House of Representatives
20 July 1909

3rd Parliament · 4th Session



Mr. Speaker took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1300

MESSAGES

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of messages from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, recommending appropriations for the purposes of the following Bills : -

Old-age Pensions Appropriation Bill.

Audit Bill

Referred to Committee of the Whole.

page 1300

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Small Arms Factory

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– It is understood that the proposed small arms factory is to be built at Lithgow, but I ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Defence, whether he does not consider it desirable that Parliament should have an opportunity to express its opinion as to the location of the factory. Does he not know of thefeeling that this factory should be within Federal territory? I have been informed that prices have already been received, and that the Government is actually considering the acceptance of a tender. Is not the Prime Minister aware that some of the responsible officers of the Department are averse to placing the small arms factory at Lithgow, thinking that it should be placed absolutely under the control of the National Parliament?

Mr DEAKIN:
Prime Minister · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– For months past Lithgow has been announced as the site of the proposed small arms factory, which the Government and honorable members, too, no doubt, are anxious to establish as soon as possible. Though I do not brush aside the suggestion that the factory should be placed in Federal territory, it must be remembered that, even if Parliament accepts at once one of the areas which are shortly to be submitted for approval, much will remain to be done ‘before it can be ready for occupation. Therefore, to change a site which has been tacitly agreed to would mean great delay in the manufacture of small arms by the Commonwealth.

Mr. JOSEPH C. DAVIS.

Mr COON:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I desire to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the heroic conduct of Mr. Joseph Davis, a miner at Bendigo, who, on Friday last, saved a comrade at the risk of his own life, and to ask if he will bring the case under the notice of the Imperial authorities, so that the bravery of the act may receive wider recognition ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Australia is ringing with approbation of the heroic act of Mr. Davis. In view of what is being done by the State authorities, no method occurred to me whereby the Commonwealth could recognise the deed, but the honorable member’s question contains a suggestion. Within the last two or three years, His Majesty the King has instituted a special decoration in addition to the Albert medal for the recognition of such splendid deeds as that of Mr. Davis, and I shall be only too pleased to consider the advisability of suggesting his heroism as a proper subject for recognition.

page 1301

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Mr HALL:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister of Home Affairs say how matters are progressing in regard to the settlement of the Federal Capital question?

Mr FULLER:
Minister for Home Affairs · ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

– The Prime Minister has written to the Premier of New South Wales, calling his attention to the fact that this Government desires to enter into negotiations with him for the acquirement of Federal territory, and asking his immediate attention to the matter.

page 1301

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ROLLS, VICTORIA

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– Is it the intention of the Electoral Department to collect new electoral rolls for Victoria ? The rolls now in existence are over twelve months old.

Mr FULLER:
Free Trade

– New rolls are to be compiled in September next.

page 1301

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS ADMINISTRATION

Mr MAHON:

– I wish to ask the Treasurer if he can see his way to facilitate the hearing of applications for old-age pensions? I understand that special magistrates have been appointed for the Melbourne districts, but that in some cases applications have been heard at the rate of only fifteen a day ; and that in others the magistrates have not commenced to hear them. In the Coolgardie electorate, great difficulty is experienced in obtaining persons who can testify that they have known applicants for pensions for a period of at least twenty-five years. I desire to know whether the Treasurer cannot issue instructions to the magistrates who hear these applications not to insist too rigidly upon the production of certificates from persons possessing a twenty-five years’ acquaintance with applicants. Can he not instruct them to accept the testimony of persons who may not have known the applicants’ for so long a period? I would also point out that old people experience very great difficulty in producing certificates of their age. In this matter also can he not relax the regulations?

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

– I should be obliged if the honorable member would give notice of his question, not because I do not wish to answer it now, but in order that it may Be answered very definitely. I would point out that I have no power to alter either the law or the regulations, nor have I the power to instruct magistrates as to their decisions. I shall be glad to make inquiries into the matter with a view of affording the honorable member full information.

page 1302

QUESTION

SILVER COINAGE

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Treasurer whether he is correctly reported as having said in reference to the issue of the new silver coinage -

It is now certain that on one side there will be a representation of the King’s head encircled with the words “ King and Emperor.”

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

– I have not yet had final information on this matter, but I believe that the statement which the honorable member has read is a fairly accurate one.

Mr Crouch:

– Emperor of what?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

-Everybody knows that the King of England is both King and Emperor - that he is King of England and Emperor of India.

Mr STORRER:
BASS, TASMANIA

– From the press reports I notice that the new silver coins are to have a representation of the King’s head upon one side and a map of Australia upon the reverse side. I desire to ask the Treasurer whether Tasmania will be represented in that map?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Perhaps the honorable member will be good enough to give notice of his question. As far as my information goes, Tasmania will be shown upon the map in question.

page 1302

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I left the House on Thursday last under the misapprehension that the debate on the motion of want of confidence would extend into this week. Had I been present on Friday afternoon, I should have voted with the Government. I make this statement because I thoroughly approve of the party movement now known as the fusion.

Mr TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

– May I be permitted, in my simple language, to say “ ditto “ to what the honorable and learned member for Parkes has said ?

Mr WILKS:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– By way of personal explanation I desire to make a statement affecting the honorable member for Herbert, the Ministry, a well-known citizen of New South Wales, and myself. To make my explanation intelligible it will be necessary for me to direct attention to Hansard of the present session, page 1231. Upon 15th inst. the honorable member for Herbert, in speaking in this House, said -

As the Minister of Defence is now present, I may, perhaps, be allowed to repeat what I said before - that the Rev. Mr. Dillon, speaking at Inverell last Sunday, said that he had been offered the whole of his expenses by a member of the Federal Government to travel through New South Wales before the elections to put forward the policy of Orangeism.

Then follow a number of interjections. The next portion of the Hansard report to which I desire to direct attention reads -

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– When a statement of that sort is made either some member of the Federal Government has given that promise to Mr. Dillon, or Mr. Dillon has told an untruth. We naturally ask ourselves which member of the Government would be most likely to do that?

That was a perfectly natural question to put under the circumstances, and one that I would have asked myself. The report proceeds -

Mr Wilks:

Mr. Dillon is a very straight little man, and if the honorable member will write to him I am sure he will tell him what member of the Ministry, if any, made the offer.

Mr BAMFORD:

– I am not in the habit of making wagers, but I am game to wager that Mr. Dillon will not give the desired information.

Mr Wilks:

– It is said that only fools make wagers, but I am willing to become a fool by wagering with the honorable member that Mr. Dillon will supply the information.

Apparently the substance of the Hansard report has been published in the Sydney newspapers, as on Saturday morning last I received the following letter, which explains itself -

St. Paul’s Rectory, Lithgow, 16th July, 1909

Dear Mr. Wilks

Allow me to thank you for your kind reference to me in connection with the question asked by Mr. Bamford in the House of Representatives on Friday afternoon. In my address at Inverell on Sunday, nth July, I am reported to have said that a member of’ the Federal Ministry had offered to pay my expenses if I would deliver certain addresses throughout the State in every electorate. This report found its way to the Sydney Morning Herald. I cannot understand how I could have used the words “ Federal Ministry,” as I do not know one member of that Ministry. If I was correctly reported I made a slip and used the word Ministry instead of Parliament. Some eighteen months or two years ago I delivered an address upon the subject of loyalty to the throne of England and in opposition to Home Rule. At the close of that address a Federal member, who was present, thanked me, and said “ I should like that address delivered in every electorate in the State, and would willingly do my share in meeting your expenses.” This is the incident I briefly referred to in my Inverell address, and which has caused some little stir in certain quarters. Mr. Bamford is, I think, reported to have said that it was to pay my expenses to deliver addresses upon Orangeism. Such is absolutely incorrect, but upon the subjects already referred to. I thought it well when writing to thank you just to place the simple facts before you. Again thanking you.

I remain, yours sincerely,

  1. H. Dillon.

I may add that as soon as I saw the report in the papers I immediately corrected it, and in a large meeting on Tuesday evening in Inverell referred to it. I also called at the office of the Sydney Morning Herald and made the necessary correction. This was done before the matter came on in the House on Thursday.

I make this explanation in justice to the honorable member for Herbert and the Ministry themselves. If any Minister had been guilty of the conduct alleged by the honorable member, his act would have been wry reprehensible indeed.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

New Zealand and South African Customs Agreement

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

.- I desire to move the adjournment of the House, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., “ The effect of the New Zealand and South African Customs agreement on Australian trade.”

Five honorable members having risen in theirplaces,

Question proposed.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– It will be within the recollection of honorable members that some two or three years ago, shortly before Mr. Seddon’s death, this House indorsed a draft agreement which had been entered into between the Government of the Commonwealth and the Prime Minister of the Dominion of New Zealand, under which a modification of the New Zealand Tariff would have been made in favour of Australia. Unfortunately, that agreement was not ratified by the Dominion Parliament, and consequently, from the stand-point of trade, we occupy precisely the same position towards New Zealand as does the rest of the world. That was not the first attempt which Australian Parliaments had made to conclude a reciprocal Tariff agreement with New Zealand. The first effort of the kind of which I have special knowledge was one which you, sir, made, when, in 1895. you introduced into the South Australian Parliament a reciprocal agreement between New Zealand and that Slate. But after the agreement had been tentatively arranged, the New Zealand Parliament altered the items which it covered very considerably by striking out the provision that fresh fruits from South Australia should be admitted free, and by considerably reducing the preference to be granted by that colony to South Australian wines. As a result of that alteration . the South Australian Parliament carried an amendment, compelling the Government to lay aside the agreement. Since that time other Governments - and particularly the Governments of the South African Colonies - have done more than we have in concluding reciprocal agreements with New Zealand. An agreement has been concluded between the Dominion of New Zealand and the South African Customs Confederation, which is already having a considerably prejudicial effect upon Australian trade. It is therefore urgently necessary, as honorable members will agree when I supply them with some statistics that steps should at once be taken to enter into communication with New Zealand, in order to see whether Australia cannot be placed upon at least as good a footing in these respects as South Africa. The agreement between New Zealand and South Africa came into force on the 7th January, 1907 ; that is, a little over two years ago. It is styled an agreement between the Dominion of New Zealand and the South African Customs Confederation which includes the Cape of Good Hope, Natal, the Orange River Colony, the Transvaal, and Southern Rhodesia. The agreement provides that certain special duties shall apply to South African products. Under the agreement feathers enter New Zealand at a duty of 15 per cent., and fish at1½d. per lb. Dried and fresh fruits are admitted duty free, although the ordinary New Zealand duty on fresh fruits is1d. per lb. in some instances, and½d. for the smaller fruits. On maize the general tariff is 9d. per cental ; the tariff for South Africa is 6d. per cental. On sugar the duty is is. 8d. per cental ; on tobacco, manufactured, 2s. 6d. per lb. ; on tea,1d. per lb. On wines other than sparkling, the duty is 2s. pergallon; whilst the duty on Australian wines is 5s. per gallon - a. preference of 3s. per gallon in favour of South African wines. Wines, sparkling, pav 9s. per gallon under the general tariff ; and there is a preference duty of 5s. per gallon on South African wines. On other goods, except spirits, the duty is 25 per cent. less than what would be payable except for this agreement.

Now, the total imports from Australia into New Zealand last year amounted in value to £2,841,426 ; and if South African goods are to obtain a preference of 25 per cent, it will be seen that that constitutes a very substantial handicap on Australian merchants.. It is a very serious matter, requiring urgent attention on the part of the Parliament and of the Government.

Mr Bamford:

– Is tile honorable member aware that he is raising the fiscal issue ?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I shall go on as I am doing, irrespective of the issues that I raise. On the other hand. South Africa has granted to New Zealand preference on the following lines: - Bran, is. per cental ; flour, 2s. 3d. per cental ; wheat, rs. per cental ; oats, is. lod. per cental ; butter, 2d. per Jb. ; cheese, 12 per cent, ad valorem ; meats, id. per lb. ; all other goods except those specified, 25 per cent, less than the duty which would otherwise be payable. Of course, we need not trouble so much about that branch of the subject, because Australia has her own preferential Tariff with South Africa. But it will be seen that the agreement between South Africa and New Zealand involves a considerable handicap upon Australian trade.

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

– Does the honorable member propose that we should proffer to New Zealand the concessions that New Zealand has given to South Africa?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– That is a matter for negotiation. It would be absurd forme to propose a Tariff, which is a subject for negotiation between the two Governments. But I say without any hesitation that it ought net to be impossible for the Commonwealth Government to make some concession to New Zealand in the matter of trade, which will not shut us out from New Zealand markets, but which, on the contrary, will enable us to secure the same preferences as are granted bv New Zealand to British South Africa. Surely a trade amounting to nearly £3,000,000 per annum is worth making some efforts to conserve. ‘ In order to show the effect that has already been produced in one line of trade I may mention the wine business. This is the only aspect of the matter into which . I have been able to inquire since the subject was brought under my notice. The figures have been supplied to me by some members of the Viticulturists’ Association of South Australia, and Victoria. The effect upon their trade has been marked. The effect on the fruit trade I have been unable to ascertain; but the Government can easily obtain the figures with reference to those goods. In the year 1907 no wine was imparted from South Africa to New Zealand. In 1908 the imports were 434 gallons, valued at £126. That was the first year after the new agreement came into force. In the same year Australian viticulturists exported to New Zealand 60,765 gallons of wine other than sparkling, valued at ,£24,248.

Mr Deakin:

– Is the honorable member sure of those figures?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– They have been supplied to me by viticulturists, and I presume that they are correct. They have evidently been obtained from some official source.

Mr Deakin:

– The figures supplied to me show that the value of the wine exported from Australia to New Zealand was about £7.000.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– When was that?

Mr Deakin:

– These figures are for the years 1908 and 1909. In 1908 the quantity was rather under the amount I have stated, and in 1909 it was rather over. There is such a marked disparity that I corrected, the honorable member.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I am afraid that the honorable- gentleman’s figures are incorrect. I have figures here which I obtained this morning from the Commonwealth Statistician, which correspond with those I have quoted. He gives the value of the total import of Australian wines into New Zealand for the year 1908 as £28,959.

Mr Deakin:

– That includes sparkling wines.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Yes, but they are valued at only £3,53I-

Mr Deakin:

– According to the figures I have, the import of these wines for the year ending 31st March, 1908, was valued at £24,000.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– That valuation must include transhipments of other than Australian wines. According to the figures supplied to me, the total import for 1908 was about 70,000 gallons of wines other than sparkling wines, valued at £24,240. Of this import 23,000 gallons came from Victoria, New South Wales sent nearly 12,000 gallons, and South Australia 35,000 gallons. Of sparkling wines, in the same year, Victoria sent 531 gallons, and New South Wales 1,329 gallons.

Mr Deakin:

– Those figures agree with mine.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– The value of the imports of sparkling wines was £3>53iIn the following year the imports of Australian wines into New Zealand very considerably decreased. The decrease in the imports from Victoria was not very great - 23>I33 gallons, as against 23,243 gal- Ions in the previous year - a drop of about 100 gallons. The import from New South Wales, however, dropped from 11,927 gallons to 7)574 gallons, and from South Australia from 35,000 gallons to 26,4.00 gallons. That was a very considerable decrease in the imports during one year. New South Wales imports show a drop of about 40 per cent., and those from South Australia very nearly as much. The total import for the year ending 31st March, 1909, was 57,184 gallons, valued at .£20,260, as against ,£24,248 - the valuation of the import for the previous year. In sparkling wines the import from Victoria dropped from 531 gallons to 457 gallons, and from New South Wales from 1,329 gallons to 746 gallons. The value of these imports of sparkling wines dropped from £3,531 to £2,234, a very substantial decrease. Honorable members will, perhaps, say that this decrease corresponds with a period in which New Zealand experienced a temporary check upon the extraordinary prosperity hitherto enjoyed. The ‘ value of ihe total imports in the same year from all other countries than Australia and South Africa dropped from £23,737 to £23,525, showing that, so far as the imports from other countries were concerned, there was no considerable falling off. If we look now at the South African figures for the same period, we shall find them very suggestive of the reason for the falling off in the Australian trade. In the first year during which the preferential treaty was in force the imports into New Zealand from South Africa were nil. In the second year they were 434 gallons, and in the- year . ending March, 1909, they were 5,602 gallons.

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

– What was the total shortage in the imports from AustraIia ?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– It was greater than that. Australia probably suffered from a loss in consumption of wine in that year, or the importers may have been more fully stocked. The point is that a progressive decline is shown in the imports from Australia, whilst there is a startling increase in the imports from South Africa. Australians, as well as South Africans, are of course pleased to see any part of the Empire doing an increased trade, but whilst a transfer of trade from Australian to South- African wine growers is of no advantage to the Empire, it is a source of considerable danger to the interests of Australia.

Mr Glynn:

– I think I drew attention to that last year, as the probable effect of the treaty.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I dare say that the honorable ‘ gentleman did, and, if so, his prophecy would appear to be borne out by the facts. I do not wish to occupy too much time in dealing with this matter, but I think I should refer to a few other items. I take, for instance, imports of fruit. The fresh fruit imported to New Zealand from Australia represented a value of ;£74;985; dried fruit, £20,845 ; bottled, pulped fruit, and so on, £16,292, or a total value of £112,122. The value of the total imports of fruit from all sources was £354,752, so that in 1908 one-third of the total imports of fruit into New Zealand came from Australia. We are in danger of losing the whole of that trade, unless some such arrangement as I suggest is made. I do not wish to be an alarmist, but the figures are striking. Refined cane sugar to the value of £28,417 was imported into New Zealand, as against an import valued at £28,831 from all other sources. So that one-half of the import of refined cane sugar is affected. I do not know whether at present South Africa is producing any refined cane sugar, but the very considerable preference given her will probably soon induce her people to enter for the New Zealand sugar trade. Of tobacco manufactured, £102,840 worth was imported from Australia, or about 33 per cent, of the total imports. I have read the wine statistics, and, therefore, need not refer to them any further. I point out to the Government, however, that the case is sufficiently urgent, and that business interests involved are so large as to warrant Ministers in entering into negotiations at the very earliest moment, with a view to concluding some equitable business arrangement between the Commonwealth and New Zealand, which will, at least, place us on as good a footing in, doing trade with that part of the Empire as is British South Africa. New Zealand is our nearest neighbour, and, if we are shut out from one of our most profitable markets, one which ought to belong to us - though I do not mean in an exclusive sense - it will be a very disastrous blow to Australia. I admit that it is not the. simplest matter in the world to at once write out a list of the variety of articles which could be admitted into Australia, without, perhaps, raising some difficulties amongst the producers of similar goods in Australia ; but it ought not to be beyond the statesmanship of the two colonies to come to some agreement. The last agreement this Parliament accepted very readily; but, unfortunately, it was rejected in New Zealand. We ought not, however, because of that, to stay our hand, and refuse to enter into anyfurther negotiations-, seeing that the business interests at stake are so large.

Mr DEAKIN:
Prime Minister · Ballarat · Protectionist

– The honorable member for Boothby, in the last portion of his remarks, placed his finger accurately on the real obstacle there is to meeting the situation that has arisen. In 1906 a draft agreement for reciprocity with New Zealand was made by the then Commonwealth Government ; and, as mentioned by the honorable member for Boothby, passed by this House; but, unfortunately as I think, owing to the untimely decease of the late Mr. Richard Seddon, who was responsible for this agreement - he having represented his own Government, and conducted the negotiations which led to the framing of the proposed reciprocity schedule - it fell to the ground.

Mr McWilliams:

– We drove a very hard bargain !

Mr DEAKIN:

– Opinions differ in that regard. Any of us who were personally acquainted’ with, or even only knew the late Prime Minister of New Zealand by reputation, will suspect that he was far more likely to have driven a hard bargain with us than we with him.

Mr Harper:

– The agreement failed in New Zealand.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes; but, as a matter of fact, although the schedule presented was the result of a series of long and arduous struggles of a friendly character across the table, as between the Minister of Trade and Customs and myself on the one side, and the late Mr. Richard Seddon on the other, the latter, after its acceptance, expressed himself satisfied with it, not that it contained all he desired, but as representing substantially the basis of an agreement for commercial interchange between the two Dominions. I have always believed that, but for his untimely decease, his strong ascendancy in his own Parliament would probably have led to the acceptance of the agreement as it stood, or, perhaps, with some minor amendments. Since then, however, we have on more than one occasion, and latterly in an informal manner, attempted to bring about a revised agreement ; but on each occasion so far we have been informed that the time in the sister Dominion is not ripe for anything likethe agreement which we desire. I assure the honorable member for Boothby that we shall need no stimulus, and we have needed none, to repeat those proposals. In point of fact, it was in my mind to take advantage of the return of the present Premier of New Zealand, Sir JosephWard, should he come to his home by the Australian route, to once more re-open the question. Whether that be so or not, although it would be a favourable opportunity, there will be other opportunities to endeavour to revive the matter. I cordially agree with the honorable member for Boothby that, amongst all the proposals for reciprocity and preference, the Dominion of the Empire which is nearest to us, and situated in the same seas, is, above all others, one with whom the very fullest commercial relations ought to be sought; and they will be sought without any hesitation. The agreement which was approved by this. House provided for a reduction of duties on our wines, as the honorable member for Boothby has properly said. At present Australian wines pay 5s. and 9s. per gallon, the latter for sparkling wines, before they enter NewZealand. Under the treaty which was proposed, the 5s. would have been reduced to 4s., and the 9s. to 6s., so that there would have been only an advantage of 2s. on non-sparkling wines, and no advantage on sparkling wines under the treaty which has since been made with South Africa. At present South African wines have an advantage of 2s. on both non-sparkling and sparkling.

Mr Batchelor:

– That means that no Australian growers can possibly compete.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I am afraid it means something very like that. But if the treaty had been passed, the advantage would have been only 2s. on non-sparkling wines, and no advantage on sparkling wines. After having looked at the figures, we require to bear in mind two very important facts. New Zealand is a non-wine producing country, and imports all it requires ; and it was the entrance into its market of our wines on which the late Mr. Richard Seddon rested in a great deal of the bargaining that took place. South Africa, like Australia, is a wine-producing country, and, of course, the South Africans, having our treaty before their eyes when they made this agreement for reciprocity with New Zealand, naturally took particular care to put their wine industry on the most favorable basis possible. They did so, as my colleague, the Attorney-General, prophesied more than twelve months ago, when he asked a question in this House. The object of thetreaty, from the South African point of view, was very largely to get an advantage over Australian wines. I do not think my figures differ substantially from those of the honorable member for Boothby. I make the decline in the quantity of our wines about 13,000 gallons from 1908 to 1909, and the decline in value to be about £3,000, taking all wines together.

Mr Batchelor:

– My figures are £4,000 odd.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is the measure of our loss in one year ; but there still remains to us a trade chat we should be very sorry to lose. Since New Zealand accepted this treaty with South Africa, knowing whatits effect would be, we are placed at some slight disadvantage when entering into further negotiations. This debate, and the figures themselves, clearly point to the direction in which we should seek for concessions, and these would require to be paid for in some other direction. The difficulty, however, is by no means insuperable. The condition of things brought about by this competitive treaty certainly calls for the closest attention; and I undertake, on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Customs, that he will make full inquiry at an early date into all the circumstances of the present condition of trade between New Zealand and the Commonwealth, so that we may reopen negotiations for a reciprocal treaty in which the duties on wine and fruits will receive special consideration.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1307

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway - Report (dated 19th July, 1909), by H. Deane, on survey of route.

Ordered to be printed.

Public Service Act - Postmaster-General’s Department - Promotion of E. Broad as manager, 2nd Class, Telegraph Branch, Adelaide.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired under, at Port Kembla, New South Wales - For Defence purposes.

page 1307

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Royal Commission’s Work and Remuneration - Recognition of Associations - Head Caretakers’ Salaries - General Division Examination - Mail Contractors’ Horses - ColeBently Reversible Mail Label - Penny Postage - Wheatstone Telegraph - Junee Post-Office. Telephones : Unsightliness of Poles - Painting of Poles - Actuarial Investigation of Accounts - Kangaroo Island Extension - Comparison of Rates - Use by Non-subscribers - Rates and Expenses.

Mr HEDGES:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Will he be good enough to lay upon the table the following information respecting the Royal Commission on the Post Office -

    1. How often has the Commission sat and how many witnesses have been examined?
    2. The number of sittings attended by each member ?
    3. The amount paid to each member, or now due to him by way of reimbursement of expenses, and the total amount so paid or claimed ?
    4. The days and dates in respect of which expenses have been claimed ?
    5. The days and dates in respect of which expenses have been paid ?
    1. That the Commission has recently been examining only one witness per sitting?
    1. That the witnesses recently called are subordinate officers of the Department, whose evidence is merely a repetition of alleged grievances already fully ventilated by previous witnesses ; and
    2. That the continued existence of the Commission is destructive of discipline and is producing disorganization throughout the Department?
  2. Is he aware that the Commission meets in Melbourne on days when Parliament is actually sitting; and, if so, does he intend to recognise claims for expenses on those days, seeing that, apart from the Commission, it is the duty of members to be in attendance in this city.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am informed that the Commission meets in Melbourne occasionally on days when Parliament is actually sitting, but that no expenses are allowed to members for those days.

