Minister of Lands for New South Wales at the time, rose and said - Now, you will distinctly be taking away from that free Parliament a free choice if you carry this proposal. You at once put outside the range of choice all the great capital cities of Australia. I do object to tying the hands of the Federal Parliament in such a fashion as that. Why should we assume that we have all the wisdom of the world in regard to the proper choice of a Federal Capital ? There is absolutely no necessity to have this site on Federal territory. It may be open to very good argument in favour of having it on Federal territory, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that very good argument may be used against having the Federal Capital dissociated from those centres of trade and commerce and culture which exist in Australia. These were not only the opinions of some of the leading politicians of Australia, and men who were responsible Ministers of the. State which is now chiefly interested in getting the Capital, but they were the opinions held by the dispassionate critics who were watching our proceedings from the other side of the world. Let me quote one. I wish to give opinions upon this matter, not merely to argue from my own personal point of view, but to give whatever weight there may be to the authorities whose public statements are available. The *Saturday Review* of 19th May, 1900, wrote thus - >For undoubtedly the degeneration . which threatens, or has befallen, all democratic Governments to-day, results from the absorption of power by the political machine and its manipulators. For this reason we regret that mutual jealousies have prevented the Colonies from fixing Sydney or Melbourne as the Capital of the Federation. Such self-abnegation is, perhaps, more than reasonably could have been expected from colonial human nature, and yet it was so obviously the best thing to do for the future of the continent that we could almost have hoped that patriotism might have sufficiently stimulated magnanimity. As it is, the result must inevitably be that some obscure and inoffensive township, which arouses no jealousies, but which awakes no enthusiasm, will become the Seat of Government. It will probably exist for and by politicians only, and, accordingly, can hardly have any charms as a place of residence. In the United States, both Federal politics, and those of individual States, suffer from the fact that they have to be carried on, as a rule, in towns which have come into existence *ad hoc,* and have no other claim to recognition, either as centres of intellectual, social, or business life. How much of the interest taken by the best class of minds in the country in politics would evaporate if the political centre were to be transferred from London to some obscure provincial town. It may be hoped that common sense may in time cause Australian political activity to gravitate towards some acknowledged centre of national life. I do not for a moment quote that as adopting its tone, which is, perhaps, to an extent regrettable; but, at the same time, there is a substance of sound sense underlying the remarks, and the experience of America shows that such an article is not unwarranted. Except Washington, there has not been a single capital pushed into the bush or selected in the wilderness. When Ottawa was selected, it had a population at least double that of any of the capital sites which have so far been suggested for the purposes of our Federation. I forget what its population was, but it was, although not a town of very great note, a. fairly thriving agricultural centre. Washington was not chosen on its merits. Within two or three years there were nine amendments of the American Constitution, several of them having to be made to induce some of the southern States to join the Federation. Virginia, Maryland, and I think others of the southern States, refused to join unless1 the promise were made - and the promise was given - that some compensation would be allowed them for bearing their share of the public debt of the union. The proposition was to throw upon the Federal Government the whole responsibility for the public debt. Some of the States had very large debts, while others, including Virginia and Maryland, had comparatively small ones. The latter refused^ to take a *-per capita* liability for the obligations of the American Commonwealth, unless they received some compensation ; and after a discussion extending over two sessions it was decided to allow the southern States the privilege of having the Capital City upon the Potomac. It will thus be seen that the question of the selection of the site was not settled upon its merits. In connexion with the selection of the Capital of the Dominion of Canada there were jealousies, such as exist here, between Quebec, Montreal, and Toronto, and' eventually the determination of the site was referred to Queen Victoria. She selected Ottawa, but Parliament was so dissatisfied with that choice that it rejected it. **Sir John** McDonald then threatened to resign unless what he described as this slight upon Her Majesty were removed, and it was in that way that Ottawa was finally chosen. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The selection of Ottawa as the Capital of the Dominion was for many years, and still is, a great handi-, cap. {: #subdebate-20-0-s2 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Yes. It was even found necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to compel the Judges to reside there, the Act requiring that they should reside within five miles of the Capital. I was about to say that notwithstanding that Washington is beautifully situated - that it boasts of sylvan charm; that it is near a port, is on a good river, and has an excellent water supply - an agitation sprang up immediately after it was settled in 1800 for the removal of the Capital to some centre of commerce and enlightenment. Year after year, until the outbreak of the Civil War, motions to abandon Washington were submitted in Congress. . Some writers contend that had not the nation been plunged into, and its attention diverted by the great Titanic struggle of 1861, Washington would have been abandoned as the Seat of Government. As for Ottawa, the honorable member for Flinders has rightly said that it is not even now regarded as an ideal place to live in. Goldwin Smith condemned it as a city and regarded it as> a centre of intrigue. But I am dealing with it as a Capital where the men who represent the public should be free from sinister influences. So far from that being the case, the dominant tone of Ottawa is political arid official. It is a centre of politicians, officials, and second-rate journalists. I say "second-rate" because the best do not go there. Then again, there is no resident Bar at OttawaLet me quote an opinion on Washington expressed "twenty years ago by **Mr. Bryce,** although it may be considered a little antiquated. During the Centennial Demonstration, high eulogies were passed upon the Capital of the United States, not as a centre of exceptional political cleanness but with respect to its site. Colonel Foxton. - Its political cleanness? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- According to **Mr. Bryce,** Washington society consists of - , Congressmen (for about half the year), officials, diplomatists, and some rich and leisured people who come to spend the winter. The leaders of finance, industry, and commerce are absent; there are few men of letters and hardly any journalists. That must be qualified by the statement that, owing to the establishment of splendid facilities for the study of science, it has become the great centre of scientific students. I propose now to give some of the opinions expressed by the local newspapers, which are, of course, powerful journals, and, as honorable members know, free from influences likely to prejudice judgment. I have to select for encomium two as representing the newspapers of Australia generally. The *Age* of 2nd May, 1902- {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What paper is that ? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- The ignorance of some Victorian politicians may be profound, but T do not think it is so deep as that interjection seems to suggest. The *Age,,* after praising Washington for its plan, library, freedom from the grime of factories - and, by the way, although it was to become a centre of manufacture, I believe that there is not a factory within 50 miles of it - its water supply, and its Government, not by politicians, but by Commissioners, who are nominated, not elected, and are regarded as the finest municipal body in the world, points out- {: .speaker-JWG} ##### Mr Fowler: -- By whom is that body nominated ? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- By the President, I think. The *Age* correspondent points out that- >Much as one may admire Washington and its outward political serenity as he sees it to-day, it is very questionable whether in the selection of a capital for the Australian Commonwealth, the same course should be pursued as that adopted by the States Congress in 1790. The area ceded by Maryland and Virginia for thcpurposes was* in reality nothing but a wilderness,, and for nearly half a century after the foundation of Washington it was a wilderness still This is an extract from an article in the. *Age,* which, because of its sound sense, is well worth reading - >It required an enormous expenditure of theUnited States money to lick it into shape, and, as already pointed out, it still absorbs an immense contribution annually of the nationsmoney . And then the writer asks - >The question then arises in connexion wilh, the Capital of the Australian Commonwealth, is it advisable or necessary to go into the wilderness as the Americans did in the establishment of theirs? There are weighty arguments against the pursuit of such a course. . . Washington, was really half a century old before it wasdignified with the name of a city, and at thepresent moment it is a purely residential and: official place, which gives little promise of material expansion. That is probably what a city founded on similar lines in Australia would become. Any ideas as to the new city being: self-supporting must be dismissed as chimerical, arid the best proof of that is furnished by Washington itself, which would soon become themost undesirable of places to live in but for the annual appropriation of Congress of 50 per cent, of the amount for its maintenance. I come now to the opinion of a writer in* the *Argus,* who, after an elaborate reference to Washington, says that it vies withMonte citorio in Rome as a swarming hiveof jobbing adventurers. He points out. that neither in the case of Italy, the quasifederation of Austro-Hungary, nor theNetherlands, was there such a selection of a Capital site as is suggested in our caseFlorence was to be the centre of United Italy, but Rome is. It is impossible to believe that Vienna, the centre of culture, business, and fashion, could have been ousted by any country site from being the.Capital of the Austro-Hungarian Federation. There was some trouble in 'connexion' with the settlement of what should be the Capital of the Netherlands, and ultimately it was decided as a compromise to allow the Hague the privilege of being the political Capital, .while Amsterdam remained the commercial Capital, enjoying also whatever distinction might attach to having the best Royal residence. But, not to give toomany examples, I would ask honorablemembers, when this bush Capital is established, of what is it really to become acentre ? Is it likely to become a centre of commerce ? Can human conjecture say that! it is likely within a period of years to become anything like a centre of commercial activity ? Is it likely to become a centre of agriculture? We have yet to find that the plough follows the politician. {: .speaker-L1H} ##### Dr Liddell: -- A good many politicians have followed the plough. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Perhaps, as the honorable member suggests, the public will be more inclined to think that it would be better for the national interests if many of us did follow the plough.. I do not think that the Federal Capital, if established in the bush, is likely to become a centre of arts or culture. We are npt likely to hear applied to it the words which Newman so beautifully applied to Athens, " The City of Mind," as being the metropolis of knowledge. As I have already mentioned, there is no resident Bar at Ottawa, and in what seems ' to be the hopeless advocacy of the reconsideration of this question, I would remind honorable members that our powers at present are very limited. Within twenty years, we shall have almost exhausted our powers of original legislation, although we may give ourselves something to do by amending the Acts that we have already passed. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- We shall not Iia ve exhausted our powers if we extend, as it is proposed, those that we have. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- Quite so. I am not sure, however, that the people of Australia are yet prepared to grant a very large extension of the national power. I invite honorable members to read an essay on this subject by Professor Woodrow Wilson, a leading constitutional historian of America, which appears in the May number of the *North American Review.* They will find from a perusal of that article that «the feeling of some writers in the United States is against an extension of the national powers. Professor Wilson points out that although there are many evidences that public confidence in the State Parliaments is being lost, it is clear that it is through them that the people attempt all the more intimate measures of self-government. He says that it would be fatal to our political vitality to strip the States of their powers and transfer them to the Federal Government. As a historian, he does not stand alone in the view that it is opposed to democracy to have a unitary system applied over too wide a geographical area. Perhaps the greatest historian of all, in intent and knowledge, is Lord Acton, and he says that the autonomy «of the States, with a very large measure of self-government, is the only effective check against centralism and concentration. I do not. wish it to be understood that those are my matured opinions on the subject. One has to watch the course of events, and we are still in the first decade of our national existence. But men of experience to whom I have spoken stand against too great an extension of the national powers. Our powers are very few in comparison with those of the Parliaments of Switzerland and America. The lands, the territories, foreign policy, and other matters I need not mention, all fall within the province of the American Congress, which has to deal also with the complications of the trade between no fewer than forty-six States. These are general matters to which I desire at this late stage to call the attention of honorable members. Before concluding, I should like to mention what seems to me to have been the opinion of the people of New South Wales on adopting the Constitution. The right honorable member for East Sydney, in the first speech which he delivered in somewhat tepid advocacy of the draft Bill, .made no allusion to the fact that it was not provided that the Seat of Government should be in New South Wales ; but the Sydney *Daily Telegraph,* in a series of articles published before the Bill was accepted, declared that there were twelve heads under which it required amendment, the last requirement being that the Capital should be fixed in New South Wales,, and not in Federal territory. After stating that Sydney had a historical claim, and was the centre of the greatest trade, the writer of these articles stated that - >Melbourne is the more convenient for all the southern Colonies, and they, even if Queensland joins, will possess a majority of the voting power, particularly in the Senate. If **Mr. Reid's** first suggestion were workable that sessions should be held alternately in Sydney and Melbourne, that would be the fairest way out of the difficulty. India has a movable Government in this way, but then it has not to move a Parliament. Members would strongly resist shifting their quarters once a year, and it would involve great expense to them. Again, locating the Capital away from either Sydney or Melbourne will have this effect, that it will probably end in the exclusion of the mercantile community from the Federal Parliament. Their business would preclude them from spending six months of the year away from their offices, and this would tend to throw the representation more into the hands of the professional politician, especially as a politician can be a member of both the State and the Federal Parliaments - This is not now the case - and there will be much more in the profession of politics than there has ever yet been. But that basis is impossible; and **Mr. Reid** has now made it part of his programme that the Capital should not only be in New South Wales, but should be on Federal territory. That, of course, implies Sydney. **Mr. Barton,** has, so far, concurred that he would propose that the Capital should be in New South Wales. **Mr. Lyne** has always advocated the claim of New South Wales. When we first raised the point, it was a case of hoping against hope. Now it is a live requirement on the part of this Colony. Even at this stage I suggest to honorable members that the matter might be left to the unfettered choice of Parliament, and that, as there is talk of amending the Constitution, the 100-mile limit might be removed, so that the best site may be chosen. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- Would the honorable member suggest the removal of both limitations ? {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN: -- I do not suggest that, though it would be open to the honorable ;ind learned member to move in that direction himself. Some of the New South Wales electors ' were undoubtedly led to vote for the acceptance of the Constitution on the understanding that the Capital would' be placed within that State. It may be replied to that that they voted for a Constitution capable of amendment, and, indeed, there can be no repudiation of a contract, unless the Parliament delays loo long in carrying out the moral obligations which rest upon it. I protest against the fatuous pedantry which makes us follow the precedent set in the adoption of Washington, and copied by most of the States, which have since 1789 altered their Constitutions. The more honorable members consider this question, the more will they find that the weight of opinion' goes dead against the location of a capital in the wilderness. {: #subdebate-20-0-s3 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney -- We are being asked now to confirm a choice made by last Parliament, and the Attorney-General, in moving the second reading of the Bill, read the section of the Constitution under which that choice was made, and a resolution of the Premiers' Conference which it has been said compels it to be regarded in the nature of a compact, and should modify its interpretation. But he contended that we had no right to consider the section as embodying a compact - that, while every honorable member should pay due regard to it, it did not bind us. Although he declared that honorable members arrived at a decision in the selection of Dalgety upon the merits of the site, I venture to say that not one of us really thinks that that was so. Nothing is more certain than that the merits of the site did not enter into the consideration of the majority. As for the section of the Constitution, that must stand ; but we have a right to look into the resolution of the Premiers, and, as a Court would do, in interpreting an agreement, consider the circumstances surrounding its adoption, and those under which the Constitution was accepted. I interjected, when the Attorney-General was speaking, that of those who urged the people of New South Wales to accept the Constitution, the right honorable member for East Sydney, who had been a member of the Premiers' - Conference, was the chief. He was cognisant of what transpired at the Conference, though, as the AttorneyGeneral said, it was not disclosed until some years afterwards. There was an understanding among the Premiers, not expressed in the official report, as to the. circums'tances which should govern the selection of the Capital Site. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I was a member of the Premiers' Conference, and have no knowledge of any such understanding. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- I shall come to that in a moment. Although he did not say so specifically, the right honorable member for East Sydney led the people of New South Wales to believe that the 100 miles limitation was the only restriction on the choice of the Federal Parliament, and that the Federal Capital would be placed as near the metropolis as the limitation allowed. ' The State was split into hostile camps, the acceptance of the Constitution being carried by a narrow majority. Had the right honorable member for East Sydney, or any other leading public man, declared that the Federal Capital would be located at Albury or Dalgety, the Constitution would have been rejected by at least 30,000 votes. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- It was accepted by 70.000 voters when there was no restriction. {: .speaker-JRH} ##### Mr Bowden: -- That was the number of electors who voted for its acceptance, not the number of the majority. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- Unfortunately, of the 1,250,000 persons who compose the population of New South Wales, nearly 700,000 live within 25 miles of Sydney, and would they have voted for a Constitution which they knew deliberately debarred not merely the environs of the metropolis, but practically the whole State, from the advantages accruing from the location of the Federal Capital within its territory ? If honorable members will look at the wording of the Premiers' resolution, they will see that it Avas determined that, while the Federal Capital should not be within 100 miles of Sydney, it should be within a reasonable distance. What did that mean in the circumstances of the case? The Premiers' Conference was composed of gentlemen whom we know well, representative of the various States, and it determined - obviously because the other States were not prepared to allow Sydney to have an advantage over their capitals - that the Seat of Government should not be within 100 miles of that city. The representative of New South Wales, who, as I have stated before, and emphatically repeat now, failed in his duty to the State, agreed to that. It was also determined that the Capital should be located within a reasonable distance of Sydney. What is a reasonable distance? Let honorable members consider the extent of the State. From Sydney to Dalgety is a distance of about 300 miles, and from Dalgety to the Victorian border a distance of about 20 miles, while from Dalgety to Melbourne the distance is from 180 to 200 miles, as the crow flies. {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr Wise: -- It is 240 miles from Dalgety to Melbourne as the crow flies. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- And 228 from Dalgety to Sydney. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- -I cannot accept those distances in the face of the map which is in front of me; but, in any case, Dalgety is nearer to Melbourne than to Sydney. I ask any honorable member whether the -word " reasonable " means placing the Federal Capital in a. position that is almost equidistant between the two capitals. Had it been meant to have the Capital beyond 300 miles from Sydney, a circuit of that size would have been marked. It appears conclusive that the 100-miles limit having been agreed upon, the meaning of " reasonable distance " is that the Capital shall be as near that line as possible. I understand that the honorable member for Swan was a party to the understanding arrived at bv the Premiers' Conference that the provision in the Constitution meant somewhere near to the 100-miles limit. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I do not think that question arose. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- I am not saying whether or not the question arose, but merely that the honorable member was a party to such an understanding. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I think that that is a reasonable view to take. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- The right honorable member has to carry his mind back a long time, and many things have happened in the interim; but I am given to understand that he was a party to such an understanding as that I have indicated. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- As I say, I do not think the question arose, but I think that is a reasonable view. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- The right honorable member interpreted that understanding by subsequently, voting! for Dalgety, which, though not the remotest in point of distance, is the remotest in point of accessibility from Sydney, and is, in every other respect but name and political limit, a geographical part of Victoria. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That was offered as a site by the Government of New South Wales. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- I am not charged with the peccadilloes of the Government of New South Wales; if **Sir Hector** Carruthers selected Dalgety or Bombala, that has nothing whatever to do with us. I venture to say that the majority of New South Wales representatives in this Parliament cast their votes for Lyndhurst, which most nearly represents the spirit of the resolution carried at the Conference of Premiers. If this question were dealt with in Court, and the circumstances taken into consideration, it .could not be held that the spirit of the section of the Constitution has been given effect to by the selection of Dalgety. We are told that there was a strong expression of opinion in New South Wales that the Capital ought to be in Sydney; and, in deference to that, the Premiers' Conference, while not able to fix the Capital there, agreed that it should be within reasonable distance of that city. However, Parliament selected Dalgety ; and now we are told by the Attorney-General that we ought to be glad, because it might have been Bombala. Any one who could derive any satisfaction from such a circumstance is optimism personified. The Minister of Customs, who is the godfather or the fostermother of Dalgety, has very kindly brought under my notice a number of reasons why that site should be selected. Unhappily for the honorable member, I have been at Dalgety. Since that visit I 282 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* have had an opportunity of travelling through Canada and other countries, and experiencing what the vicissitudes of climate mean; and I say emphatically, without any reservation, that when at Dalgety I was quite unable to maintain my normal circulation when riding in a conveyance, and had to go on horseback. A sergeant of police, who, from his position, was unable to express himself with that freedom that truth demands, and who was seated near a gentleman on the box seat - a gentleman who happened by coincidence to own the entire district - asked me, when I observed that it was fearfully cold, to step back a few paces, whereupon he informed me, "This is the warmest winter we have had for seventeen years." I find that, of the whole of the members of the party of inspection, only one man and myself ventured into the Snowy River, and, personally, I have never been the same man since,while the other gentleman has retired from Parliament. On the merits of the case, there is nothing to justify the selection of Dalgety, which is convenient for no one, either in Victoria or New South Wales, and is certainly not suitable for persons who have lived in a semi-tropical climate. If we selected a site whose geographical position and climate forbid its use as a place of general resort, we should make a gigantic and fatal error. For seven years, Melbourne has enjoyed whatever benefits are to be derived from the Seat of Government; and, so far as I can see, it was only to prevent Sydney enjoying that right in perpetuity that the ring fence was drawn round by the Premiers' Conference. For what earthlyreason, except that of jealousy, could there be for barring one city altogether? We could easily have had the Federal Capital in Sydney all this time, but it was placed in Melbourne as a *quidpro quo.