While Parliament is in session, but not sitting, members who attend the Commission whose domicile is not in Melbourne, are paid expenses.

I now lay on the table the particulars asked for in paragraphs a to g. If the information supplied is considered insufficient for questions d and e, I shall be glad to supply any further details required.

Mr BOWDEN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it not a fact that associations are officially recognised by his Department in New South Wales?
  2. Is it not a fact that communications from the New South Wales Telephone Exchange Association and kindred associations have since their inception been given every publicity, and circulars from the first-mentioned been exhibited on the notice-boards in the Exchanges, and, in the case of Sydney Central, by the direction and with the concurrence of the Manager of Telephones ?
  3. Is he aware that a communication has been issued by the Manager of Telephones askingfor the names and particulars of the men who have followed this usual custom, and that certain officials have been called upon to explain their action ?
  4. Will he issue instructions that all association matters may be given the same publicity as heretofore?
Sir JOHN QUICK:
Postmaster-General · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The answer to the first of the honorable member’s questions is as follows : -

  1. It is a fact that certain associations of officers of this Department are officially recognised by the Postmaster-General’s Department.

The Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, has furnished the following information as regards questions 2 and 3 : -

  1. Where the contents of circulars are not considered objectionable, no objection has been taken to their being posted in the Exchange for the information of those concerned.
  2. Action was taken as indicated in one instance where a circular containing matter considered subversive of discipline was posted in one of the Exchanges, and was then removed by the officer in charge of the Exchange and referred to the Sydney Head Office for directions. Inquiries were then made, and the paper dealt with by the Deputy Postmaster-General. Papers are with Royal Commission on Postal services. There is no objection to communications of this kind being posted in Exchanges as long as they are not of an objectionable nature.
  3. Such instructions are unnecessary, vide concluding portion of answer to No. 3.
Mr J H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. What rate of salary is paid to the head caretaker at the General Post Office in each of the Australian Capitals ?
  2. Is the position referred to, at Sydney, below other Capitals as regards classification?
  3. If so, will he give instructions to raise the classification of the largest office, at least as high as the maximum paid to smaller offices in other States?
Mr FULLER:
Free Trade

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

  1. Sydney,£156; Melbourne,£228. These are the only General Post Offices at which caretakers are employed. The salary paid to the Melbourne officer was granted while he was under State control, and he has been allowed to continue in receipt of it. He is regarded, however, as largely overpaid, and in the event of the position becoming vacant, it will be filled at a reduced salary.
  2. Yes, for the reason stated.
  3. The salary is the same as that paid for the work by the State before transfer to the Commonwealth, and when the present caretaker was appointed, the same salary was advertised for the position. Before increased remuneration can be given, it must be demonstrated that the officer performing the duties is worth higher pay, but the evidence on this point is at present unconvincing.
Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that Postal officials who sat for the last General Division examination and passed are not eligible for appointment, although men outside the service were appointed in preference ?
  2. Why was their money received and the right given to them to compete, if they were ineligible?
  3. Will the Minister see that the entrance fee (7s. 6d.) is returned to these officials?
Mr FULLER:

– In reply to the honorable member I have to state that nothing is known of any such cases ; but should any have occurred, the officers concerned, if they submit an application for refund, would, in the circumstances stated, have their fees returned.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether, in view of complaints that in times of drought there is great cruelty to the horses used by some of the mail contractors, he will insert a clause in the mail contracts to minimise this evil as much as possible?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

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

The general conditions of Commonwealth mail contracts now provide that the horses used in the conveyance of mails are to be subject to approval by the Department. Inspectors and postmasters will be instructed to exercise proper supervision in this matter.

Mr HALL:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Will he lay upon the table information showing

When was the Cole-Bently reversible label adopted ?

How man, have been purchased for each State ?

How many are now in use in each State?

What is the cost, to date, for writing additional labels and renewing broken swivels?

Is it considered an economic and speedy method of labelling mail bags?

What is the approximate number of State and Inter-State mail bags despatched daily from Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, and Launceston?

What is the total cost, to date, of the ColeBently system ?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The information will be obtained and laid upon the table of the House, as desired.

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has he abandoned the proposals for Penny Postage throughout Australia as put forward by himself in the Governor-General’s Speech at the opening of the present Parliament?
  2. Why has this proposal been omitted from the statement of Government business now before the House?
  3. Does he not think that Penny Postage operating in Victoria should be made uniform throughout Australia?
  4. Does he not also think that the postal rates for printed matter should be made uniform on the basis of ½d. for 2 oz. as a minimum charge?
  5. Is he aware that in Tasmania the minimum rate for printed matter is id. for 4 oz. ?
Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. It is not intended to proceed with the Bill this session.

  1. Commonwealth uniformity is highly desirable.
  2. The Postmaster-General informs me that it is considered the postage rates for printed matter should be made uniform on the basis mentioned, when other postal rates can be made generally uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
  3. No. In Tasmania the minimum rate for printed matter is id. for 2 ozs. This is the case ‘in all States except New South Wales and. Victoria, where the rate of £d. per 2 ozs. for printed matter obtains within the State.
Mr POYNTON:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is the statement appearing in the South Australian Advertiser oi 7th July true, namely : - That the Postmaster-General states that “ for reasons which are not too disinterested in character several operators, notably a group in South Australia, have for years opposed the use of the Wheatstone in Australia, and where installations have been tried they have raised various technical difficulties “ ?
  2. Was an inquiry held 15 months ago into the alleged obstruction?
  3. What was the result of the inquiry, and why has it not been communicated to the officers concerned ?
  4. If the opposition and obstruction were proved, why are the guilty officers retained in the service?
  5. Have not the Adelaide telegraphists all along demanded a thorough investigation?
  6. Is it not true that two operators whose names were mentioned at the inquiry as obstructionists have since received substantial promotion?
  7. If the inquiry showed South Australian operators to be guiltless, does the PostmasterGeneral consider his communication to the press, as’ per question (1), concerning these officers to be justified?
  8. Will the Postmaster-General have a further and independent inquiry” made into the charges against the Adelaide telegraphists, or, if not, will he direct that the charges be absolutely withdrawn by the permanent head of the Department who first gave them publicity ?
Sir JOHN QUICK:

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

  1. It is not true.
  2. Yes.
  3. The statements at the informal inquiry - necessarily confined to the Telegraph Branch - were of a contradictory character, arid it was considered that no good result would be secured by publishing the report unless the letter from the Adelaide telegraphist, upon which any statement of the Secretary was founded, together with the voluminous statements fro and con. was also published. I shall, however, be glad if so desired, to place on the table copies of papers relating to the Wheatstone telegraph working, including those with respect to the incident referred to.
  4. They were not found to be of such character or importance as to call for any serious action.
  5. Yes, into the statements said to have been made by the Secretary.
  6. I am not aware of this.
  7. See reply to question 1.
  8. No further inquiry is considered necessary. I am not aware what the charges are which ‘it is desired the Permanent Head should withdraw.
Mr CHANTER:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

When will the alterations and repairs to the Post Office at Junee, which have long since been promised, be carried out?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I am advised by the Department of Home Affairs that the amount required for these additions is included in Draft Estimates for 1909-10. Plans are being prepared, and the work will be put in hand as soon as funds are available.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been directed to a published minute of the Lord Mayor of Sydney, in which the following statement appears : - “Recently I have seen erected in the city, poles for carrying the telephone that really would be a disgrace to a wayside road. With a country very valuable, and very suitable timber for this purpose, a better selection, and the exercise of a certain amount of work in the way of cleaning, chamfering, and painting, in place of putting them in the street in their raw state, inmany instances with the bark on, and with ugly knotty projections, would improve the local surroundings very much. This matter is one of great importance, and, as the Commonwealth Departments have got such great control over our thoroughfares, I feel we are justified in entering a very strong protest against a continuance of this policy “ ?
  2. Has any special representation been made by the Sydney City Council in this matter?
  3. Will he see that telegraph and telephone poles in keeping with city requirements are used ?
Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The Deputy PostmasterGeneral, Sydney, has furnished the following information respecting questions 1 and 2 -

  1. Nocases known where poles erected in city with bark on and with ugly knotty projections. Poles mentioned in press by Lord Mayor were some in Crown and Liverpool streets. They were undressed round wooden poles, and replaced others much more unsightly. Dressed poles not used in city, because amount provided on1908-9 Estimates not sufficient. Undressed poles therefore used. Estimated relative cost of using dressed and undressed poles in city and principal streets of suburbs for twelve months is - dressed, £3,335 ; undressed,£92210s. When undressed poles replace others previously painted it is usual to paint the new poles, otherwise undressed poles are not painted, as per instructions.
  2. No special representation was made by City Council prior to receipt of a letter from Town Clerk subsequent to statement in press.

The following is the answer to the third question : -

  1. Yes, so far as the money at the disposal of the Department will permit.
Mr HALL:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it true that the Department has in the past painted the telephone poles at Bathurst without cost to the local Council?
  2. The like information in regard to Orange, Dubbo, and Newcastle?
  3. If so, why is it that the Goulburn Council is asked to provide half the cost of similar work proposed to be carried out in that city?
Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The following information has been furnished by the Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, as regards questions 1 and 2, viz. : -

  1. No poles have been painted at Bathurst since the year 1899.
  2. At Orange, 2 dressed and 77 undressed poles were painted in 1902, but the painting of the latter was arranged for by the local postmaster under a misinterpretation of instructions. No poles have been painted at Dubbo since 1901. At Newcastle, 28 dressed poles were painted during and prior to 1902, and 7 dressed poles have been painted since that date.
  3. A general rule was made in July, 1902, that where it is necessary to paint poles for departmental purposes, i.e., where dressed poles are necessarily used, and must be periodically painted for the purposes of being preserved, the painting should be done at the sole expense of the Department. In instances where the poles are painted simply to make them more pleasing in appearance, one-half the cost of painting should be defrayed by those who ask that such action be taken.

That ruling has never been varied up to the present, but has been confirmed from time to time by various Ministers. It has been applied in the case of Goulburn, because it was reported that there was no special reason why the undressed poles there should be painted without the usual practice being observed of the Municipal Council bearing one-half the cost of the work.

Mr CHANTER:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. For what period of time have Messrs. Percy Whitton, F.I.A.A., and Charles Morell Holmes, F.C.P.A., been appointed to inquire into the financial condition of the Telephone Service ?
  2. What amount of salary or other remuneration are these gentlemen to receive for performing the duties allotted to them?
  3. Will such salaries or other remuneration be paid from the Departmental revenue, or from the Loan Fund, which the Minister contemplates obtaining ?
  4. Is the Department so utterly destitute of actuarial knowledge and skill that it is necessary to go outside to obtain it for the use of the Minister?
Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The answers to the honorable members questions are as follow : -

  1. No definite period has been fixed, but I have intimated to the gentlemen named that I desire the inquiry to be completed within three months.
  2. Mr. Holmes will receive£5 5s. per day, with cost of conveyance, and an allowance of 17s. 6d. per day when travelling and absent from his home in Melbourne.

Mr. Whitton will receive his official salary, and the same travelling allowance as Mr. Holmes. No additional remuneration for his services has so far been determined.

  1. From revenue.
  2. It was not necessary to go outside the Department for officers to obtain the desired information, but, under the circumstances of this case, the Government considered it advisable to make the present arrangements.
Mr LIVINGSTON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he will ascertain the reason why the Penneshaw and Kingscote (Kangaroo Island) telephone was not erected, in view of the fact that the Department accepted a deposit of £24 and a guarantee from the people fifteen months ago, and that nothing has been heard of the money or telephone since?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

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

The reason is that the Post Office Department has not so far been able to secure the necessary funds to enable it to proceed with the work. The matter will be considered in connexion with the Estimates for the current financial year.

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether it is a fact that a Mr. Alcock - a member of the Chamber of Commerce, Melbourne - at a deputation that waited on the Postmaster-General re the telephone rates, made the following statement : - “ That he found that on one of the telephones for which he was paying £4 10s. per half-year, he would under the new telephone rates (i.e., the Fisher Government rates) have to pay£28 10s.” and to ask

If this statement is correct, how many rings per day of 312 days per year would there be?

And how much would be paid in wages to the operators alone for attending to these rings?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

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

Yes, except that the amounts mentioned by Mr. Alcock were £9 and£28 per annum respectively.

49 calls per day.

£99s.9d. per annum.

Mr THOMAS:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Argus newspaper has two telephones connected with the Central Exchange, for which they pay £18?
  2. Is it a fact that the rings from the office average 38 a day for 365 days a year on each telephone. If so, what would have to be paid, under the rates as provided by the Fisher Go- vernment, for each telephone, and what would be paid in wages to the operators alone for attending to these rings per telephone?
Sir JOHN QUICK:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.£260s.10d. per telephone. Salary for attending to each telephone,£8 12s. 2d. per annum.

Mr. THOMAS (for Mr. Frazer) asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Is it not a fact that for £5 per annum, users of the telephones in Australia get 2,000 calls under the toll system, which cost subscribers £13 6s.8d. in London, £9 12s. in Northern Provinces, England, £9 10s. in Germany, £21 16s. in New York, £16 16s. in Chicago,£24 15s. in Philadelphia, £19 5s. in St. Louis, £21 15s. in Boston, and£20 10s. in Baltimore?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

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

Yes. These figures are correct, according to the latest information at my disposal, but in nearly all the instances referred to the subscribers are connected with larger and more expensive networks.

Mr THOMAS:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact that under the telephone charges of the previous Deakin Government a subscriber can have a toll telephone for £5 per annum with 2,000 free rings?
  2. If so, is a subscriber permitted to allow a non-subscriber to use any of those free rings and charge the non-subscriber for doing so?
Sir JOHN QUICK:

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

  1. Under the regulations referred to a payment of£5 per annum entitled a telephone subscriber to originate 1,000 effective calls per half-year without any additional charge.
  2. Such a subscriber can allow a nonsubscriber to use any of the calls for which he pays the Department, as indicated in answer No. 1, and make a charge therefor not exceeding one penny per call.
Mr THOMAS:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether it is his intention when the report of the accountants has been submitted to him, to charge telephone subscribers an amount sufficient to pay all expenses - such payment to cover -

Working costs.

Interest on capital cost.

Depreciation.

Sinking fund?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

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

A Committee having been appointed to ascertain the capital charges, working costs and other charges properly debitable against the Telephone Exchange services of the Department under the several accounts and headings, with a view to assisting the Postmaster-General in determining the rates to be charged for such services, I have not formed any intentions at present with respect to any other bases upon which the charges to telephone subscribers should be made.

page 1312

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS ADMINISTRATION

Provision of Seating Accommodation - Inmates of Institutions - Questions put to Applicants.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether he will, in view of the age and physical infirmities of old-age pensioners, provide, wherever requisite, seating accommodation for those who have to attend post-office buildings to receive their pensions?

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Protectionist

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

It is hoped that payment will be made so quickly that seating accommodation will be unnecessary, but everything that can be done will be done.

Mr HEDGES:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. If he will, when amending the Old-age Pension Act, cause the Act to be altered so as to allow all institutions, State or private, to collect the pensions to which any of the inmates would be entitled if living outside such institutions?
  2. If he will allow the inmates of State or private institutions, who, if living outside, would be receiving pensions, a small allowance of about 6d. weekly to help them purchase extra comforts?
Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

– This matter is under consideration ; but it is thought unwise to enlarge the scope of the law in this direction at present, more especially as the invalid portion of the Act has not been yet brought into force.

Mr HUTCHISON:
for Dr. Maloney

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a factthat under the Victorian Oldage Pensions Acts 1901 and 1903 the veteran citizen applying for the old-age pension would have no questions to fill in, but would only have to sign his or her name in the presence of the required witness ?
  2. Is it a fact that under the Commonwealth Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act1908 the veteran citizen claiming such pension has to fill in six pages of questions numbering 42 inquiries, and also obtain two friends who have known such citizen 25 years to fill in and answer 30 questions each, or a total of 102 questions?
  3. Will the. Minister have such questions reviewed in order to help Australian citizens claiming their right of pension?
Sir JOHN FORREST:

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

  1. Under the Victorian Act the claimant was required to make and sign a declaration which covered 23 affirmations.
  2. Yes, but the questions are very simple.
  3. It is considered that no unnecessary questions have been asked. . The questions are less difficult to reply to than those which for years have been asked in New South Wales and New Zealand. The value of the questions has already been proved by the discovery of unqualified claimants.

page 1312

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Definition of Nationality - Third Class Master Gunners - Hire of Horses - Police Examination - Junee Rifle Club - Head-Quarters of Victorian R.A.A

Mr CROUCH:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is he aware that legal text-books give the two varying definitions -

    1. that all Australian-born children are British subjects;
    2. that children of aliens, even if born in

Australia, are not British subjects unless their parents are naturalized, and that the children of aliens who keep their nationality preserve their nationality in spite of Australian birth.

Can he arrange for some definite pronouncement on the subject, or will he set at rest doubts which lead to great inconvenience by declaratory legislation ?

  1. Is it true that some officers and members of the Defence Forces come under the conditions of (1) (b)?
Mr GLYNN:
Free Trade

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

No. I am not aware of any legal text-book which declares that Australian-born children of aliens are not British subjects unless their parents are naturalized.

There is no doubt at all that British nationality results from birth inany part of the British Dominions, whatever the nationality of the parents.

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. How many third class master gunners are there in the Commonwealth Military Forces?
  2. Is one of these without a master gunner’s certificate ?
  3. Is the other blocked in his promotion because one is without such certificate?
  4. Which district containing a master gunner has the largest number of forts within its bounds in the Commonwealth?
  5. How many forts are in the two districts of the respective third class master gunners?
  6. Was the establishment of the Portsea district, Victoria, until 30th June last, one master gunner warrant officer, and what alteration has since been made?.
Mr DEAKIN:
for Mr. Joseph Cook · Protectionist

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

  1. Two.
  2. Yes, but this master gunner holds a First

Class Gunnery Staff Course Certificate

  1. No.
  2. South Head district, New South Wales.
  3. Four forts in each district.
  4. Yes. No alterations have been made up to the present time, but the question of promotion to fill this vacancy is now under consideration.
Mr LIVINGSTON:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Whether he will inform honorable members as to the cost of the hire of horses for military purposes during the past twelve months in the Commonwealth ?

Mr DEAKIN:
for Mr. Joseph Cook · Protectionist

– I lay upon the table a paper showing that the amounts in the various States were as follow : -

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Did three men (two of over three years’ service) of the Victorian R.A.A. apply for permission to attend the last police examination ?
  2. In the event of their passing would they have had to pay sums up to £10 as a fine for receiving their discharges ?
  3. Was the practice of stopping these men from attending police examinations one of the abuses complained of to the Hawker Inquiry Board ?
  4. Was complaint as to their not being permitted to attend subsequently made on their behalf to the Minister?
  5. Have these men subsequent to such complaint been paraded before any, and, if so, what officer as to such complaint, and told that their action was mean and contemptible, and threatened with punishment?
  6. Did one of the men state he had tried several times to see his officer to complain, but was debarred from doing so?
  7. If so, what action does the Minister propose to take ?

Mr. DEAKIN (for Mr. Joseph Cook). - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Yes. Three gunners applied for leave for two whole days for this purpose, but owing to special and unusual demands upon the resources of the regiment, consisting of guard of honour of 100 rank and file with proportion of officers and sergeants, saluting party and escort, in connexion with opening of Parliament, and a working party at Maribyrnong magazine, in addi tion to guards and picquets and general artillery and barrack duties, the officer responsible considered it his duty not to grant the leave.
  2. Had they applied for their ‘discharges this month they would, under the Regulations, have been liable to pay the following sums, viz. : - Two, £4 each ; one£10.
  3. Yes, but the Hawker Board found it was not sustained.
  4. Yes, by Mr. Crouch, M.P.
  5. Captain Reynolds, the Officer Commanding their Company, had them paraded with a view to ascertaining definitely whether they had been prevented, as had been stated, from seeing him or any officer with reference to their complaint.
  6. One of the men stated that on previous occasions he had tried to see his officer to make a complaint, but was debarred from doing so. This statement did not refer to the present case, and on inquiry proved to be unfounded. The men themselves have stated to their company officer that when they found this leave was refused on the present occasion they did not make any complaint or request to be paraded.
  7. The Minister will give instructions that whenever it is possible leave is to be granted to applicants for positions in the Police Force.
Mr CHANTER:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. What steps are being taken to provide the Rifle Club at Junee with a suitable range?
  2. Will the Minister make early provision for the necessary firing practice?

Mr. DEAKIN (for Mr. Joseph Cook). - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Captain King, the Inspector of Rifle Ranges, visited Junee on the 14th June, for the purpose of ascertaining what could be done. From his report it does not appear that any suitable site has yet been suggested by the rifle club.
  2. The question is being considered, but an expenditure of at least£1,350 is involved for the land alone.
Mr CROUCH:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Where are the head-quarters of the Victorian Regiment, R.A.A. ?

Mr. DEAKIN (for Mr. Joseph Cook). - The Head-quarters of the Royal Australian Artillery stationed in Victoria isat Queenscliff.

page 1313

BUDGET

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been directed to the following extract from the Sydney Daily Tele- graph of the 5th inst., viz. : - “ Sir John Forrest hopes now that he will be able to deliver his Federal Financial Statement about the middle of October “ ?
  2. If this is a correct statement of the position, will he state thereasons for delaying the Financial Statement until the middle of October?
  3. If not correct, will he state when he expects to be in a position to make this statement?
Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

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

  1. My attention has not been so directed.
  2. It is not a correct statement of the position.
  3. Before the middle of August.

page 1314

QUESTION

ARGENTINE .CENTENARY EXHIBITION

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether the Government are in communication with the Consul-General for the Argentine’ Republic with regard to the coming Centenary Exhibition, to be opened in May, 1910, a special feature in the Exhibition being the agricultural and pastoral section?.
  2. Whether he is aware that the Government at Buenos Ayres have decided upon admitting exhibits from Australia under special conditions ?
Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The Government have received no communication on this subject.

page 1314

QUESTION

PATENT OFFICE STAFF

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is it not a fact that the position of Chief or Senior Clerk and Accountant in the Patent Office was created on the recommendation of the Commissioner of Patents, Mr. Townsend?
  2. After Mr. G. S. Brown had fulfilled the duties of the position for two years, namely, in I906, did not a Board of Inquiry consisting of Dr. Wollaston, the late Mr. . Betheras, and Mr. Tymms, .examine the work and recommend, and did not Mr. Brown receive, an increase of ^45 a year in his salary ?
  3. In view of these facts, which prove efficiency, will the Minister inquire why Mr. Brown’s final subdivisional promotion was not granted either in the year 1906-7, 1907-8, or 1908-9?
  4. Also, with reference to the Minister’s reply to question No. 2 under the heading “ Patent Office, Mr. G. S. Brown,” Hansard 27.5.09, p. ir3, will the Minister say whether Mr. Brown has been properly made an excess officer in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act, section 8?
  5. Further, is it not a fact that the duties formerly performed by Mr. Brown were over twelve months ago improperly taken from him by the Commissioner of Patents, inasmuch as section 41 provides that an office must be abolished by the Governor-General in Council, on the recommendation of the Public Service Commissioner, after obtaining a report from the permanent Head of the Department?
  6. Is it not a fact, up to the date when the Commissioner of Patents began to deprive Mr. Brown of his official duties, that, after the examiners had reported favorably, and the Commissioner had accepted applications for patents, Mr. Brown was intrusted with the duty of’ finally revising them, and that upon his reports the Commissioner frequently reversed his previous acceptances, and so prevented the issue of invalid patents?
  7. If so, why was the work taken from aa officer who had so efficiently carried it out?
  8. Were not important duties taken from Mr. Brown only after the Commissioner of Patents had instructed him to “take risks” in issuing patents, whether he thought them valid or not, and that if he would not he (the Commissioner) would have the office staff reduced?
  9. Will the Minister make personal inquiry into the whole matter?
Mr GROOM:
Minister for External Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

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

  1. A position was created upon recommendation by the Public Service Commissioner upon a report from the Commissioner of Patents and Comptroller-General recommending same.
  2. Mr. Brown was classified as Chief Clerk and Accountant, 3rd Class, Clerical Division, salary £335 ; but lie appealed against his classification, claiming that he should be classified as Deputy Commissioner of Patents and not as a clerical’ officer, and that he should receive a higher salary. The Board did not support his appeal as to title and alteration of division. It considered that his designation should be altered from “ Chief Clerk and Accountant “ to “ Senior Clerk and Accountant,” but recommended increase in salary from ^335 to £380, an increase of ,£45 as stated. The Board’s recommendation was approved.
  3. An advancement was not (/ranted for the year 1906-7, for the reason that Mr. Brown had received a substantial increase in the previous year. The salary thus obtained was regarded as sufficient recognition of his merits for that time, and nothing has since occurred to warrant further increase. 4-5. The action already taken was in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act, but final action as to the disposition of Mr. Brown’s services has not yet been determined.
  4. Mr. Brown was not intrusted with the duty of revising the Reports of the Examiners.

Nothing reported by Mr. Brown, within or without the scope of his duties, could settle the question of the validity or invalidity of Patents, that being a matter solely for determination by the Courts.

  1. See answer to No. 6.
  2. The Commissioner of Patents states that no instructions were issued to Mr. Brown to “ take risks.”
  3. As the matter is one which, according to law, is dealt with by. the Public Service Commissioner, it would not be proper for a Minister to attempt to interfere with that officer’s discretion.

page 1314

NORTHERN TERRITORY LAND

page 1314

QUESTION

SYNDICATES

Mr MCDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph which appeared in the Age of the 7th May last : - “ The prospectus of Bovril Australian Estates Ltd. is now to hand by mail.

The company is formed to acquire an area of over 14,470 square miles of pastoral property in the Northern Territory, with which Mr. S. Kidman and others areidentified. ThecapitaloftheBovril AustralianEstatesLtd.is£225,000.

The consideration given to the vendors of the property and cattle is£200,000, payable as to£105,000 in cash ;£90,000 in a 4 per cent. mortgage, to be reduced by£ 18,000 yearly, and£5,000 in deferred shares. The title of the land is a lease from the Crown, with a currency of 34 years as to 80 per cent. and of 19 years for the balance, and, measured by acres, the area controlled by this company is equal to about one-fourth of England and Wales “ ?

  1. Will he obtain for the information of the House a copy of the prospectus of the Bovril Australian Estates Ltd. ?
  2. Will he ascertain who are the vendors referred to in the above paragraph?
  3. Can he say where the head office of the Bovril Australian Estates Ltd. is located, and will he ascertain who are the principals in the company ?
  4. Does he approve of the lands of the Northern Territory being obtained in such a manner by land syndicates?
Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

– The question relates really to the Department of External Affairs, and the answers are as follow : - 1 to 5. My attention has been drawn to the paragraph referred to. The information asked for will be obtained, but at present, without a knowledge of the facts, it would be premature to express any opinion on the matter.

page 1315

QUESTION

PAPUAN ADMINISTRATION : MURDER TRIAL

Mr BOWDEN:

asked the Minister of External Affairs, uponnotice -

  1. Is he able to furnish the House with details of the trial of a person named Thoresby, in Papua, before a jury, on a charge of murder?
  2. Did Thoresby arm some natives and en courage them to fight against another tribe, with the result that some of the latter were killed ?
  3. Is there any objection to making public the full details in connexion with the charge or charges made against Thoresby, and the facts upon which those charges were based, and the result?
  4. Is the Department satisfied with the results of trial by jury in Papua, in cases where white people are charged with offences against natives?
  5. Has any proposal been made to pass an Ordinance making it legal to sign on native women as labourers. If so, what is the result?
Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

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

  1. The Department has been advised that Mr. Thoresby was arrested on a charge of murder in the Mafulu District, remanded to Port

Moresby, and on the 8th and9th April last tried and acquitted. No details of the trial are available.

  1. It was so stated, but there is no evidence available to the Department to enable us to say how far the allegations were justified. Thoresby was charged with supplying arms to natives, and was fined £100. He petitioned for the remission of the fine, and consideration of the petition by the local Executive was pending when the last advices were transmitted.
  2. There is no objection to making all the facts known to the Department available to the public, but the information to hand is very limited.
  3. Happily the number of cases needing to be tried by jury has been too small for the Department to form any opinion on the subject.
  4. A proposal was made by a private citizen that women should be allowed to sign on as labourers. His object was to encourage village settlement in connexion with plantations. No measure to give effect to the proposal has been submitted to the Legislative Council. It will be recollected that all ordinances dealing with the subject of native labour are required to be reserved for the Governor-General’s assent.

page 1315

QUESTION

SIZE OF CORNSACKS

Mr ATKINSON:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is he aware that the cornsacks now allowed to he brought into the Commonwealth will not hold 200 lbs. of wheat, as was intended when the dimensions of the sacks were decided upon?
  2. Will he inquire into the matter, and, if satisfied that the said sacks will not contain 200 lbs. of wheat, take steps to have the dimensions of such sacks increased sufficiently to contain the said weight?
  3. Have the Federal authorities taken any steps to induce the State Governments to bring into force legislation to prevent more than 200 lbs. weight of produce being put into sacks?
Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

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

  1. It is found by experience that the present standard sack holds on the average 200 lbs. It may be slightly and within a few pounds over or under, but it answers all reasonable requirements, is convenient to handle, stack, and stow, and I am assured it is affording general satisfaction.
  2. No alteration in variation of the standard size is contemplated.
  3. Yes.

page 1315

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been called to the following editorial notice appearing in the Farmer and Settler (New South Wales), 7th May, 1909 : - “ The British Immigration League of Australia has just welcomed a batch of imgrants from England. They appear to be a decent, well-behaved lot of men, and probably their only fault is that they lack the necessary farm experience that would fit them for bush life in Australia “ ?
  2. Does he know that these immigrants are in some cases sleeping in the Sydney Domain, and are practically penniless and destitute?
  3. Does he know that the same editorial notice above referred to offers on behalf of these men that they are willing to work for 5s. per week as follows : - “ Now I want twelve good men and true to write to me at once and offer to take one of these men as a learner, say for a term of three months, at 5s. per week and keep “ ?
  4. Does he not think it a scandal that these men should be deluded into believing there was good work and wages awaiting them here, and that the taxpayers’ money should be spent in bringing them to Australia?
  5. Does he not think such unemployed a menace to fair rates of pay for farm labour?
  6. Does he require specific instances to prove that unskilled labour without knowledge of rural life is being imported. If so, will he note the following taken from the Farmer and Settler on the date before mentioned: - “ H. Dulieu,21, wants work on farm or station, no experience, “ W. G. Brendling, 23, wants work on farm or station, no experience “ ?
  7. Does he not think the time has arrived when the Commonwealth Parliament should take full control of immigration as provided in the Constitution?
Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

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

  1. Yes, by. the honorable member’s question only.
  2. No.
  3. No. 4-5. Without a full knowledge of all the cir cumstances I would prefer not to express any opinion.
  4. The facts are noted as requested.
  5. I do not express an opinion as to the meaning of the constitutional provision in respect to immigration. The Government policy will be. announced in due course.

page 1316

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

Leave of Absence - Fifth Class Clerks Long Service Increments

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. How many officials in the Commonwealth

Public Service have enjoyed the special leave of absence provided for in Regulation 89A?

  1. How many female officers have enjoyed the leave of absence privileges provided for in Regulation 140?
  2. Why are male officers not given the same privileges upon retirement or resignation from the service as provided for female officers under Regulation 140 ?
  3. Will the Government place all officers under

Regulation140, or amend Regulation 89A in conformity therewith?

Mr FULLER:
Free Trade

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

  1. Eight officers.
  2. By the operation of Regulation 140, 108 female officers have been granted leave on retirement from the Public Service through marriage.
  3. See reply under (4).
  4. The retirement of the male officer under 65 years of age is voluntary, while that of the female officer is compulsory.
Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it intended that long service increments granted to Class V. clerical officers of the Commonwealth Public Service are to act as a barrier to the promotion of meritorious officers to Class IV.?
  2. If not, how many Class V. clerks of the

Customs and Postmaster-General’s Departments, respectively, have been recommended for promotion to Class IV. in connexion with the Estimates of 1909-10?

  1. Should provision not be made on the 1909-10 Estimates for the promotion of such officers to Class IV., how is it proposed to advance the officers referred to to that Class?
Mr FULLER:

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

  1. No, where the work warrants higher classi fication.
  2. Promotion from one class to another is only made upon the recommendation of the Public Service Commissioner. As he has not yet completed his investigations in regard to class promotions to be provided for on 1909-10 Estimates, it is not possible to say how many such promotions will be made.
  3. The Public Service Act provides that ad vancement can only be made on the occurrence of vacancies in the higher class.

page 1316

QUESTION

VICTORIAN STEAM-SHIP SUBSIDY

Mr EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether the Government of Victoria, with a view of influencing in favour of that State the direction of the external trade and commerce of the Commonwealth, pays, or contemplates paying, a subsidy of £2,000 a year in support of a line of steam-ships in respect of voyages between Victoria and Fiji, and Fiji and Victoria?
  2. Whether the payment of such a subsidy is contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution?
Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

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

  1. It is understood the Government of Vic toria contemplates paying a subsidy in support of a line of steam-ships in respect of voyages between Victoria and Fiji, and Fiji and Victoria.
  2. A former Attorney-General advised that the proposed subsidy did not involve any breach of the Constitution.

page 1317

QUESTION

STATE PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS

Infected Fruit - Condemnation of Potatoes

Mr McWILLIAMS:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is a State justified in prohibiting the importation from another State of slightly infected fruit, when locally-grown fruit, much more seriously infected with the same disease, is permitted to be transported within the State and publicly sold?
  2. Does not such differential treatment conflict with section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution ?
Mr GLYNN:
Free Trade

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

It is not the custom for Ministers to answer questions of law, but the honorable member’s question is probably directed to the principle which is, that though a State may, in exercise of the police power, protect itself from the introduction of infected fruit it may not under pretext of exercising that power do anything the real object and effect of which is to interfere with freedom of Inter-State commerce.

Mr ATKINSON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is the Minister aware that over 2,000 bags of potatoes passed by inspectors of produce at the port of shipment in Tasmania have been condemned by the authorities as diseased and ordered to be returned to that State upon the potatoes reaching Sydney ?
  2. Is the Minister aware that this action is likely to prove very inimical to the producing and mercantile interests of Tasmania?
  3. Will the Minister make inquiries into the circumstances and inform this House what action (if any) can be taken by the Commonwealth in the matter?
Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1, 2, and 3. Reports have been received giving reasons for action referred to, but the matter is entirely one for the State to deal with.

It is understood the State authorities are giving every attention to the matter, and it is not considered that the Commonwealth should interfere.

page 1317

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– In addition to the question No. 3, sir, may I ask the AttorneyGeneral, without notice, a question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may do so on a later date. The time for asking questions without notice to-day has passed.

page 1317

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

Consideration resumed from 23rd June (vide page 303), of motion by Mr. Roberts -

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1317

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Policy of New Administration

Debate resumed from 23rd June(vide page 282) on motion by Mr. Deakin -

That the paper (Statement of Government Business) laid on the table on 23rd June be printed.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- After the long debate which we have had upon another motion, obviously no good public purpose would be served by again traversing the old ground. Probably the statement which I am now called upon to discuss was drafted with the intention of preventing any considerable debate upon it. It will be recollected that at the time of its submission to this House, some little trouble was experienced, owing to the fact that the Prime Minister then thought that it ought not to be discussed at all. The honorable gentleman shakes his head ; but I certainly understood him to say then that there was no need to debate it.

Mr Deakin:

– The motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply would have permitted its discussion.

Mr FISHER:

– That is an apology which comes rather late in the day.

Mr Deakin:

– No; the statement was made then.

Mr FISHER:

– The Prime Minister, when leading the Opposition to the late Administration, was enabled within a day of his appointment to that distinguished position, to defeat the late Government. He was thus enabled to do what he had previously done in more instances than one, and in more Parliaments than one. No reflection is cast upon him by that statement. He adopted the best method that he could to attain the object which he had in view. He is the oldest parliamentarian in this House, having had thirty years’ political experience, twenty years of which has teen spent in Ministerial office. Naturally, he knows his way about from the standpoint of parliamentary tactics. He knows exactly what to do and what not to do, and this Ministerial statement I regard as an evidence of what he desired not to say.

Upon a former occasion, I did him an injustice by asserting that I thought the Ministry had been too hard upon him by compelling him to put their policy in writing, and by refusing him liberty to depart from it one iota. Upon a later occasion, the Prime Minster declared that, so far from that being the case, it was his special request to the Cabinet, that the Ministerial policy should be committed to writing, so as to obviate the possibility of any misunderstanding as to its contents. I must say, to his credit, that he has always been in favour of putting things in writing. In that respect, he is distinguished from other persons who are quite content on certain occasions to give and accept a word of honour. The Prime Minister, I repeat, desired to put his case in writing. But, although he does not wish to deceive anybody, he is a very difficult correspondent to bind down to the exact ideas which he wishes to convey. Be that as it may, I say that the statement read by the Prime Minister contains nothing more nor less than a number of glittering generalities. It embodies no policy like that in the speech which was put into the mouth of the Governor-General at the opening, of the present session, which the honorable gentleman condemned. It offers us no Federal guide in the matter of Australian development.

Mr Wilks:

– It consists only of a number of headlines.

Mr FISHER:

– I shall leave , the honorable member for Dalley to deal with it as questions develop in this House. But I repeat what I stated during the debate upon the no-confidence motion that, instead of the Government - who boast that they came into office to preserve the Federation, and to develop our national and industrial life - acting up to their professions, they have merely sought to evade the whole duty that devolves upon this Parliament.. The industrial legislation which is outlined in the Ministerial statement will - if effect be given to it - deprive the Commonwealth of that dignity which properly belongs to it, by taking from the. Conciliation and Arbitration Court which it has established, the powers which are now wielded by that tribunal, and by vesting then in another authority for the purpose of preventing the workmen of Australia from getting the benefit of verdicts which they have won at great expense, and after strenuous fighting. Because a method has been discovered by which one Commonwealth tribunal may de cide what is a fair and reasonable wage in all the States, it is now proposed to delegate its powers to another authority - an authority which will not be able to deal with industrial matters so expeditiously and effectively as can the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court.

Mr Hughes:

– Perhaps the Ministry will explain the matter.

Mr FISHER:

– I believe that I am not doing them any injustice when I say they will explain anything, so long as they are not asked to do anything. Some time ago, the Prime Minister stated that the payment of old-age pensions was in danger. That statement, however, was subsequently either withdrawn absolutely or qualified. Now, I think that I am stating the exact position when I say that ,£692,000 were available for the payment of old-age pensions when the present Treasurer took office.

Sir John Forrest:

– The figures did not work out exactly as was anticipated.

Mr FISHER:

– At any rate, ,£692,000 was approximately the amount which was available in the absence of any further appropriation. Therefore, the Ministry could practically see six months ahead of them so far as the payment of old-age pensions was concerned.

Sir John Forrest:

– I never said anything to that effect.

Mr FISHER:

– The right honorable member may not have said anything directly to that effect, but it is wonderful how his supporters outside the Government were able to convey such an impression to the public, and to the old-age pensioners themselves ; so that they became alarmed because of our action in discussing a proper motion in this Parliament, fearing that they might be deprived of their pensions. I may observe, further, that there is in draft a Bill to amend the Old-age Pensions Act, and that it was the intention of the previous Government to introduce that measure at once. But they were defeated before they had an opportunity.

Sir John Forrest:

– Does the honorable member say that there was a Bill in draft?

Mr FISHER:

– If the right honorable member questions my statement on that point, he will question anything. If he means to convey that the Bill was not in type, I agree with him. But we had conveyed to the official head of the Department our intentions in regard to a Bill, which could’ be drafted in half an hour. The facts were all settled as regards the reduction from twenty-five to twenty years, and all the subsidiary points which were necessary to make the measure work smoothly. I was pleased to read the Prime Minister’s statement, published in the newspapers, that it was the intention of the present Government to make that amending Bill the first measure introduced. I think it ought to have been dealt with some time ago; and but for the action of the Prime Minister in dispossessing the previous Government, it would have been passed by now. I only mention that fact so that if it be said that we have been delaying the matter it may be seen that the blame does not rest with the late Government, but that it must be thrown on to the present Ministry, seeing that, by their action, they rendered necessary legislation impossible. However, I presume that honorable members on all sides of the House will agree with the principle of the Bill, although it has been delayed for a week or two. I also assume that there will be no difficulty in incorporating in the measure a provision to enable payments to be made as from the 1st July to all old-age pensioners, who would have been entitled to the pension from that date, had the alteration of the residential period from twenty-five to twenty years been made earlier ; because, obviously, had the previous Government not been disturbed the measure would have been passed during May or June, and consequently a large number of persons would have been entitled to the pension. That, at any rate, is the view which I take. I should like to say again to the Prime Minister that I regret very much that he did not think it necessary to make a fuller explanation of his reasons for including ten Ministers in his present Cabinet. I consider, Mr. Speaker, that that was a dangerous encroachment on responsible government.

Mr Deakin:

– From nine to ten?

Mr FISHER:

– The number of Ministers in the Cabinet rose from eight to nine, and then from nine to ten ; and it is singular that the last increase was made by those very gentlemen who are always saying that we must have responsible government. If the number of Ministers can be increased from eight to nine, and from nine to ten, it can be increased from ten to twenty ; and bv adopting that course, as I said previously, any Government could suborn Parliament. The Prime Minister will perhaps reply that Parliament itself would be the corrector of such an abuse.

But how could we expect Parliament to correct an abuse of that kind under a state of things such as we have existing here at present, when the pledges given by honorable members to their constituents seem to stand for nothing whatever? Promises made to the electors are flaunted, on the ground that r:TC we go to the constituencies we shall be defeated.” Surely that is not a sufficient answer. I should like the Prime Minister to state to the House and the country the reasons why he thought it necessary to have a tenth member in the Cabinet. I make no charge against him for taking the position of Honorary Minister himself, although I think it is most undesirable that the chief adviser to the GovernorGeneral should be without a portfolio, and nominally without a salaried position. I do not suppose, however, that the Prime Minister intends either the House or the public to believe that he does not share in the emoluments distributed amongst Ministers

Mr Wilks:

– We should get over the difficulty if Ministers, on taking office, had to seek re-election.

Mr FISHER:

– That would be one way of getting over the. difficulty, I admit. The honorable member has suggested one remedy for the constant changes of Governments, and for “fusions” such as have recently taken place.

Mr Wilks:

– It is the only remedy.

Mr Fowler:

– Let us have elective Ministries, and then we shall get over the difficulty.

Mr FISHER:

– Nothing would delight me more than if I could come to the same conclusion as the honorable member for Perth has done, but I venture to say that if he lives long enough to see elective Ministries in this Parliament he will witness a state of affairs in which there will be a greater amount of abuse than we see at the present time.

Mr Fowler:

– That has not been the effect elsewhere.

Mr FISHER:

– That may or may not be so. We are only ten years away from the time when the Constitution was drafted. At that period many of the authorities on constitutional government who took part in the Convention felt that the effect of bringing into operation a Constitution such as ours would be that Federation would kill responsible government, or that responsible government would kill Federation. It is just as well to remember that fact.

Mr Wilks:

– That was merely a smart epigram.

Mr FISHER:

– But there was something behind it. The drift in Australia is undoubtedly towards responsible government, but it is getting further and further away from the Federal ideal. I am not going to complain about that. But I have a right to challenge honorable members opposite who call themselves the Federal party, the protectors of the Constitution, &c., &c., and who must see that what has recently taken place in connexion with the formation of this Government has not been in accordance with the principles of responsible government, about which they make so much outcry.

Mr Fowler:

-“ Res Responsible government” is another name for irresponsible government.

Mr FISHER:

– I shall leave that subject for the honorable member who interjects to discuss with his friends. The point which I make against the Prime Minister is that he has increased the number of Ministers from nine to ten; and I say that if he can constitutionally do that, he can equallywell increase the number still further. It is only fair that he should say whether he adopted this course deliberately, and for the good of the country, or whether he did it for party purposes. He should state whether he considered that the increase of the number of Ministers would be beneficial to Australia. We must assume that that was his motive. This same question was brought up in the first Parliament by the leader of the Opposition, when Sir Edmund Barton included an Honorary Minister in his Cabinet.

Mr Deakin:

– Two.

Mr FISHER:

– But there are three now. Sir Edmund Barton included the Vice-President of the Executive Council, which is called an honorary office. I think that office can be justified.

Mr Deakin:

– Hear, hear.

Mr FISHER:

- Sir Edmund Barton also appointed an additional Honorary Minister. The present Prime Minister is a very experienced man. He certainly has had the longest Ministerial experience of any man in Australia. As without constitutional authority he has increased the number of members of the Cabinet by another Honorary Minister, I should like him to tell us what is the limit at which the making of such appointments would become corruption. He is the person responsible.

Mr Wilks:

– The next move will be the appointment of Under-Secretaries.

Mr FISHER:

– The Ministerial statement is submitted to us under three headings. The first portion of it deals with industrial matters, which are all important. I think that the proposals submitted by the Government are altogether unsatisfactory. I hold the opinion that it is impossible for such machinery as the Government suggest for the purpose to be made effective. I shall watch eagerly for the Government proposal regarding new Protection. It is not to be found in the Ministerial statement. There is nothing in that statement to guarantee fair and reasonable wages to the workers of Australia. There is nothing in it that takes us any further than did a statement submitted on behalf of a previous Government led by the present Prime Minister, in which we were given to understand that fair and reasonable wages were to be paid in some industries, and a minimum wage fixed in others. This Parliament should not say that fair and reasonable wages are not to be paid to every one. Surely we should not seek to shelter ourselves in this matter, and proclaim that, if an industry is not a protected industry, the workers engaged in it need not be paid reasonable wages? It might be difficult to meet the circumstances of various industries, but we ought to leave it to a competent court to decide that any industry which is unable to pay fair and reasonable wages shall cease to be carried on in Australia. I need make no further reference to the proposal respecting silver coinage than to say that I am happy that it is about to be consummated. On the question of defence, all parties in the House are agreed that it must be dealt with more effectively than it has been in the past. I feel sure that I express the desire of Parliament and of the country when I say that we hope something will be done, and that people will cease merely to talk about providing an effective defence. Hitherto we have heard most eloquent orations regarding the defencelessness of this country. We have now reached a stage when it has been said that action must be taken, and I know of no way in which action can be taken unless we begin by collecting from the people the funds necessary to equip our defence forces as they ought to be equipped.

Mr Wilks:

– We must tell the people that they will have to pay for it.

Mr FISHER:

– I had but one statement to make to the public on this question throughout my campaign in the country. I asked, “ Do you think that we are sufficiently defended at the present time? “ By interjection those to whom I spoke usually said, “ No.” I then asked, “ Are you prepared to pay a sufficient amount for the efficient defence of Australia?” And the usual answer was, “ Yes.” The only position which any man holding a responsible office in the Commonwealth can take up on this question is that, if we ‘are going to defend the country, we must provide “funds to enable our forces, however well trained they may be, to be as well equipped as any enemy that might operate against them. I know of no way of securing the money which will be required for this purpose but by ‘obtaining it from the people by taxation. The present Government would appear to have access to some Fortunatus’ purse, into which they can dip their hands and obtain money without in the first place taking it from the people. I know of no such way of getting money, and I shall await with some interest an announcement of the scheme by which the Government propose to defend Australia effectively without touching the wealthy people of this country, whose property will be protected by an efficient defence. On the question of finance I am somewhat apprehensive of the action which the Government has taken to convene a Premiers’ Conference to discuss financial problems of interest to the Commonwealth and the States. In surrendering, as I believe they have done, the powers of this Parliament to deal with such questions, they have taken a step which, I hope, they will live to regret. It is quite right that the Commonwealth Government should confer as often as possible with the representatives of the States Parliaments; but they have no right, in my opinion, to attempt in any way to reduce the powers of this Parliament under the Constitution.

Mr Deakin:

– We have not convened any Conference.

Mr FISHER:

– Do I understand the honorable gentleman to say that the Government did not convene a Conference of the Premiers of the States?

Mr Deakin:

– The honorable gentleman seemed to lay some stress upon the word “convene.” We are invited to a Conference which is to be held by the Premiers.

Mr FISHER:

-Then I must be under a misapprehension, which, I believe, is shared by honorable members behind me. I certainly understood, from the Ministerial statement - and this again shows the necessity for some explanation of it - that the Deakin-Cook Cabinet had come to the conclusion that a Premiers’ Conference should be convened to discuss Commonwealth and

State finance-

Mr Mathews:

– The newspapers said so.

Mr FISHER:

– If I have been in error I wish to be corrected. I do not desire to initiate a debate on wrong premises. Does the Prime Minister say that the Commonwealth Government did not convene the Conference which is about to take place?

Mr Deakin:

– The Premier of New South Wales convened it, and invited us to be present.

Mr FISHER:

– I am to understand that the Premier of New South Wales did not convene the Conference at the honorable member’s suggestion?

Mr Deakin:

– No.

Mr FISHER:

– Then I venture to say that honorable members generally have been under a misapprehension in this matter. The Prime Minister says that it was not even at the suggestion of the Commonwealth Government that the proposed Premiers’ Conference was convened.

Mr McDonald:

– The honorable gentleman should get it in writing.

Mr FISHER:

– I accept the Prime Minister’s statement.

Mr Watkins:

– From what appears in the Age this morning, one would think that it had been.

Mr FISHER:

– I am not concerned about what the newspapers may say. The Prime Minister says now that the Premiers’ Conference, about to be held, was not convened, or in any way initiated, by the Federal Government.

Mr Mathews:

– Or suggested.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable gentleman says that it was not even suggested by the Commonwealth Government - that the Conference is convened at the suggestion of the Premier of one of the States, and that the Premiers have invited representatives of the Commonwealth Government to be present to discuss the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States.

Mr Mathews:

– It is hard to believe it of the State Rights party.

Mr FISHER:

– I must accept what the Prime Minister has said ; he knows, and I do not. I had to get my information at second-hand; but I have got it now from the honorable gentleman at first-hand. I was certainly under a wrong impression. I understood from the Ministerial statement that the Federal Government, having considered the matter, agreed to communicate with the Premiers, and invite them to hold a Conference. I certainly have read in the prt:-.- letters from the Prime Minister himself to the Premiers, asking when it would be convenient for them to meet. Of course, those letters may have appeared after the Premiers had themselves decided to hold the Conference.