* The Victorian people have had their payment, but they are not willing to pay New South Wales. The Dalgety site has nothing to recommend it but an abundant water supply. When I was in the district, I was unable to see the slightest sign of that natural fertility we expect in Australia. So far as I could observe, the countryside raised only hardy men and turkeys. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- None but hardy men could live there. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- I noticed a paragraph in the newspapers - inspired, no doubt, by the Minister of Trade and Customs - stating that the people in the Dalgety district died at a phenomenal age. My own belief is that anybody who can live in the district at all, can live practically for ever. We might as well take the street arab of London and hold him up as an example of the healthy environment and conditions of that city ; the exact contrary is the case, seeing that if the arab were not hardy he would not be alive at all. Personally, I consider it most unfortunate that we are now unable to have the wide field of selection that we ought to have, and that we are practically confined to the selection of two sites - Canberra and Dalgety. Of course, other sites may be suggested, and the Attorney-General has mentioned Armidale, thus suggestinga national choice which was not evinced until he became Attorney-General, and in charge of this measure. It is a matter for regret that we are not to exercise that wide choice which ought to be exercised by Parliament in a matter of this kind. I ask the right honorable member for Swan, whose memory is so unfortunate just now, whether, as a matter of fact, another resolution was not moved at the Premiers' Conference to the effect that, while the Capital should not be within 100 miles of Sydney, it should not be beyond 125 miles. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- So far as I can remember, no such motion was ever submitted. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- Then, the right honorable member's memory does not enable him to say that the limit of 100 miles meant as near the 100 miles as possible? {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I think that that is a reasonable conclusion. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- I think that this explains the right honorable member's career very well ; with a memory like that, a mart can do almost anything. But for the fact that the agreement I have referred to was then made - but for the fact that the Premiers' Conference was a step precedent, and that there was evidently a bargain made between persons representing the States - the Constitution would never have been accepted. The right honorable member, or rather the State which he represents, has many times set forth objections to the manner in which Western Australia has been treated in regard to the sliding Tariff. A special claim was made and granted. Even now they state that another condition precedent to their acceptance of the Constitution was that the establishment of communication between *Seat of* [23 Sept., 1908.] *Government Bill.* 283 west and east should be at once entered upon. Now, when we ask for this condition to be fulfilled, the right honorable member and others propose calmly to stall us off with Dalgety. Personally, I shall be very glad to see this matter settled, but I shall never vote for Dalgety. I shall never consider that such a settlement could be a fair and honorable fulfilment of this compact. This Parliament, although it is free to repudiate the bargain, is not as free to come to a decision in the matter as it would have been had there been no compact. Legally, of course, it is free. But the legal obligations which hedge a man round are surely not all those which govern a good citizen in his relations to his fellows. There are also those moral obligations which in the courts of law have no weight. I say most emphatically that even legally, if one were to regard the whole thing as an agreement, the section in the Constitution as the main agreement and the other as the subsidiary one, and take into account the resolutions passed at the Premiers' Conference, although they were not officially made public, as things governing that proviso, in a court of law all those would be considered, and it would be held that the agreement meant that the Capital should be in New South Wales, that it should not be within 100 miles of Sydney, but that it should be as near that 100 miles as possible. That is the only interpretation of the word reasonable " that gives it any meaning at all. It cannot be " within a reasonable distance" with regard to Victoria. It means within a reasonable distance from the stand-point of Sydney ; otherwise it means nothing. It cannot be within a reasonable distance of nowhere in New South Wales. It must bewithin a reasonable distance of somewhere, and that somewhere must be the place barred by the100 miles limit. It must mean within a reasonable distance in relation to the claims of the city itself, and the extent of the teritory. When one sees Albury, which is right against the border, proposed in the first place, and then Dalgety, which is twenty miles from the border, pushed forward, and dozens of eligible sites passed over in going to both those places, three or four of which have been deliberately rejected in this House, how can one come to any other conclusion than that the spirit of the compact has been violated? In these circumstances I shall vote against Dalgety, and for that site which seems to best comply with the spirit of the agree ment. I trust that the House will remember that, although it is perfectly free legally to do what it pleases, a compact was made, and that New South Wales expects honorable members to honorably abide by it. {: #subdebate-20-0-s4 .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo .- I shall be quite prepared to assist the Government and the House to settle this vexed question, and to carry out the provisions of the Constitution in reference to the Federal Capital. A great deal has been said to-day about some compact founded upon an interpretation of a section of the Constitution as promulgated by the Premiers' Conference. It is said that the Premiers' Conference interpreted the words, " to be distant not less than 100 miles from Sydney " as meaning " within a reasonable distance of Sydney." As to the historical aspect of it, I, as a resident of Victoria, was not aware of any such interpretation havingbeen put upon that section until many years afterwards. I doubt whether it was within the competence even of the Premiers' Conference to place an interpretation upon a section of the Constitution. That section has now to be interpreted by this House and by the people of the Commonwealth, and ifnecessary in the ultimate resort by the High Court of Australia.For my part, I do not feel bound by any such interpretation. In fact, I do not think that when analyzed the section is capable of that interpretation. {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr Hall: -- Should not the Premiers themselves, such, for instance, as the right honorable member for Swan, be bound by it? {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- The Premiers as politicians and men ofhonour would be bound by it, but I do not consider that the people of Australia are necessarily bound by any such interpretation. The section is rather a prohibition than anything else. It provides that while the Federal Capital shall be in New South Wales it shall not be within too miles of Sydney. It may be anywhere within New South Wales, except within 100 miles of Sydney. I fail to see in the section any restriction or limitation upon the Federal Parliament in determining in what part of New South Wales the Seat of Government shall be fixed. We are under obligations to the honorable member for Angas for the interesting historical retrospect which he gave us of the Federal Capital question, and his dissertation this afternoon upon its literary and political aspects. At the same time, I cannot concur in the drift of his argument that those considerations should in any way induce the Parliament or the people of Australia to break the provisions of the Constitution with reference to the Seat of Government. I believe that section 1.25, in whatever way it is interpreted, is binding upon Parliament and the people as containing practically one of the fundamental conditions of Federation. It would be impolitic and unfair to those electors who voted in favour of Federation, influenced by those considerations, to take them by surprise eight or ten years afterwards and have those conditions upset or quashed. Whilst the honorable member for Angas has placed before us a number of thoughts and reflections which were well worthy of being noted, remembered, and discussed, they are, at the same time, not sufficiently weighty to induce Parliament or the people to depart from one of the "fundamental conditions of Federation. I am not prepared to acquiesce in the honorable member's view that in making provision for the Seat of Government and the Federal territory the Convention was altogether guided by the precedent of Washington or Ottawa. It is true that those precedents were referred to and dwelt upon in the Convention debates, but, speaking from ray own recollection of the proceedings, I venture to assert that the peculiar circumstances and conditions of Australia were also taken into consideration, and it was thought, in view of the manifest rivalry between some of the existing capitals, such as Melbourne and Sydney, that it would be most desirable that the question of the Federal Capital should be compromised by placing it within a neutral territory. For my own part, I took a wider view in my advocacy of this section. In my addresses in support of the Bill to the people of Victoria, I did not lay very great stress upon the question of rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney; but I did lay stress upon the fact that in years gone by there had been much centralization in the various capitals along the Australian coast, and that it was high time, synchronously with Federation, to establish a new centre of political and industrial influence in an inland portion of this continent. I urged that, in starting the Federation, we should not take action to fix the Seat of Government in any particular existing centre, but should, so to speak, open up new ground and begin our Federal life and history in neutral territory in some inland portion of the con- tinent which might become a new centre of life and influence, and from which industrial activity might radiate in all directions. Unfortunately, in years gone by, there has been too much tendency in the direction of centralization, and localization of industry, trade, and commerce in the ports of Australia. I was anxious that our new Federation should give a new impulse in the direction of inland civilization and inland settlement. I thought, and think still, that a Federal Capital in some well approved inland portion of New South Wales would have very good results, and a profound influence - not necessarily to the prejudice or injury of Sydney - but in bringing into play new forces and new activities which could hardly find free scope in that great capital, with its limitations, particularly those of area. I still believe that the framers of the Constitu-tion arrived at a wise decision, apart altogether from the precedents of. Washington and Ottawa, considering the special circumstances of Australia, in determining that -the Seat of Government should not necessarily be in any existing capital. I should like to remind the House that the Federal Constitution as passed bv the Convention at its final sitting in Melbourne, left the localization of the Federal Capital an open question, to be decided bv the Federal Parliament. The honorable member who has just resumed his seat, said that if the Constitution Bill, as finally submitted to the people of New South Wales, had not contained the express condition that the Capital should be within New South Wales, it would have been rejected by a majority of at least 30,000. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Unquestionably it would have been so rejected. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- I invite the honorable member's attention to the fact that when the Bill, as it left the Convention, was submitted for the first time to the people of New South Wales, 71,595 votes were cast in its favour, as against 66,228 in opposition to it, or a majority of 5,367. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Public opinion later on was far more acute. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- On the first appeal to the people of New South Wales, the Bill, leaving as it did the selection of the site of the Seat of Government to the Federal Parliament as an open question, was approved by a majority. That shows what was the feeling of the bulk of the people of New South Wales who thought it worth while to record their votes. I do not believe that the people of that State were so narrow-minded as some -of the advocates of the amended Bill represented. It is true that the first referendum was a nullity, because the minimum of 80,000 affirmative votes required by the New South Wales Act was not reached. The number of votes cast for the Bill was only a few short of the minimum. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- And how was that minimum fixed ? {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- By a catch vote in the Parliament of New South Wales. But for that unfair and unwise limitation the Bill, as it left the Convention, would have become law, and the Federal Parliament would have had a free hand in this matter. Had the Government of New South Wales trusted the Federal Parliament and the people of Australia, I believe that our first sitting would have been in Sydney. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The first and the last. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- Does this not show how short-sighted were the statesmen of New South Wales in introducing into the Constitution this most unstatesmanlike provision? The House, however, has now to deal with the problem as it finds it in the Constitution, and I confess that I have felt considerably hampered and embarrassed by the limitation confining us to the selection of a site not less than 100 miles from Sydney on the one hand, and absolutely within the territory of New South Wales on the other. ' We have a limitation upon a limitation. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- It was the act of children to fix upon a. 100-mile limit. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- That is the unfortunate position in which we have been placed, and we have now to meet it. I have never seriously begrudged New South Wales any priority which she has acquired by negotiations in settling the Federal compact, and I am sure that very few Victorians are at all envious or jealous of her. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- Nor is any one else. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- Nor is any one else. Had the matter been decided clearly - had there been no restriction or huckstering, New South Wales would have come out of the contest much better than she has. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is a very easy thing to say after the event. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- Now that it has become the law of the land I do not think that there is any necessity to alter section 125 of the Constitution. I fail to see that it is necessary to alter this double limitation, and I shall not be prepared to support any alteration in the direction hinted by my honorable friend. It has been suggested that the provision as to the 100-mile limit should be eliminated from the Constitution. That would be a half-and-half amendment to make. I should like to know whether those who suggest it would be prepared to go a little further and to eliminate from the Constitution the man-, date that the Capital shall be in New South -Wale's, thus leaving the decision *tothe* Federal Parliament. Colonel Foxton. - The one should follow the other. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- I could understand that as a reasonable proposition ; but to strike out the 100-mile restriction whilst retaining the mandate that the site selected shall be within New South Wales is a compromise that hardly .commends itself to one's common sense. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- That proves that the honorable member does not want the Capital to be in New South Wales. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- I have said that Victoria recognises the claims of the mother State, as she likes to be called. The House is entitled to take a broad and liberal view of the provision that the Seat of Government shall be within New South Wales. Subject to that limitation honorable members, in my opinion, are at liberty to choose a site within any portion of that State, with its great possibilities, without being harassed or restricted by the interpretation placed upon the section by the Premiers' Conference. I decline to be bound by that interpretation as a matter of law, but shall be prepared to give a fair and reasonable interpretation to the provision. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr Roberts: -- The word " reasonable " does not actually appear in the resolution passed at the Premiers' Confer.ence {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- No, it appears only in the interpretation of that resolution given in the memorandum issued by the Premiers. If that was their view they certainly did not clearly express it. The House has a free hand, to deal with this matter. It may decide that the Capital shall be established on the best site that can be found within New South Wales, but not within 100 miles of Sydney. I would remind honorable members that this House decided in October, 1903, that - >The Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be at or near Tumut, and the territory granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth within which the Seat of Government shall be should contain an area of not less than 1,000 square miles, and shall extend to the River Murray and the River Mumimbidgee. > >Provided that the Site shall be within a distance of 25 miles from Tumut and at an altitude of not less than 1,500 feet above the sea. I, for one, supported that selection particularly for the reason that the site was within a fair and reasonable distance of the River Murray - a distance of about 40 or 50 miles. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- ls the honorable member referring to the Tooma site? {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- The condition that the Tumut site should have a frontage to the River Murray, thereby embracing a large territory, meant that Tooma would be within the area selected. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- It is a very pretty site. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- It is. I believe that a site for the Seat of Government should either be on or near the coast - it should not be landlocked - or should, at all events, have a frontage to some Inter-State river, such as the Tumut site would have in the scheme of Federal territory which was settled by the Bill of October, 1903, as it left this House. It would be a fatal mistake to select a. site occupying an internal position like some of the small territories of the original holy Roman Empire which were included within other territories. It would be a mistake to choose a site that could be locked up so to speak, having no access to the sea or to great rivers, and the egress from which would be practically within the control and jurisdiction of surrounding States. It would be a serious mistake to select a site such as Canberra, which, I understand, has no such means of access as- would be afforded by an Inter-State river. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- It has greater means of access to the sea than has Dalgety. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- I require proof of that statement. I do not propose to discuss all the suggested sites. I merely want to point out that Tumut was the first selection made by this House. It was rejected by the Senate, and as a compromise Dalgety was finally chosen. I regard the Tumut site as possessing many features 'superior to those of Dalgety. I favour it more particularly for the reason that it has more of an inland situation ; because it is more towards the heart of the Riverina, is near the great trunk line of railway between Melbourne and Sydney, and has a frontage to the River Murray. I believe, also, that it is, on the whole, a more fertile territory than is Dalgety? Whilst I regard Tumut, my original choice, as the best- {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The honorable member's first vote was for Albury. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- No; I think that I have voted only for Tumut. I was absent when Dalgety was selected, and my vote was not recorded. Since Dalgety has been selected, I do not feel justified in ripping, up or altering the settlement so effected. Should Dalgety, however, be eliminated from the Bill, and the scheme be amended, with the result that I have an opportunity to vote for another site, I shall record my vote in favour of Tumut or some other site having a frontage to the River Murray. {: #subdebate-20-0-s5 .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON:
Grey -- I am afraid that the Government, unconsciously or otherwise, have betrayed the supporters of Dalgety by the way in which they have introduced the Bill. ' It is no secret that this question was submitted to us on the last occasion in the form of a message from the Governor-General recommending the appropriation of certain moneys to be expended on the Dalgety site. The opponents of that site quickly saw the difficulty in which they were placed. They found that if they struck out the word '"'Dalgety" they would have no power to go further. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Yes ; .a promise was made to the House that it should have an opportunity to make a selection. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- After an exhaustive ballot, the House deliberately selected Dalgety, and why should we now be placed in a position in which we shall have a combination of forces arrayed against us ? It is well known that several honorable members are unwilling to vote for either of the two sites which have been so frequently named, and their votes will probably .be cast for the striking out of Dalgety. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Will not that kill the Bill? {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- No; but it will kill Dalgety, and we shall not have another chance to vote for that site. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Dalgety was chosen, not on a straight-out vote, but by reason of a combination. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- It was chosen as the result of an exhaustive ballot. To no question has more consideration been given than to this, and New South Wales has not had anything to complain of in the matter. In the first place, the Commissioner appointed by the Government of the State to examine *Seat of* [23 Sept., 1908.] *Government Bill.* 287 and report upon likely sites, recommended a number, of which this is one. Had this Parliament chosen a site not among those submitted, its choice might have been regarded as discourteous to the people of New South Wales ; but, as a matter of fact, we chose that most strongly recommended by their Commissioner. Yet, ever since Dalgety was selected, there has been a pulling of the strings - even the Bill is the result of intrigue - to upset the selection. The Bill has been introduced, not in the interests of Dalgety, but in the interests of opposing sites, and represents a clever and deliberate trick. I am surprised that the Minister of Trade and Customs, who is so astute in scenting anything likely to be prejudicial to the Government, and has taken such an active interest in this matter, should have allowed the supporters of Dalgety to be placed in a worse position than they were in when the matter was last dealt with. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Both Canberra and Dalgety are in the Minister's electorate. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- That may accountfor his attitude. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- I am still true to my old love. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- It would appear that, whatever the Minister may lose by the rejection of Dalgety, he will gain by the selection of Canberra. I shall vote on this occasion as I did when last the matter was dealt with. Having examined the Canberra site, I do not think it can be recommended, and I should regard its selection as the greatest blunder. Millions would have to be spent to make it a beauty spot. Its surroundings are unattractive, and would not feed a city, while its creeks are mostly dry for the greater part of the year. Only the interests of Sydney are supporting it. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Leaving out the Snowy, from which we could not get a water supply, the Canberra site has a water supply five times as large as that of Dalgety. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- One might imagine, after listening to the speeches of honorable members, that Victoria and New South Wales alone are concerned in this matter. The other States must contribute *pro ratâ* towards the cost of the Capital and its upkeep, and are they not to be considered? If a wise selection is made, they will benefit because the ground rents of the Federal Territory will in years to come, probably produce enough revenue to go a long way towards meeting the cost of the Federal Government. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- The fact that Parliament is meeting there will not bring population to the Federal Capital. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- Does the honorable member think that the Federal Capital will not grow into a fair-sized city ? {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- That will depend upon its location. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- If it is located at Canberra, it will not grow. At Dalgety, on the other hand, there is sufficient water power to generate electricity for motive purposes, while between that place and Bombala is rich basalt land, where I have seen the finest herds of cattle it has been my pleasure to meet with. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- A tree will not grow within 30 miles of Dalgety. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- The honorable member's prejudice has caused him to keep his eyes shut. I venture to say that a firm of contractors would be willing to erect all the buildings necessary for the housing of the Federal Parliament and officials if it could secure the concessions which are given to us under the Constitution. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- Does the honorable member regard as good, land which will carry only one sheep to two acres? {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- The country between Dalgety and Bombala will do more than that, while the Canberra country will not do as much. If ever there was a district which should be opened up by a railway, it is this ; but the jealousy of Sydney interests, and the possibility of increasing the trade of Twofold Bay, and thus, perhaps, giving Victoria a footing, has caused the New South Wales Government to keep it back {: #subdebate-20-0-s6 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that, when this matter was last discussed, all the sites had a fair chance, and the choice of Dalgety fairly represented the wishes of honorable members. It was, however, mentioned at the time, by speakers on both sides of the chamber, that they were voting for Dalgety in the final ballot because the choice was between it and Tooma. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Dalgety had to fight two other sites. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- It is an open secret that subterranean methods, such as the older politicians of New South Wales were well acquainted with, were employed to engineer a decision in favour of Dalgety, and, although the honorable member for North Sydney, myself, and others voted for Dalgety in the final ballot after we: had voted for Lyndhurst, raid were beaten, we took care to explain that we did so, not because we thought it the best site, but because we considered it less undesirable than Tooma. The three sites submitted to ballot on that occasion were Lyndhurst, Tooma, and- Dalgety. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- And Lyndhurst got the biggest straight-out vote. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Yes. It would have been the choice of the House had the matter been decided by a majority vote in the first instance, and without the exhaustive ballot. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Will the honorable member vote for Lyndhurst this time? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: --Yes, if I get the opportunity. I voted for it previously. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Will the honorable member support Armidale? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I should prefer Armidale to Dalgety, but the objection to the former is that it does not conform to the terms of the agreement which was arrived at by the Premiers in Conference. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- What has that Conference to do with us? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- There is a moral obligation resting on us to respect the terms of that agreement. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Why did the honorable member vote for Dalgety as against Tooma ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -^ regarded the two as the worst sites that could be picked out in New South Wales - my only choice, as the Minister knows, in that particular ballot, was as between the two most undesirable. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- The honorable member did not want the site to be too near Victoria. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- At Tooma, one side of the site was actually toppling over into Victoria. Apart from that, however, Tooma was most undesirable on the score of accessibility, and other points. I mentioned at the time, and, in company with several others, I voted for Dalgety, not because I desired that site, but to prevent Tooma, which was worse still, being selected. Great stress was laid by the AttorneyGeneral on the alleged fact that outside the agreement of the Premiers there was no evidence that on the part of the people of New South Wales the Capital Site was a prominent influence in the acceptance of the Constitution. I remind the Attorney-General that after the Constitution had been rejected in the first instance- {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- It was never rejected. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Then why was there a second referendum? {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- Because the Premiers' Conference agreed that the proportion of votes in favour should be 50,000, and the New South Wales Parliament traitorously altered that to 80,000. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- There had to be a certain proportion of votes in favour of the Constitution before it. was accepted ; and the fact remains that the Bill was not confirmed by the people. The desire was that Sydney should be the Federal Capital, so far as we can gather from expressions of opinion at public meetings, through the press, and so forth. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- That was not the desire of the State Parliament, because the Legislative Assembly was quite prepared to have the Capital anywhere in New South Wales, though the Legislative Council, by a majority of one, stipulated for Sydney. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The general feeling in the Legislative Assembly was always in favour of Sydney as the Federal Capital, but they did not want that specifically stipulated in the Bill. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- That feeling was not expressed in the vote by the people - quite the contrary. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: **- Sir Edmund** Barton, **Mr. R.** E. O'Connor, and other great advocates of the Federal Constitution, assured the electors that they had only to trust the Federal Parliament in order to have the Capital in Sydney, and a great many people accepted those assurances. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Was that prior to. the arrangement as to the limit of 100 miles? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Yes j it was between the vote on the first and second Bills. Later on, as we all know, the honorable member for East Sydney met the Premiers of the other States in conference,' with the object of amending the Constitution in some directions so that it could be made more acceptable to the people of New South Wales. Of course, we do not know what occurred at that Conference beyond what we are told in the records; but the honorable member for East Sydney, as Premier of New South Wales, was unable to induce, the Premiers of the other States to accept Sydney as the Federal Capital, though they were willing, in order to induce New South Wales to federate, to have the Capital within New South Wales. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Who was trying to induce New South Wales to come into Federation? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The other States, because they could not federate without that State, which was regarded as the milch cow. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- I think the boot is on the other foot. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I have copies of many newspapers containing the reports of speeches of the foremost political leaders at the time; and I will quote from one of several in which specific reference is made to the Federal Capital, as representing part of the bond under which New South Wales was induced to federate. This is a short extract from a speech by **Mr. Pilcher,** a prominent anti.Billite, who, speaking of the attitude of the right honorable member for East Sydney, at the Premiers' Conference, said - >It is as clear as the sun at noon-day that **Mr. Reid,** although admittedly a clever man - and certainly a far better speaker than he is a thinker - was as a baby in the hands of the other Premiers. (Cheers.) I do not blame the other Colonies. As **Mr. Reid** has said he would stump the Colony from end to end in favour of this Bill if he belonged to one of the other Colonies. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- What did he mean by that ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: **- Mr. Pilcher** meant that on the question of the Federal Capital, the right honorable member for East Sydney had really " sold," to use a colloquialism, New South Wales to the other Colonies. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Does the honorable member believe that was so? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I am not expressing my belief. I think he did the best he could in a difficult situation ; but I am merely reading an extract in order to show what was in the minds of the people and of public men at the time - >I can remember last year when **Mr. Reid** spoke and said that he could conceive no site more suitable and more chosen by Heaven than Sydney to be the Capital of Federated Australia. (Laughter.) He told us that the Capital ought to be in Sydney, and he went to Victoria and he positively allowed the Premiers of the other Colonies, who would have gone on their knees to federate with us on our own terms. (Cheers.) He positively allowed himself to be humbugged into allowing this Colony to be insulted. (Cheering.) I could have understood if the other Premiers had said, " You have no right to ask for the Federal Capital ; leave it to the Federal Parliament." That would have been a manly way, but **Mr. Reid** allowed himself to he humbugged into giving away the Capital, and this Colony to be insulted into the bargain. You may depend upon it that the Capital will be somewhere where Melbourne will be the seaport. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- That does not apply to Dalgety. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- It will apply for a long time, because Twofold Bay is not fitted to be a seaport - >That is their little game in the other Colonies, and the wonder is that **Mr. Reid** did not see through it. At any rate, it is a glaring injustice. In the next place he tells us that there is nothing to prevent the Seat of Government from being in Sydney. I admit that he has qualified that somewhat. But no active government can be done until there is a Federal Parliament. (Cheers.) Parliament is to meet in Melbourne until the Seat of Government is ready, and the offices of State must be close handy. By the time we have made up our mind as to the Site, and the Federal Parliament sanctions it, all the people I see here to-night will be dead and forgotten. After the lapse of years people get accustomed to having it in Melbourne. Depend upon it, under this Bill, the Capital will be theirs for all time. (Cheers.) .1 make no imputation against Victoria. The Bill says they can do it. (A Voice : " The Bill says New South Wales.") Yes, but when? When it is ready. You will never live to see it here. (Cheers, and a voice : "The Bill can be amended.") How? If an absolute majority of all the States agree to it. The people of the other Colonies are not fools enough to agree to an amendment. The Bill plays into their hands at every point. We find the money, a large part of which will find its way into the coffers of the other Colonies to pay their expenses, and they will be within their rights if they made use of it in that way. (A voice : " All the public offices will be in Melbourne,") If the public of New South Wales are such drivelling idiots to allow it, I don't blame Melbourne for getting them. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- That is very uncomplimentary to the people of New South Wales. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- My only reason for quoting this is that it is one of many similar utterances which I might quote' from other newspapers, and because it proves that the Minister was quite wrong when he said that there was no evidence of any public feeling in. New South Wales on the Capital question, and that we had nothing outside the memorandum of the Premiers'" Conference to show that it was a matter of any interest in that State. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- All that the honorable member has shown is that it was a matter of interest to **Mr. Pilcher.** {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I have read from the report of one speech on the subject, but if honorable members desire it, I can quote many similar utterances by other wellknown citizens on the public platform. My only reason for not doing so is that 290 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* I have no wish to unduly prolong the discussion. I should not perhaps have referred to this aspect of the matter had not the challenge been thrown down by the AttorneyGeneral and also by the honorable member for Bendigo. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- Does the quotation the honorable member has made represent the opinion of the people of Sydney or of New South Wales? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I take it that it is clear that the utterances whichI have quoted received the general indorsement of the people. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- Of Sydney? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- And of other places in New South Wales. These meetings were held not only in Sydney, but all over the State. At any rate, the Premiers of the different States when they met in conference, recognised that there-was this feeling in New South Wales and have said so. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- What is the date of their statement ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I am speaking of the Premiers' Conference which followed the rejection of the first Commonwealth Bill, and at which certain amendments of the measure were agreed upon for submission to the electors after the first Bill was rejected. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- The first Bill was not rejected. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- New South Wales accepted the first Commonwealth Bill. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- We did not proceed to act upon it. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- Because there was not a maximum vote recorded in favour of it. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Exactly ; and it was therefore rejected. If it were accepted, why was the second Commonwealth Bill submitted to the electors? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The first Commonwealth Bill was not accepted by New South Wales. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- The State Parliament was out of harmony with the views of the people of the State. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The honorable member cannot truthfully say that; for the State Parliament was fresh from a general election when it dealt with the matter. When the States Premiers met in conference, they recognised that there was a strong feeling in New South Wales in regard to the Federal Capital site. That is clear from what appears in their memorandum. They say - >It is considered that the fixing of the Site of the Capital is a question which might well be left tothe Parliament to decide, but - And here is the recognition to which I refer - but in view of the strong expression of opinion in relation to this matter in New South Wales the Premiers have modified the clause - They modified the clause, according to their own showing, in view of the strong expression of opinion of the people of New South Wales. so that while the Capital cannot be fixed at Sydney or in its neighbourhood, provision is made in the Constitution for its establishment in New South Wales at a reasonable distance from that city. Not at an unreasonable distance, honorable members will observe, but at a reasonable distance from that city.The Premiers, therefore, agreed to substitute another clause for clause 124, which then read - >The Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by Parliament and shall be within territory vested in the Commonwealth. Until such determination the Parliament shall be summoned to meet at such place within the Commonwealth as a majority of the Governors of the States or, in the event of an equal division of opinion among the Governors, as the Governor-General shall direct. That clause was deleted, and the following substituted for it, in view of the strong expression of opinionby the people of New South Wales on the question - >The Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by Parliament and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth and shall be vested , in and belong to the Commonwealth, and, if New SouthWales be an, original State, it shall be in that State, and shall be distant not less than 100 miles from Sydney. Then the clause goes on to refer to the area of the territory. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Dalgety fills the bill, according to that resolution. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- No, Dalgety does not. What I have just read bears the signatures,. "George Turner, Chairman; G. H. Reid,. James R. Dickson, C. C. Kingston, E. C. Braddon, John Forrest." I am glad that the right honorable member for Swan is present, because I wish to direct his special attention to the terms of that agreement, which he signed in common with the Premiers of the other States. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- There is a difference of only 93 miles between the honorable member and me. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I wish to remind the sight honorable gentleman - that he sub scribed to the preamble that the original Clause 124 was amended in the way stated 1 in view of the strong expression of opinion of the people of New South Wales," and that the site was to be at a reasonable distance from Sydney. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Is 203 miles a reasonable distance from Sydney ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I shall meet the point which the right honorable gentleman now raises. During the discussion of this question, and, I think, it was during last session, the right honorable mem ber for East Sydney told the House that there was a proposal that a site should be selected 75 miles from Sydney, but **Sir George** Turner objected. **Sir John** Forrest. - That is all talk. Who said so? Where is that recorded? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I have just told the right honorable gentleman that the statement is recorded in a speech by the right honor - -able member for East Sydney which appears in *Hansard.* The right honorable -gentleman told the House that he had a distinct recollection of 75 miles being suggested as the limit of the distance from Sydney. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Was not the date of that speech 1907, and was not that the first time the right honorable gentleman mentioned the matter ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- No; I think he referred to it first in 1905, I believe that he referred to it when the memorandum of the Premiers' Conference was laid before the House. The whole incident had escaped his memory up to that time. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- Why did not the right honorable gentleman tell the electors of the incident when he spoke in the Sydney Town Hall ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Apparently because he did not think of it ; and because at that time he could not have anticipated any treachery on the part of any of the other States or their Premiers. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- And yet he had just come from the Premiers' Conference. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- However, he told this House that 75 miles from Sydney was suggested and rejected in order to exclude Moss Vale, as being too near to "Sydney. Then **Sir George** Turner proposed that the site should be not less than 200 miles away from Sydney. I am speaking now from memory of what the leader of the Opposition said. **Sir George** Tur ner's proposal was rejected as fixing a limit too far from Sydney. Then - I do not know whether.it was by formal motion or not - a compromise was effected by which 100 miles was agreed upon as being somewhere about the limit that would be acceptable. 1 {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- And the honorable member is, therefore, going to fix the Capital 203 miles from Sydney. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I have not said so; but that is a much more reasonable distance than is 300 miles. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- We could .'not get much further from Sydney than 300 miles in this direction. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Not without going over the border of the State. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- Does the honorable member speak from the stand-point of Sydney or of the Commonwealth? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- From the stand-point of the men who signed that agreement. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- After a distance of 200 miles was suggested and rejected as being too far from Sydney, it certainly could never have been in the minds of the Premiers attending the Conference, including the right honorable member for Swan, that a. site 100 miles further away would be seriously proposed as acceptable to the people of New South Wales or of Australia. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The Government of New South Wales offered Bombala as a site, and Albury also. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- In this connexion I must be pardoned for reminding the right honorable member for Swan that when the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway was being considered, he was very strong on the point that, although there was no written agreement, there was an understanding which should be honorably kept, that a certain thing should be done in connexion with the construction of that railway. That was only a verbal understanding. No one else but the right honorable member for Swan knows anything about it, yet he asked honorable members to take his word that there was such an understanding, and insisted that the Federal Parliament was in honour bound tq respect it. But we do not need to fall back upon the word of the right honorable member on the present occasion. I have here the agreement which he signed, but which he is not prepared to honour. When the right honorable member again urges this. House to 292 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* respect an alleged verbal agreement relating to the construction of a railway to Western Australia, I shall take the opportunity of reminding him of his attitude towards the actual bond which he signed in reference to the Federal Capital. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The honorable member evidently believes in the maxim, " You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Nothing of the sort. It is a question of common honesty, so far as the right honorable member is concerned, and I call upon him to respect the terms of the bond which he himself signed. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- But the honorable member is saddling him with something that is not in the bond. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I am saddling him with something to which he has appended his signature. I contend that when he joined with the other Premiers in rejecting a proposal that the Federal Capital should be located at least 200 miles from Sydney upon the ground that that distance was too far, he committed himself to the selection of a site within 200 miles of that city. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Does the honorable member wish me to vote for a site in which Ido not believe? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I merely ask the right honorable member to respect the agreement which he signed. I can understand his action in voting in a different way upon a former occasion, because he may have forgotten that he had signed the agreement to which I have alluded... But now that the matter has been brought directly under his notice I have a perfect right to ask him to respect the compact into which he entered. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- What site shall I vote for? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I hope that the right honorable member will wait and see what sites are submitted for our consideration, and that he will then vote for the one which most nearly conforms to the terms of the agreement which he signed. It is possible that Lyndhurst, or some other site within a limit of 200 miles from Sydney, may yet be proposed for our acceptance. Personally I am not wedded to the selection of Canberra. I do not believe that it is the best site in New South Wales ; but if I am driven to choose between Canberra and Dalgety I shall feel bound, from every stand-point, to support the claims of the former. In my opinion, Dalgety is absolutely one of the worst sites which could be selected. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Can the honorable member tell me why the Minister of Trade and Customs ran awayto Queensland to recuperate his health instead of visiting Dalgety.? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I was just about to deal with that very point. Special appeals have been made to us to support Dalgety, on account of the healthy climate which it is alleged to enjoy. When, therefore, the Minister of Trade and Customs became indisposed - and we all heard with regret of his indisposition - we naturally thought that in seeking a change of air he would visit the healthiest place with which he was acquainted. Ashe had so persistently urged the claims of Dalgety on account of its salubrious climate, I at once concluded that he would go there to recuperate. But instead of doing so, he got as far away from Dalgety as possible by visiting the northern portion of Queensland. His action was one of the most damaging evidences possible of the unsuitability of Dalgety from a health stand-point. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Surely a Minister during a recess is at liberty to visit any State for public purposes? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- But the Minister of Trade and Customs did not visit Queensland for public purposes. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- He did. He received deputations everywhere he went. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- If the Minister had visited Dalgety no doubt he would have been waited upon by deputations - assuming that there were' sufficient people in the neighbourhood. Dalgety is an unspeakably dreary place ; it is absolutely unsheltered - inshort, it is a blizzardswept plain covered with granite boulders, and there is not a sign of vegetation within miles of it. The only statement that I am able to indorse in regard to itsclaims is that it would have an abundant water supply, presuming that the Snowy River formed the source of that supply. But we are now told that Dalgety cannot depend upon tapping the Snowy River for its water supply, because upon some of the upper reaches of that stream settlement is likely to cause its waters to become polluted. We are told that, as a matter of fact, Dalgety will have to depend for its supply upon theMowamba River. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- According to the honorable member, the country surrounding Dalgety is of so little value that it would not cost much to acquire the necessary water rights. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Even admitting that the Snowy River were free from pollution for all time, there are other considerations which should guide us in the selection of a site for the Federal Capital. For instance, considerations of accessibility, of productivity, of - natural resources, and of means of communication should enter into our calculations. I hold in my hand a plan of the Southern Monaro district, and I ask honorable members to look at it closely. If they do so they will see that all around Dalgety the plan is marked "Devoid of timber," "Treeless," and " Untimbered," clearly showing that it is a treeless, desolate, and bleak region. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Some of the richest country in the Darling Downs is treeless. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Has the honorable member ever visited Dalgety? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Yes, upon two or three occasions, and I have no desire to go there again. It is a place where coaches get blown over. A coach and four in travelling to Dalgety will sometimes be blown over by the force of the wind. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- Is not that statement a libel upon New South Wales? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- It is an absolutely true description, of that portion of the country. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- Is that why the New South Wales Government offered the site to the Commonwealth? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- New South Wales never offered the site. That statement has been repeatedly denied. I recollect travelling to Dalgety during a heat wave, in the middle of summer, when the temperature at Sydney registered 108 degrees. We were obliged to make headway as best we could against a sleet-laden wind, and when we arrived at Buckley's Crossing we were absolutely so numbed with cold that we were almost unable to alight from the coach. We had at once to make our way into an open fire-place, large enough to accommodate a family - a fire-place in which huge logs had to be kept blazing in order that we might gradually thaw. This circumstance will give honorable members an idea of what Dalgety can be in mid-summer - I leave it to them to picture what it must be ' like in the depth of winter. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- If there is no timber in the neighbourhood, from where did the logs come with which the fire was built? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- As a matter of fact, firewood has to be carted to Dalgety a distance of 20 miles. Probably ihe logs in question were the remains of some props which had been used to support old farm-sheds which, in spite of those supports, had been blown down - sheds which were abandoned because nobody could live there. 1 have been told that an attempt was made at Dalgety to rear Polar bears. But the first couple of bears that were taken there got frozen ; they could not stand the climate, and the experiment has not been repeated. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- What do the saw-mills cut up if there is no timber there ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I do not think that there are many saw-mills in the neighbourhood of Dalgety ; they are at Jindabyne, some miles distant, and at Nimitybelle, 30 miles away. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- The sworn evidence says that there is a number of them. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- That statement requires to be taken *cum grano salis.* One might find some saw-mills at a distance from Dalgety, but the 'most damaging testimony .which we could possibly have to the absence of timber in the region of Dalgety is the plan which the Government have provided for honorable mem-' bers, and which describes the country surrounding Dalgety as being " Untimbered,"' " Timberless," "Devoid of timber," arid "Treeless." {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- What is the nature of the soil? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- There is very little soil to be seen. One mostly stumbles over huge granite boulders cropping out for miles round Dalgety; And even so far down as Cooma they have had to plant pine trees as break-winds to protect what little vegetation grows there, and to protect the town as much as possible. If any honorablemember visits the place now, he will see a number of these trees leaning over at an angle, of 45 degrees from the wind. That is the site which the Government expects honorable members to accept as an ideal site for the Federal City. It may be all right, and I have no doubt that it will' be all right for five months out of the year. Honorable members probably lay the flattering unction to their souls that this Parliament will only meet during the summer months. Yet the date of the elections compels them to meet in winter. But themain point they overlook is that all the administrative officers and their staffs will' have to be in residence all the year round.. I notice that the Minister, who had not the courage to go and live in Dalgety, has presented us with a highly-coloured lithograph of an ideal Dalgety, not a photograph of Dalgety. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- It was issued bv the Government of New South Wales. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- It is a picture highly idealized by a very imaginative artist of what Dalgety is not. It does not even purport to represent Dalgety. It does not represent any of the country near Dalgety. It represents the Snowy River in the region, not of Dalgety at all, but of the Mount Kosciusko country, where there is fishing to be had. Nobody objects to it as a tourists' resort in the summer time. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- That represents the Snowy River at Dalgety. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- No, it is inscribed with the words " Snowy River, Mount Kosciusko, 7,328 feet," but there is no reference of any kind to Dalgety that I can see. It certainly gives the railway distance from Sydney to Cooma as 256 miles, and quotes the railway fares. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Was it issued by Government authority? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- No; it was issued by the Government Tourist Bureau, but it does <not represent, nor profess to represent Dalgety. The Minister of Trade and Customs, with his usual deceptive methods, has placed it on the table in a most theatrical manner, evidently with the idea of impressing upon the minds of honorable members that it is a representation of Dalgety, when, as a matter of fact, it is an idealized representation of a place nearly 40 miles from that place. That shows the kind of misrepresentations which are resorted to for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of honorable members, and preventing them from considering this question purely on its merits. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr Mahon: -- Was that .picture drawn by the honorable member, like the other one ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- No; I. do not take any responsibility in connexion with this picture. I did make a coloured sketch of the real Dalgety, which I presented to a member of the House, and which was exhibited in the precincts of the chamber. It had not been exhibited for more than half an hour before it mysteriously disappeared, and nobody has seen it since then. I venture to say that it represented more nearly the actual Dalgety than does any photograph we have seen, with the exception of that one outside, which shows Dalgety in its true character as a granite boulder-strewn, cheerless, desolate country, with absolutely nothing to recommend it. I come now to the question of the acceptance of Dalgety by reason of its accessibility to a port. I want to submit a few considerations to those who, unlike myself, do not know what a cheerless, inhospitable country it is, and who think that, byselecting Dalgety, they will be able to secure a Federal port in Twofold Bay. In the first place, they have to ask themselves whether New South Wales will give to the Commonwealth a port. If they assume that the State will do so, then I submit that, they ought to try to get a place which would be a port, and not merely an open roadstead. For the information of honorable members generally, I have taken the trouble to draw fairly accurate charts of Twofold Bay. and Jervis Bay, a sheltered and deep-water port, which might be available for the Commonwealth. These are drawn from the Admiralty charts, but to a different scale, because the only Admiralty charts showing Twofold Bay that I could get access to were too small to show the exact comparison. I have drawn these charts of the comparative size and general appearance of Twofold Bay and Jervis Bay to exactly the same scale, so that, when honorable members compare one port with the other, they will see at a glance the exact proportions and conditions in each case. They will observe that the whole of Twofold Bay is open to easterly winds. The little town of Eden stands on a small promontory, which can hardly be dignified by the name of a peninsula, and just inside that promontory is the wharf, which is only sheltered from the full force of the easterly gales by a little projection of rock on the promontory. When a vessel, even of the comparatively small dimensions of the *Wakatipu,* calls at Eden, she cannot lie at her full length alongside the wharf at low tide. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- The *Sydney,* of 5,000 tons, has' been berthed there every week for the oast three months. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- She must be a boat of shallower draft. The honorable member, when speaking of the value of the oort on a previous occasion, had in mind as one of the inducements to the selection of Dalgety the visits of large mail steamers of 10,000 and 12,000 tons, like those of the Peninsular and Oriental and Orient Companies. One inducement which he held out to honorable members from Western Australia was that they could step on to the mail boat at Fremantle and be carried direct to the Federal Capital without passing through South Australia or Victoria. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- There is a greater depth of water in that port than in Port Jackson. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I have the depths marked on the chart, so that I can check the honorable member's statement in that regard. When the strong north-easterly winds blow, ships can find shelter in Call Calle Bay, where there are depths of four, six, and' seven fathoms, but when the south-east winds- are blowing - the heaviest gales on that coast - Twofold Bay, and especially Calle Calle Bay, get the full force of the immense rollers that come up from the Southern Pacific. The only shelter to be got on those occasions would be in what is called East Boyd Bay, which is of very small area, and would represent only about a mile and a half of water in which to crowd all the shipping for protection against the gale. It is out of the question to get them up anywhere near the wharf at Eden. It could not be. done without building long and expensive breakwaters. What possibility would there be of building a breakwater, which would have to go across from Honeysuckle Point, seeing that there is in the entrance a depth of twenty-six fathoms ? No breakwater would ever stand against the immense South Pacific rollers that would dash upon it. That has been tried in some of our northern ports at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds. It was done at Byron Bay and other places, with the result that in .any extra heavy gale immense breaches were made in the breakwater, and thousands of pounds worth of damage done. A similar undertaking at Twofold Bay would be an excessive charge upon the Commonwealth in the first place, even if it were successfully accomplished, and would involve a perpetual expense. Twofold Bay is little tetter than an open roadstead, and of such limited area that several Twofold Bays could be put into Sydney Harbor without inconveniently crowding it. If we want a Federal port, Canberra has all the advantages over Dalgety in point of accessibility from the port, and in regard to the port itself. In Jervis Bay, not far distant from Canberra, and reached by easy gradients, we have a natural_ port which is absolutely sheltered from all winds. It has a depth of water ranging from 2 fathoms close in shore to 15 fathoms in the middle, and as much as 40 fathoms at the entrance. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Would the State Government grant the Commonwealth access to that port? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Would they grant access to the less desirable port of Twofold Bay ? I cannot say whether the State Government would be prepared to grantaccess to either port, but if we want a port let us get a proper site and a port which, if there is any chance of the State Government giving us access to the sea, will be an ideal port - one worth having, and not requiring an immense and probably uselessexpenditure. We have in Jervis Bay an area nearly three times the size of Twofold Bay, sheltered from all winds, and with splendid anchorages everywhere in it. The big battleships of the British Squadron go there annually for their target practice. There are there all the facilities for a great commercial centre. If we are to have port for the Federal Capital here is one worth trying for, in contrast to the miserable apology for a port which it is hoped to> get in Twofold Bay in conjunction with Dalgety. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Did not the honorable member have some kind of assurance from one of the New South Wales State Ministers that they would grant access toJervis Bay? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- What I mentioned tothe honorable member was a conversation that I had with a Minister of the Crown in New South Wales, in which he expressed his personal opinion. I explained to the honorable member that that gentleman didnot express the opinion of the Government,, and could not say what the Governmentwould do under certain contingencies. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- I understood that itwas a statement made publicly. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- No, it was mentioned in a personal conversation. I believe that if we did select Canberra no obstacleswould be placed by the New South WalesGovernment in the way of giving reasonable access to Jervis Bay for Federal purposes. I cannot conceive that there would be- any attempt to refuse a reasonable concession of that kind. I will lay these charts on the table, with your permission, **Mr. Speaker,** so that honorable members may examine and check them with the Admiralty charts, and in order thatthey may not be spirited away. 296 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- There are two points with which I omitted to deal in the previous part of my speech, but which are of special importance in the consideration of this matter. One relates to the report of the Royal Commission appointed by the Commonwealth Government to report upon the various sites. I wish to make one or two short extracts from the supplementary report relating to the Dalgety site. The document is signed by Messrs. John Kirkpatrick, Chairman; A. W. Howitt, H. C. Stanley, and Graham Stewart. It is dated 4th August, 1903, and will be found amongst the Commonwealth papers for that year, document No. 52. It deals particularly with the arboreal and horticultural possibilities. The report says - >The appearance of the Site, which, even on the river banks, is almost entirely destitute of timber, does not suggest the idea that parks and gardens would flourish ; but the local witnesses are unanimous in their belief that all the trees adapted to temperate climates could be grown, particularly if the hardier trees, such as *Pinus insignis,* &c, were used for shelter from the high winds which prevail at certain seasons. Though protected to some extent from the westerly winds by the high ground along the western boundary, the Site is somewhat exposed. That is the most favorable complexion which the Commissioners could put upon the Dalgety site from a cultivation point of view. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- They would not go there until they were commanded to go. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- What I have quoted is the best they could say for the site, putting the rosiest complexion upon it. Then with regard to climate, they say - >With regard to climate, in our opinion, it may be ranked as somewhat better than Bombala, but not equal to Armidale. > >As to soil-productiveness, the district within 30 miles of the Site is less cultivated, and apparently less productive than similar areas round other sites. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- As there is no railway communication, how could the country be developed? {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- How could they say that there is no cultivation? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- There is no chance for people to cultivate the soil there, because they could not produce anything. The soil is incapable of productivity. Hence there is no settlement. I would remind the House that these Commissioners were especially requested to inquire into the Dalgety site, and presumably they wished to make the most favorable report they could concerning it. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Considering that they were compelled to go to Dalgety, that can hardly be the case. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- What did they say concerning water possibilities? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Surely, water is not the only thing to be considered. As the question of water supply has been raised, may I direct the attention of honorable members to a report which has just been furnished by **Mr. Wade,** the Premier of New South Wales, and which has been published in the newspapers in Sydney and Melbourne. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- Does the honorable member take **Mr. Wade** as an authority? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- He is dealing with the reports of his own officers, and his statements are therefore entitled to some weight. They are not *ex parte* statements. **Mr. Wade** said that photographs had been circulated showing the broad expanse of water of Snowy River, while in contrast the Cotter was shown as a miserable bush creek. He went on to say - >It is not generally known that the Snowy River is debarred on account of settlement along its banks and its consequent liability to pollution from being used as the source of water supply for Dalgety. The stream that has to be relied upon for water is Mowambah River. With a view to ascertaining the relative merits of the two streams for the supply of water to Dalgety and Canberra, the gaugings of Mowambah and the Cotter have been taken continuously since the beginning of February last. In every respect the Cotter is the superior stream. On 13th September the discharge of the latter was 654 cubic feet per second, or 348,300,000 gallons per day, being twelve times the average daily consumption of Sydney and suburbs. Surely that ought to be a sufficient water supply. From 6th February to 16th September the Cotter discharged 7,364,000,000 gallons, or about two-thirds of the full capacity of the Prospect Reservoir. The Mowambah during a like period discharged 2,430,000,000 gallons, or about onefifth of the full capacity of the Prospect Reservoir. The mean monthly discharge was - for the Cotter River, 33,000,000 gallons; for the Mowambah River, 10,900,000 gallons. So that it will be seen - if this report be correct, and we have no reason to suppose otherwise - that the question of water supply need not trouble honorable members in relation to the Canberra site. But if they wish for further confirmation as to the adequacy of the water supply of Canberra, one or two paragraphs upon the subject from the report on water supply by Stephen H. Weedon, Inspecting Engineer to the Department of Public Works, New South *Seat of* [23 Sept., 1908.] *Government Bill.* 297 Wales, may be cited. This report is contained in paper No. 9. of the Commonwealth Papers 1907, and was printed by command on11th July, 1907. It says : - >The area of the catchment above the proposed point of storage and diversion is no square miles, but owing to the roughness and inaccessibility of the mountain ranges bordering the catchment no records of the rain or snowfall have been taken; the records available are for (he lower lying country on the tableland, where the rain and snow fall are much less than on the catchment of the Cotter. Taking the catchment area with character of the catchment I am satisfied that the Cotter River will supply all requirements of the Federal Capital city up to a quarter of a million inhabitants. This area presents possibilities as to a national park, and the stream is specially suited for trout. In another paragraph **Mr. Weedon** says of the Cotter River scheme - >Of the two schemes submitted, that from the Cotter River is the best source of supply ; the Colter rises in the mountain ranges, from which the Murrumbidgee and Goodradigbee River also take their source. This high land is usually covered with snow in the winter months. The area of catchment above the proposed storage reservoir dam is about110 square miles. A little later on he says - >A concrete dam could be erected at a reasonable outlay on this impermeable formation to retain sufficient water to guarantee the required supply for the proposed city. There is a good deal more in **Mr. Weedon's** report of an equally favorable character, but the extracts which I have quoted are quite sufficient to prove my point. We have, therefore, the assurance of an expert that, so far as water supply is concerned, there need be no fear in connexion with the Canberra site. I have already drawn the attention of honorable members to the superiority of Jervis Bay over Twofold Bay as a port. In reference to a remark made by the Minister of Trade and Customs as to Twofold Bay having a greater depth of water than Sydney Harbor, I may remark that that is quite true so far as concerns the portions of the bay which are exposed to the ocean. But close in shore, where wharfs would require to be built, there is not a great depth of water, as any one can see by looking at the chart. It will be found that close alongside, at the in-shore end, there are only about a couple of fathoms of water. The depths go down as low as a quarter of a fathom close in shore, where the wharfs would have to be built. So that at particular places in this bay there is no chance whatever of providing wharfage accommodation even for vessels of comparatively small tonnage in the very small area that is partially sheltered from south-easterly gales. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- The big ships must go in to the bay on wheels, then. {: #subdebate-20-0-s7 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The big ships that go there exist only in the mind of the Minister. AtJervis Bay, on the other hand, there is a good depth of water for many miles, and right close in shore the depths run to 3¼ fathoms, 3¾ fathoms, 4 fathoms, 5 fathoms, down to as much as 7 fathoms of water. {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr Wise: -- The Sydney Government would not give us Jervis Bay. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -. We have as much chance of getting Jervis Bay as Twofold Bay. Indeed, there is a greater probability of our securing access to Jervis Bay, and, certainly, it would be far less expensive to construct a means of access. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- How could we get there from Canberra ? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The gradient is not very steep, and the country presents no very serious engineering difficulties for the construction of a railway from Canberra. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Who makes that statement? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I have that assurance from officers connected with the service in New South Wales. I have not the statements in writing, but have had them in conversation from men who can claim to know more about the subject than either the Minister of Trade and Customs or I can personally. Certainly, their statements are just as reliable as those which the Minister makes as to accessibility of Dalgety. If we consider the question of accessibility to the sea, I say that Dalgety, in comparison with Canberra, presents almost insuperable difficulties. There is a bad fall of several thousand feet direct in one portion of the country between the ranges and the coast. In constructing a railway, it would be necessary, as the plans show, to make a tremendousdetour, in order to obtain anything like a reasonable grade. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- Has a railway survey been made? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I think that there has been nothing more than a general contour survey of the whole district. A rough estimate has been made which presents so great a financial problem as to make us pause. Perhaps, **Mr. Speaker,** I have spoken on this question with some warmth and a little strenuously. If I have, it has been due to my anxiety that we should not make an 298 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* irretrievable error in coming to a determination. I feel sure that the selection of Dalgety will always be regretted, especially by those who have been led to vote for it by various misrepresentations. Many honorable members, unfortunately, have not seen that site, and I have heard very few of those who have, declare that they were impressed by it. On their own admission, some of them, in attempting to reach Dalgety, have endured hardships and experiences which they would not willingly have repeated, and I appeal to honorable members to approach the consideration of the question- {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- With an open mind. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I appeal to honorable members representing other States to set aside their unreasoning prejudices against the people of Sydney and- New South Wales generally. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- We have no prejudices. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I am afraid that in connexion with this question, the press of Melbourne, at all events, has done its utmost to inflame the minds of legislators, and of the people generally against Sydney, and that even some of the newspapers published in New South Wales are not free from a similar charge. I hope that we shall reach a satisfactory settlement, and that we shall remember that we have to consider not only ourselves but those who come after us. We must not forget that this selection will be for all time; that once we have made a choice, it will be difficult to have the question re-opened. These facts make it all the more necessary that we should exercise every reasonable care to get the best site procurable, and that we should endeavour to conform, as nearly as possible, to the agreement arrived at by the accredited representatives of the States prior to the amendment of the Constitution Bill, which was finally accepted by the people of Australia. Whatever site be chosen, I shall feel that, even at the cost perhaps, of wearying some honorable members, I have tried to do my best in the struggle to bring about a selection that will be agreeable, not only to the people of New South Wales, but ultimately to the people of the whole Commonwealth. If the supporters of Dalgety should ultimately prevail- {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Will not the honorable member be satisfied if we again carry Dalgety? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- If, in spite of my efforts, and those of others, to induce hon orable members to keep carefully in mind the responsibility of their choice, Dalgety is finally selected, I hope that we shall take steps as early as possible to have the Parliament removed from Melbourne to the Seat of Government. {: #subdebate-20-0-s8 .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP .- I wish at the outset to express my pleasure that the Government have seen fit to bring forward this Bill at the present stage, and to afford us an early opportunity to settle a contentious question. {: .speaker-KQT} ##### Mr McDougall: -- Does the honorable member think that it will be settled now? {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The matter is in the hands of honorable members, and I trust that they will seek to arrive at a speedy settlement. The chief accusation that we have had to fight in New South Wales has been that this Parliament, because of its meeting in Melbourne, is subject to parochial influences. There has been, perhaps, some slight reason for that charge, but, after hearing the speeches of those who have preceded me in this debate, I am led to inquire whether there has been no parochial influence in Sydney. I have been wondering, while listening to two or three speeches, whether Sydney is really New South Wales. One of the curses of that State for many years has been the centralization in Sydney which, like a great octopus, has been drawing everything towards it. Throughout the whole of its political existence, New South Wales has been subject to the dominance of Sydney, and the country has had to fight against the dominance of the Sydney press in every shape and form. I am prepared to approach the consideration of this subject in the broadest Australian spirit, believing that that is the only justifiable attitude to take up. Sydney is undoubtedly at present the commercial capital of Australia, and I think I may safely say that she will ever be the commercial capital of this continent. There is not much likelihood of her falling from the position she now occupies; but does it seem right that the capital of any State should be the capital of the Commonwealth? To my mind, it would be grossly unfair. Australia is so large that we cannot hope for unification at the present stage if at all. We have to look forward to the States remaining as States, but growing in strength, and it is absurd in the circumstances to suggest that the capital of one of them should be the capital of the whole. I have always contended that the Federal *Seat of* [23 Sept., 1908.] *Government Bill.* 299 Capital should have access to it through Federal territory, and that we should be able, if possible, to approach it from the sea. We should be able, in the event of such a thing as a war between the Commonwealth and a State, particularly the State in which the Federal Capital is situated, to approach it through Federal territory. In the first speech that I made in this House I think an interjection made by an honorable member of the Opposition was to the effect that he presumed that I would advocate the selection of Armidale. I did not advocate or refer to it at the time for the reason that, with the exception of Lyndhurst, I had not seen the other suggested sites, and felt that it would be grossly unfair, before I had done so, to endeavour from a purely parochial reason to place any one site in the forefront. I have made it my business since then to visit the various sites. I experienced a blizzard at Dalgety, and when asked whether I could see the beautiful snow-capped peaks in the distance, I replied that I could not; that if I opened my eyes, I should be blinded by the wind. I should be sorry to suggest, however, that the weather conditions I experienced on the occasion of my visit prevailed all the year round. In Tooma I found another very beautiful site. The honorable member for Gwydir has an eye for the beautiful, and I think that he may be described as the foster parent of that site in the House. His choice certainly does him credit. I have also visited Canberra, and feel that I should not be doing my duty if after my tour of inspection 1 did not advocate as the most superior site of all, the great tableland of New England. I am honestly of the conviction that no other site has the same possibilities. There we have a city, 100 miles from the coast, which has grown naturally, and, apart altogether from any Federal proposal, there is under discussion at the present time a project to construct a railway from the tableland to the sea. The great Don Dorrigo lands are being opened up and people are flocking to the northern rivers and the northern districts of New South Wales. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- Does the honorable member think that the Sydney press would agree to the construction of the line he mentions, if that site were selected? {: #subdebate-20-0-s9 .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- They could not prevent its construction. Although, as I have said, New South Wales has been subjected to the dominance of the Sydney press, that press is now losing its prestige. It has gone out of its way to misrepresent the country, and is rapidly losing its influence. Indeed, it is now regarded as an honour in political life to have to fight it. When the Sydney press is opposed to a candidate, he has a chance of winning. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Is the tableland of New England in the honorable member's electorate ? {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- It is somewhere in the vicinity, and I am proud to be the representative of one of the most prosperous electorates in the Commonwealth. New England in that respect has very few equals. The honorable member knows that it is practically a sanatorium, and that, during a time of drought, owners of stock in the drought-stricken districts look to it to save them. They send their stock there in great numbers. During the last great drought many people in New England made thousands of pounds by leasing their grass lands for the starving stock of other districts. I do not know any water supply in Australia approaching that which may be obtained from the Snowy River; but Armidale has what is better, an annual rainfall of from 32 to 33 inches, while it is also watered with perennial springs which are wholesome, clear, and beautiful. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It is an excellent district, and I am not surprised that the honorable member is speaking of it from the Australian stand-point. {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Seeing that it is in my electorate, I am fortunate in being able to do so. There are other sites which cannot be so dealt with. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- There is no provincialism about the honorable member. {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- There is no provincialism in the statement that the New England site is superior to the others. I have been asked what it would cost to resume Armidale. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- There is not enough money in the Commonwealth to pay for its resumption, I suppose. {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I do not say that. However, it would be unnecessary to resume the township, because near by is a site which is better protected from the westerly winds, better drained, and more easily supplied with water by gravitation than the township itself. But in the early days of the Federal Capital it would be a great convenience to have a nice little town like Armidale close by. To put the Capital in that district would not be to put it in a wilderness. It would also be a. convenience to have the main northern line at hand. The site would be about midway between Brisbane and Sydney. As a sanatorium the New England site has proved itself to be of the best. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- It is a Capital that we need. {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Federal members are not the strongest persons, and unless the Capital were healthy, and good to live in, they might object to go there. At Armidale is a very fine preparatory school - housed in a magnificent building - which is celebrated in more States than one. Wealthy men would not send their sons there if they did not consider the climate one of the best. On this point let me quote **Mr. Coghlan,** who says of the New England tableland - >The climate of Armidale and other towns may be considered as nearly perfect as can be found. The yearly average temperature is barely 56.5 - degrees, while the mean summer temperature only reaches 67.6 degrees, and -the winter temperature falls to 44.2 degrees, a range approximating closely to that of the famous health resorts in the south of France. A railway going east would reach the coast within 100 miles, and there are at present coaches running from Armidale to Grafton. On the edge of the tableland lovers of scenery will find magnificent gorges and valleys, filled .... beautiful ferns, and fine forests, whose splendour is unsurpassable. Coffee can be grown in the coastal districts. Armidale is thought to be somewhat cold during part of the winter; but it must be remembered that it is nearer the tropics than is Dalgety, and therefore under a hotter sun. The snows which fall on Ben Lomond last not more than three or four days. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- Is it warm snow? {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Men who can wear kilts in a country like Scotland would, no doubt, think Dalgety quite hot, and my honorable friend, being a " hielandman," would think nothing of the weather there. Scotchmen largely people the New England tableland. Being canny, they know a good thing, and many are very prosperous in consequence. Armidale is not the only fine township in the district, as there are a number of others to which I shall refer later. Wheat, maize, barley, oats, potatoes, and fruit grow luxuriantly in the district, and any English fruit can be grown there successfully. According to the Royal Commission's report, the average production of wheat in the dis trict is 13.9 bushels, of oats 25.2 bushels, of maize 19.2 bushels, of barley .17.8 bushels, and of potatoes 2.7 tons. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- What about coffee? {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Coffee grows on the coast. If the site were chosen, a coastal area could be taken in on which coffee could be grown. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- What port would the capital have? **Mr. FOSTER.-** Coffs Harbor is probably the closest; but there are several ports on that coast. At the foot of the tableland is a large coastal district which has a number of harbors, and a future as great as that of any other district in Australia. {: .speaker-L1H} ##### Dr Liddell: -- It has a magnificent supply of timber. {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Yes. The New England site is only 144 miles away from a coal supply at Gunnedah, and I venture to say that Dalgety could not be supplied with coal so conveniently. Other fuel is in abundance. We possess almost all the hardwoods in profusion, among our timbers being stringy bark, messmate, blue-gum, tallow wood, grey-gum, cedar, hoop pine, rosewood, teak, beech, sassafras, and silky oak. I admit that granite foundations are best foil a city, and Dalgety has plenty of granite. One of my objections to Canberra is that if the Capital were built there it would be a city without foundations, built on sand, because in places it would be necessary to sink 20, or, perhaps, 40 or 50 feet, to get a secure resting place for the buildings. {: .speaker-L1H} ##### Dr Liddell: -- The granite at Dalgety is rotten, and unfit for building purposes. {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The quality of granite in the district cannot be judged by its surface show. The hardest belts are sometimes found alongside soft belts. But wherever one kind of granite is found, another can be discovered. A city founded on granite would be built on the bed rock. {: .speaker-L1H} ##### Dr Liddell: -- The foundation would be bad so far as drainage is concerned. {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Where there is a good fall and a plentiful water supply it is easy to make proper sanitary arrangements. In the Armidale district there is any quantity of granite, and in the neighbouring electorate plenty of freestone. We have also abundance of basalt, some of it suitable for building, while it also makes good rubble. At Tamworth, near by, and at Warwick, in Queensland, plenty of lime is to be found. Earl hern pipes and roof tiles are already made there, and there is 'an abundance of clean sand. The district produces a great diversity of minerals, including gold, copper, bismuth, wolfram, molybdenite, tin, and other metals. Hillgrove is only 17 miles away, and is already a famous resort with its remarkable gorges and tram line, which interests visitors. The tramway is constructed for mining purposes and is very remarkable, running straight up and down a gorge. It will be seen that this is a thoroughly civilized country, and the people of New England are goodhearted, broadminded, and intellectual. There is no great anxiety to have the Federal Capital there, but the residents are proud of their district as one of the first in Australia. I. now come to the important question of the water supply. The New England tableland cannot be expected to supply the body of water available in the lower country ; but it is Here that the rivers take their rise, and for 2,000 feet down the mountains there is an abundant supply. Fortunately for Armidale, it is not situated on the top of the range, Ben Lomond being over 4,000 feet high, and the township only 3,000 feet high. Quoting from the report of the Royal Commission, I find that the Gyra River would be sufficient to supply, by gravitation, a population of 57,000. The distance to the weir is only 25 miles, and there is a good catchment area.- In the district 39,000 acres have been alienated, the rest being Crown lands. The position of the dam would be 5^ miles north-east from the Black Mountain railway station, and, arranged to impound sufficient water supply in the driest years, would be only 70 feet high, so that the cost of construction must be small. Besides that, there -ire two subsidiary pumping water schemes, one on the Woolomombie River, 23 miles away, and another on the MacDonald River, 34 miles distant. {: .speaker-JRH} ##### Mr Bowden: -- There is a lot of settlement on the MacDonald River, is there not? {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Fortunately, or unfortunately, settlement there is very sparse, and it would not be very expensive to repurchase the greater part of the necessary land. The Woolomombie River has a catchment area of 247 square miles with a lift of only 400 feet, and the MacDonald River a catchment area ot 250 square miles, with a lift of only 350 feet. {: .speaker-JRH} ##### Mr Bowden: -- Does the honorable member propose to take all these areas within the Federal Capital site? {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- 'These' means of water supply would, combined, be sufficient for 500,000 people, and could easily- be included within the Federal (area. The gravitation schemes would be the first to be proceeded with, as the cheapest and easiest in every way ; but the others would be subsidiary, to be called on as the Federal city grew in size and importance. Besides these advantages there is ample supply of water for electric power from the Muddy, the Chandler, and the Apsley rivers, all within 24 to 35 miles distant. This idea of obtaining electric power from the streams is not new in New England. At the present moment, power is being supplied at Hillgrove to the mines from similar sources to those I have indicated, and there is an electric supply near Armidale. There are very deep falls on the rivers, the Apsley having a fall of hundreds of feet, and this, of course, is excellent for the supply of electric power. I may add that the average rainfall over thirty-seven years ending 1902 - this is rather extensive, but I desire to be fair - was 32.65 inches. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Is the honorable member comparing these records with the records of any other place ? {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I do not know of any other place to compare with the tableland of New England. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- A very Australian sentiment ! {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The altitude of Armidale is 3,450 feet, and the mean high shade temperature during the four hottest months - and I should like Victorians and Tasmanians to listen to this - is 79.6, while the mean lowest is 35.2. During spring the mean temperature is 57.6, during summer it is 68.1, during autumn it is 56.7, and during winter 44-1, indicating a climate that cannot be surpassed in Australia'. The distance of Armidale from Sydney in direct line is 225 miles, though by rail, owing to a curved line, it is 358 miles. With a fast express, however, this 350 miles should not mean more than six hours of travelling. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The honorable member must have an express of his own. {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am not talking of today, but of the future. {: .speaker-JRH} ##### Mr Bowden: -- We shall be going in airships in the future ! {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- If so, dien Armidale will be all the more suitable, since the journey will be much shorter in point of time. As a matter of fact, Armidale is no further from Sydney than is Dalgety, and its only drawback would appear to be that it happens to be north instead of south - that it happens to be half way between Sydney and Brisbane instead of half way between Sydney and Melbourne. I believe, however, that Victorian members will be broadminded enough to regard this question from an Australian stand-point. Armidale is only 77 miles away from Tamworth, where about 250,000' acres of land are about to be resumed, and where the people stand first for prosperity amongst the communities of the Commonwealth. The site is only 38 miles from Walcha, 14 miles from Uralla, and 64 miles from Glen Innes, the latter of which presents a Capital site of its own on the other side of Ben Lomond, of which I regret I have no official report. I desire to emphasize the' fact that a deviation of only 7 to 10 miles will be necessary in the railway to open up complete communication with the Federal Capital site, and the cost would be very sma.ll indeed. This is a point worth noting in view of the enormous liabilities which the Commonwealth will have to meet within the next year or so. I do not wish to weary honorable members by discussing this matter at too great length. I believe that I have dealt with every feature essential to the comfort of such a city as we hope to see built. I do not expect that the Federal Capital will reach great dimensions in my time. It will be a city of the future, and in recommending the Armidale site, I am suggesting one which will do credit not only to myself, but to the Federal Parliament should the selection I recommend be adopted. The Armidale district is one which does not require the establishment there of a Federal City to insure its progress. It will progress under State control. I direct attention to the fact that visitors from every corner of the earth will come to the capital city of the Commonwealth, and should it be established in such a country as the New England Tableland, in a "continent known to suffer from drought, visitors who will find all the products of Europe flourishing in a genial climate, and in a district where there is very little sickness, and in which no people are frozen to death as the honorable member for West Sydney suggests they may Be at Dalgety, will return to the lands from which they have come with a splendid impression of Australia derived from experience of itsFederal Capital. I ask honorable members to consider the advertisement for the Commonwealth which that would be likely to afford. Owing fo the elevation of the Armidale site, it is possible for one tostand on the highest points, and look over a beautiful vista of mountain and vale, whilst the air is rare and dry. In conclusion, I should like to say that the selec-, tion of the Armidale site would permit the indulgence of a little sentiment. It issituated on the New England Tableland, and I suggest that that is a fitting place for the Capital Site of the new England and" the new nation we are building up here, and in which we hope to profit by avoiding the miseries and mistakes of the old; England. {: #subdebate-20-0-s10 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth .- I almost regret that I have not theopportunity which the representation of a country electorate affords for the advocacy of the merits of someparticular site on more intimate groundsthan those of national consideration. The honorable 'member for NewEngland has, in the course of his speech, drawn attention to one unfortunate fact, and that is that, however excellent a site may be, or however well designed by nature for tire Federal Capital of Australia, if it be 'north of Sydney, it seems to be out of court. Nobody can deny the undoubted merits of the New England Tableland. No one will deny that, as the yearsroll on, the centre of the population of Australia will be located somewhere about that tableland., but because the choice of such a site would remove the Capital to a distance further than Sydney from the Southern State, it is deemed, even, by honorable members like the AttorneyGeneral, who comes' from Queensland, tobe outside the consideration of this Parliament. I do not intend this evening to againcanvass the merits of the various sites proposed, first, because I have already stated my views, and do not wish to weary honorable members with a repetition of them ; and in the second place because all thisdiscussion oF the relative merits of different sites is valueless, whilst we have the Bill before us in its present form. Honorable members must not forget that this is a Bill, not to decide by ballot the best site in Australia for the Federal Capital, but to determine more definitely the Seat of Government in the neighbourhood of Dalgety. That is the whole purpose of this Bill, and that being so, of what use is it 4o discuss the merits of various sites? {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- We can strike out the word " neighbourhood," as well as the word " Dalgety." {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I have made some inquiry, and I believe there is some doubt whether, under the Standing Orders, we shall have in Committee the power to strike out the words " in the' neigh"bourhood of Dalgety." At the present juncture, we are in this peculiar position : Bv voting for the second reading of this Bill, an honorable member must declare himself in favour of fixing the site of the Federal Capital at Dalgety, and by voting against the second reading of the Bill, he must declare himself against determining more definitely the Federal Capital question. So that honorable members who take either course will lay themselves open to a misunderstanding. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- That is only so far as Dalgety is concerned. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Certainly, according to the wording of the Bill ; but my honorable friend is aware that political opponents are not too scrupulous in these matters, and an honorable member who votes against the second reading of this Bill because lie is opposed to the selection of Dalgety, will be taunted with being against " determining more definitely" the Federal Capital question- Let us assume that we agree not to " take a vote on the second reading, and permit the Bill to go into Committee, with the object of striking out the word "Dalgety." What will then be our position? Some honorable member may raise a point of order in Committee, and ask whether it is competent for any honorable member to seek to omit from this Bill a word - Dalgety - which comprises the whole sum and substance of it, since its object is "to settle more definitely the Seat of Government in the neighbourhood of Dalgety." T nm afraid that a Chairman of Committees might rule against an amendment for the omission of the word, and we should find ourselves in another pitfall of the Government's making. The motion at present before the Chair is - >That the Bill be now read a second time. and, in order to put the matter on a perfectly sound basis, I propose to move to omit the word " now," and to add after the word " time," the words - to-morrow, with a view to enabling the Government to devise in the meantime some means by which Parliament can select by a system of ballot a site for the Federal Capital. If that be carried, it will be an indication to the Government that we wish to choose a site by a system of ballot. If Ministers and honorable members will, not accept such an amendment, it will be a clear indication to the people of Australia that the House has made up its mind for good or evil to take Dalgety as the Capital Site. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- Then, our course is to negative the motion for the second reading. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I have shown that to do so may be to lay ourselves open to the false charge of being against the settlement of the question. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- I do not think the honorable member is entitled to make that deduction. The Government might regard the amendment suggested as an attempt to take the business out of their hands, and might oppose it for that reason. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Dr Wilson: -- The Government would not do that upon any consideration. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Apart from the wellknown tenacity of the Government, I remind honorable members that this is not supposed to be a Government measure, and even the Treasurer is prepared to vote against the Government Bill. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Then they will throw him out. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I do not think they are able to do so. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Then he will throw them out. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- That is more like it. All I wish to say with regard to the debate which has taken place to-day is that I sincerely regret the attitude adopted by the Attorney-General as the mouthpiece of the Government in dealing with this great national question. The whole of the turmoil, if I may so describe it, which has arisen in New South Wales is due to the fact that the people of that State believe that the Commonwealth Parliament has been viewing this matter from the point of view of a legal quibbler, and not from the point of view of a broad interpreter of the spirit of the Constitution. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- The honorable member wants a Sydney interpreter. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- The worst thing the honorable member for Melbourne Ports can say about anything is that it comes from Sydney. I hope for the same wide sympathy from the people of Victoria that I am prepared to concede to them. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr Mahon: -- The worst thing we have got from Sydney so far is the honorable member himself. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- The honorable member for Coolgardie carries a rapier about him which is so remarkably like a bludgeon that it is impossible to find the point. The honorable member went over to Western Australia and the people of that State were so pleased with him that they sent him away again. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr Mahon: -- 1 carry a shillalah. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- The honorable member carries a shillalah; it is in his constitution, and he cannot get away from it. I have no quarrel with him on that score, but I do regret the handling of this question by the Attorney-General. The honorable gentleman gave a long history of the matter. He explained the way the Premiers met and decided by resolution that the Capital ought to be placed at a reasonable distance from Sydney. He went on to say that, although the Premiers had ratified that agreement, and were the originators _ of the spirit of the section dealing with the Federal Capital, they failed to place it in a legal and binding manner in the Constitution. The honorable gentleman said that for that reason alone we should, be absolved from the broad bond which . the six Premiers of Australia had signed, and owing to which the people of New South Wales agreed to federate with the people of the other States. Whilst such dependence on legal quibbles and forms may be worthy of a police court solicitor or of a. Shylock, we have a right to expect something more from the mouthpiece of the Federal Government in the interpretation of the broad bond under which we take our places here. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- The Attorney-General is the mouthpiece of only the smaller half of the Government. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Of very much the smaller half ! I think that it is safer when we have such interpreters that our agreements should be placed in black and white, and I therefore move, to show the country what we vote on - >That the word " now " be left out, and that after the word " time " the words " to-morrow, with a view to enabling the Government to devise in the meantime some means by which Parliament can select by a system of ballot the site for the Federal Capital " be inserted. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Who is blocking the Federal Capital Site now? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- I wish to ask, as a point of order, whether it will now be competent foi honorable members to discuss the whole question, or whether our remarks must be confined to the amendment? {: #subdebate-20-0-s11 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I should be very pleased if I could see any way by which in the discussion of the amendment all other matters might be excluded, but it is so much interwoven with the matters dealt with by the Bill that I am afraid I" must permit a much wider debate than I should" otherwise allow. {: #subdebate-20-0-s12 .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh -- In spite of the beautiful paradise painted by the honorable member for New England, and the horrifying, hair-raising, and blood-freezing description of Dalgety given by the honorable member for Lang, it is my intention again to vote for that site. I think it is anything but the treeless, stony waste that he represented it to be. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- Has the honorable member seen it? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Yes. I sa.w it upon two occasions, and I was more impressed with it the second time than the first. Yesterday the Attorney-General expressed the hope that this question would now be definitely settled. So far as I am concerned, it was definitely settled in 1904. When we reflect upon what has happened in New South Wales since that time, and also upon what has taken place in this House, T am sorry, indeed, that the Government did not proceed to peg out the city and exercise their powers under the Constitution immediately the site was selected. I consider that the representatives of New South Wales are not competent to choose the best site for the permanent Seat of Government. I will tell honorable members why. They are dominated by several influences. Some of them are entirely dominated by the Sydney press, others are under the domination of commercial interests, and still others consider only their own electorates. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- What consideration dominates the South Australian representatives ? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- It does not matter to me where I have to go to discharge my parliamentary duties, so long as it is the best site which can be chosen in the interests of the whole Commonwealth. I am prepared to respect the compact that is contained in the Constitution. {: .speaker-JRH} ##### Mr Bowden: -- The honorable member would stick to the letter of it, and repu-eli q te its so int. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- I am prepared to adhere to the letter of the agreement. The trouble appears to be that section 125 ot the Constitution is sq drawn that the ordinary layman cannot understand it. Indeed, the more one" analyzes the Constitution, the more it appears that the time has arrived when it should be put into the melting-pot, and when laymen, instead or lawyers, should be afforded an opportunity of trying their hand upon it. Honorable members know that the greatest differences of opinion exist - even amongst the legal members in this House - as to the meaning of section 125. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- There will always be differences of opinion. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Exactly. The honorable member appears to be under the impression that some arrangement was arrived at whereby the Seat of Government should be located within 125 miles of Sydney. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- I do. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- If that be sp, the claims of Canberra cannot be considered at all, because that site is 200 miles distant from Sydney. Yet we find that a majority of. the representatives from New South Wales are agreed that Canberra should be selected. That entirely disposes of the contention that it was intended to fix the Capital within 125 miles of Sydney. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Not at all. We are obliged to take Canberra because it is the best site that we can get. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- The honorable member and his colleagues from New South Wales will only be obliged to take what this Parliament may choose to give them. Some honorable members talk about this site and that site in New South Wales being banned. They appear to forget that all the sites in South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland, and Western Australia are similarly banned. I think it was a great concession indeed on the part of the other States when they cheerfully granted New South Wales the Seat of Government. If Dalgety is the dreary waste pictured by the honorable member for Lang, why did he neglect such a splendid opportunity of getting it taken off the hands of the New South Wales Government? {: .speaker-L1H} ##### Dr Liddell: -- We are not that sort. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- It is very difficult to say what sort the honorable member is. If Canberra can be selected as the Seat of Government, then Dalgety is an equally eligible site, without any infringement of the Constitution such as is alleged by those who urge the Federal Capital should be as close as possible to the 100-miles limit. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Does the honorable member know how far Canberra is from Sydney? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- It is about 200 miles. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- It is not, because the 100-miles limit imposed by the Constitution must be measured as the crow flies. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- But we cannot go to Canberra as the crow flies. We must go *via* Queanbeyan, as the locomotive flies, a distance of about 200 miles. I have no prejudice in favour of any site, and I shall vote for what I believe to be the best. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- It is a very curious circumstance that a Scotchman owns all the land in the neighbourhood of Dalgety. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- It is also a curious circumstance that only to-day, within the precincts of this House, there were gentlemen who had lived for years in Dalgety, and who have found it to be a very healthy locality indeed. Colonel Foxton. - Is the honorable member referring to the man who had anthrax? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- No; but if a man were to stay very long at Canberra he would probably be afflicted with something worse than anthrax. I admit that that site would make a very pretty cricket pitch, but it is about the last place that I would choose as the permanent Seat of Government. I was astonished to hear some of the views which have been expressed by the representatives of New South .Wales. They do not appear to be ready to extend the slightest consideration to the representatives from the other States. A good deal of feeling has been exhibited because it is proposed to> locate the Federal Capital at a spot where Victoria will derive a slight share of benefit. But surely there can be no logical objection to that. At any rate, I have no complaint to urge against Victoria receiving a benefit that will be denied to South Australia. The whole of the other States cheerfully conceded the Seat of Government to New South Wales, and I claim that the representatives of those States are most fitted to say which is the best site for it. They have already chosen Dalgety, and I trust that they will adhere to their decision. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Dr Wilson: -- Dalgety was not fairly chosen. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- I disagree with the statement of the honorable member. The honorable member for Lang has quoted some figures by the New South Wales Premier in reference to the water supply of Dalgety. **Mr. Wade** assures us that if the selection of Dalgety be adhered to, the water supply for the Seat of Government cannot be obtained from the Snowy River. I dispute that statement. **Mr. Wade** declares that the supply available from the Mowambah River, which is a tributary of the Snowy, will be capable of supplying the requirements of a city containing a million, or two million inhabitants, and that the Cotter River is adequate to supplying the requirements of twelve times the population of Sydney and its suburbs. 1 do not think that there is any likelihood that the population of the Federal Capital will number a million for some centuries to come. These figures show the extremes to which the New South Wales Premier is driven in his attempt to give effect to the wishes of a very limited section of the people of New South Wales, because I do not believe for a moment that a majority of the electors of that State are opposed to the choice of Dalgety. **Mr. Wade** affirms that the Cotter River discharges 348,300,000 gallons per day, or about twelve times the quantity of water required for the daily supply of Sydney and its suburbs. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- The honorable member talks about water as if prohibition would obtain in the Federal Territory. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- No, but the New South Wales Premier spoke as if there would not be enough water at Dalgety to insure the inhabitants a decent wash. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- That is a little hyperbole. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- As a matter of fact, there is no water difficulty at Dalgety at all. One reason why I shall vote for the selection of Dalgety is on account of. its proximity to Twofold Bay. We have recently heard a good deal of talk about defence matters. Every section of this House admits that we ought to build a navy of some sort. If that be so, we shall certainly require Commonwealth dockvards, and where should they be established, but in Federal territory? {: .speaker-JRH} ##### Mr Bowden: -- Jervis Bay offers better facilities in that connexion than does Twofold Bay. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- From the standpoint of access to Twofold Bay and Jervis Bay, there is no comparison between the two places. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Here is the scale. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- The scale t© which the honorable member draws my attention is a water scale. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- And one that was prepared by the honorable member for Lang. {: .speaker-JRH} ##### Mr Bowden: -- Does the honorable member say that access to Twofold Bay from Dalgety is easier than access to Jervis Bay from Canberra? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- It is ever so much easier, and the distance is not so great. The figures of the Premier of New South Wales prove that an abundant water supply is obtainable at Dalgety. This fact is borne out by the right honorable member for Swan. In reply to the statement of the honorable member for Lang that the country around Dalgety is treeless and unproductive, I may say that I visited a garden not far from the proposed Capital Site, in which I saw not only many English flowers, but a large number of trees growing splendidly. And honorable members, if they had gone there with their eyes open, and determined to see what was to be seen, would have observed that. If it is possible to grow the trees in one part, it is possible to grow them right along to the city site. A great deal has been said about the granite which is to be found near the site. We do not need a first class site on which to build a city. It does not matter how poor the soil is on which the city is to be built, so long as we have prolific soil close at hand to supply its wants; and it cannot be denied that in the Bombala district, which will be practically next door to the Federal Capital, because a distance of 50 or 60 miles is neither here nor there in the carriage of produce, there is as fine land as can be found in many parts of New South Wales. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- -Very little. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- In the Bombala district there is more suitable land than would supply the wants of a much larger city "than the Federal Capital will be for many a long day. I believe that honorable members are pretty well agreed that the time is close at hand1 when the whole of our railway services will be run by electricity. I ami quite satisfied that within a radius of 5 miles along the Snowy River there can be obtained more power than *Seat of* [23 Sept., 1908.] *Government Bill.* 307 can be got from the Falls of Niagara, because there is no limit to the number of turbines which can be erected on the river. There will be no difficulty at all in carrying the electric power for a very long distance. At the present time it is carried a very long distance in America, so that it will be possible not only to supply our Federal Capital with light and driving power for manufactories, tramways, and other purposes, but also to develop enough power within the radius to drive all the railways of New South Wales. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Oh, oh ! {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- There is no doubt about that. If the honorable member has paid any attention to the power that can be developed by huge turbines which can be placed in any number on the river, he will realize that my statement is accurate. He cannot point to any other part of New South Wales which offers the same advantages as does the Snowy River. Certainly, after the consideration which has been shown to that State by representative men from the other States- {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- When? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Years ago, when we said that we were prepared to fix the Capital site immediately New South Wales granted the land. When our representative men agreed to give New South Wales the Federal Capital at all- {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- It had to be done under the Constitution. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- After the experience we have had, there shall be no Federal Capital in New South Wales if I can help it, if it does not accept Dalgety. I am not going to allow the Federal Capital to be placed in some corner of New South Wales, where we can be hemmed in and left to the mercy of a Premier like **Mr. Wade** or **Sir Hector** Carruthers. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- That is a beautiful sentiment. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- It is a national sentiment. I do not propose to allow the Federal Capital to be placed at the mercy of men who have shown such a poor parochial sentiment as have those gentlemen. If we judge them by their utterances, as I am doing, they are men who would have no hesitation in going to any length to hamper the Commonwealth Government. It would be a most serious thing indeed if we were dependent upon the New South Wales Government for an outlet to any other part of the Commonwealth, or if we were dependent on the good grace of its people for our water supply. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is a fine Federal spirit. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- It is a Federal spirit. I only wish that the honorable gentleman would go and lecture the gentlemen I am referring to as to what a national spirit is. I am speaking from what we have seen. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The very essence of vindictiveness. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- There is nothing vindictive in me at all ; the vindictiveness has all come from **Sir Hector** Carruthers and **Mr. Wade** ; yet, in spite of that I am prepared to do a fair thing to-morrow. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Why does not the honorable member vote according to the spirit of the contract? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- I believe that in voting for Dalgety I shall be voting conscientiously according to the spirit of the bond as laid down in the Constitution. I want to tell my honorable friend that' if I am not voting in consonance with the spirit of the bond in voting for Dalgety, or even for a site in the remotest corner of New 'South Wales, I should be equally departing from it if I insisted upon the State granting more than 100 square miles of country. I, for my part, do not intend to help to establish a capital which will be confined to that area. The honorable member must agree with me that it would be of no earthly use as an area on which to establish a Federal city. We could not get the outlet which we require. We want a little strip from the city to the sea. If honorable members are correct in their contention that, according to the spirit of the Constitution, the Federal Capital must be placed as near as possible to the100-mile limit, or, as the honorable member for West Sydney says, within 125 miles from Sydney, we could not get an area of more than 100 or 125 Square miles. The wording of the two clauses is precisely the same. The words " not less than " are used in each instance, and if a small area had been meant, the words " not more than " would have been used. I could give many other reasons in favour of voting for Dalgety, but after the long debate we have had on this question session after session I do not think it is necessary to do so. I hope that if Dalgety is chosen, no matter what discontent may be shown by any section of the people of New South Wales, we shall proceed to exercise our right. The High Court will take good care that we do not go beyond our right. 308 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Will the honorable member rote for building the Capital ? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Precisely. I hope that we shall do what I am sorry was not done by the Government, not immediately after the previous Bill was passed, but after we had given time to the New South Wales Parliament to consider our action. When the Government foundthat friendly negotiations were not likely to be successful, I. consider that it was their duty to proceed at once to test the legality of the action taken by this Parliament. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Will the honorable member vote money for building the Capital immediately after this question is decided ? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- I shall vote sufficient money, not. of course, to establish the Capital, but to allow the New South Wales Government, if they choose, to test in the High Court the question as to whether we have exceeded our power. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The honorable member will vote money for the purpose of driving in a peg. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- I should go about the matter in a business-like way. I should not take the risk of going in for a large expenditure on buildings possibly to find from a decision of the High Court that we had exceeded our power. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- If that right were settled, would the honorable member support a proposal to go on with the building of the city? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Undoubtedly.I should like the Government to place on the Estimates a sum sufficient to take some action in regard to fixing the location of the Federal Capital. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- If there is a conflict? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- And if there is not a conflict,the honorable member would vote enough money to start the building of the Capital ? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Oh, no. I see what the honorable member means. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- We want to know whether the honorable member is in favour of going on with that work or whetherhe is only pretending. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Judging by his interjection, the honorable member for Wentworth wants the Commonwealth to proceed to select a site, say the area of 900 square miles laid down in the Bill, and no objection coming from the State Government, to begin the erection of our buildings. I should not support anything of the kind. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Exactly. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- I should like the Commonwealth to spend two or three pounds upon the site which is fixed and then wait to see if New South Wales was prepared to grant the land. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is to say, the honorable member would insist upon having a "row" with New South Wales whether she wanted it or not. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- No, I should insist upon waiting until New South Wales carried out her part of the bond by immediately transferring to the Commonwealth all the Crown land, and, if she did, proceeding to ascertain, under the provisions of the Act, the amount which we should have to pay for the private land. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Supposing that the State did transfer the land, would the honorable member go on with the building of the Capital ? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Well, I do not know- {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- That is honest, at least. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Let me complete the sentence. I do not know on what terms the New South Wales Government might be prepared to hand over the land. But the moment that theyhad done so, and I had ascertained their terms, I should know what the next step to be taken by the Commonwealth should be. **Colonel FOXTON** (Brisbane) [9.26].- I make no apology for speaking on this subject, because, although it has received a great deal of attentioin from a large number of honorable members, and has been threshed out over and over again, this is the first opportunity I have had to express my views. The contention has been set up in the press that when, by the Act of 1904, this Parliament adopted Dalgety as the site for the Federal Capital, the matter was entirely at an end, and could not be possibly reconsidered here. With that contention I totally disagree. I do not know exactly what the proportion is, but I assume that at least one-third of the members of this House were not here when that Bill was passed. It may, or may not, be the case that circumstances have changed, but I contend that the fact that Dalgety was adopted as a site by legislation does not preclude this Parliament from revising that legislation so long as nothing has been clone thereunder. The matter remains exactly where it was, because no Commonwealth money has been spent in regard to the site; it has been left dormant for reconsideration. As the honorable member for Flinders reminds me, if that Act had decided the question this Bill would be entirely unnecessary. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- This Bill would be necessary to more clearly define the area. Both Commonwealth and State are agreed on that. Colonel FOXTON. - I quite understand that the legislation passed in 1904 was not sufficient to complete all the arrangements in connexion with the establishment of the Government and Parliament at Dalgety. There will have to be not only this legislation, but a great deal more before Parliament can take up its work at that place, should it be chosen. Consequently, 1 have no hesitation in saying that the matter is still open for discussion, and will remain so until the site has been practically vested in the Commonwealth, and a considerable sum of money expended in carrying out the legislation which brings that about. I was glad to hear from the Attorney-General that his own personal predilections are in favour of Armidale as the site for the Seat of Government. He has already been twitted with having commenced his Capital Site career at Armidale, and wound up at Dalgety. I understand that other Queensland members, like himself, are now wedded to the Dalgety site. I regret, and am astonished that that is so. If Queensland members were as true to their pledges, duties, and responsibilities to their own State as are Victorian and New South Wales representatives, not one of them would be found voting for Dalgety. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- There has not been a more loyal set of men than the Queensland members. **Colonel FOXTON.** - The honorable member has my deepest sympathy in this matter, because he has told us - and I believe him - that he would have Armidale if he could get it. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Does the honorable member think he is going to get Armidale? **Colonel FOXTON.-** I do not, but I support it and will vote for it all the same. That is the way to get things - by hustling for them. I know the honorable member would desire to have Armidale, or failing that, Lyndhurst. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- Would hot Armidale be nearer to Brisbane than to Sydney ? Colonel FOXTON. - I think not, but that is immaterial. I am not advocating Armidale now. If I were I should have a good deal to say in favour of it. Failing Armidale, I should certainly go for Lyndhurst, for reasons which I shall presently give. The Attorney-General has my entire sympathy, because we know that the shackles which tie him as a Minister bind him to take the view which his colleagues as a whole have adopted. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Dr Wilson: -- It is an open question in the Cabinet. Colonel FOXTON. - Is it an open question ? {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It ought not to be. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- It has always been an open question. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- From the very beginning it was announced as such. **Colonel FOXTON.-** Then I am not sure that I must not withdraw my sympathy from the Attorney-General. If he, being still the representative of a Queensland constituency, is at liberty to vote for any site which is nearer to Queensland, and which therefore does greater justice to that State and its representatives than Dalgety, he should have refrained from introducing a Bill to fix the site at Dalgety, which, from a Queensland point of view, is a most ineligible one in every way. {: .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr Wise: -- Where does Australia come in? **Colonel FOXTON.-** I am glad of that interruption, because it enables me to anticipate something I was going to say - that Australia does not consist of only New South Wales and Victoria. I am in entire accord with the regrets expressed by two members from South Australia this evening that the squabbles, dissensions, and jealousies which exist between New South Wales and Victoria have so overlaid this question - and I might add a great many other questions that crop up in this Parliament - that it has not been dealt with ir? that, broad national spirit to which the AttorneyGeneral referred in such feeling terms towards the close of his speech. {: .speaker-KQP} ##### Mr McDonald: -- Queensland members have been solid on everything pertaining to Queensland until the honorable member and some of his associates came here. **Colonel FOXTON.** - Do I understand from the Chairman of Committees, who interjects, that he considers Dalgety a suitable 310 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* site from a Queensland point of view ? The honorable member was ready enough to interject just now, but he does not reply when I ask him a direct question of that sort. {: .speaker-KQP} ##### Mr McDonald: -- I am not such a fool as to allow the honorable member to pull my leg. I have pulled his often enough, long before he came here. **Colonel FOXTON.-** It is very gratifying to find the Chairman of Committees interjecting in this way, because it will enable us to know exactly how far we may go when he is in the chair. The honorable member has evaded my question. {: .speaker-KQP} ##### Mr McDonald: -- What right has the honorable member to ask me a question? **Colonel FOXTON.** - I have the same right to ask the honorable member a question as he had to interrupt me when I was in possession of theChair, and as Chairman of Committees, he ought to be aware of that fact. However, I am satisfied with the position in which he has left himself. I agree emphatically with the AttorneyGeneral that this Parliament has, undoubtedly, the sole right to say where the Capital of the Commonwealth shall be. In fact, I do not know that I have heard that seriously questioned. But as to the statements that the question of the site has been definitely settled, I am led to believe that Lyndhurst was the site which actually received the largest number of straight-out votes on more than one occasion. There is, therefore, a good deal of justification for the contention that the selection of Dalgety was not representative of the complete and overwhelming opinion of this House, even in 1904. As to the breach of contract that is alleged, I hold - although it may seem that in saying so I am arguing against my own convictions - that there can be no breach of contract so long as the Capital site is located in any part of New South Wales outside the 100-mile limit. But, though I go as far as that, I do say that the same considerations which induced the Premiers at the Conference to come to an agreement that the Capital should be as near to Sydney as practicable outside that limit, are just as good to-day ; and that this House would be doing no more than justice to the State of New South Wales in fixing the Capital as close as possible to the constitutional limit. I do not agree with the honorable member for Angas that it would be desirable to alter the Constitution for this purpose. The Constitution embodies a binding contract between the parties to it, and only by the voice of an overwhelming majority of the people of Australia, and practically by the unanimous wish of the States Parliaments - although that is not provided for in the Constitution - should any demand for an amendment of the Constitution in this respect be entertained. In my opinion, the overwhelming feeling of the population of Australia is not favorable to such an amendment. But if there were an amendment of the Constitution to that effect, and the 100-miles limit were to be expunged as a fundamental condition, I say unhesitatingly that the other condition as to locality should also be expunged, and any site within the limits of the Commonwealth be open to selection. But it is idle to discuss that point, and I should not have done so if I had not, by an interjection which may appear in print, possibly led some to think that I was favorable to the view submitted by the honorable member for Angas. I do not propose to occupy the House very long in regard to the merits of the various sites, but I will say that we are not legislating in this matter for today, for to-morrow, or for the next fifty years. We are legislating for all time, and we have to consider, as reasonable men, what will be the probable condition of this Continent at the end, say, of the present century. We have to consider the possibility of extended railway communication and also the trend of population. In what direction is the population trending at this moment? Is it not going northwards throughout the whole of the south-eastern half of the Continent? I understand that the centre of density, if I may use that phrase, is now, so far as relates to the eastern part of Australia, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Bathurst or Lyndhurst. That is a strong argument against placing the Capital right down in the eastern corner of the Continent. We should be mating a very great mistake if we did that. Some people say that we should place the Capital as near as possible to the border of New South Wales and Victoria. Those who use that argument seem to take it that New South Wales and Victoria constitute the whole of Australia. I venture to say that the centre of density of population will, in the course of time, be very much nearer to Armidale than it is at this moment, and I make that prediction with every confidence. {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr Storrer: -- What about South Australia and Western Australia? *Seat of* [23 Sept., 1908.] *Government Bill.* 311 **Colonel FOXTON.** - I have reckoned South Australia as a portion of the eastern half of Australia, because we may take it that the great line of cleavage in the matter of settlement and population lies west of Adelaide. I have mentioned Lyndhurst as one of the places that I should strongly advocate, and I sincerely hope that before this Bill passes I shall have an opportunity to vote for its selection instead of Dalgety. I trust that I shall have the support and cooperation of the Queensland members in so doing, on the ground that Lyndhurst is in the neighbourhood of the centre of density. It is also, roughly speaking, about equidistant from Adelaide, Melbourne, and Brisbane ; whilst it lies rather more than 150 miles from Sydney. Much has been said as to the justice of giving Sydney all the advantage of having the Capital of the Commonwealth in her proximity. It is admitted, even by Victorians, that were it not that it is undesirable that the Capital should be placed in a large commercial centre, and one immediately on the seaboard, the position that Sydney holds in regard to Australia justifies the desire on the part of her people that the Capital should be there. By placing it in such a position that Sydney will remain the port we shall be measuring out that meed of justice to Sydney which is her due. That is one of the reasons why the Seat of Government should be located in the situation that I advocate. I have none of the misgivings which the honorable member for Hindmarsh seems to entertain as to the Commonwealth being placed at the mercy of the Parliament or the Government of New South Wales. That view is chimerical. Again, I find that in New South Wales certain railways are projected materially affecting the question. One is to connect Werris Creek with a point on the Dubbo line. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Near Wellington. Colonel FOXTON.- That is so. I understand that it is to be undertaken in the immediate future. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- If it has not already been undertaken. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- It has been authorized. Colonel FOXTON. - The construction of that line will bring Lyndhurst into direct communication with Brisbane, and also with the capital of the State that is to be formed north of Queensland. Queensland, with its enormous territory, cannot possibly for many years longer remain one State. As population grows, there, the old cry for the separation of the north, and possibly of the centre, from the south, will be raised, and must be reckoned with. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The selection of Lyndhurst would place the three large capitals in pretty much the same relation. **Colonel FOXTON.** - It would be practically equi-distant from the capitals of the three largest States, other than New South Wales, and less than 200 miles from Sydney. That could be brought about by the construction of another line that is projected by New South Wales, and, probably, in the near future, will be undertaken. I refer to the proposal to connect the terminus of the Hay line with the terminus of the Morgan line in South Australia. Adelaide would then be brought into almost direct communication with Lyndhurst. From almost every point of view, it seems to me that Lyndhurst, or somewhere thereabouts, is an ideal site, so far as locality is concerned, provided that its natural eligibility is satisfactory. I understand that its climate is excellent, that it is a fertile region, and that it is sufficiently well watered, from a source in the immediate neighbourhood, or can be, to provide for a city of 50,000 inhabitants. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- And we should have a large cathedral city to live in - Bathurst. Colonel FOXTON. - At all events, it is not far distant from Sydney. If we select a site where there is no population at present, it will be a very long time before we have 50,000 inhabitants of the Federal Capital. When we have, there will be justification for an expenditure necessary to bring an inexhaustible supply of water from the snow-clad mountains of Canobolas. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- I do not think Canobolas would give a large supply. Colonel FOXTON. - I understand that there is a large tract of country there that could be diverted into a catchment area for Lyndhurst. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- Orange is short of water already. Colonel FOXTON. - But there is no large water supply scheme there. The distance from Canobolas to Lyndhurst, travelling round the two sides of a triangle by way of the railway junction at Blayney, is less than 40 miles, and I dare say that the direct course for a line of pipes would not be more than 28 or 30 miles. These are the 312 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* reasons why I believe Lyndhurst to be the best of all sites. Let me say a word or two about Dalgety. One would imagine from the pictures of it, which are displayed, that it is a most fertile place. Before I visited Dalgety, I was led to believe by the highly-coloured photographs of it that I saw, that it was really a very nice place to live in. I saw in those coloured photographs what appeared to be beautiful green trees and shrubs, but when I visited Dalgety I found that they were really granite boulders that had been artfully coloured green in the photographs. The whole district is covered with them. I admit that it probably possesses the best water supply that could be obtained, but, in choosing a site for the Capital, water is not the sole consideration. It is, rather, a minor consideration. There is scarcely an existing capital city which would not have been rejected, had it been put up for selection in the same way as the sites now before us are, on the ground that the water supply was inadequate, but that objection, in their case, has been overcome. What would have been the position of London if it had been necessary to select it for the capital, just as we are selecting a Capital for the Commonwealth? {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr Maloney: -- The curse of London is its water supply. Colonel FOXTON.- Not now ; it used to be. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr Maloney: -- It is one of the worst in the world. Colonel FOXTON.- So far as I can see, Dalgety has two distinct advantages : it has quantities of water, and its selection as the Seat of Government would have a distinct tendency to shorten the sessions of this Parliament. Every honorable member, after three months of such weather as I experienced there - and not in the depth of winter - would be glad to get away. I saw there one little garden, attached to one of the two hotels, where the proprietor with exemplary patience and industry, and a considerable degree of knowledge, as evidenced by the quantity of manure that he put into the soil, had been endeavouring to grow a few plants and shrubs. His efforts, however, absolutely failed. The man's heart was in the work, but it was absolutely useless. When the westerly wind blows at Dalgety, notwithstanding that it is an open pasture and is covered, or alleged tobe covered, with grass, the dust flies in clouds, such as we see in Nicholson-street or the St. Kilda-road. What would be the position when traffic came along? Melbourne is noted for its dust-storms, but in that respect it could not be compared with what Dalgety would be in a westerly wind. Then, again, all the soil required for making gardens would have to be carted there. I notice in one of the official documents that the country, comprising not merely the proposed site of the city itself, but the area within a radius of 30 miles, is of such a character that it will carry one sheep to two acres. That is not the sort of place that we want for a Federal Capital. {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr Storrer: -- Surely we donot want to make it a sheep-run ? Colonel FOXTON.- I grant that it is not bad sheep country, but we need a little agriculture - a few gardens- {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- Can we not carry on agriculture with success on land that is capable of carrying one sheep to two acres ? Colonel FOXTON.- But Dalgety is a granite country. It consists of granite boulders and sand, with a beautiful river running through it. {: .speaker-JWC} ##### Mr Carr: -- It is good goat country. **Colonel FOXTON.-** Capital goat country. As I have said, my preference is for Lyndhurst, but if the House, in its wisdom, should see fit to make Armidale the Capital, nothing would please me more. It is undoubtedly a most eligible site, but it is nearly as far north of the centre of density of population as Dalgety is south of that centre, and for that reason has no stronger claim, and is not more eligible at present than Dalgety is; but the population is undoubtedly moving north, and I fully believe that twenty-five years hence New England, so ably represented by **Mr. Foster,** will be practically the centre of the density of population in this continent. {: .speaker-KFN} ##### Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- We are building for the future. Colonel FOXTON.- I admit that; but we cannot expect every one in the south to believe in the enormous possibilities of the north. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- We have to take into account the geographical position of the States. **Colonel FOXTON.-** I am doing so. I was going to draw attention again to the fact that there is only one State to the north of New South Wales and one to the south on the mainland, but that 25 years hence there will be two prosperous thriving populous States north of New South Wales and still only one to the south. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- What about Tasmania and South Australia? **Colonel FOXTON.-** We cannot bridge Bass Strait. Undoubtedly the railway connexion between Western Australia, South Australia, and the eastern States will be made in a very short time. It must be done. I do not think that any one will contend that the Capital should be placed where Western Australia would not enjoy equal facilities with the other States. The representatives of Western Australia, as regards distance and easy passage, are necessarily handicapped, but so far as the eastern half of the Commonwealth is concerned we should place the Capital in such a position as to make it most accessible from the four, or the five States on the eastern and southern sea-board of the mainland, which will in the not far distant future have to send representatives to it. I regret that I have occupied so much time, but this being the first opportunity I have had to ventilate my views on the question, I felt that, in justice to my constituents and without wishing to prolong the debate, it was necessary that I should address myself to the subject as extensively as I have. {: #subdebate-20-0-s13 .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM:
AttorneyGeneral · Darling Downs · Protectionist -- Before dealing with the amendment moved by the honorable member for Wentworfh, I wish to reply to a statement made by the honorable member for Brisbane, which seemed to cast an aspersion upon Queenslanders who were members of this House before the constituency of Brisbane saw fit to return him. Although those representatives of Queensland differed and belonged to different parties, it is only just to say that they did on all occasions do their duty honorably by the State which sent them here. Colonel Foxton. - Why do they notcontinue to do it? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- They are continuing to do it. The truest Queenslander is the truest Australian. The best interests of our own State are not always conserved by voting always for the interests of Queensland and against those of the other States of the Union. I do not wish to say more than that, because I think it better for the dignity of the House that we should avoid personalities, and confine our remarks strictly to the subject under discussion ; but having been attacked for my action in connexion with the State from which I come, I was forced to hit back. The honorable member for Wentworth, in moving the amendment, seemed to think it necessary for the fair and full consideration of the Question, and that without it there would be no opportunity in Committee for honorable members to freely declare their opinions as to the proper location of the Federal Capital. But I repeat what I said in my opening speech, that it is the wish of the Government that in Committee; if honorable members so desire, the omission of words may be moved to enable a vote to be taken on the question. If such an amendment is moved and carried, the Bill will be at once reported, and a determination come to by means of an open exhaustive ballot as to the best site. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- The honorable member for Wentworth feared that that was not possible. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- If it be found impossible, I shall do all I can to give the House an opportunity to come to a decision on the question in some other way. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- That is all we require. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Would Dalgety be excluded from the ballot? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr GROOM: -- No. What we all desire is a free, frank, and honest expression of opinion as to the best site for the Federal Capital. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- In view of the statement of the Minister that the Government will take all steps necessary to enable a ballot to be held even should an amendment in Committee to strike out the words " Schedule A " be declared by the Chairman to be out of order, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. {: #subdebate-20-0-s14 .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera .- As the hour is late, I do not wish to weary the House, but I have a few observations to make on this much debated question. I have tried to take an unbiased view, and, putting aside State and parochial prejudices, to select that site which would be best for Australia. Unfortunately, a great deal of parochialism has been introduced into the consideration of the maffer, for which the representatives of Sydney are chiefly responsible. As the honorable member for Bendigo explained this afternoon, the location of the Federal Capital was left an open question in the first draft Constitution submitted to the electors. On the first referendum the vote of Australia was overwhelmingly in favour of the acceptance of that Bill; but, as the New 314 *Seat of* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Government Bill.* South Wales Parliament, influenced by the interests of Sydney, had enacted that a minimum of 80,000 electors must vote for the Bill in that Stateto enable it to be carried, that referendum had no practical effect. The Constitution was then amended by the Conference of Premiers, and accepted on a second referendum. But the voting in Sydney and suburbs showed on both occasions that the people were against the Constitution, either with the Federal Capital question as an open one, or fixing the site within the limits of New South Wales. After this very generous concession to the mother State, it is rather humiliating to us that the Sydney people should attempt to limit the choice of a site for the Capital in the way suggested - it is asking the Federal Parliament to adopt the view prescribed by Sydney. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Itis marvellous to us from New South Wales that the honorable member should make such statements, though I suppose they seem reasonable to him. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- After the choice of the Capital site has been limited to New South Wales, there seems to be a desire on the part of a section of the House to impose a further restriction in respect of the limit of 100 miles from Sydney. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is scarcely fair, seeing that Canberra is 200 miles distant. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- My contention is that, so long as the Federal Capital site is within the territory of New South Wales, this Parliament is within its right in choosing any part of that State. It appears to me that there is an attempt at dictating on the part of one State. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is a grossly unfair statement ! {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- I cannot arrive at any other conclusion. The section of the Constitution was amended by a Conference of Premiers; and now the record of that Conference is used in order to limit the plain words of the Constitution. I have inspected Dalgety and the other sites dealt with in the report of **Mr. Oliver** ; and I believe that one of the most important considerations is that of water supply. We know that in England, America, and other parts of the world, the exhaustion of the coal supplies is becoming a great problem for statesmen ; and that should be a lesson to us to conserve, in one of the future cities of the Commonwealth, where large manufacturing industries may be carried on, the motive power to be derived from an abundant water supply. At the same time, we cannot ignore the geographical facts, and *we* must have regard to the convenience of the whole of the States. If we have regard to these points, then the Seat of Government which must under the Constitution be somewhere in New South Wales, should be on the coast between Melbourne and Sydney. {: .speaker-JWC} ##### Mr Carr: -- Not at all ! {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- I think that what I say is a most reasonable proposition, which is agreed to by unbiased men who have investigated and reported on the question. I am not prepared to say that if the matter were an open one, some better site might not be obtained in another part of Australia; but, in view of the wording of the Constitution, I think the Federal Capital ought to be, as I said, somewhere on the coast between Melbourne and Sydney. **Mr. Joseph** Cook. - Lyndhurst is nearer to Melbourne than it is to Sydney. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- We have Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia to consider. {: .speaker-JRH} ##### Mr Bowden: -- If so, then Lyndhurst is the geographical centre. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- That site entails a long journey by rail. My contention is that we ought to select a site at a convenient distance from a seaport, which we can call our own. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Can the Federal Parliament compel New South Wales to give the Commonwealth a port if the people of the State are not willing to do so? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- That is a point which can be settled afterwards. It is not very likely that the New South Wales Government will consent to give Port Jackson to the Commonwealth. I think it would be exceedingly difficult to extract Jervis Bay from them. But we do not expect that New South Wales or Sydney will always adopt the same tone towards the Commonwealth as they are now doing, and there might be some chance of being able to secure Twofold Bay for the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Would the honorable member vote for Canberra if the New South Wales Government were prepared to give Jervis Bay to the Commonwealth ? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- I am not prepared to make any conditions of that kind. I support Dalgety because I believe it to be the best site. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Suppose Dalgety is selected, will the honorable member vote to build the Capital there? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- I will within a reasonable period. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- What does the honorable member call a "reasonable period"? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- I am not going to define what is a reasonable period. We have already had a great deal of discussion as to what is a reasonable distance from Sydney, and I do not propose now to enter upon another abstract discussion as to what may be regarded as a reasonable period. I do not think that there is any reason to regard honorable members from States other than New South Wales as being prejudiced in any way in voting for Dalgety. The merits of the various sites have been debated at considerable length, and whilst, so far as climate, soil, and accessibility are concerned, it is probable that a number of them are on an equal footing, the dominating claim which Dalgety possesses over and above the other sites is its water supply. I need not rely upon my own opinion of the claims of Dalgety, since I am able to quote the views of persons of greater experience in the selection of such a site as we require tor the Federal Capital. I can quote, first of all, a gentleman who made an exhaustive inspection of the various sites. 1 refer to **Mr. Oliver,** the Commissioner appointed by the New South Wales Government. From my reading of the question he has supplied the most exhaustive of all the reports that have been submitted, and I believe they are based upon conclusions which are sound, and which will stand the test of time. The conclusion of this very eminent Commissioner, appointed by the New South Wales Government, is that the Eden-Monaro district takes first place, and he gives various reasons for that conclusion. After dealing with the whole of the sites, and referring particularly to such features as climate, soil, water supply, and so on, he says in a summary of his conclusions - >On their own merits, apart from the considerations indicated above, and having regard to the future rather than the initial requirements of the Commonwealth, Southern Monaro is entitled to the first place, and Canobolas and Yass may be bracketed as about equally suitable. That is the unbiased opinion of a gentleman who endeavoured to come to a determination from a purely Federal standpoint. I propose to read another opinion given by a gentleman entitled to great respect, from his large experience of the geography of Australia. He may be regarded also as being without prejudice in the matter, as he is removed thousands of miles from any of the parochial or provincial considerations which might arise from residence in the eastern States. This gentleman comes from Western Australia, and I regard his opinion upon a matter of this kind as invaluable. {: .speaker-JWC} ##### Mr Carr: -- Does the honorable member refer to the right honorable member for Swan ? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- Yes. In a report on the Southern Monaro and Tumut sites, he says - >Dalgety is situate on the Snowy River, 296 miles from Sydney and about 353 miles from Melbourne, *vid* Bairnsdale, and is about 2,500 feet above the sea. By train, when the railway from Cooma to Bairnsdale is constructed, it would be about eight hours from Sydney and nine hours from Melbourne. > >The Snowy River is a magnificent perennial stream of great volume ; it takes its rise in the Snowy Mountains near Mount Kosciusko. It is one of the finest rivers in Australia. Its tributaries - the Mowambah, Crackenback, and Eucumbene - are also perennial streams, snow-fed, of considerable volume, and drain a sparsely settled and mountainous country. In the earlier summer months it is said to have its greater volume owing to the melting of the snow. A splendid pure water supply is easily obtainable. In his concluding remarks, **Sir JohnForrest** says - >Viewed from the standard of the factors set forth in paragraph (3), the Dalgety site in my opinion fulfils the qualification to a larger and fuller extent than any other site in the southern Monaro or Tumut districts. It surpasses all of them under the four headings - which he enumerates - and under no factor is it inferior to any of the others. It has also by far the best water supply, and is the most picturesque of all the sites examined. > >It is also conveniently situated between Sydney and Melbourne, and when railway communication is made between Cooma and Bairnsdale there will be only eight or nine hours from Sydney or Melbourne. > >It would attract visitors and tourists from all parts of Australia in the summer by reason of its climate, the attractions of the Snowy Mountains, and the fishing in the Snowy River. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Which only shows that he knows nothing about it. He has only been there once in his life. He did not treat me fairly at the time, and the man -who treats a colleague as the right honorable gentleman treated me should not be considered very much. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- I am influenced in my regard for this opinion by the reputation of the writer, and by the very weighty reasons he gives for the conclusions at which he has arrived. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I would not give twopence for his opinion. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- In a report upon Canberra and Dalgety, after enumerating the reasons which weighed with 'him in coming to a conclusion in favour of Dalgety, **Sir John** Forrest says - >From the foregoing it will be seen that in my judgment Canberra does not favorably compare with Dalgety in the factors of abundant water supply ; in water power for generating electricity, for light, for railways and tramways, and for all mechanical appliances; in water frontage to a perennial river capable of being made into a. deep lake ten miles long of ever-running water ; in commanding approach and sites lor public buildings; and in being within 40 miles of the highest range on the Australian continent, which culminates in Mount Kosciusko, 7,23s feet above the level of the sea. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- Does he give a comparison of the temperatures? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- Yes, he gives the temperatures as a reply to the various arguments brought against Dalgety. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- It cannot be any colder at Dalgety than it is in this chamber sometimes. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- That is a strong argument why we should make a selection at the earliest possible moment. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- With the intention of never carrying it out. {: .speaker-L1H} ##### Dr Liddell: -- Will the honorable member give us the temperatures at Dalgety? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: **- Sir John** Forrest in his report gives a long list, affording a comparison of the rainfall and temperature of Dalgety, and the- more important capital cities of the world. {: .speaker-L1H} ##### Dr Liddell: -- **Mr. Oliver** said that there were no official records extant. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- So far, the accuracy of this table has not been challenged. There is no reason why the right honorable member for Swan should not have secured all the information which it contains by writing abroad. The mean summer temperature of Dalgety is 63 degrees, and the mean winter temperature 42 degrees, whereas the mean summer temperature of Canberra is 69 degrees, and the mean winter temperature. 45 degrees. {: .speaker-JRH} ##### Mr Bowden: -- But there is a great difference between a temperature of 62 degrees in a blizzard and 62 degrees on a calm day. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- At Dalgety, I was present at a banquet tendered by the local residents to members of this Parliament some time ago. The table was groaning under roast turkey, and I was informed that turkeys could be purchased there for about 3s. or 4s. a pair. Now, a climate in which turkeys can be reared in the open field is a very good climate, because these birds are very delicate. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The honorable member is exhibiting his ignorance. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- In view of the figures which I have quoted, I should like to know where the superiority of Canberra comes in. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Does the honorable member think that the best, expert in the world is able to make a conclusive report upon any site after being there for only about three hours? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- I am prepared to accept the statements contained in the report from which I have quoted, until they are successfully challenged. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What does the honorable member regard as a " successful challenge " ? {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr SAMPSON: -- Anything that would appeal to my reason as a successful challenge. In order that we may discharge our duty faithfully on this occasion, we should divest ourselves of every parochial consideration and vote for the site that will best serve the interests of future generations. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Carr)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 316 {:#debate-21} ### PARLIAMENTARY WITNESSES BILL **Mr. SPEAKER** reported the receipt of the following message from the Senate - >Pursuant to the Standing Orders in that behalf, the Senate requests the House of Representatives to resume the consideration of a Bill' for an Act relating to Parliamentary Witnesseswhich was transmitted to the House of Representatives for concurrence during the last session of the Parliament, arid the proceedings on which were interrupted by the prorogation of the Parliament. *Ordered -* >That the message be taken into consideration to-morrow. {: .page-start } page 316 {:#debate-22} ### BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL **Mr. SPEAKER** reported the receipt of the following message from the Senate - >Pursuant to the Standing Orders in that behalf the Senate requests the House of Representatives to resume the consideration of a Bill for an Act relating to Bills of Exchange, Cheques and Promissory Notes which was transmitted to the House of Representatives for concurrence during the last session of the Parliament, and the proceedings on which were interrupted by the prorogation of the Parliament. *Ordered -* >That the message be taken into consideration to-morrow. {: .page-start } page 317 {:#debate-23} ### PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS {: #debate-23-s0 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist -- Before moving that the House do now adjourn, I desire to say that it is the wish of the Government that this debate should be continued to-morrow, which happens to be the day devoted to private members' business. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Is there any private members' business set down for to-morrow? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Yes, there are four or five notices of motion. With concurrence, however, those notices of motion might be postponed till the following Thursday. They would not suffer much by the adoption of that course. It is very important that the question of the Capital Site should be settled one way or the other without a break in the debate, and, with the concurrence of honorable members, I desire to move - >That general business be postponed until after the consideration of the Seat of Government Bill. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Does that mean that private members' business will come on for consideration immediately the Seat of Government Bill has been disposed of? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The Prime Minister informed me that, under such an arrangement, private members' business would come on for consideration next week. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Why not specify that in the motion ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I have not specified any time in the motion. .1 will undertake that private members' business shall be brought forward upon the first reasonable opportunity after to-morrow. It may be to-morrow week, it may be next day. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable gentleman will see that if he limits the motion to to-morrow, then private members' business will drop into its proper order on the next private members' business day. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Quite so; so that it could not go past that time. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Suppose that the debate on the Seat of Government Bill should close on Wednesday next, does the honorable gentleman propose to take private members' business on that day? According to the wording of his motion, that is what he- proposes to do. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- No. I should not like to promise that private members' business will be taken on the next day, but it could be taken within a day or two, perhaps, on the following Thursday. I hope that honorable members will agree to my request. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It seems to me that a simple proposal that Government business should take precedence over private members' business to-morrow, would meet the case. {: #debate-23-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I point out to the Treasurer that the notices of motion to which he has referred, have been set down on the notice-paper for to-morrow, and that the proper time at which to move a motion in regard to them will be when they are cil led on. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I only wanted to do this by consent, sir. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Certainly, the proper time for the honorable gentleman to move this motion will be when the notices of motion are called on to-morrow. I do not think that in the circumstances I can accept the motion to-night. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Then, I beg to give notice of the motion for to-morrow. {: .page-start } page 317 {:#debate-24} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Private Members' Business : Mail {:#subdebate-24-1} #### Delivery, North Queensland Motion (by **Sir William** Lyne) proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-24-1-s0 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It occurs to me, sir, that the Treasurer will be quite in order in moving, with the concurrence of the House, that Government business take precedence over private business to-morrow. Of course, it can only be done with concurrence. {: #subdebate-24-1-s1 .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo .-, I suggest that the Treasurer should place on the notice-paper for to-morrow a motion that Government business take precedence over private business. I think that there is a general consensus of opinion that ie is desirable that the question of the Federal Capital site should be considered from day to day, until it is settled. There may be a number of honorable members who want to leave town on Friday, and it is desirable that there should be a full attendance when the question is nut to the vote. 318 *Adjournment.* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *Adjournment.* {: #subdebate-24-1-s2 .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE:
Maranoa -- I was very pleased indeed, sir, with the ruling which you gave, because there are not present to-night certain honorable members who have motions on the notice-paper for to-morrow, and the Treasurer's motion, if carried, would have been sprung upon them as a surprise. I think it is a very wise thing indeed that it was not received. If the notices of motion were taken off the notice-paper for to-morrow, and set down first for Thursday in the following week, those who have notices of motion on the notice-paper for the 1st October would suffer correspondingly. I feel sure that there will be no difficulty about postponing private members' business to-morrow. I believe that no honorable member who has any business on the notice-paper will be anxious to go on with that business when he knows that the Government want to proceed with the consideration of the Seat of Government Bill. The members of the Labour Party are anxious to get that question settled one way or the other. {: #subdebate-24-1-s3 .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert .- Although it is rather late, sir, I desire to bring under the notice of the Government a matter of some importance to my electorate and to the whole of the north-west' of Queensland. On many occasions I have complained to the Postmaster-General and the officers of his Department about the irregularity in the delivery of the mails north of Rockharnpton. We are specially inconvenienced in that respect at Townsville andCairns, and the interim ports are very badly served indeed owing to the failure of the Australian Union Steam Navigation Company, or the contractors as the case may be, to carry out their contract for the delivery of the mails. On the 17th instant, I put the following questions to the Postmaster-General - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On how many occasions during the two years ending 31st August last have the mails per *Bingera* or other contract steamer been late delivered at Townsville, Queensland? 1. On how many occasions have fines been imposed on the contractors, and what was the amount of fine (if any) on each such occasion? 2. On how many occasions (if any) have special trains been chartered to convey mails west of Townsville, owing to the mail-boat being behind contract time? 3. What was the cost of each such special train (if any) ? The reply which I received to the questions came as a very great surprise indeed to me, and I dare say will surprise honorable members generally. Before giving the details of the late deliveries, the fines which have been imposed, and the cost which the Government have incurred, I desire to point out that it is a very serious matter to from 80,000 to100,000 persons. My electorate, the Kennedy electorate, and, to some extent, the Maranoa electorate, are concerned. For the last two years I, as well as other honorable members, have been asking for an alteration, and we now no longer ask, but demand, that it be made. During the two years ending 31st August last, there were twenty-six occasions on which the mail boat was late. On eighteen occasions, a fine was imposed, and why a fine was not imposed on the other occasions I do not know. The fines were so trivial as to make very little difference. On two occasions a fine of £30 was imposed, and on other occasions the fine was as low as£3. All the fines totalled £166 6s. 8d. It will be surprising to honorable members that, although the fines amounted to that sum, yet the. special trains which the Government had to charter to convey the mails to their destination cost no less than£553, so that from every point of view it has been a very bad business. The fines are not of very great importance compared with the inconvenience to people, who should be served regularly by these direct steamers. I ask the Postmaster-General, as I have done on several occasions, if he will make some arrangement by which these late deliveries may be minimised, if not altogether avoided. I think it is only fair to a very large portion of this continent that some alteration should be made. I hope that he will be able to give me an assurance that a remedy will be adopted at the earliest opportunity. I feel sure that were an equal number of persons placed under the same disadvantages in the larger centres, the Postal Department would fall over itself in its efforts to provide a remedy. {: #subdebate-24-1-s4 .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr MAUGER:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · Protectionist -- I recognise the importance of the question which has been brought before the House by my honorable friend. It will receive very earnest consideration at my hands, and I trust that steps will be taken to give the service which these important districts deserve. I shall confer with my honorable friend in reference to the subject, and see what can be done. {: #subdebate-24-1-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Do I understand that the Treasurer desires to withdraw the motion for adjournment temporarily ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Yes, sir. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. {: .page-start } page 319 {:#debate-25} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-25-0} #### GOVERNMENT BUSINESS {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist -- As I said a few moments ago, we wish to get the question of the Capital Site settled to-morrow. An objection was taken to the motion I wished to submit, but if something is not done tonight it will mean that to-morrow, when the business is called on, a motion without notice can be moved to postpone private members' business until a future day or hour. I am very much afraid that it may lead to considerable debate. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- There is sure to be some debate, even if notice of motion be given. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I wish leave to submit a motion, and it will be for the House, to say whether it will postpone the consideration of the private members' business set down for to-morrow and allow Government business to take precedence. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- I object. The Government do not know their ' own mind for twenty-four hours. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I was asked by. the Prime Minister to take this course, and it seems to me a very reasonable one. If we interrupt the debate on the Seat of Government Bill, I am afraid that it will cause some delay in its consideration. If the House does not agree to the Government's proposal that ends the matter, and the business must go on in the ordinary w&y. The Prime Minister said he would give the earliest -possible time- for the consideration of the motions referred to after the disposal of this business. I therefore, with concurrence, desire to move - >That Government business take precedence of general . business to-morrow. {: #subdebate-25-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister move the motion ? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- I object. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- That ends the matter. {: .page-start } page 319 {:#debate-26} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Private Members' Business - Seat of Government Bill Motion (by **Sir William** Lyne), proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay .- I do not think the honorable member for Kalgoorlie is to be blamed for his action. No doubt if the Government appeal to' those honorable members who have motions on the paper for to-morrow they will obtain the time for Government business which they ask for. I promise the Government that I will do my best to persuade the honorable member for Darwin to allow the Government to take to-morrow, provided that an arrangement is made for him to have a suitable date on which to bring forward his motion. {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie .- I have always taken up the attitude that proposals to transfer business oh the noticepaper from one position to another should not be made at a late hour of the sitting. Yesterday evening the Prime Minister deliberately ' moved that on each Thursday private members' business should have precedence until 6.30. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- I suggested that that should not apply to to-morrow. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- That is so ; but tha Prime Minister deliberately made it apply to to-morrow. But now, without notice, and when many members who have business on the paper are absent, the Government propose to take away from them the only, opportunity which they will probably have this session to get their business discussed. That is an attitude that the Government ought not to adopt. It is extraordinary that the leader of the Government and his colleagues should not know the necessities of the business twenty-four hours ahead. If it had been moved yesterday that, this Thursday should be excepted ' from the motion and devoted to the Federal Capital question, in all probability the House would have agreed to it; but what was done tonight was not fair to the House; and I shall always object to that somewhat slipshod way of conducting the business of this House. {: #subdebate-26-0-s2 .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo .- The Government- might endeavour to make arrangements with members who have business on the paper for to-morrow to give them an evening next week - say, Tuesday or Wednesday - in return for their giving up to-morrow to Government business. I appeal to those honorable members 'to accommodate the -House and yield to the suggestion of the Government. It is most desirable that the debate on the Seat of Government Bill should) be continued arid concluded. There will probably be a full House to-morrow, but there is no guarantee of one for the whole of Friday. Some arrangement might be made to suit the honorable member for Kalgoorlie. I hope tks Government proposal will be acquiesced iri 320 *Adjournment.* [SENATE.] *NavigationBill.* and that we shall be able to proceed straight away to-morrow with the Bill and finish it. {: #subdebate-26-0-s3 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The Government might also take into consideration between now and tomorrow the advisability of fixing a time for the determination of the Federal Capital Site question. On every occasion on which we have voted before on the subject we have had what has practically amounted to a call of the House, a definite time being fixed for taking the vote. Now that we seem to be nearing finality in these preliminary stages of the question, it is of the utmost consequence that the whole House should have an opportunity of recording its vote, and if we could arrangea time for that to be done it would meet the convenience of all honorable members. I refer to the taking of the first or decisive vote. Ministers might consider that matter between now and to-morrow. {: #subdebate-26-0-s4 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist -- I quite concur in what the honorable member for Parramatta says. The only thing that can be done now is to fix a date for the first vote, because it depends on that vote whether ballot papers will Be necessary. After that vote is taken, if there is a full House, there will be no necessity to fix any time for the ballot, but if there is not a full House I shall certainly then advise the Prime Minister to fix a date a day or two later on. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.58 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 September 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1908/19080923_reps_3_47/>.