Mr Deakin:

– The only letters I have written since the Conference was settled for Melbourne are those in reference to the suggestion of the Premier of Queensland, that, in view of the approaching celebrations in connexion with the Queensland Jubilee, the Conference should be transferred to Brisbane. That suggestion has not been entertained.

Mr FISHER:

– I understand that the Conference was suggested entirely by the Premiers, and that, the Ministry then thought that it would be a good thing to set it forth in the statement that the question of our financial relations with the States would be discussed at. the Conference. I took no exception to that, but I do take exception to the proposal which is hinted at vaguely, namely, that the Government intend to inaugurate a borrowing policy. I have done my best to discover what is meant by the paragraph in the Ministerial statement ; and I think that the Prime Minister will not object to say whether or not it means borrowing.

Mr Deakin:

– It is intended to cover not only borrowing, but other alternatives now under consideration by the Government, in order that a selection may be made as to the particular mode of obtaining the necessary money. It does not necessarily mean borrowing, and it is not necessarily decided that there shall be borrowing, but it points very strongly in that direction.

Mr FISHER:

– I suppose we have no right to expect anything more - that, until the Budget is placed before us, the Opposition have no right to know the -financial proposals of the Government. We have a right to know, however, what is meant by these words in the Ministerial statement, because, amongst other important matters, this, in my opinion, is the most important. Honorable members are pledged, and have been pledged from Parliament to Parlia ment, that a borrowing policy will not be inaugurated without consulting the electors ; and I trust that no Government, whether their majority be big or small, will so far depart from principle as to act without that consent. Had we yielded, to the proposal made by Sir George Turner, when Treasurer, and authorized the borrowing of £500,000 in the first session, I venture to say that the Commonwealth would now be indebted £20,000,000, and the community would have been neither better nor wiser, while it would have been saddled with the payment of interest. No doubt the rigid economy which was rendered necessary has affected the services ; but, however that may be, the party that was then led by the honorable member for South Sydney checked the borrowing idea, and I do. not think that there is a single honorable member who thinks that the right policy was not then adopted. Indeed, 1 heard Sir George Turner say later in the House that lie was delighted that Parliament had refused to authorize the loan. It would be an anomaly, not to say a danger to the financial stability of Australia, if the people, seeing that the Commonwealth was brought, into being partly to consolidate the States’ indebtedness, should, eight or nine years afterwards, find that, instead of reducing six borrowers to one, it had in itself added a seventh. I trust that until some arrangement is made between the States and the Commonwealth regarding the taking over of the State debts, we shall not inaugurate a borrowing policy ; at any rate, I shall do all I possibly can, whether in this House or elsewhere, to prevent any such course from being adopted. I am sorry, indeed, to hear the Prime Minister indicate that borrowing mav be resorted to; but if such is proved the fact, I hope the step will be taken in such a way that there may be no misapprehension. Let the policy be plainly and straightforwardly set before the people, so that he who runs may read, and all may express their view on the subject.

Mr McDonald:

– Why ask for a miracle?

Mr FISHER:

– If the verdict of the people be in favour of borrowing, that, of course, will condone any action on the part of the Government. I do not wish to debate that matter at length ; but only to say now that, in my opinion, the action of the Prime Minister in creating a fusion of parties has, instead of conserving the in- terests of the Commonwealth, tended to demoralize politics. I may be right or wrong, but that is the view I take. Further, the policy which has been put forward by the Government is not in any way a bold national policy ; there is nothing in it to guide young Australia in its thoughts towards national life and action, but it is a mere pandering to press popularity that cannot live, and cannot be sustained. If we are to develop on national lines, we must tread on some people’s toes; we cannot provide money for national works without taxing and disturbing some interests. Some misunderstanding arose between myself and the present Prime Minister while I was in office. I desire now to place the facts on record as correctly as I can ; and I am indebted to the Prime Minister for copies of the correspondence that passed between us. Early in December, when I had the honour to be Prime Minister, there wasa disturbance in the party, led by the present head of the Government, and great pressure was attempted on myself to induce me to make a statement as to when Parliament would meet in the following session. The right honorable member for Swan came to me, and told me that the numbers were against me, and that I should have to make a statement or something would happen. The right honorable gentleman can tell honorable members in his own words what I said to him. Later on the honorable member for Parramatta, from his place in the House, asked me whether I was going to say when Parliament would be convened, and I said, “No.” The honorable member sat down, but rose again, and threateningly asked, “Are you going to make a statement?” I replied that I was unable to do so then, and he said, “You can take the consequences!” At that time I was told the numbers were all right; at any rate, I made no such statement as that desired. Later on I saw the Prime Minister on the cross benches, and in a brief and hurried conversation during which, I admit, I was watching the Opposition as much as listening to him, I made certain remarks. I think there is a difference of three weeks between the time that I indicated to him that the House would meet and the time it actually did meet. I told the honorable gentleman then that I could inform him only in confidence when Parliament would be called upon to resume business. I believe that he conveyed to a third party the information I gave him, and that in that way a difficulty arose, and I desire to exonerate him from any blame in that regard. If he says that, in view of a statement I made to him privately, the Parliament should have met on 1st May, instead of three weeks later, I shall not contradict him.

Mr Deakin:

– It is a difference of a fortnight, not of three weeks.

Mr. USHER. The honorable gentleman, at all events, attached great importance to that difference. I wish to be perfectly fair and straightforward in the matter.

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Honorable members opposite were so hungry for office that a difference of a fortnight was everything to them.

Mr FISHER:

– That is not the point. I say that, rightly or wrongly, I declined until the last day of the session to make any statement whatever as to when Parliament would again be called together. On the closing day of the session I said publicly that I felt that we should have to invite honorable members to resume their’ parliamentary duties about one month earlier than was usual. That announcement was observed to the very letter. Subsequently, I had an interview with the pre- sent Prime Minister, and later on some trouble arose between himself and a third party. I am making this statement with the full consent of the honorable gentleman, who wishes to justify himself with a third party.

Mr Deakin:

– I had then to do so; but that is all over now.

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Why should the honorable member desire the consent of the Prime Minister to the making of such a statement? The Prime Minister has accused the honorable member of everything.

Mr FISHER:

– I have, at all events, his consent. I should also like to state that in this matter of the date of the reassembling of Parliament I, too, was committed to a third party, who, at the time, was on his way to England. I am sure those who know me will do me the credit of believing that I would not deceive thePrime Minister, or any one else ; and certainly not as to the matter of a delay of a fortnight, or of three weeks, in the re-assembling of Parliament. During the recess the Dreadnought scare arose, and our Government declined to adopt, in connexion with it, a newspaper-made policy. Such a policy may be all very well; but the newspapers express merely their own views, although they may occasionally express the views of others. At the time we considered that we were performing our public duty to Australia by refusing to join in such an agitation. Although due largely to patriotic fervour, it had not a little of hysteria associated with it. We resisted the demands of the newspapers that we should make an offer of a Dreadnought, and I believe that we did right. I cast no reflection on the patriotism of those who took part in the agitation ; but it has since been proved, happily, that Great Britain is not in danger because of any deficiency either in her naval or military defences. Every citizen of the Empire must be proud to know that this is so. The figures that have come to hand since the agitation first arose indicate that the British Fleet shows such a margin, even over the two-power standard, that we may rest content that Great Britain is not likely for a day or two to be in danger. There are gentlemen who, at the time of the scare, expressed themselves strongly in favour of the Commonwealth presenting a Dreadnought to the British Government, but who are now ready to admit that we took up the right stand. I shall not discuss the Government proposals in this direction; but shall confine myself to the statement that, in my opinion, they have not dealt with the question in a statesmanlike manner. If they were in favour of the presentation of a Dreadnought, they should have said so, and have offered one. Members of the present Ministry were bold enough at the time of the agitation to say that they would give a Dreadnought or nothing ; but to-day they take up a different attitude. They are now in possession of all the information as to what the late Government did, and know exactly how far we went in the views we held, and expressed. I have never considered it necessary or advisable for Ministers to make known to the public matters of international importance that are the subject of negotiation or correspondence. All other public matters certainly ought to be openly discussed ; but international questions should not be made public until the negotiations have been completed. I have always held that view, and shall continue to hold it. After delivering my policy speech at Gympie, I boarded the steamer Bingera at Gladstone, and just as the vessel was leaving, the following telegram, dated 3rd April last, was put into my hands: -

Dear Sir, - In view new questions arising from proposed offer Dreadnought by Australia to Empire, of great pressure upon next session owing legislation carried forward promised or contemplated, and condition national finances, we de sire urge upon you as Head of Government imperative necessity Parliament assembling early as possible. Extreme urgency situation obliges us press this course upon you, which under all these circumstances we feel sure must commend itself as strongly to Ministry as it does to us. Yours truly, Chanter, Chapman, Hume Cook, Coon, Crouch, Deakin, Ewing, Fairbairn, Forrest, Groom, Harper, Hedges, Knox, Quick, Salmon, Sampson, Thomson, Wise, Wynne, members Parliament.

In reply, I sent the following telegram to the present Prime Minister, under date, 3rd April : -

Have arranged that Parliament shall meet for transaction business 26th May. Doing this out of courtesy because your name appears on unsigned telegram just handed me aboard s.s. Bingera, about to sail for Townsville.

On 5th April, I received from the honorable member for Ballarat, the following telegram, addressed to me at Townsville : -

Obliged for courtesy in reply to me. All whose names attached were signatures. Greatly regret you make no concession on public grounds to our urgent request made in public interest.

On the same date, I replied to the honorable gentleman as follows: -

Can see no sufficient reason for altering decision arrived at prior to leaving Melbourne, and can only express my regret that you considered it necessary to take action indicated during my absence.

On the following day, 6th April, while at Townsville, I received this telegram from the honorable member -

Without referring previous circumstances, my letter to and interview with you in Melbourne, in both of which I urged early meeting of Parliament, having no result, the necessity of putting our position on record, which had been increased by subsequent event, became urgent, and it was only fair to tell you so.

I replied, on 6th April, as follows: -

Many thanks for explanatory wire of even date. Am unaware of the subsequent event referred to.

It would appear, from the last telegram received by me from the Prime Minister, that some “subsequent event” had arisen, of so startling and pressing a character, as to make the early re-assembling of Parliament more urgent than ever. Was the event the decision of members of the present Ministry that a Dreadnought should be offered to Great Britain? The correspondence indicates that the desire of honorable members opposite then was that a Dreadnought should be offered. Where is that proposal now? Had I been apprehensive of the attitude of those who enabled us, as a Government, to live, I should have found in these telegrams evidence on which to base my apprehension. As a matter of fact, however, I was not. I did not regard these messages as hostile. Having regard to the relationship that had existed between the present Prime Minister and myself, prior to the Labour Government coming into office, I did not anticipate that we should have an indirect notice of withdrawal of support. On no occasion whatever did I, indicate to him that I suspected that he was withdrawing his support ; he conveyed that fact to me in writing at a later period, after the parties had fused. May I here say that he is mistaken, and the press are mistaken, when they say that the withdrawal of our support was indicated to the previous Government in writing? That is a small matter, but apparently the press want to make a little score out of it, to buttress an untenable position. That, however, is not a matter which I wish to discuss. The honorable member knows how intimate our relationships were, and how frankly - I can say this without egotism - I put every phase of those relationships between ourselves as it ought to be put. I make no complaint at all as to what was done, or how it was done. I simply say that, wherever there is a misapprehension, and there is a written document available to put it right, it should be put right. I am indebted, therefore, to the honorable gentleman for the copies of these letters.

Mr Deakin:

– Telegrams, not letters.

Mr FISHER:

– Yes, telegrams. I have tried to explain the causes, and they, I think, were conveyed in the letters.

Mr Deakin:

– The last telegram alludes to a letter.

Mr FISHER:

– Yes; that letter, as I recollect it, indicated that it was desirable, owing to certain things that had been said and communications that had been passing between the honorable gentleman and other people, that we should meet as early as possible, and, at any rate, that the matter should be cleared up. I have tried to clear the matter up, and the main question between ourselves is as to whether the difference of time was a fortnight or three weeks. The honorable member will agree with me that under no circumstances whatever would I allow him to say publicly on my behalf what I told him then privately, as I was entitled to do. On many occasions I have had the confidence of the honorable member, and on no occasion, I am happy to say, did I communicate with anybody when the matter was strictly private. I say again, as I said on the evening when I spoke from the other side of the chamber, that I trust that, now that the fusion of parties has come about, and we are settling down to business, the best interests of the Commonwealth will be conserved by the people’s representatives in this chamber performing the public duties that lie nearest to them. I again deplore the fact that a Government with a big majority hesitate to take a forward step and declare a bold financial and industrial policy for Australia. If they do not - since they have chosen not to do so - it will be only a short time before another Government, who will not hesitate to express the will of the people, will take their places.

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; NAT from 1917

.- When we eliminate from this programme that portion which has been cribbed from the Labour policy, there is nothing left to discuss. All it spells, then, is procrastination, and procrastination means ultimately the sacrifice of Australia. With that in mind, allI intend to say - and I say it from my heart - is, “God help Australia !”

Question put. The House divided.

AYES: 29

NOES: 26

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1326

PARLIAMENTARY WITNESSES BILL

Motion (by Mr. Glynn) proposed -

That the request of the Senate contained in its message No. r for the resumption by the House of the consideration of the Parliamentary Witnesses Bill be complied with, and that a message be transmitted to the Senate acquainting it therewith.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- In view of the time which has elapsed since the request of the Senate was received, I think that the Attorney-General might explain what it was.

Mr Glynn:

– This Bill was considered by the House up to clause 14.

Mr McDonald:

– Am I to understand, sir, that the honorable member is replying to the motion which he has moved ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable and learned member can now speak only by wa of reply. He has no other opportunity of speaking.

Mr Glynn:

– I cannot ask the House to go on with the consideration of the Bill now; because I want to get the amendments printed first.

Mr FISHER:

– The proposal of the honorable and learned member is only to restore the Bill to the stage which it had reached in the previous session?

Mr Glynn:

– That is all.

Mr MCDONALD:
Kennedy

.- I. understand that the Opposition which existed just prior to the fusion of parties, objected very strongly to this Bill. I should like the Government to explain why they have backed down from the opposition which they offered then, and why they are in favour of the measure now. It will be remembered that when it was last under consideration, the then Opposition took strong objection to its provisions.

Mr Crouch:

– Not at all; it was not a party Bill.

Mr MCDONALD:

– The honorable member will have an ample opportunity to speak later if he should desire. The late Opposition, I repeat, took strong exception to the measure.

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

– Not to the measure.

Mr MCDONALD:

– Well, to certain provisions of the measure. The honorable member, himself was one of the strongest op ponents of some provisions in the Bill. I remember that he took a number of objections.

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

– Some of them were met effectively.

Mr MCDONALD:

– At all events, thehonorable member took strong exception to some of the provisions. I desire to know what arrangement the Government have come to. I think it would have been only fair if the Attorney-General, when he asked the House to reinstate the Bill, had’ given some information as to what action the Government intended to take. Because, if they intend to pursue the same course asthey did on a previous occasion, they will go a long way towards wasting the time of the session, and doing nothing.

Mr Glynn:

– There is no danger of that, I can assure the honorable member.

Mr MCDONALD:

– That seems to be what the Government are driving at. I think that the Bill should be placed on the statute-book in the strongest possible terms. Instead of being modified in any way, it should be strengthened. Previously, there was a tendency on the part of the then Opposition to modify its provisions to a very large extent ; and that is why I think that, at this stage, the House should receive some information concerning the action which the Government propose to take.

Mr DEAKIN:
Prime Minister · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I do not suppose that the” honorable member for Kennedy is really very anxious for information.

Mr McDonald:

– Yes, I am.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The honorable member must be aware that this is a Bill which has been passed, so to speak, by the House itself, which has not been, and which is never likely to be, the measure of any particular Ministry. It is one of those measures which the House takes into its own care and shapes according to its own intent. Honorable members on both sides, no doubt, will find themselves divided on particular provisions; but the object - and no one knows it better than does the honorable member for Kennedy - is to provide for the circumstances under which witnesses may be examined by Select Committees.

Mr McDonald:

– There was a very strong attempt made to modify the Bill..

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes.

Mr McDonald:

– That is what I objected to.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The Bill was modified in some particulars.

Mr McDonald:

– In the light of evidence we have obtained since it should be strengthened, I think.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The present proposition is simply one to restore the measure to the notice-paper for further consideration, and when it is reinstated it can be strengthened or amended in any direction which honorable members may think fit. It is not in the ordinary sense of the term a Government measure, but it is one which the Government feel bound to ask the House to restore to the stage which it had reached before the last prorogation, and so enable honorable members to decide, when the proper time arrives, in what particular form :it shall reach the statute-book. The piesent is only a preliminary motion for placing the Bill on the notice-paper, and in the bands of honorable members.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1327

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL

Motion (by Mr. Glynn) proposed -

That the request of the Senate contained in its message No. 2 for the resumption by the House of the consideration of the Bills of Exchange Bill be complied with, and that a message be transmitted to the Senate acquainting it therewith.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– I desire some information upon this Bill. I should like to know whether it was introduced into this House before the close of last session ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Having been dealt with in another place, the Bill was trans.mitted to this Chamber last session, and it 5s now desired to proceed with it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1327

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That the consideration of the remaining Orders of the Day be postponed until after the consideration of the Notices of Motion.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

.- Do I understand that the motion submitted by the Prime Minister relates to the postponement of Orders of the Day Nos. 5, 6, and 7 ?

Mr Deakin:

– Yes.

Mr McDONALD:

– Then I wish to enter my protest against their postponement. For instance, Order of the Day No. 7 redates to one of the most important measures that is likely to come before Parliament this session. As a matter of fact, I do not suppose that it will claim our attention if the Government can prevent it.

Mr Deakin:

– We wish to get on with the Bill to amend the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act.

Mr McDONALD:

– If that be so, I withdraw my objection.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1327

MAKINE INSURANCE BILL

Motion (by Mr. Glynn) proposed -

That the proceedings on the Bill intituled “ A Bill for an Act relating to Marine Insurance,” which were interrupted by the prorogation of Parliament last session, be resumed at the stage then reached in connexion ‘ with the said Bill, and that the further consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole House be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting.

Mr HALL:
Werriwa

– I object to this motion being proceeded with at the present stage. Apparently the Government are determined to occupy the time of this session with the consideration of measures which are in the last degree unimportant, and of which the Marine Insurance Bill is a typical example.

Mr Deakin:

– Unimportant ?

Mr HALL:

– Yes, it is relatively very unimportant, indeed. If the measure were intended to remedy any wrongs which exist, I might recognise its importance. But it does not contain a single provision which alters the law in any respect whatever. Even if it be passed, it will not assist a single individual. It is a measure which is designed merely to meet the convenience of a few underwriters and a few marine insurance agents, who experience some difficulty in determining what is the Commonwealth law upon the subject. The whole of the ninety-five clauses which it contains are already the law of the land, and the principles with which they deal are well established by the judgments which have been given during the past 100 years. There is no dispute on any one of them, and even if there were, this Bill would not make the position one bit clearer. Whilst it seeks to set out certain well recognised principles as the law on marine insurance, it does not completely codify the law. It is merely a copy of an English Act which was passed a little more than two years ago. Where that Act is defective, this measure is also defective. Yet we are asked to occupy the time of the final session of the present Parliament in discussing this trivial measure, notwithstanding that a number of matters of pressing importance - of such importance that, according to the Prime Minister, this Parliament ought to have been called together earlier to deal with them - are awaiting our attention. The honorable gentleman deemed some of these matters so important that immediately after the opening of Parliament he submitted a motion for the purpose of wiping out the late Administration, without even affording them an opportunity to defend themselves. It is very significant that every measure which will confer a benefit upon a small and favoured class of the community is immediately brought forward by the Government, whilst every measure which will benefit a large section of the community is passed over.

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

– But the honorable member says that the provisions of this Bill are already the law of the land. Mr. HALL.- I do. The honorable member has probably a wider experience of commerce than has any other honorable member of this House, and I challenge him to mention one disability under which the commercial community labour which will be remedied by this Bill.

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

– Then how will it benefit only a small section?

Mr HALL:

– By meeting their convenience in the matter of consolidating the law.

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

– Then it is merely carrying out a duty which was imposed upon us by Federation.

Mr HALL:

– Is that the most important duty which has been imposed upon us by Federation ? I would remind the honorable member that we are under an obligation to settle the Federal Capital site, to establish an Inter-State Commission, to appoint a High Commissioner, to initiate an effective defence scheme, to adjust the future financial relations of the States and the Commonwealth, and to decide upon our attitude in respect of the transfer of the Northern Territory. All these questions are of the utmost importance. Yet they are to be set aside whilst the interests of a favoured few are considered. With what ease gentlemen occupying high positions in the commercial community are able to command the ear of the Ministry in respect of any measure which will benefit them ! This Bill is brought forward merely for the purpose of copying a measure which was passed in England about three years ago - a measure that has benefited only a few commercial men and a few individuals who are interested in marine insurance.

Mr Atkinson:

– Does the honorable gentleman object to anything in the English Act?

Mr HALL:

– I have a considerable amount of objection to raise to various provisions in it.

Mr Atkinson:

– I thought the honorable member said that the Bill merely declared the present law?

Mr HALL:

– But there are many features of the present law to which I object. I do not think that the Judges have always taken the wisest view of matters upon which they had’ to give decisions, and when we deal with the Bill in Committee I shall endeavour to point out various ways in which it ought to be amended, and in which the interests of the country can be served by making amendments. If honorable members opposite think that the duty of an Opposition is simply to open their mouths and swallow whatever the Ministry choose to send them, I can only say that we take a different view of our responsibilities. When I consider the anxiety of Ministerialists to adopt a measure of this kind passed in England a few years ago, I cannot help contrasting their attitude with the difficulty we have had in securing the adoption of English legislation designed to benefit the masses. About twelve years have elapsed since the English Workmen’s Compensation Act was passed. A number of honorable memberswere in office in various States when effect was given to that legislation. But I did not observe such keen anxiety on their part to adopt English legislation in that particular, the object there being to remedy substantial injustices from which the workers suffer.

Mr Glynn:

– The Act was adopted right off in most of the States.

Mr HALL:

– Not at all. There is no

Workmen’s Compensation Act in Victoria, New South Wales, or Tasmania.

Mr Glynn:

– I know that some of the States adopted the English Act.

Mr HALL:

– Three out of four workmen in Australia are employed under conditions to which the principle of the English Workmen’s Compensation Act does not apply. There was not such a keen desire to imitate British legislation in respect to a measure which remedied substantial injustices. But a measure of this kind, that merely meets the convenience of a few commercial men, is introduced at once. I am doubtful about the Bill on other grounds. We often find that after a piece of legis- lation of this character has been in operation for a few years, defects requiring to be remedied are discovered in it ; and, seeing that the business men of Australia will suffer no disability from the non-passing of the Bill, it would, I think, be much better to allow the English Act to remain in operation for three or four years longer, in order that we may see in what respects it fails to attain its objects. Then we might entertain a proposal to bring the Australian law up to date, benefiting by the experience obtained in Great Britain. 1 turn to the Ministerial statement to see what reference is made in it to this Bill. In this document proposals, are promised, the object of which is to benefit large numbers of the people of this country. I turn to the section headed “ Industrial.” I ask honorable members to notice the way in which an unimportant measure of this kind is there treated. We are told -

Bills providing for the compensation of seamen, the prohibition of inequitable rebates by trusts and combines, for the amendment of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901, and the Patents Act, together with measures consolidating on a Federal basis the laws relating to bills of exchange, banking, and marine insurance, all of great value to the business community, will be brought forward.

It will be observed that when an indication is given as to the relative importance of measures in the Ministerial statement those proposals which are designed to remedy real grievances, and to benefit materially a large section of the community, are promised liberally. But they are the kind of luggage that will be thrown overboard towards the end of the session. None of these things is now considered at all.

Mr Glynn:

– They will be considered all right ; and not only so, but the Bills are ready.

Mr HALL:

– If they are ready, may I suggest to the learned Attorney-General that it would be better to bring down measures of an important character than those which are unimportant, in view of the fact that we have so few weeks in which to deal with them.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– The late Government proposed to bring forward this very Bill.

Mr HALL:

– I am aware of that fact, but I venture to say that we should not have seen this Bill in the forefront of the late Government’s .policy. 1 We have only about eighteen or nineteen weeks within which to transact the business of this session. If we are going to do anything important, we shall have no time for unimportant things.

Mr Bruce Smith:

– The honorable member’s party have wasted four weeks already.

Mr HALL:

– We have not wasted four weeks of the honorable member’s time.

Mr Bruce Smith:

– I knew how much worth there was in what the honorable member’s party were saying.

Mr HALL:

– I have no doubt that the honorable member also knew how much worth there was in not turning up for divisions. When 1 consider the modest contributions to the last debate made by honorable members on my own side, and recollect the five and a half hours’ speech delivered some time ago by the honorable member for Parkes, I cannot help drawing comparisons. I understand that he had that speech carefully printed afterwards, and sent copies in large batches to England. Not content with inflicting it upon this House, the honorable member tried to induce his friends 16,000 miles away to devote their attention to it. There is very important work which this Parliament should be called upon to do. If we are to give effect to the proposals of Ministers, we shall have to appoint an Inter-State Commission, which is to be called upon to take up so many functions that I believe that, should any of its members hereafter attend a performance of the opera of “ The Mikado,” Pooh Bah will retire blushing from the stage when he sees them. We have eighteen weeks of the session before us, and in that time we must pass the Estimates and must listen to and criticise the Financial Statement. I think that we have to do something in connexion with the Federal Capital ; «at least some honorable members on this side hope, and some on the other side have promised, that we shall do so. We have also to settle the question of the High Com.missionership. We have been told many times that Defence is a matter of trie utmost importance, which should be dealt with at once. We are told that the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States must be the subject of considerable discussion in this House, if an equitable decision upon them is to be arrived at. We are also to be called upon to amend the Old-age Pensions Act. All these are matters of very great importance, and when I see on the businesspaper a number of measures of the same class as the Marine Insurance Bill, I am satisfied that the Ministry intend to fool away the session doing unimportant business, and leaving important business unattended to. It becomes every day more evident that the local correspondent of the London Times, in cabling to that newspaper that the Minister of Defence had accepted the Deakin policy on the condition that every plank of it was to be postponed, aptly summed up the true position. We are being asked to deal with a Marine Insurance Bill. There is a notice on the paper concerning a measure to provide for the acceptance of Norfolk Island as a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth ; another relating to telegraphic communications in time of emergency ; another relating to currency coinage and legal tender : a Bill for an Act to amend the Audit Acts of 1901 and 1906; and a Bill for an Act relating to an Australian Bureau of Agriculture. These are the measures of which notice has been given by Ministers. Reference to them appears on the business-paper at the present time, and evidently they are the kind of measures that the Government intend to go on with. One looks in vain for any reference to the introduction of measures of real importance - the passing of which would make some difference to the people of Australia. I enter my protest against the consideration, at this stage, of this measure, or of any other measure of a similar character, and I urge upon the Government that, in fairness to the House and to the country, they should let us do something of real importance to the people, and should not take up our valuable time in this last session of this Parliament in dealing with measures which remedy- no injustice, and which will do no good to any one.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

.- I hope that the Prime Minister, or somebody else, will let the House know why this particular proposal was made. The honorable member for Werriwa pointed out to the House what must be sufficiently obvious to every member. I am very much astonished that the Attorney-General should lend himself to a pretext of this kind. Nobody knows better than does the honorable and learned member that this measure does absolutely nothing.

Mr Glynn:

– The honorable member thinks so; but I do not know it.

Mr HUGHES:

– If the honorable gentleman will say in what respect this measure amends the law, and not merely codifies it, and will say why such a codification of the law is urgent, and such a measure as a Government which secured office in the way in which the present Government did should ask this House, at this stage, to give its valuable time to, we shall know something worth learning. There are three motions on the paper - one a vote of want of confidence in the Government - covering, practically the same ground, and these have been disposed of. I venture to say that their discussion occupied Jess time thai* did the debate on any Address-in-Reply and motion of censure in the history of this Parliament. Yet when we propose to goon with business, we are met with this. Marine Insurance Bill. We are to deal also with a Bills of Exchange Bill, which is precisely of the same nature. It proposes a mere codification of the law. I do not say that the law does not need codifying ; but that at this stage we should not direct our attention to this class of work. These are measures for the benefit of that particular class of persons whom the Chambers of Commerce of this country fitly represent. They have already dictated the postal and telephonic policy of the country. They have declared what shall, or what shall not, be the policy of the country in a most important business particular that affects every person, even in the remotest corner of the Commonwealth. It is proposed now, as a further sop to Cerberus, that they shall have this measure in addition. I look down the list of business on the paper in vain, as the honorable member for Werriwa did, to find something that indicates the policy for which the present Government came into power, where they do not repeat, like an echo, the policy of their predecessors. They seem absolutelyafraid to come down with anything of their own. The proposed measure to amend the Old-age Pensions Act is one on which literally crowds of old men and women irc this country are depending.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not discuss that at this stage.

Mr HUGHES:

– Measures which appeal to the people, and would be of some use to them, are set aside, and measures which concern the Chambers of Commerce, the Stock Exchange, and other institutions of that sort, under whose sinister auspices the combination opposite sits, are attended to. I shall register my protest against this kind of thing being done. I say most emphatically that if this Government proposes to do any business, this is not the kind of business which it shall do with my consent.

Mr GLYNN:
Attorney-General · Angas · Free Trade

.- It might be rather hard to satisfy honorable members opposite on points of procedure; but I would remind them that, time and again, there have been complaints about the postponement, for the sake of later measures, of business which has already been entered upon. The Bill we wish to restore was considered in Committee as far as clause 23, the discussion being intelligent, though by no means prolonged. The measure is a technical one, and considerable applicationis needed to apprehend all its bearings. That may account for the expedition, which, I hope, will be still more marked in connexion with the restoration of the Bill to the notice-paper.

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

– It was one of the measures mentioned in the speech of the Governor-General.

Mr GLYNN:

– Not only was it on the programme of the Deakin Ministry ten months ago, but it was also on the list of measures which the Fisher Ministry attempted to introduce.

Mr Fisher:

– It had not, by any means, first place on that list.

Mr GLYNN:

– We propose its restoration in accordance with the rule which has so often been declared that partlyconsidered measures shall be got rid of to enable others, perhaps of greater moment, to be considered. It has been complained that the Government is not bringing forward measures in which the working classes are directly interested ; but I would remind honorable members that we cannot introduce all our legislation in this House. The assumption that our Bills are not ready is without foundation. They are ready, and some of them will be gone on with in the Senate at once. Our desire is to properly apportion the work of legislation between the two Houses; but we wish first to get rid of measures which have already been partly considered. The honorable member for Werriwa has, no doubt, given considerable attention to the technical subjects with which the Bill deals ; but he is a tit at sea when he says that we are not altering the laws of the States. As a nutter of fact, there are no State Acts.

Mr Hall:

– I said that weare not altering the common law.

Mr GLYNN:

– Surely the honorable member would not suggest that we should rest content with the common law, plus an Act of George III. ? The Bill attempts to make our legislation correspond with that of England, where an Act was passed three years ago, after the subject had been under discussion since 1894.

Mr Roberts:

– That Act establishes nothing new.

Mr GLYNN:

– In some respects, it does. I cannot refer to it at length on this motion ; but the position has been clearly stated by the Minister of External Affairs. What has been done in England is to take the essence of about 2,000 cases in which the common law has been laid down, modernize its expression, and embody it in an Act of Parliament. If it were really true that there is nothing new in the Act, that should not be an objection to it. No doubt some honorable members could extemporize on anything; but we are not empirics in regard to technical legislation such as this. All we have done is to take advantage of the expert knowledge and world-wide experience which guided the Imperial Parliament. I do not say that there is amy vital alteration of the existing law ; but the uniformity which is sought is desirable. I have made these remarks because I thought it due to the House to reply to the statements made, no doubt bonâ fide, but too hastily, by some of those who have spoken.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1331

ELECTORAL BILL

Motion (by Mr. Fuller) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an

Act to amend the law relating to Parliamentary elections.

page 1331

NORTHERN TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL

Motion (by Mr. Groom) proposed -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to provide for the acceptance of the Northern Territory as a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth, and for the carrying out of the agreement for the surrender and acceptance.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

.- Would it not be better, before introducing a Bill which will provide opportunities for discussion at several stages, to test by a motion the opinion of the House as to the advisability of accepting the agreement between the Prime Minister and the South Australian Government in this matter? I understood that originally the intention was that it should be treated in that way ; though, asthe Prime Minister shakes his head, I may be mistaken. I am informed that a Bill has been introduced in South Australia, so that perhaps it will be well to, proceed with a Bill here.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1332

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL

Motion (bv Sir John Forrest) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act 1908.

Bill presented and read a first time. Ordered -

That the Standing Orders be suspended, and the second reading of the Bill be made an Order of the Day for this day.

Second Reading

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · Swan · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main object of the Bill is to reduce, from twenty-five years to twenty, the number of years that a claimant for an oldage pension has to be in Australia. A second alteration of importance of the present law is that a claimant who is not naturalized, but is otherwise qualified for a pension, may become naturalized at any time during the current year. It is not proposed to permanently amend the existing la.w in the latter respect, but merely to provide that a person who would be debarred from a pension under the principal Act, by reason of his not having been naturalized for three years, may receive a pension, if otherwise qualified and he becomes naturalized before the date mentioned. This amendment will provide for all those unnaturalized persons in Australia now, but not for those who may come afterwards.

Mr Hall:

– Does the honorable gentleman mean the financial year or the calendar year?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The calendar year, up to 31st December.

Mr Hall:

– I am afraid that all those concerned may not be aware of the amendment in the law.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The fact that such an amendment was contemplated has been known for a good while.

Mr Roberts:

– I think the amendment of the law ought to be made permanent.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– It was thought that a very good argument, even against the proposed amendment, was that those persons concerned, who have been in Australia for twenty or twenty-five years, ought to have become naturalized in that time. Of course, it might also be argued that they did not want to become naturalized until now, when there is something to be obtained.

Mr Fisher:

– Feelings of patriotism may have prevented their becoming naturalized.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I cannot myself object to a man, who, belonging to another nation, does not desire to become naturalized.

Dr Maloney:

– It cost a good deal at one time to become naturalized.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– But, apart from that, there is a feeling on the part of every man, I suppose, that he does not desire to abandon his nationality.

Mr Hall:

– Hear, hear; how long would the right honorable gentleman be in Germany before he would desire to be naturalized ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I cannot say, but as I am not likely to live in Germany, we need not discuss the matter. I am sure we all think that those who are now grown old, and are deserving, and who have borne the heat and burden of the day, ought to be treated as generously as possible. At any rate, the Government have considered the matter, and have arrived at the conclusion as set forth in the Bill. As I say, the contemplated amendment has been known for a good while; and it is probable that those who are otherwise qualified for a pension have been seeking naturalization during the last year. I have it on the authority of the Minister of External Affairs that a great number are applying for naturalization now ; and I should say that by the end of the year all those who are qualified and desire pensions will, if not already British subjects, avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill.

Mr Roberts:

– An anomaly will be created if the amendment is not made permanent.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I do not think so.

Mr Roberts:

– A person reaching the age in January, who has not been naturalized, may have to wait for another two years and a half.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Such a person can be naturalized now, or at the time he becomes qualified for the pension ; and that is all that is necessary. However, we can discuss these points in Committee. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the appointment of special magistrates, in order to facilitate the hearing of claims, there being no Commonwealth legislation at present authorizing such direct appointments. It is also proposed by Clause 13A to omit the word “annually” from the prin- cipal Act, so as to dispense with the compulsory annual examination in regard to the qualification of applicants. This annual review of applications costs a good deal of money, and is considered by those in authority to be unnecessary. Instead, power is given by the Bill to make an investigation at any time that the Commissioner considers necessary, With this object in view, section 38 of the principal Act, which was copied from the New South Wales Act, is repealed. It is thought that in the case of aged people, their property and income are not likely to increase from year to year; and, therefore, it is proposed to give the Commissioner some discretion, and arrange at intervals for police reports concerning all the pensioners. If on these reports an investigation is considered necessary, it will be made.

Mr Hughes:

– Are pensioners required to make any statement?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– They are not called upon to do so, but there will be supervision; and re-investigation will be made if it is considered desirable.

Mr Hughes:

– Supposing a man were disqualified by reason of his having a greater income than is allowed, and his not making a declaration to that effect, is there a penalty of any kind ?

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

– If If a person knew he was not qualified, and accepted a pension, I should say he would be doing a fraudulent act, and be liable accordingly.

Mr Hughes:

– That ought to be made quite clear.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I expect that it is made quite clear in the principal Act, which is not repealed in this respect. As, perhaps, honorable members know, the administration of the Old-age Pensions Act has been undertaken by the Treasury, and the Secretary and Accountant of the Treasury have been appointed Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner respectively. This was done by my predecessor, who, I am sure, was .largely influenced by the belief that it would lead to economy and efficiency in administration. A considerable saving will be made by allotting this work to Treasury officers, instead of appointing special officers for the purpose.

Mr Fisher:

– It will also lead to efficiency.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Quite so. It seems to me that it was a sound and economical arrangement to make, and, so far as

I can gather, it is working well. It is only natural that there should be difficulties at the outset, for it is no easy matter to administer such an Act over this large continent. I was informed the other day that the forms and other documents set out in connexion with it weighed some tons. Although some difficulty may be experienced at the beginning of the new administration, no one is likely to suffer by it ; if there is any delay in paying a pension, the pensioner himself will forfeit nothing. There are some minor matters dealt with in this Bill to which I need not refer in detail; but in clause 4 we have a provision designed to meet the administration of the Act in the Broken Hill district, from Adelaide rather than from Sydney, that being found the most convenient course to adopt. That clause provides - where the Commissioner places a district situated in any State under the control of the Deputy Commissioner for another State, the Deputy Commissioner under whose control the district is placed shall exercise and perform in relation thereto all the powers functions and duties of a Deputy Commissioner.

That is to be a proviso to section 6 of the principal Act. Then, again, clause 15 provides for the repeal of section 39 of the Act and the substitution in lieu thereof of a new clause providing -

  1. Pensions shall be payable in instalments, which shall be payable fortnightly.
  2. In order to ascertain the amount of an instalment of a pension covering a period of a fortnight the annual pension shall be divided by twenty-six. . . .

Under the Act a yearly pension might be £26 per annum, and the fortnightly instalments at that rate would be slightly less than j£i. This amendment is designed to meet the convenience of the Department, and it will not have any prejudicial effect upon pensioners. There are one or two other amendments, to make the machinery of the principal Act work more smoothly.

Mr Storrer:

– Do the Government intend to make provision for the payment of pensions to invalids under sixty years of age?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– We are not administering at present that part of the Act relating to invalid pensions..

Mr Poynton:

– Is there any provision in this Bill for the payment of pensions to women of sixty years?

Mr Deakin:

– There is such a provision in the principal Act, but it has not yet been brought into operation.

Mr Storrer:

– My question was whether the Government intend to provide for the payment of pensions to invalids under sixty ?

Mr Glynn:

– Age is not a test of invalidity.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The honorable member will be able to obtain a copy of this Bill in a few minutes, and will be able to deal with this matter in Committee.

Dr Maloney:

– Apparently, if the honorable member for Bass wants a civil answer to a question, he must sit on the other side.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Those who look for causes of offence can always find them. I certainly had no desire to offend any one. I have already enumerated the principal amendments of the Act which this Bill is designed to carry out, and I trust that the second reading will be carried without delay.

Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 7.45 p.m.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- It certainly seems like rushing legislation when the Treasurer begins to move the second reading of a measure before he has the measure ready, but it shows the conciliatory mood of the Opposition when we are prepared in those circumstances to proceed calmly to discuss it. Obviously this Bill is a legacy from the previous Government, which this Government have taken up and brought in. It is desirable that it should be dealt with expeditiously.

Mr Glynn:

– It is quite a new Bill.”

Mr FISHER:

– I do not object to the Attorney-General calling it new, but, so far as I have been able to see, there is nothing in it but what was discussed again and again by the previous Government with the Commissioner of Old-age Pensions, and approved of. I shall be glad to hear the Attorney-General later on regarding the differences. I agree with the Treasurer that it was a good arrangement which I made when Treasurer to depart somewhat from the strict interpretation of the principal Act, and, instead of making new appointments, to appoint as Commissioner, Mr. Allen, the Secretary to the Treasury, who has had previous experience of the administration of an Old-age Pensions Act. Not only has the Commonwealth saved money in that way, but it has obtained a more competent officer than would have been got, I think, even by the payment of £1,000 a year to a new man, whatever his experience might have been.

Dr Maloney:

– Was it Mr. Allen that organized the Victorian system?

Mr FISHER:

Mr. Allen was the Chief Commissioner, and Mr. Weir, I think, his principal assistant for Victoria. Obviously, however, the Minister is the person principally responsible for errors of judgment on the part of his subordinates. That is the usual rule under responsible government. I do not know who arranged the Victorian system. The principal Act provided that applicants should make their applications first, then go before a magistrate, then to the assistant Commissioner, and then to the Commissioner, before they could get their pensions. The rearrangement arrived at - I do not know whether it was quite within the provisions of the Act or not - was to get as many of the> particulars- as possible at first, and, immediately they were accepted by the magistrate before whom the cases were to go, to make the pensions payable right off. That was the object aimed at. Whether it has been attained or not is difficult to say, for it would be impossible to bring in a big machinery measure like this without some hitches. I have no doubt that from time to time those who administer it will be able to improve the methods and make it less jarring than previously. It is provided in this Bill, a copy of which has just been put into my hands, that -

The principal Act, as ‘ amended by this Act, may be cited as the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act 1908-1909.

The Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act 1908- 1909 shall be deemed to have commenced on the 15th day of April, 1909.

That dates the commencement of the Act as from the time of proclamation. I wish to ask the Attorney-General whether there is any provision in the Bill to enable pensioners, who were qualified by the twenty years’ residence proviso to draw pensions from the States, to be paid pensions by the Commonwealth Treasurer as from the 1st July of this year?

Mr Glynn:

– Clause 12 deals with that point.

Mr FISHER:

– Clause 12 says:-

Section 17 of the principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph b the word “ twentyfive” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “ twenty.”

That does not cover the point. It should be stated definitely and distinctly in this Bill that every person who was otherwise entitled to a pension under the principal Act, but had not been more than twenty years in Australia, should be entitled to receive a pension as from the 1st July of this year.

Mr Harper:

– Although they were not naturalized ?

Mr FISHER:

– The provision in this Bill regarding naturalization is ample.

Mr Harper:

– The pension will not be given until they, are naturalized.

Mr FISHER:

– I do not think that that is in this Bill. Will the Government make what I have pointed out perfectly clear? Obviously the delay in passing this Bill lies with the Government.

Sir John Forrest:

– Why ?

Mr FISHER:

– Because they delayed the business of the House. But for the action of those now sitting on the Ministerial side, this amending measure would have been before the House in May, and by this time the Act would have been amended so as to enable the payments to be made. This, however is not a party question, and I think all honorable members will agree that, as it was the intention to reduce the residence qualification from twenty-five to twenty years, it is only fair to those who are entitled by that reduction to a pension to make provision for them to receive payment as from the 1st of July.

Sir John Forrest:

– We must submit it to Parliament.

Mr FISHER:

– The Government have, I presume, a policy I

Mr Glynn:

– It is quite right as it is.

Mr FISHER:

– Surely the Treasurer will not accuse me of suggesting that the Government have not an opinion on the point ! I simply asked the honorable gentleman if he would be good enough to make it clear in the Bill that any person who on the 1st July, 1909, had lived in the Commonwealth for twenty years, and who otherwise was entitled to an old-age pension, is included in its provisions, and will get payment as from that date. We should make the measure retrospective to that extent, so as to make it quite clear that the rights of such persons have not been destroyed bv the delay in the passing of it.

Mr Glynn:

– The residence is to date from the claim. If a man makes a claim now, surely he will have been in the Commonwealth for more than twenty years if he had been in it for that period on the 1st July.

Mr FISHER:

– Unless it is specifically stated in the Bill, I do not think that such a person could claim an old-age pension as from the 1st July.

Mr Glynn:

– He could not claim retrospectively, because he had not made a claim.

Mr FISHER:

– I think that all such persons should come under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr Glynn:

– What the honorable member means is that, if a man had made a claim for a pension before the 1st July, and could not get it admitted because of the lack of residence, he should be qualified under this Bill.

Mr FISHER:

– I go further than that. Claims have been blocked because this Bill has not been passed.

Sir John Forrest:

– The claimants did not know that the Government were going to introduce this measure. There was no public announcement to that effect, I think.

Mr FISHER:

– I, as Prime Minister, stated, in this House, that it was the intention of the late Government to immediately bring iri a Bill to reduce the residential period to twenty years. That intention was also announced in the policy speech I delivered at Gympie. In fact, it was declared from many platforms for four or five months before the session began.

Sir John Forrest:

– I think that the Bill will be a very good thing for those who were not qualified under the old law.

Mr FISHER:

– The only point is that these persons should not be allowed to suffer by reason of the delay in passing the Bill.

Sir John Forrest:

– The,y. will get an advantage - a five years’ advantage.

Mr FISHER:

– I trust that the honorable gentleman will not say that these persons are getting an advantage. All that I want the Government to do is to make the Bill retrospective as regards the period of twenty years. I believe that every member of the House would like to see that done.

Mr Harper:

– What about naturalization ?

Mr FISHER:

– As I read the Bill, it states clearly that any unnaturalized person who becomes naturalized at any time during this calendar year shall, if otherwise eligible, be’ entitled to receive an tillage pension.

Mr Harper:

– He will be entitled to a pension as from the beginning of the Act.

Mr FISHER:

– I do not see why such a person should not be entitled to an oldage pension as from the ist July. This is not a measure to penalize persons who have lost their right to old-age pensions by reason of their own neglect. The whole principle of invalid and old-age pensions legislation is to provide for persons who have not been able to provide for themselves. Why should any persons be deprived of that to which they would be justly entitled but for some technicality which may have been overlooked, or some omission to comply with a part of the law ?

Mr TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

– We ought not to ante-date pensions.

Mr FISHER:

– I do not quite agree with the honorable member to that extent, because, as regards naturalization, it is proposed in the Bill to do that. I give the Government credit for their proposal to ante-date the naturalization.

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

– To ante-date the naturalization ?

Mr FISHER:

– I should like the Treasurer to say if I am wrong in my interpretation of the clause regarding naturalization. I take it that it is the intention of the Government to pay old-age pensions to unnaturalized persons who, being otherwise qualified, apply for letters of naturalization during this year.

Sir John Forrest:

– Yes ; but they must get naturalized before they can apply for pensions.

Mr FISHER:

– But if they apply at once for letters of naturalization, will they be entitled to pensions ?

Sir John Forrest:

– As soon as they get naturalized they can apply for pensions.

Mr FISHER:

– If such persons apply for naturalization papers at one counter and step across to another counter, will they be entitled to old-age pensions?

Sir John Forrest:

– Yes; if they are otherwise qualified. As soon as they are naturalized they will be qualified for pensions, but it will take them a little time to get naturalized.

Mr FISHER:

– As soon as an unnaturalized person has filled in his naturalization papers he mav, if otherwise qualified, apply for an old-age pension?

Sir John Forrest:

– As soon as he gets a naturalization certificate and can say that he is a British subject, he will be entitled to apply.

Mr Harper:

– The honorable member does not advocate that any person should be allowed to date back his pension claim.

Mr FISHER:

– I think it would be only fair to give that right.

Mr Harper:

– From the time when a person was naturalized, but not from a previous date.

Mr FISHER:

– I do not think that applications for ‘ naturalization papers are ever refused. In my opinion, this is not worth quibbling about.

Sir John Forrest:

– Yes, they are refused. Such persons have to be of good character and to comply with other conditions.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member for Mernda has raised a very important point, and that is that as soon as a person has applied for naturalization papers he should be permitted to apply for an oldage pension.

Sir John Forrest:

– He, cannot say that he is a British subject until he has been naturalized.

Mr FISHER:

– If letters of naturalization are refused to a person, that is an indication that he would not be able to pass the test for an old-age pension. But if a man is naturalized that is an assumption that he was of sufficiently good character to become a citizen of the Commonwealth, and every such person, I think, ought to receive a certificate to enable him to draw an old-age pension.

Mr Harper:

– From the time when he was naturalized.

Mr FISHER:

– I think it is only fair that the person should be allowed to draw an old-age pension from the date of the application to be naturalized, if that date is subsequent to the ist July, 1909. I make that suggestion to the Treasurer.

Mr Bowden:

– There would only be a difference of a day or so, anyway.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member is in error, because there may be great delay between the lodging of the application for naturalization papers and the granting of a certificate

Mr Bowden:

– But as a rule there is not.

Mr FISHER:

– In many instances it takes a long time to make the necessary inquiries.

Mr Bowden:

– In some cases they might be naturalized at once.

Mr FISHER:

– Provision is made in the Bill to enable persons who have neglected to become naturalized subjects of the King to do so now.

Sir John Forrest:

– Most of them, perhaps, have done so.

Mr FISHER:

– Have I the right honorable gentleman with me on the other point, that to all those who are otherwise entitled to Federal pensions, and who are now drawing State pensions, pensions shall be allowed as from the 1st July ?

Sir John Forrest:

– State pensions, if qualified. We are not paying State pensions now.

Mr FISHER:

– The right honorable gentleman, perhaps, does not recollect that in two States the residential qualification was fixed at twenty years.

Sir John Forrest:

– Yes, but we do not pay those pensions yet ; the States are paying them.

Mr FISHER:

– I think that the right honorable member is entirely in error in saying that the States are paying the pensions, because Queensland is not doing so.

Sir John Forrest:

– I am informed that Queensland is paying them.

Mr FISHER:

– My information is that it is not doing so. At any rate, when the Bill gets into Committee there should be no difficulty in drafting words to enable the Treasurer to pay these persons as from the 1st July. If I cannot persuade the right, honorable gentleman to adopt my suggestion, I shall have to take action ; though, of course, I have no wish to do that, as I desire to help him in every possible way.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There are so many conversations going on in different parts of the chamber that it is very difficult indeed for the honorable member to go on with his speech, and also difficult for honorable members who are not conversing to follow the debate. I ask that these loud conversations should be discontinued, and suggest to the honorable member for Wide Bay that a number of the details concerning the drafting of clause 11 could be much more conveniently dealt with in Committee.

Sir John Forrest:

– I do not know what is being done in Queensland, but in Victoria the State is paying the pensions.

Mr FISHER:

– In every Bill some principle is involved, and the vital principle in this measure is the reduction of the residential qualification to twenty years. Its remaining provisions relate merely to machinery. There is another important point which I think should be taken into consideration by honorable members. The principal Act provides that if any person is possessed of property equal in value to ,£310, he is not eligible to receive a pension. I think that that provision is an illogical one, seeing that under it a man possessed of that amount of property - assuming that otherwise he would be entitled to an old-age pension - would be deprived of £26 per annum, which sum, if capitalized, would represent far more than ^310. If we are going to deal equitably with those who have accumulated a little money, it will be necessary for us to increase the amount, and to adopt an actuarial sliding scale in accordance with the value of the property held by any applicant. The maximum value of’ property which an old-age pensioner might possess would then be about .£500. In the case of applicants who are possessed of property of less value, there should be a sliding scale downwards.

Mr Tudor:

– There is a sliding scale downwards now.

Mr FISHER:

– But the present arrangement is not an equitable one, and I maintain that we ought not to do in a haphazard fashion what we can do upon wellconsidered lines.

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

– The question to be determined is “ What annuity will £310 purchase?”

Mr FISHER:

– Exactly. I think the honorable member will agree with me that it is very unlikely that £310 would purchase an annuity of £26.

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

– At sixty-five years of age, it would purchase a much larger annuity.

Mr FISHER:

– Does the honorable member think so? In any case, when we come to deal with the matter in Committee, I think I shall be able to show that we are acting inequitably by reducing the pensions payable by £1 for every j£io in excess of £100 possessed by a pensioner. There is an anomaly in the whole scale of reductions to which we agreed in the principal Act. That Act, it will be recollected, was rather hurriedly drafted and passed through this House. Some of us know how that occurred. But whatever was said by honorable members in opposition to it, not a single voice can be raised against it now, or against the principle which is embodied in it.

Mr Johnson:

– Nobody ever raised a voice against it.

Mr FISHER:

– It is rather late in the day to hear an interjection of that kind. I admit that honorable members did not declare themselves opposed to the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill. They desired to grant old-age pensions, but did not view with favour the only measure which would permit of those pensions being paid.

Mr Hughes:

– They voted against the Surplus Revenue Bill.

Mr FISHER:

– Exactly. It is idle for the honorable member for Lang to talk as he does now. Those who voted against the means by which a Federal scheme of old-age pensions was enabled to be brought into operation, in effect voted against oldage pensions.

Sir John Forrest:

– The honorable member said at the time that the end justified the means.

Mr FISHER:

– The Treasurer does not do himself justice in interjecting in that way. I said nothing of the kind. I said in effect : “Here is the only means by which old-age pensions can be paid.” It was a perfectly constitutional means to adopt, and the High Court has so declared. The whole of the members of the Labour party took that view, and I went so far as to say that I was prepared to suffer political annihilation in order to . enable such a Bill to be placed upon the statute-book. I say the same thing now. It is creditable to any party to have forced such a measure through Parliament. Now we desire to make the scope of this measure still broader. I quite agree that this is not the time to debate its details. Unfortunately the Government were not so ready to proceed with business as they told us they were, otherwise they would have had copies of the Bill in the hands of honorable members when the Treasurer was moving its second reading.

Sir John Forrest:

– We did not expect to get to it.

Mr FISHER:

– As far as I can learn, the Government did not expect us to close the debate upon the no-confidence motion. May I remind them that there is a limit even to the patience of the Opposition. I believe that all parties in this House desire to effect such amendments in the principal* Act as will make it work as smoothly as possible, consistent with the protection of the Commonwealth funds against fraud, and as will permit of every person entitled’ to an old-age pension obtaining it as a matter of right, and not as a matter of charity. I shall give the Government every assistance in passing the Bill, which is a legacy from the late Government.

Mr GLYNN:
Attorney-General · Angas · Free Trade

– The Leader of the Opposition has asked whether, under the Bill as it stands, we cannot provide that persons who have not registered their claims up to the rst July of the present year, but who could’ have made claims had the twenty years’ residential qualification been in operation, shall be entitled to pensions as from the ist: July. In the form in which the measure is now drawn, that result cannot be attained. Sub-section 3 of section 33 of the principal Act says -

  1. The determination of the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner shall, if in favour of the claim, set out the rate of the pension and the date of its commencement (which must not be prior to the date of the claim), and a pension certificate in the prescribed form shall thereupon be issued to claimant.

That provision will not he altered by this Bill, so that persons who have not filed claims up to the present time cannot retrospectively obtain the benefit which will be conferred by the reduction of the residential qualification to twenty years. As the honorable member has sought my opinion upon the matter, I am simply stating what I conceive to be the effect of this Bill when read in conjunction with the principal Act. From the standpoint of policy, I do not know whether it would be advisable to make the amendment suggested, and for this reason : Suppose that hereafter - say, three years hence - we wish to reduce the period of residence to fifteen years. Ought we then to say that those who, under that provision, could have made a claim on the ist July of the present year, should be able to retrospectively date their claims? I do not speak strongly against the suggestion, because there is not much in itIt would only be a matter of a few weeks, and no one would grudge any poor fellow the amount that would be paid to him. The object of this legislation is, of course, to bring the whole of Australia into line with two States in regard to the period of residence. I believe, speaking from memory., that a rough estimate has been made showing that the cost of the reduction of the period from twenty-five years to twenty, amounts to something like £20,000 for the whole Commonwealth. It is not a large amount. The numberof those who would be subject to our legislation in this matter would be practically the same, but the period covered only a few weeks. The burden would not be a great one to carry. But, speaking subject to correction, I do not think that the principle suggested is a good one to apply. Some honorable members would desire perhaps, to see the period of residence reduced to ten years. If hereafter the period were reduced to ten years, we should be met by the fact that we had created a precedent,and should be asked to make the amendment of the law retrospective from the 1st July, 1909.

Mr Roberts:

– It is not so ; because the promise to reduce the period of residence from twenty-five to twenty was made prior to the 1st July.

Mr GLYNN:

– I do not wish to say any more upon that point ; but I have explained the difficulty that I see as regards accepting the suggestion that has been made. The Leader of the Opposition has also drawn attention to the question affecting the£310 property limit. I think that it is possible to purchase an annuity of about £2 a week for a person of the age of sixty-one or sixty-two, for £1,000.

Mr Mahon:

– Oh, no !

Mr GLYNN:

– No one, of course, knows the age of a lady ; but I know of a person who says that she is onlysixty-three, and she has been able to purchase such an annuity for £1,000. Our legislation assumes that a person sixty-five years of age can purchase an equivalent to £26 a year for £310. The principal Act is based upon that principle. Of course, a person with £310 who purchased such an annuity would lose the principal; but the Act says that he must lose it.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

.- Although it is very desirable that this measure should speedily become law, I think we ought to have a little more time in which to scrutinize in detail the proposed alterations in the law. My own opinion is that the principal Act was passed too hurriedly ; its provisions should have been more carefully studied. But, like other measures passed without sufficiently close examina tion, we have found that the operation of the law evolves rather serious defects. Certainly, some very hard cases have come under my own observation. I should like to mention a case which may be typical of many ; though I hope not. It is an example of exclusion from the benefits of the principal Act, under the section which provides for a twenty-five years’ continuous residence in Australia. That section is operating very harshly in certain instances. The typical case which I shall mention is that of an old couple who came to Australia as far back at 1866; that is, forty-three years ago. But for a short period - I think for about ten years - they resided in New Zealand. That interval, however, cut into the middle of the fortythree years, the result being that the old couple have not resided “ continuously “ in Australia for twenty-five years. If the section to which I allude be maintained in the principal Act, and no amendment be made under this Bill, the result will be to exclude these very worthy people, and I suppose others under similar circumstances, from the benefits of the law.

Mr Johnson:

– Section 18 provides for such exceptional cases, I think.

Mr MAHON:

– No, unfortunately, it does not ; the provision only allowsfor absence for a tenth of the period of residence. This Bill proposes to make the period of residence in Australia twenty years. But, even that amendment would not afford relief to such people as I have referred to. I should like that point to be considered,because even people born in Australia have had to leave the country, for a period, not from choice, perhaps, but from necessity. The particular couple to whom I have alluded, went to New Zealand because the husband accepted an appointment there. If there be any virtue in the length of term of residence at all, what does it matter whether that term happened to be intercepted by a short period of residence in New Zealand or elsewhere ? There is another matter of far greater importance, however. This is the necessity of bringing into operation speedily the provisions of the principal Act in regard to invalid pensions. While it may be admitted that some very hard cases will be relieved by the payment of old-age pensions, I can assure the House that other cases no less poignant and distressing will remain as a reproach to our common humanity, unless the invalid sections are brought into operation. What has been my experience will probably have been that of many others. Take the case of a man with a large family who is suddenly stricken by some accident, or by serious illness, or by loss of sight, or, as is unfortunately often the case in my electorate, by that frightful disease, consumption. Consumption is a disease which is creating great havoc amongst miners in Western Australia. I shall not be accused of making any provincial appeal when I say that the cases of such men, crippled in early manhood by a wasting disease, and prevented from pursuing the means of. livelihood, are the saddest which one can contemplate. Although we may be very sorry indeed for the aged poor, I consider that the case of a man who has a house full of dependent children, whilst he is deprived of the means of maintaining them, is even sadder and more pitiable.

Mr Wilks:

– The case of a miner who is blinded is equally sad.

Mr MAHON:

– That is so. Usually the children of a man sixty-five years of age have grown up, and are no longer dependent on him. In most cases, if they are any good at all, they are able and willing to help him in his old age. I think it will generally be admitted that the case of a man with a family who has become incapacitated as the result of an accident or illness appeals most strongly to our sympathy and pity. I hope that the Government will eliminate from the Act what I call its more illiberal provisions. Under the Act a deduction is made from a pension where some charitable person, for instance, gives a pensioner his meals for doing odd jobs. Is it not somewhat petty, and even contemptible, to reduce a pension on that account?

Mr Bowden:

– It is a discouragement to work.

Mr MAHON:

– It tends to dry up the springs of charity as well. It might lead people who have an old retainer dependent upon them to send him adrift. The little given in charity in this way would, in any case, make but a small addition to the Dension. I should like particularly to direct the attention of the Treasurer to the fact that a charitable institution taking charge of the aged poor, providing for their sustenance, and looking after their welfare, may reasonably claim to be entitled to some consideration. The right honorable gentleman is aware of a very useful institution in Perth, the Old Men’s Home, and he knows that if what I suggest in this connexion is not done, the cost of maintaining the old men in that home, and in similar institutions, will be thrown on the State Government, and, as a result, the State will be doubly taxed.

Sir John Forrest:

– The old men can get pensions if they are qualified.

Mr MAHON:

– They may prefer to go into such institutions.

Sir John Forrest:

– I do not think an institution of the kind would admit a man who is in receipt of a pension.

Mr MAHON:

– But a man having a pension may desire, for reasons of his own, to enter a charitable home where, in illness, he will be tenderly nursed. Once inside its doors his pension stops. I take the case of an old miner or fossicker in the bush, who is in receipt of a pension. Instead of living in a district where food is dear, he’ may prefer to close his life amidst surroundings where he will obtain the maximum of comfort from the pittance awarded to him; and, if he does so, why should not the institution which cares for him get the benefit of the pension?

Mr Roberts:

– Can he not give the manager an order to draw the pension ?

Mr MAHON:

– No; the honorable member will find that, under section 47 of the Act, when an old-age pensioner enters an institution of the kind I have referred to, the pension ceases.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Under the New South Wales Act pensions are paid in such cases to hospitals and benevolent institutions.

Mr MAHON:

– That could not be done under our Act. Although under Pur law there is a little latitude allowed in respect of the identification of claimants for oldage pensions, to the extent that magistrates may dispense with proof of actual acquaintance with the claimant of two persons for twenty-five years, there is reason> why the provision should be made even, more elastic. If these pensions are to reachthe class of persons most deserving of them, provision should be made to enablethe pioneers of this country to secure theadvantages of this beneficent legislation. I take the case of the typical bush worker,, whether miner, fossicker, shearer, or- agricultural labourer. In many cases, the surnames of these men are unknown. They are known to their mates as “Bill,” “Jack,” “Dan,” or “Mick.” They livea nomadic life, and it is very difficult, if not impossible, for them to obtain a cer- tificate of identification from two persons who have known them for twenty-five years.

Mr Hall:

– The honorable member for Darling knows all those chaps.

Mr MAHON:

– The difficulty is that those chaps may not always be able to find the honorable member for Darling when they want him. My honorable friend moves about a good deal and is deservedly wellknown, but even he cannot be ubiquitous. I have received a sheaf of letters in reference to old-age pensions, and I propose to read an extract from one that fairly reflects the feeling of the writers of them all. I quote from a letter received from a young friend of mine on the Western Australian gold-fields. He is an enthusiast in regard to this, as well as other, humanitarian measures, and has been very energetic in helping old people to obtain their rights under this law. Speaking of these pioneers, he says -

The greatest horror of their lives, the haunting fear of their dreams, is that when nature robs them of their physical strength and thus deprives them of their means of independent existence they may be taken away to end their lives in the degrading pauperism of the Old Men’s Home. What gives life some beauty for them, notwithstanding its sombre sordidness - phases only known to those who live the life - has been old-age pensions, the coming of which has been looked forward to by these old men as eagerly as Heaven is looked forward to by the religious enthusiast. But, unhappily, for many, the present prescribed regulations prevent that dream from being realized, and bitterness towards its generators is fast taking the place of gratitude. I have had the pleasure of filling in several forms of application, and it appears to me that in the drafting of them too little thought has been given to the after effects, especially when applied to a country such as this State, with its unsettled roving population.

That is the point I wish to impress upon the Treasurer. A great many of these old pioneers have always lived in the backblocks. They have never had the benefits of any Tariff protection for the industry they have followed, and they will be absolutely cut off from the benefits , ofthe Old-age Pensions Act unless some more liberal provisions are introduced into it and these harassing restrictions eliminated. The writer of the letter from which I am quoting goes on to say -

As an instance, the regulations state that a claimant must secure the testimony of two independent witnesses who have known him or her for 25 years. The absurdity of such a proviso must be apparent to any one who reasons how impossible it is to find persons who have known men for that period on these fields which have drawn their population from all ends of Australia, many of whom have led a nomadic life since gold was first found.

Referring to the advantages which people in civilized centres enjoy, as compared with these men, he says -

The man who stays at home leading a peaceful life, luxurious in comparison to this one as a farmer or city man surrounded by friends from childhood, can obtain the pension without the least trouble, whereas the restless spirits who have “ blazed the track “ to the detriment of health and wealth, and opened up the highways and byways of Australia, from whence its great wealth is derived, are debarred from obtaining that which they have earned tenfold.

There he draws a contrast, the full force of which we should all recognise. Then, as to requiring certificates of births -

These men do not carry their birth certificate about with them, and cannot produce them as proof of their bona fides. I am informed by natives of both places that in Ireland and Scotland registration of births was unknown prior to thirty-five years ago -

I think that the system of Government registration is a little older than that, and has prevailed in Ireland since 1864 ; but, at any rate, it is of comparatively recent origin - and many are unable to read or write, and are unable to tell their correct age. The clause debarring one obtaining the pension on account of imprisonment savours too much of Sunday school legislation, and is unjust, for thousands have been imprisoned for crimes for which they were innocent, and some for political offences committed in the interests of Democracy. . . The general opinion is that, when any one reaches the ripe age of sixty-five,they have earned the pension, and all the circumlocution contained in the application forms could be overcome by allowing the claimant to make a sworn affidavit, signed by two witnesses, before a justice of the peace, to the effect that he or she was sixty-five, &c. The authorities could investigate the veracity of that statement, and if it were found to be false,a conviction or two would prevent any great infringement of that law.

I have said that it is not desirable to deal with the details of the measure at this stage, but in Committee I shall have something to say on the various points that I have raised. Seeing that the Bill has been in our hands only a few moments, the Government should not attempt to go very far to-night, but should give us the evening to study it, so that to-morrow we may be able to bring a better understanding to its discussion.

Dr CARTY SALMON:
Laanecoorie

– I thoroughly agree with the honorable member for Coolgardie that we should not go far with the measure this evening, but should have an opportunity to study carefully the proposals of the Government. I shall not discuss the measure at length now, though in Committee I shall have a word or two to say on the subject of naturalization. At this stage I wish to refer to what I regard as an improper omission from the Bill. I regret that the Government does not propose to give to charitable institutions the assistance which they undoubtedly deserve, as suggested by the honorable members for Coolgardie and Fremantle. The hospitals and benevolent asylums, of Victoria at any rate, are not State institutions entirely, and, in most of the States, trie Government contribution is small in relation to the whole expenditure upon the care of the sick, the injured, and the aged.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Under the New South Wales Act pension money was paid to these institutions.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– I think that Ministers, especially in view of the representations which have been made to them, should have proposed a similar arrangement under the Commonwealth law. I handed to the Treasurer a carefully written statement, emanating from the managing body of the Castlemaine Benevolent Asylum, which made some very reasonable proposals in regard to the treatment of those who are compelled to enter such institutions. Old men frequently suffer from ailments which, when living alone, they, are unable to treat. They have, therefore, at intervals, and sometimes for long periods, to seek treatment in charitable institutions. In Victoria the hospitals are not allowed to deal with these cases, so that it is only in benevolent asylums that they can obtain the attention which their condition demands. The Act, however, places them on the same footing as prisoners in gaols, except that upon leaving a hospital a person may receive the pension which has accrued to him for a period not exceeding four weeks.

Mr Roberts:

– Apparently, under section 47, a man could successfully apply for a pension, and enter a charitable institution.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– Section 45 would then apply to him.

Mr Roberts:

– It deals only with asylums for the insane and hospitals.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– I think that the definition of hospitals could be strain :d to make it include benevolent asylums. . Oldage pensioners entering a benevolent asylum find that their pensions cease, and on coming out they can receive not more than four weeks of accrued arrears.

Mr Bowden:

– While they_ are in the asylum the State is paying for their keep.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– These institutions are maintained chiefly by charitable subscriptions, and give charitable relief. We have been extremely careful to differentiate between that and old-age pensions. The Government might have made available part, if not the whole of the, pension, while the pensioner was resident in an asylum or hospital. By not doing so, we will compel those persons to remain outside of such institutions, because they know that inside they will be deprived of many comforts in the way of tobacco and so forth. 1 strongly urge the Government to give further consideration to this matter, with a view to making some provision whereby those who do enter the institutions shall have, at any rate, a portion of the pensions allotted to them.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

.- I should like to impress on the Treasurer and the Attorney-General the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the -first payment of the pensions. It is, I am sure, a. sincere pleasure to every man here to have the privilege of amending this Act, and righting a very grievous injustice - as it must be regarded, although it was committed inadvertently - to very many of our fellow-citizens, in no sense of the word is this a party measure, and we, therefore, may co-operate with great advantage for the purpose of making it perfect. The Bill must become law before any person can take advantage of the proposed amendment, and it will possibly be a fortnight or more before it passes both Houses. In addition, some weeks may elapse before a person otherwise qualified can become naturalized. The Department of External Affairs is admirably conducted, but, like other Departments, it has its little ways. There are by-paths in which naturalization papers get stowed away ; and, as I say, weeks may elapse before they can be dealt with. It is easy for us to understand how to become naturalized, but those concerned are foreigners, and are the very persons who are least acquainted with the necessary forms. The fact that they have not become naturalized is owing, not only to their love of their own countries, but to their ignorance of our forms; and, as the honorable member for Wide Bay pointed out, they ought not to be allowed to suffer on that account. If such persons are entitled to pensions, they ought to have them from the day such a Bill as we are now considering would have become law had there been no change of Government. Never mind whether it was right or otherwise for the Government to be changed, the fact is that, for certain party purposes, there has been a change. If there had been no change - if the Deakin or the Fisher Government, for instance, had not gone out of office, or if there had been no parties at all in the House - the Bill would have become law, and these people would not have been called upon to suffer. Section 38 of the principal Act provides that the date of the commencement of a pension shall not be prior to the date of the claim, and I think that that ought to be repealed or amended on lines I shall suggest.

Mr Glynn:

– The repeal of the provision would do more than the honorable member desires.

Mr HUGHES:

– I have no desire to do more, and I am quite willing to safeguard the amendment ; at any rate, the section should be repealed so far as certain particulars are concerned. The amendment I suggest is to this effect : -

Any persons not qualified to receive a pension under the principal Act, shall, on lodging a claim within thirty days after the passing of this Act, be qualified to receive a pension as from the ist July, 1909, in exactly the’ same way as if, under the principal Act, they had lodged a claim prior to the ist July.

Mr Wilks:

– The honorable member would make the Bill retrospective.

Mr HUGHES:

– Only so far as to enable a person to take advantage of the Bill directly it is passed. Unless a person is naturalized he cannot take advantage of the measure; and in the case of hundreds of persons six weeks or two months may elapse before they can be naturalized.

Sir John Forrest:

– Some are getting naturalized now.

Mr HUGHES:

– Some are, but in my own electorate there are 200 or 300 unnaturalized aliens, who are most estimable citizens, and many of whom were in the habit of voting at State elections under the impression that, as men, they were entitled to do so. In country districts six weeks or two months must elapse before many men can take advantage of the law.

Sir John Forrest:

– They can be naturalized to-morrow, if they desire.

Mr HUGHES:

– Yes, if they are ir> the cities; but, as it happens, many of them are not.

Sir John Forrest:

– They have had twenty years in which to become naturalized.

Mr HUGHES:

– We all agree that they ought to have been naturalized, but, in any case, we are prepared to let that pass and give them a chance. Do we desire them to take advantage of the Bill? If so, we ought to give them every opportunity, and I would penalize no man merely because naturalization is a cumbrous and lengthy process, and he is unfamiliar with our forms. I have had personal experience in this matter, and I know that, with every good will in the world, to get naturalization papers issued in a fortnight is quite quick work. I have seen piles of naturalization papers waiting in the Department, though, of course, I have no doubt such is not the case under the present Government. I suggest to the Minister that the amendment I have drafted, though not necessarily in the same words, should be adopted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I desire once more to point out that this detail work is by no means in place on a second reading. The honorable member is again suggesting an amendment ; and the place in which to refer to amendments, proposed or suggested, is Committee and not at this stage.

Mr Roberts:

– Cannot we outline amendments.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Certainly an honorable member may suggest amendments, but what the honorable member for West Sydney is doing goes far beyond that. The honorable member is not only suggesting ah amendment to meet a certain case, but has one drafted, and was about to read it again. That is not a proper course of conduct on a second-reading debate, but will” be proper in Committee.

Mr HUGHES:

– The point I wish toemphasize is that we ought to enable these people to receive their pensions at the earliest possible moment. There are many points, but I feel that it would be wrong for us to speak as to the full extent we should like to go, because we have no means at our disposal to deal with invalids. No matter how deserving they may be, or how they may have been neglected by’ the States, we cannot provide for them until we can make an equitable arrangement with the States which will permit of the Commonwealth having sufficient revenue for the purpose. Whether the proposals indicated in the paper which we decided to print this afternoon, will enable us to do that, I do not know ; but until arrangements are made to place at the disposal of the Commonwealth a larger revenue, we shall be unable to do justice to a class of persons who, as the honorable member for Coolgardie says, deserve it even more than do the aged poor. There is one other matter that I desire to mention. A ‘few weeks ago, before the Commonwealth ‘took over the old-age pensions system, I was interviewed by a native of this State who is sixty-seven years of age, and entitled to a Dension. He applied for a pension, and his application was granted ; but, owing to his having thoughtlessly inserted in his papers a statement to the effect that he had been working for six months of the year, he was held to be entitled to, I think, only is. per week. Had he not been so neglectful of his interests - had he been loafing for the six months - he would have been entitled to the full pension. That is a glaring anomaly, and, as far as possible, we ought to remedy it. A man who has been industrious is penalized, while the man who does not work reaps a reward for his lack of industry. I cannot conceive of ?ny basis for such a system ; I cannot even conceive of its expediency. I communicated with the Old-age Pensions Department of Victoria, and the officers proved that their decision was right ; but T feel that it is quite wrong to perpetuate such a system. If we desire to save money, we ought to say so; if we have not sufficient money to do justice, we ought not to penalize a man in this way. We might very well make such arrangements as hav« been indicated, in order to do justice to all classes concerned, subject to the means at our disposal. I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Wide Bay, and outlined by me, and also the amendment relating to accumulated wealth and annual earnings. A man ought not to be penalized in respect of income which is the result of personal exertion. If he has received it from an outside source, that is another matter ; but if it is the result of his personal exertion, I cannot conceive of any argument in favour of the perpetuation of such a system.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– I do not think that any large principle is involved in the suggested amendments, and I propose to delay any observations upon them until we get into Committee. I wish, however, to make a very strong protest against what I conceive to have been the most unfair statement made by the Leader of the Opposition : the statement that those who opposed the Surplus Revenue Bill also opposed the principle of old-age pensions.

Mr J H Catts:

– Did the honorable member use the word “ principle”?

Mr REID:

– He did; but I do not think that he could have meant to do so.

Mr Fisher:

– Did I not say that they were defeating the purpose of old-age pensions ?

Mr REID:

– No ; the honorable member used words to the effect that those who opposed the Surplus Revenue 33ill showed that they were opposed to the principle of old-age pensions. It’ is to that statement I object. The justification for any other expression is quite a matter of opinion ; but I must strongly object to such a statement. If honorable members of this House since the first Federal Parliament have been unanimous on any question, they have been unanimous- on that of the payment of old-age pensions.

Mr Fisher:

– Hear, hear !

Mr REID:

– Those who opposed the Surplus Revenue Bill did so because, in their opinion, it transgressed one of the principles of the Constitution. That alone was the ground of their opposition to the Bill. If honorable members of the Labour party believed that we had the constitutional right to pass a Surplus Revenue Bill in order to provide for old-age pensions, how will they answer to the people of Australia for their lethargy during the last six or seven years, when ,£6,000,000 were paid to the States, over and above their three- fourths of Customs and Excise revenue, without any attempt to ear-mark those millions for the benefit of the old people of Australia?

Mr Mahon:

– We were misled by the honorable member and the other lawyers.

Mr Glynn:

– No.

Mr REID:

– Why should the honorable member make such a statement as that? May I remind him that there are some distinguished legal gentlemen in the Labour party. Where is there a man of greater legal experience than the ex- Attorney-General, the honorable member for West Sydney? Then, again, there is the honorable member for Werriwa. I wish to point out, fur- ther, that when the honorable member for Hume, as Treasurer in the Deakin Government, introduced and moved the second reading of the Surplus Revenue Bill, he mentioned the purposes for which the surplus revenue was to be appropriated and held in trust ; but he said nothing about appropriating one penny for old-age pensions. I have here the report of his speech on the motion for the second reading, and find that although he mentioned harbor defences and other public works for which it was proposed to provide in that way, he said nothing of an intention on the part of the Government to devote one penny of the surplus revenue so obtained to an oldage pensions fund. Not one penny was to be so used, unless we are to assume - and we have no right to do so - that the Treasurer had some secret intention of putting aside moneys for that purpose. We are sure that he had no such secret purpose. He would have been delighted to mention it to the House if it had occurred to him then, that the surplus revenue was to be used for such a purpose. I have not read the report of the whole debate on that Bill ; but I shall be glad if any honorable member will draw my attention to one word uttered during the consideration of the Bill by this House, reminding the Treasurer that the surplus revenue should be put to such a purpose.

Mr McDonald:

– The honorable member for Wide Bay mentioned it in his speech.

Mr REID:

-I am coming to the motion in regard to old-age pensions moved by the honorable member for Wide Bay. It may. be that during the debate on the Surplus Revenue Bill, some one mentioned it. If any honorable member did, he deserves credit for it. But either honorable members of the Labour party thought we had the constitutional right to put aside these moneys, or theydid not. If they did not think we had the constitutional right to do it, then they were in the same position as I was, and we are equally to blame for having a wrong opinion. If they did think we had the constitutional right to do it, they slumbered on it, and allowed enormous sums of money to which we were entitled, beyond the three-quarters due to the States, to be handed over to the States, instead of being devoted to the payment of old-age pensions for Australia.

Mr Mahon:

– Only for two years.

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– For the whole time that we had that constitutional right.

Mr Fisher:

– I thought that we had not the power until the five years’ bookkeeping period was over.

Mr REID:

– The honorable member may be perfectly right in that view. I have not considered the matter. On the second reading of the Bill the then Treasurer, the honorable member for Hume, pointed out that we had paid over to the States a sum of £5,728,000 in excess of the amount which we were legally entitled to pay. There seemed to be a general impression, rightly or wrongly, that we could not use the power which was brought to light in connexion with that Bill. If it was an error, it was a general error, or I feel sure that honorable members, who were all desirous of passing that measure, would have taken this step long before. To show that it was an afterthought, the Treasurer never mentioned oldage pensions in moving the second reading of the Surplus Revenue Bill, so that at the time he had no idea of making use of the Surplus Revenue Account for that purpose.

Dr Maloney:

– The honorable member for Darwin asked the question in 1902.

Mr Spence:

– He asked the question of Sir Edmund Barton, and suggested that the surplus revenue should be used for oldage pensions.

Mr REID:

– If the honorable member for Darwin did so, he deserves every credit for having the foresight to address such a question to the Ministry of the day ; but I do not know whether he expressed an opinion on the subject. However, whether he did or not, it was a very good thing, in the light of what we know now, that he did put such a question ; but, as a matter of fact, we have all apparently laboured under a delusion in regard to the matter for a long space of time. In the very session in which the Old-age Pensions Act was passed into law, the honorable member for Wide Bay, who is now leading the Opposition, took advantage of a formal motion to go into Committee of Supply on “ Grievance Day “ to move an amendment on the subject. Hansard of 19th March, 1908, page 9300, shows that the honorable member moved -

That all the words after the word “That” be left out, with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the words -

Then comes a recital of facts regarding oldage pensions, and the words follow - “ this House is of opinion that the passing of a measure to give effect to the expressed will of the people is an urgent public duty.”

The honorable member for Dalley wanted to make it stronger than that.

Mr Fisher:

– Did he?

Mr REID:

– I will read his amendment. The honorable member for Wide Bay said it was an urgent public duty to do this, but the honorable member for Dalley wanted to add these words to the honorable member’s amendment - “ And further, this House is of opinion that the Government should give effect to such expressed will of the people during this session.”

That was surely putting a point upon it. The honorable member for Wide Bay said it was an urgent public duty to do this thing, and the ‘ honorable member for Dalley proposed to add : “Yes, and this session too,” but that amendment was opposed by my honorable friends opposite.

Mr FRAZER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There was a sting in the tail of it. If we had voted for it, we should not have got old-age pensions.

Mr REID:

– I cannot follow the intellectual sinuosities of all my honorable friends opposite. All I know is that the honorable member for Dalley declared in plain English, speaking in March, 1908,” that it ought to be done “this session.” People outside who were hungry and starving for the want of a pension would not have objected to the words being added that it should be done at once. One has to become a member of Parliament to understand that those words cover some miserable point of political strategy. I am very anxious that my honorable friends, now that they have taken the place that I have filled for seven years, should uphold the high traditions that I established. The honorable member for Newcastle proposed to amend the honorable member for Dalley’s amendment by inserting the words “take steps towards giving.” I wish to read this sentence from the speech of the honorable member for Newcastle in support of his amendment, to show what was in his mind in moving it -

Honorable members may say that, but I believe that what I suggest is the only practicable way, and if the honorable member will adopt it he will remove himself from a position in which he is Reading the country to believe that something can be done this session which we cannot possibly accomplish.

Yet, strange to say. the Act was passed in that very session- in June, 1908.

Mr Hughes:

– Does the honorable member say that trie Labour party did not vote for it for that specific purpose?

Mr REID:

– I do not say anything of the sort. How do I know what my honorable friends voted for? All I say is that the honorable member for Dalley moved that the matter should be given effect to “this session,” and that the honorable member for Newcastle, in moving a further amendment, explained that it was impossible to do it “this session.” In spite of the honorable member for Newcastle’s statement, the Bill became law that session.

Mr Thomas:

– And in spite of those who voted against the Surplus Revenue Bill.

Mr REID:

– My only reason for rising was to point out that it is grossly unfair to endeavour to put any honorable member into the position of seeming to oppose oldage pensions because he had an opinion as to the constitutional effect of a certain measure which was of a new character. There is no necessity for those unfounded imputations ; but I have already heard of statements made in different States about honorable members in this House being opposed to old-age pensions. It is a mean way of political fighting to bear false witness in that fashion against honorable members, and I say to those who rely on the principle of the Surplus Revenue Act that the responsibility lies with them,, because if we had the right to pass that measure, it ought to have been exercised some time before.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Surplus Revenue Act had the effect of appropriating very largely for the purpose of old-age pensions money which previously had been given to the States, but which they were not entitled to under what is known as the Braddon section. A number of honorable members thought it desirable to provide for the’ payment of old-age pensions by appropriating the unexpended fourth of the Customs and Excise revenue belonging to the Commonwealth,instead of the money being returned to the States, as had been done previously ; and it was on that point that a division of opinion arose. Whatever might have been in the minds of those who opposed the Surplus Revenue Bill, they did not suggest that the scheme of old-age pensions could be advanced in any other way. In fact, up to that time, the WhOle cry against the provision of old-age pensions was, not that honorable members were opposed to the principle, but that they could not see how the scheme could be financed under the conditions which then obtained. That was the position which was put to the House; but when it was discovered that, in the course of eight years, the Commonwealth had paid back to the” States, ^6,500,000 over and above the three-fourths of the Customs and Excise revenue to which they were constitutionally entitled, it was considered that the time had arrived when the House should take some action with respect to that surplus revenue. The members of the Labour party deemed that the best use to which it could be put was to appropriate it for the purpose of old-age pensions, and also for the purpose of more efficient defence ; hence action was taken to have the Surplus Revenue Bill passed. Those who opposed its passage did so very largely on constitutional grounds. There was a big outcry made in the States against its enactment. The supporters of the measure were charged by the Premier of New South Wales with being “political burglars;” with taking away from the States money to which they were justly entitled. Since then, the States have had the opportunity of appealing to the highest tribunal in the land as to what were, and what were not, their rights. The Federal High Court told the States in no unmistakable language that this Parliament was quite within its rights in appropriating the surplus revenue as it did. It was because we made that appropriation that we were able to place on the statute-book a great humanitarian measure, providing for Commonwealth oldage pensions. I have been reminded that the honorable member for Flinders, who is a very learned authority on these matters, quite agreed with the members of the Labour party as to the legality of the action which was then taken, but opposed the passing of the Bill for other reasons. There is no need to debate that phase of the question now, as it has been settled, and those who were in doubt as to the constitutionality of the appropriation have had their doubts set at rest by an authoritative decision of the High Court.

Mr Hughes:

– The old-age pensions could not have been paid if the Surplus Revenue Bill had not been passed, and they knew that perfectly well.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the Surplus Revenue Bill had not been passed, there could not have been any legislation on old-age pensions to-day. The Parliament would have been in the old position of not being able to finance the scheme. So far as could be ascertained, there was no desire on the part of the States to come to its aid in the direction of dealing with the subject from the Commonwealth rather than from the State stand-point. That is the position which the House has to face on the present occasion. Whatever may have been the opinion of some honorable members with respect to the Surplus ‘Revenue Bill when it was being considered here, the members of the .Labour partywere animated at that time by the desire to give to the Commonwealth the principle of old-age pensions, and they took the course which seemed to them best calculated to secure that object. Our present position demonstrates amply and fully that the course which we then favoured and took was the correct one, and has resulted in giving, to the Commonwealth the system of old-age pensions, which otherwise it could not have had at the present time. The position in which we now find ourselves is rather a strange commentary on some utterances we have read in the press from members of the Ministry during the last two or three weeks. In New South Wales, at every week-end, we were favoured with an interview which set out the position of the Government, and which was far from complimentary to the Labour party.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Is the honorable member discussing . this Bill?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, sir. I want to show the unprepared state in which the Treasurer finds himself to-day, despite the representations made by the Government to the public, through the press, that they were simply awaiting an opportunity to deal with this measure. It was specially mentioned by one Minister as one of the measures which were being held up by the Opposition by the debate on the motion of no-confidence.

Sir John Forrest:

– There has been no delay.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish that the honorable member would tell the Minister of Defence that there was no delay.

Sir John Forrest:

– I mean that there has been no delay to-day.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the Treasurer intends to bring forward his business in the way in which he has submitted this Bill, he will belittle the highest traditions of our parliamentary institutions. He came here to-day and threw upon the table of. the House the manuscript of what purported to be a Bill. The Bill was only placed in our hands, hot from the printing press, after the dinner adjournment, and, of course, after its second reading had been moved. Still, we are told that there was no delay. We were told a little while ago by the Treasurer that it was expected that some other business would have occupied the time of the House, and that that was the reason for his unpreparedness. For three weeks we have been debating a motion of no-confidence.

Mr Webster:

– What other business did he expect to come on ?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is for the right honorable member to say. The business on the notice-paper included the resumption of the debate on the AddressinReply to the Governor-General’s speech, and the debate on the Ministerial Statement. The probabilities are that, despite the representations which the Government have been making through the press that those Orders of the Day ought not to be debated, they expected them to be discussed, and were not ready to proceed with the business which they had in hand. I wonder what position the House would have found itself in if Ministers had not had some inheritance from their predecessors to fall back upon. This Bill was placed on the stocks a month ago by the Labour Ministry, and the idea was that it should be dealt with before the beginning of the present financial year, so that certain persons who will be benefited under its operation might receive that benefit from the date of the proclamation of the principal Act. If the Government had not had this Bill upon which to fall back, it seems to me that they would have been completely stranded this afternoon. I maintain that a measure of its importance ought to have been further advanced than it was. If there were anything in the arguments which have been put forward by the Minister of Defence in Sydney during the past few weeks, the Treasurer ought not to have found himself in the position that he did this afternoon.

Sir John Forrest:

– -There was halfanhour’s delay in supplying honorable members with printed copies of the Bill. That is all.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The circumstance merri y goes to show how hollow were the protestations of the Government that they desired to proceed with public business, and were being delayed by the censure debate. There are two or three points connected with this Bill which, in my judgment, are worthy of consideration. I trust that the Treasurer will give them his attention, so that when we reach Committee we shall not have to fight them as strenuously as we might otherwise have to do. Most of the provisions of the measure are mere machinery proposals, which are designed to overcome the difficulties which have been encountered in the application of the principal Act. But the amendments of sections 16 and 17 of that Act are of farreaching importance. In those sections the questions of naturalization and of a reduction in the residential qualification of aprplicants for old-age pensions are dealt with. In New South Wales particularly there has been a considerable discussion upon the question of naturalization, and a large measure of injustice has been inflicted upon a number of deserving residents by the provisions of the State Oldage Pensions Act which formerly operated. When that measure was under consideration’ in the New South Wales Parliament, I objected to the provision that a person must be naturalized for ten years before he was eligible to receive a pension, and I privately interviewed Sir John See, who was in charge of the Bill upon that subject. But, finding that he and his Government were strongly opposed to any reduction in the residential qualification, I was compelled to allow it to pass, rather than to jeopardize the safety of the measure. In the principal Act that period has been reduced to three years, and the proposal in this Bill is to enable that provision to operate straight away in certain circumstances. It is well known that in New South Wales - particularly in the early days - persons were attracted thither from all parts of the world by mining discoveries. They made their homes there, and contributed largely to the development of the State. But, owing to the fact that legal assistance was required to enable them to take out naturalization papers, a number of these miners were not eligible to receive a pension under the New South Wales law. Quite recently I received communications from some of these individuals - whom I have known from my youth upwards - asking me whether, under this Bill, they would be able to secure pensions. 1 replied that they would have to be naturalized for a period of three years, but that the late Government proposed to remove even that embargo. In some instances I was asked to advise whether applications should be lodged, in anticipation of the Bill becoming law. I told them that I did not think it was necessary to adopt that course, because in this Bill, I assumed, special provision had been made to meet such cases. For that reason I think that provision should be made in this measure to meet the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition in favour of claimants with a twenty years’ qualification being paid from 1st July. I do not foresee the difficulties which the Treasurer apparently foresees in this connexion. An almost analogous piece of legislation was enacted in New South Wales in connexion with the Land Act of 1895. Prior to that time unnaturalized persons could acquire land under the settlement conditions which then obtained. But that Act provided that these special provisions should be limited to British subjects and to those who had become naturalized. To overcome the difficulty which was apparent provision was made that the Land Board might satisfy itself that the claimant had lodged an application for naturalization with the proper authorities. I do not see why the same principle should not apply to these provisions, and if persons who are not naturalized now, but who are qualified by twenty years’ residence in the Commonwealth, make application for naturalization at the same time as they apply for the pensions, I do not see why they should be debarred from participating in the benefits of this legislation. I commend that suggestion to the Treasurer as one which, if adopted, would have the effect of placing a number of very deserving people upon a fair footing.

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

– Would the honorable member desire such a provision to apply from the 1st July?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not see why it should not date from the 1st July. A number of applications for pensions have only been lodged, and are still subject to consideration; and a number of other persons who would have liked to lodge applications were debarred from doing so by reason of the provisions of the Act. When they sought for advice from the administrators of the Act, they were informed that under its terms they were debarred from participation, inasmuch as they had to show three years’ clear natural ization. Only yesterday I answered a letter from a miner whom I know very well, and who has been in this country forty or fifty years. He became naturalized about twelve months ago. He asked me whether he could lodge an application for an oldage pension now. I consulted with the authorities administering the Act, and had to write to tell him that under its provisions he had to be naturalized for a period of three years. But I also informed him that an amending Bill was in contemplation, and that as soon as it was passed, I hoped to be in a position to inform him that he could lodge an application. The Leader of the Labour party, and those who are supporting him, are asking that such men should not be penalized because of the provisions of the principal Act; but that they be allowed to lodge applications for naturalization now, or within twelve months, and then have the right to participate in the old-age pensions legislation from the 1st July last. The same principle applies to the reduction of the term of residence, except that it affects a wider area.

Mr Atkinson:

– Does the honorable member intend that the pension shall be paid from the 1st July, when application is only made for it in August?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am speaking on behalf of those who have been debarred under present legislation from applying on account of failure to naturalize, or because of their age. I contend that those who make application as soon as this Bill becomes law should have the pensions dated from the 1st July. Those who neglect to apply, say for three months, or even for a month, deserve to suffer for their neglect. I do not think that a person who applies in August, September, or October should have the right to have his application dated back. I am appealing on behalf of those who were debarred from applying on the 1st July, on account of the provisions in the principal Act regarding naturalization and the term of residence. As soon as this Bill passes, those people should be allowed to lodge their applications, as they would have done had their cases been provided for in the principal Act; and they should have the benefit of the pensions from the 1st July.

Mr Atkinson:

– Does not the honorable member think that those persons will be lucky in having the bar removed so soon?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is not ari argument against the application of the principle that I am urging. The honorable member may think that these persons are lucky to be able to apply for pensions at all. I was, at the outset, one of those who took part in the movement in favour of granting old-age pensions in the State from which I come. While the principle of this legislation does not meet with much objection now, at that time we were told that we were proposing to pauperize the community. All sorts of objections were raised. Those who had to bear the burden of the struggle know how severe it was, and how very timid leading politicians were about touching the subject at all. After the fight has been won, those who secure the pensions may consider themselves lucky ; but if some members of Parliament had not been progressive and prepared to put up a good fight in favour of social legislation, such enactments would not have been passed.

Mr Atkinson:

– The honorable member’s remarks do not apply to this Parliament.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am glad that they do not. The history of the movement only shows that some leaders of popular thought are very much at sea when they come to deal with wide humanitarian legislation. Those who come after are always ready to tell those who fought for a reform in its initial stages that they would have supported it from the beginning. Two points that were raised by the honorable member for Coolgardie are worthy of consideration. One is as to what are to be the conditions relating to the furnishing of witnesses who will certify to having known the applicant to be a resident of the Commonwealth for the period of twenty years. The second is with respect to the provision requiring that the applicant shall supply a birth certificate, or shall be in a position to prove that his age is what it is certified to be. Under the operation of the New South Wales Act, a great number of very deserving people were shut out from the benefits of the legislation because of their inability to comply with those requirements. Without particularizing, I might refer to one case which recently came under my notice. The applicant was a native of the State of New South Whales, and because in the early dais there was no State registration of births, and the registration records of little country churches were very often destroyed as of little value, this man could not furnish a birth certificate. He could not discover any of the people who were alive -when he was born, some sixty-five years before, and so was unable to supply the evidence which the Old-age Pensions Board required to satisfy them as to his age. He was, on that account, deprived of the benefits of the Act.

Mr Reid:

– There was too much redtape about that.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, altogether too much red-tape. In many cases the members of the Board were perfectly satisfied that the applicants were over the prescribed age, but because they could not produce documentary evidence that they were, they were locked out. Equal difficulty arose in procuring certificates of knowledge that applicants had lived in the State for the prescribed time. As honorable members are aware, miners stay only a few years in one place. They are continually moving about, all over the Commonwealth, and they find it very difficult to discover people whom they knew in the olden days. I have known claimants for these pensions to go to considerable expense, in making inquiries, to secure the evidence of age and identification required. I remember one very hard case which came under my notice in New South Wales. 1 may say that at first the administration of the State Act was very much more liberal than it afterwards became. A few years ago, when there was a call for retrenchment, the records of many persons who were drawing old-age pensions were looked up, and they were asked to furnish evidence of identification. In the case to which I refer, the authorities, on searching the records, decided that the pensioner had been improperly paid his pension for three years, and they asked for a refund of the money paid. The Department contended that he was not the agehe said he was when he made his application. I asked the man about his claim,and he told me that when he came into the State he was seventeen years of age. The authorities claimed that, according to the shipping returns furnished, he was nineteen years of age when he entered the State. I looked through the papers, and found that his age on entering the State was marked in figures, and it was a toss-up whether the figures were seventeen or nineteen - as the last figure might have been a seven or a nine. The Department de- cided that it was a nine, although the man said that he was informed by his parents that when he landed here he was seventeen years of age. and he had been accustomed to reckoning his age on that information. The Department decided that in the circumstances the pension had been paid to him for three years improperly, and they required a refund of the payments. Such strictness in the interpretation of the law should not be permitted to enter into the administration of humanitarian legislation of this kind. The case to which I refer arose out of a cry for retrenchment by a Government that claimed that their predecessors had been extravagant, and I have indicated one of the ways in which they set about retrenchment. In the administration of an Old-age Pensions Act regard should first be had to the need of the applicant for assistance, and, secondly, to a reasonable compliance with the provisions as to age and residence in the State. If there is a reasonable compliance with those provisions, there should not be too much red-tape introduced in requiring a certificate of birth in cases in which it is very often impossible to produce such a certificate, or a sworn declaration of continuous knowledge of an applicant for a period of twenty-five years. I have very much pleasure in complimenting the Government in taking up the good work of their predecessors. I hope that this amending measure will shortly find a place on the statute-book of the Commonwealth, as I am sure it will confer a great deal of benefit on a large number of very deserving people.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

.- The Bill before us is intended to amend the Invalids and Old-age Pensions Act of 1908. I have looked through it, and find that it contains practically two principles. One is in regard to procedure, delegating power to a Deputy Commissioner. No member on either side is in a position to claim credit for this proposal, or to make it the subject of debate for party purposes. Then it is proposed to limit the time for naturalization, and to reduce the residence qualification from twenty-five to twenty years. I take it that the latter proposal is submitted to bring our Old-age Pensions Act into uniformity with the law in Queensland.

Sir John Forrest:

– And in Victoria.

Mr WILKS:

– The residence qualification under the New South Wales Act is twenty-five years, and I have always thought that too long. In discussing the Bill honorable members have made certain suggestions. The honorable member for Coolgardie, with a good deal of warmth, and with what at first blush appeared to be a good deal of force, suggested that section 47 of the existing Act should be amended. It provides that pensions shall not be paid to inmates of charitable institutions and benevolent asylums. It does not at first appear unreasonable to suggest that pensions should be given to inmates of charitable institutions who are otherwise qualified to receive them, but on reflection I think it would be a most dangerous thing for this House to allow. I shall give my reasons for using that language in regard to the suggestion. One of the principal reasons urged for the establishment of oldage pensions was that their payment would enable old people to avoid the barrack system in force in asylums and similar charitable institutions. In the early days of the advocacy of oldage pensions it was urged, with much force, that it was cruel and inhuman that our unfortunate old people should be placed in asylums, like so many cattle. It was contended that the barrack system should notbe permitted to continue. In many asylums husband and wife are separated, and it was urged that the payment of old-age pensions would enable old people to avoid the barrack system, and to live in a civilized manner. It was contended, also, that the upkeep of these benevolent asylums represented a great charge on the various States. The honorable member for Coolgardiehas failed to recognise that, unfortunately, the greater portion of the funds contributed by the charitable public for the building and maintenance of these benevolent asylums is used for the payment of officers’ fees. In many cases the unfortunate inmates have to accept a reduced dietary scale, to meet the expenditure in wages paid to officials. That is what happens when charity is not properly regulated. The public subscribe money for the benefit of those in benevolent institutions, but the funds thus provided are spent mostly on official administration. It seems to me that we might well say that the pensioners, male and female, may live where they like. I would not restrict their freedom in this respect, but I certainly would not hand over pension money to those controlling charitable institutions. I say that if pensioners like to live within the walls of charitable institutions, they should be paid their pensions just as if they were living outside. It is no concern of ours where they live, or what they do with their money. I cannot understand the Labour- party saying, “We are the authors of old-age pensions legislation. Other honorable members have had nothing to do with it.” Surely they are not going to make capital out of the destitution of their fellow beings.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A good many in the State Parliament were opposed to oldage pensions.

Mr WILKS:

– I cannot be twitted with having opposed old-age pensions, in either this or the State Parliament. I did what I could to forward the cause long before it was a popular one. But I take no credit for that. An objection to the Bill is that, like the Act, it is improperly branded. It is called the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill, although the provisions relating to invalids are not to come into force until a proclamation has been issued. If the Labour party wishes to do what is right, it should see that its legislation is correctly branded. There are many in this community who, by reason of accident or birth, suffer infirmities, such as blindness, which entitle them to public assistance, irrespective of their age. But it is a mockery to call these measures, which give them no assistance at all, “Invalid Pensions”, legislation.

Mr J H Catts:

– I intend to move an amendment which will have the effect of repealing the section of the Act which prevents the payment of invalid pensions until a proclamation has issued.

Mr WILKS:

– I am glad to hear that. The honorable member proposes a straightforward course. It does not do to start with a falsehood in these matters. It is cruel to allow our invalids to believe that there is legislation in force which will give them relief when, in fact, no provision is made for assisting them.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is the lack of funds which has prevented that.

Mr WILKS:

– Fur many years I have held the opinion that our Government should be paternal in character. We must make provision to assist the unfortunates to whom I refer. Those who are better circumstanced, and able to bear the burdens of taxation, must provide relief for the maimed and blind. It is a crying shame and a doleful spectacle, to see the blind begging for alms in our big cities.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Some of these persons are even more needy than the aged.

Mr WILKS:

– That is so. It has been said that those who voted against the Surplus Revenue Bill were opposed to the payment of old-age pensions.. I supported and voted for the measure, because I have always been ready to do what I could to make provision for the payment of pensions. But the Labour party must admit that it might have discovered eighteen months earlier how to make this provision. The States have done very well out of the Commonwealth, but it was only during the operation of the bookkeeping section of the Constitution that we were compelled to return all surplus, in addition to the threefourths of the Customs and Excise revenue, and I am sorry that since then the surplus has not been ear-marked. If it had been, there now would be ^6,000,000 to the credit of the Commonwealth, a sum which would cover two-thirds of the value of the transferred properties.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Should not that fact be used as an argument for opposing the claims of the State Premiers ?

Mr WILKS:

– I am referring to the matter to show that the State Premiers have very little ground for asking the Commonwealth for better treatment.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Should they not be generous, and provide for invalid pensions ?

Mr WILKS:

– We ask them- to be, not generous, but just.. The Commonwealth should not do anything by the grace of Gregory Wade, john Murray, or any other State Premier.

Mr Atkinson:

– But I presume that the Constitution must be fairly construed.

Mr WILKS:

– The right honorable member for East Sydney referred to a motion moved by the Leader of the Labour party, who has since been Prime Minister, and is now leading the Opposition. The honorable member submitted a motion on “ Grievance Day,” and, as already said, I moved an amendment to that motion. It was suggested that there was a sting in the amendment, but, so far as I am personally concerned, it was moved without collusion with any honorable member. I suggested to the honorable member for Parramatta, when he was combating the state- ment made by the honorable member for Wide Bay, that he ought to submit a motion himself to effect the purpose, my only desire being to see it accomplished. In proof I should like to quote the following from page 9304 of Hansard of 19th March, 1908 : -

Mr FISHER:

– The finding of the means necessary to give effect to the verdict of the country is a duty devolving upon those who administer its affairs. The electors do not care whether the Braddon provision makes the thing difficult. They mean what they say. The resources of the Commonwealth are within the control of the Parliament for providing the funds necessary to pay old-age pensions throughout Australia.

Mr Wilks:

– The honorable member proposes that the House shall give the country a mandate.

Mr FISHER:

– My motion is clear and distinct. I say that the matter is now urgent. Mr. Wilks. - That is a mandate.

It was the opinion contained in that last interjection which caused me to move an amendment in order to clinch the matter. The honorable member for Wide Bay was submitting a motion as a mandate to the Government, asserting that old-age pensions were within the Constitution, he not caring for any financial difficulty ; and I simply moved the amendment. But the Labour party, apparently, consider the exigencies of party government of superior concern; and I am pleased to say that, although they opposed my amendment, the Bill itself was carried that, session. I have no desire to dwell on the matter, but merely to place the facts on record. I have heard honorable members opposite take credit for this legislation ; but surely there is not a single honorable member who would not take a generous view in regard to the treatment of the aged poor. Surely no man is so bereft of political capital that he has to fall back on questions such as this ! I am pleased that the Government have introduced an amending Bill ; and I desire to say here that, if the Labour party are so very concerned as to the aged and infirm, I cannot understand how a Labour Ministry could allow such regulations as were issued under the principal Act. These regulations emanated not from a Conservative Ministry, but from a Labour Ministry ; and how a Labour Minister of Home Affairs could allow such a proclamation to go broadcast

Mr Batchelor:

– This had nothing to do with the Minister of Home Affairs.

Mr WILKS:

– Then, df it were the Labour Treasurer it makes the matter all the worse. I admit th!at some of the questions are essential, but others are beyond the capacity of the average unfortunate to answer. For . instance, there is the question as to where a claimant’s children are or what has become of them. Men of the world know that the average unfortunate is one whose home ties and home circle have been broken up for years, and that such a question is in most cases impossible to answer.

Mr J H Catts:

– Were not some of the regulations prescribed by the Act?

Mr WILKS:

– Some were not. As I have already said I have no wish to dwell on the matter, beyond saying that if the Opposition desire to do a good act on behalf of the unfortunates of Australia they will seek to simplify these regulations. The minds of those who have struggled and have not been treated too well by the world, are not very keen or alert; and it is certain that they would find it absolutely impossible to answer nine-tenths of . the questions. In some cases it would be. most painful to applicants to seek outside assistance in such a matter; and on the ground of humanity their personal feelings ought to be considered. The whole object of the regulations should be to prevent collusion or fraud, and they ought to be simplified. If these regulations had been issued by the present Prime Minister or the Treasurer there would have been an outcry on platforms throughout Australia about the Conservative class putting indignities and burdens on the unfortunate poor. It may be, perhaps, that the exPrime Minister was busy, and allowed the regulations to go through because it would be hard to believe that, if he had given any attention to them, they would have been issued. This is a simple measure of procedure - I am thoroughly in accord with it; and if the principal Act can be amended on more liberal lines no one will be more anxious than myself for the early proclamation of the coming into operation of the sections dealing with invalid pensions.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I am glad of the opportunity to make an effort to liberalize the Invalid and Oldage Pensions Act. When the honorable member for Dalley referred to the scope of the Bill as not being very wide, I said that I would submit an amendment which would have the effect of bringing the invalid sections of the principal Act into operation at once; and I may say that I tabled that amendment before the honorable member rose to speak, so that he will have an opportunity, of voting on that and other points. The right honorable member for East Sydney sought to fasten some blame on the Leader of the Labour party, because the idea of a Surplus Revenue Bill had not suggested itself to him sooner, but, as I interjected, the right honorable member might as well throw blame on George Stephenson for not having invented the locomotive before he did. I wish now to refer to the point which has been raised as to whether or not those who voted against tlie Surplus Revenue Bill believed that, in doing so, they were voting against old-age pensions. I find that the honorable member for Flinders, a very eminent lawyer, in the course of the debate on the motion for the second reading of that measure, said that, in his opinion, it was entirely within the limits of the Constitution. According to Hansard, page 9865, on the 31st March, 1908, he said -

If I believed, as does the right honorable member for Swan, that in passing this Bill we should transgress our constitutional powers, or that we should be attempting, by means of an Act of Parliament, to place upon the Constitution’ an interpretation that we have power to do something that we could not possibly do, I should feel as indignant as he apparently does. But I do not regard this proposal in that light. Subject to one important consideration, to which I. shall refer in a moment, I think that this is a. very reasonable business-like proposition to make, and that it does not impinge upon the rights .of the States.

The whole tenor of his address was to the effect that in his opinion the Bill was quite within the Constitution. Whilst he was strongly of that opinion, he voted against the Bill, although honorable members generally knew that one of its purposes was to provide for old-age pensions. ;Mr. Reid.- No. Such a purpose was never mentioned by the Minister in his second-reading speech.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The right honorable member .knows that the honorable member for Hume, who introduced the Bill, is not the most fluent of speakers, and does not always put his case as well as it might be put. But it was mentioned by the Leader of the Labour party when he rose in this House that that was one of the objects of the Bill. As to the measure now before us, I may say at once that I shall support those provisions which will tend to liberalize the principal Act, and that I shall endeavour to extend them. On the other hand, I shall vote against some of its provisions, which would, in my opinion, contract the few liberal sections of the principal Act. I agree with those who say that naturalized citizens who become entitled to pensions should receive them as from 1 st July, and that the same treatment should be extended to those who come within the twenty years’ residence clause. The pertinent objection has been raised that such persons might not apply for six months or twelve months after the passing of the Act, and that under such proposed amendment, their pensions would date back to 1st July. My contention, however, is that a three months’ limit might well be fixed. One month’s notice is far too short. Australia is so large a territory that more than a month’s notice is necessary to enable residents of all parts of the continent to become acquainted with these provisions, and three months is the shortest possible notice that we could fairly give. Those who apply for pensions within three months from the date of the passing of this Act should have their pensions ante-dated to 1st July. The honorable member for West Sydney referred to a grievance for which we might well provide a remedy. He pointed out that a person who had been working for six months preceding his application would have his’ pension so reduced that for the rest of the year he would be entitled to only about one shilling per week. The Old-age Pensions Act is designed to meet the immediate needs of those who apply for pensions, but if it is declared that those who have been earning something during the six months prior to their application shall have a corresponding reduction made in their pensions for the rest of the year, we shall not carry out the spirit of the Act. I should also like to see the age at which a person may receive an old-age pension reduced to sixty years. The ‘Commonwealth Public Service Act provides for the retirement of public servants at from sixty to sixty-five years of age, and it is well known that those who have been engaged in the most laborious work, and have been in receipt of the lowest rates of wages, are more likely to be retired at sixty years of age than at sixty-five. If men who have been receiving the lowest rates of wages are retired at the age of sixty years, they will be left practically destitute for five years. And so with some of the State public servants. I have in mind more particularly the employes of the Railway and Tramway Department of New South Wales. Under the State Railways Act, ‘ the employes have to retire on reaching the age of sixty years, and I know of numerous cases in which the lower paid men, who are compelled to retire at that age, would be practically destitute for the five years during which they would have to wait for Commonwealth old-age pensions. Oh their retirement from the service ‘they are too old to turn their attention to other avenues of employment, and they would not be retired if they were able to follow’ their usual avocations. In the circumstances, therefore, I think that the Act should operate so automatically as to apply to persons of sixty years of age who are not able to earn a livelihood. I am also of opinion that a person who is incapacitated from earning a livelihood should become entitled to a pension on reaching the age of fifty-five years. I have ‘ given notice of amendments covering these points. I have also given notice of my intention to move an amendment which will provide for the immediate payment of invalid pensions. The Government might well show its adherence to progressive principles by agreeing to so reasonable an amendment. Another point that I wish to bring before honorable members is that the proofs that applicants for pensions have to present in support of their claims should be less stringent than they are. An applicant should not be compelled to present declarations by persons who have known him personally for twenty years. It should be sufficient to provide that an applicant shall prove to the reasonable satisfaction of a common-sense individual that he has been resident in Australia for the specified time, and that he is of the age at which he is entitled to draw a pension. I am in perfect agreement with the honorable member for Dalley regarding the payment of old-age pensions to charitable institutions and asylums. It would not be wise to enable them to collect the money due to old-age pensioners. If the pensioner likes to board and lodge at any particular place, that is his business; but the pension should be payable to him direct, and not to institutions on his behalf. Consequently, if an amendment is proposed which raises that point, unless something very strong can be adduced in its- support, I shall feel compelled to vote in the direction I have indicated. I quite agree as to the necessity of liberalizing the forms of application and the questions submitted to the applicants. I raised that point in the party to which I belong, and asked why regulations so stringent, and questions apparently so needlessly searching, were framed. I was told that the Act prescribed that certain regulations shall come into force, and necessitated certain questions being asked, and that the framers of the regulations were powerless, in face of the provisions of the Act. I hope we shall be allowed a little time after the second reading is carried to consider the regulations and the questions thereunder, with a view, if necessary, to so amend the’ principal Act that the questions can be simplified, and the regulations made much easier to work, and to enable applicants to prove their claims. We have an opportunity, now that this Bill is before the House, of considerably liberalizing the principal Act, and showing not only Australia, but all the world, that the Commonwealth Parliament is prepared to deal fairly with its old people, and to carry out the Scriptural idea by indicating, at least as regards our aged citizens, that every man in Australia is his brother’s keeper.

Mr SPENCE:
Darling

.- If is pretty clearly understood in the House, and I hope will be understood by the country generally, that if there is any blame for delay in dealing with’ the old people’, and granting them pensions, it is due to the influence of the State Rights idea; because, very early iti the history of the Commonwealth, as Hansard records, the honorable member for Darwin asked Sir Edmund Barton if he could not use the surplus revenue, which was then being largely given to the States, for paying old-age pensions. The reply was that the Government could not do so, and that the money had to be paid over to the States. Honorable members will remember the great care that was taken by the then -Treasurer, Sir George Turner, to consider the interests of the States, so that the State Rights’ idea is the cause of the delay in paying old-age pensions. The point I desire to bring under the notice of the Treasurer has’ been already mentioned ; but I wish him to look into the point whether the principal Act makes- ‘it’ mandatory that the particular questions asked, arid the line of examination ‘adopted; should be as set forth in the regulations, or if it is within the power of the Minister to alter the regulations, and how far they can be altered to meet the circumstances which I intend to mention. There is a. big difference between those who will be- claimants under the Commonwealth Act . and those dealt with under the State Acts. Under the Victorian State Act, an applicant had to be resident for twenty years, and under the New South Wales Act for twenty-five years, within the borders of the particular State, and that very limitation made it easier to get the necessary evidence to prove residence within a State than it can be in the case of those who have been shut out of the provisions of the State Acts by having resided in more than one State. This is the stage at which to call . attention to these facts. A very large number of those with whom I have been connected for many years - men who are generally called bushmen - not only travel very much, but have resided but a short time in any one place. Think of the trouble that they would have in getting any evidence at all.

Mr McDonald:

– The same thing applies to miners.

Mr SPENCE:

– It applies particularly to miners, and even more to those connected with the pastoral industry. Many of the latter are frequently known by different names. That is not anything to be ashamed of, for sometimes, in connexion with the pastoral industry, a man has secured what is called a stand, and perhaps his mate or some one else that he knows goes and takes his place, with the consent of the employer. Sometimes the name is changed; but at other times it may not be. Men are often known only by nicknames. Some men have names tacked on to them, and do not take the trouble to tell anybody their real names ; and in another place the may have other nicknames. The whole question of dealing with those w’ho are now coming under the Old-age Pensions Act is surrounded with difficulties; and I am afraid that officers who have only had experience of a State law have, when drafting the regulations and questions, overlooked the difficulties associated with the administration of Commonwealth pensions. Another difficulty is that of proof of age. I know df a good many cases where there is great difficulty in getting sufficient evidence in connexion with the State pensions. There was no registration at all in New South Wales until it obtained responsible govern ment, and even since registration was established, the births of an immense number of children have never been registered. If the Ministry intend to adhere strictly to the forms that are to be filled in, they will debar many of those for whom the Act was intended from securing that to which they are entitled, and through no fault of their own. They are asked to produce that which it is impossible to get, because it does not exist - the register of their birth. These points should be looked into.

Sir John Forrest:

– We have been looking into them all along.

Mr SPENCE:

– They should be looked into now, so that any amendment’. which are necessary in the principal Act may be drafted ‘*and proposed before this Bill goes through Committee. I make this appeal on behalf of the pioneers, who really deserve pensions more than do any other class in the Commonwealth, because they have done a great deal of rough pioneering work. Many of them, for instance, have opened mining fields. All these men, have, by the very nature of their occupation, been confronted with difficulties which render it practically impossible for them to comply with the regula-_ tions under the Act. It should not be very ‘ difficult, however, to make it possible for magistrates to receive reasonable evidence as to the age of a claimant. I suggest that a very wide latitude should be allowed to the magistrates, so that in dealing with evidence they may be guided by a sense of equity, and not by any technicality. I feel sure that whatever Government may be in power, it will administer the law, not with a view to trying to read seven into nine, as indicated by the case referred to by the honorable member for Calare, but rather with a view to give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant, and to say that the seven is nine, so long as the friend concerned has sworn that, to the best of his knowledge, the claimant is of the prescribed age. In a great many cases, the sworn declaration of a person as to his age is accepted as sufficient evidence. When a claimant under this law submits evidence that he is a respectable person of the prescribed age, it should be received. It will be somewhat rare, I think, to find a case where two friends can honestly certify that they have known the claimant for twenty years, simply owing to the fact that he may have resided for a few years in one State, and the rest of the time in other parts of the

Commonwealth. How can any two friends of a man, unless they take his word, say whether or not he has been in the Commonwealth for the whole period of twenty years ? If a magistrate has to depend upon the filling up of two forms by two friends, a claimant will not be able to find any two friends who could honestly discharge that duty. In the desire to help some person who they, feel was deserving of an old-age pension, friends might be tempted to say that they had known him for twenty years, and, therefore, the document would not be so valuable as it ought to be. I ask the Treasurer to see that there is sufficient elasticity in the law to enable the officers to draft regulations which will meet such cases as I have been referring to. Otherwise, I am satisfied that only a very small percentage of the deserving nomadic class will be able to comply with the conditions. Surely the right honorable gentleman must realize that otherwise claimants will not be able to adduce the necessary evidence. We have not yet had sufficient experience of cases before magistrates to realize the difficulties which many claimants will have to surmount. I feel certain that, so far, not more than a small number of such cases as I have been dealing with have occurred.

Sir John Forrest:

– The Act has been in force in Queensland and New South Wales.

Mr McDonald:

– But the claimants have not had to answer these questions.

Mr SPENCE:

– The position of a claimant under a State Act is utterly different from what it will be under the Federal law. Surely the Treasurer can understand that under a State Act a claimant has only to prove that he has resided within its boundaries for twenty years. In Victoria a man has no difficulty in proving that he has been a resident for that period, because he has never at any time been far removed from some friends. .

Sir John Forrest:

– That is all we ask him to do.

Mr SPENCE:

– Surely the right honorable gentleman knows the provisions of the Federal law better than his remark implies. The object of that Bill is to meet the cases of men who have resided in the Commonwealth for twenty years. Take the case of a man who has lived for different periods in various States. No two friends of that person can honestly say that they have known where he has lived during the whole of that period. One man may know that he lived for a certain period in Victoria, and another that he resided for a time in New South Wales.

Sir John Forrest:

– We cannot take a man’s word off-hand. His claim must be investigated.

Mr SPENCE:

– I am sure that the Treasurer’s officers will tell him that in very many cases no two friends of a claimant can swear to the fact that he has resided in the Commonwealth for twenty years, simply because they have not been following his movements during that period. Suppose, for instance, that one friend has been domiciled in Victoria, and that the claimant has been travelling all over Australia during twenty years. How can he honestly swear that the claimant has resided within the limits of the Commonwealth for that period ? It is absolutely ridiculous to require a declaration of that kind.

Sir John Forrest:

– What does the honorable member propose, then ?

Mr SPENCE:

– I suggest that considerable latitude should be allowed to the magistrate in taking evidence, apart from the documents which are submitted.’

Sir John Forrest:

– So there is, and an appeal from a magistrate is allowed, too.

Mr SPENCE:

– But the law requires a magistrate to have certain documents before he can deal with the claim.

Sir John Forrest:

– They can find out the name of the ship in which the applicant arrived, and that will give a clue.

Mr SPENCE:

– There are difficulties as to the time when a claimant arrived in the Commonweath .

Sir John Forrest:

– All these things will be considered. From the honorable member’s remarks, any one might think that we had not looked into the Act or the regulations.

Mr SPENCE:

– I do not wish to say anything unkind, but, to judge from his second-reading speech and subsequent remarks, I doubt whether the honorable gentleman has ever read the Act. I assume that the spirit of the administration is favorable to the deserving cases, and that the only desire is to shut out .undeserving cases.

Sir John Forrest:

– We understand that, too, and that is what we are doing.

Mr SPENCE:

– I ask the right honorable gentleman to draft any amendments which may be required to meet such cases as I have represented. I might cite the case of a lady who was born in Australia seventy-five years ago. I had known her for forty years, and, therefore, I was able to fill up the form, but .cases of that kind are very rare. This Bill deals mainly with nomadic persons. All persons who have been claimants under a State Act are transferred, and the evidence given to the State authorities will be accepted by the Commonwealth, officers. It is the cases of those who are not qualified by residence in one State for twenty years which we have particularly to consider. I do not know what instructions have been given to the magistrates who will be charged with the administration of this Act. If they are to be allowed a reasonable degree of latitude the difficulty which I have mentioned may be met. I think that the Treasurer might well agree to adopt the suggestion of the honorable member for Wide Bay by permitting persons with a twenty years’ residential qualification, . but who may not yet have registered their claims, receiving the advantages of the old-age pensions as from the ist July. The alteration would not involve a large sum, and it would constitute a graceful act on the part of the Commonwealth.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

– :My view is that the Invalid and Old Age Pensions Act, which we passed last year with the extensions which are proposed in this Bill, will by no means represent the last word that is to be said upon this question. Personally, I am in favour of universal old-age pensions, and believe that until we get them we shall not meet the real necessities of the case, nor deal out even-handed justice.

Mr Henry Willis:

– The method which we are now adopting is merely a pauperizing one.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I do not believe in the pauperizing conditions which are imposed under the principal Act, and I am prepared to vote the necessary funds to permit of the payment of universal oldage pensions.

Mr Page:

– What is the objection to making the age of sixty-five years the only qualification ?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– That. is my own view. That being so, I’ shall vote for every liberalising amendment which may be submitted. There is one point to which I wish to direct special attention, namely, the desirableness of including residents of Papua within the scope of the Bill. I ask the Treasurer to look into this question be* fore the House meets to-morrow, with a view to seeing whether he cannot support an amendment which I desire to effect. in> the interpretation section of the principal Act. When I was recently in Papua this matter was brought under my notice by a deputation, and also by the Governor, whoexpressed the hope” that when the principalAct was amended the disability to which I have referred would be removed. As honorable members are aware, Papua is a Territory of the Commonwealth. Practically alf its white residents are Australians, and irc the natural order of things most of them will return to their homes before very longIt would be a distinct injustice to exclude 0them from participating in the benefits conferred by this Bill, seeing that they are assisting in the development of one of our own territories. All our public offices there are filled by Australians. . We invite applications for positions In the Possession, and as we appoint public officers from the Commonwealth to administer its affairs, it is obviously unjust to debar them from becoming eligible to receive old-age pensions. Whilst I was in the Possession I promised to move in this matter. I have no doubt that the Government will agree to my suggestion. I shall also endeavour to remove from the principal Act one of its worst blots - I refer to the provision which excludes Asiatics from becoming recipients of old-age pensions merely because they are Asiatics. If we admit them to full citizenship we are doing an absolutely contemptible thing by excluding them from the right to obtain a pension merely because they are Asiatics. I hope that in Committee the principal Act will be so amended as to remove this blot.

Debate (on motion by Dr. Maloney) adjourned.

page 1358

NORFOLK ISLAND BILL

Motion (by Mr. Groom) agreed to - That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to provide for the acceptance of Norfolk Island as a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth and for the Government thereof.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 1358

TELEGRAPH BILL.-

Motion (by Sir John Quick) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to telegraphic communication ia time of emergency.

page 1359

COINAGE BILL

Motion (by Sir John Forrest) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to currency, coinage, and legal tender.

page 1359

HIGH COMMISSIONER BILL

Motion (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to provide for the office of High Commissioner of the Commonwealth in the United Kingdom.

page 1359

AUDIT BILL

Motion (by Sir John Forrest) agreed, to-

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Audit Acts 1901-1906.

page 1359

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE BILL

Motion (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the Australian Bureau of Agriculture.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 1359

NORTHERN TERRITORY BILL

Bill presented by Mr. Groom, and read a first time.

page 1359

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Mr DEAKIN:
Prime Minister · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I move -

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

I have asked the honorable member for Melbourne, and he has agreed not to proceed with the business that he has on the paper for Thursday next, in order to allow us to proceed with Government business this week.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There are two other honorable members who have private business on the paper.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Very well, I shall not press for the exclusion of Thursday next from the terms of the motion.

Mr Fisher:

– I make no objection personally, if the honorable gentleman can arrange with the other two honorable members concerned, to Government business occupying the whole of Thursday next.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I submit the motion in the ordinary way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1359

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) agreed to -

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

On one Thursday -

Notices of Motion

Orders of the Day.

On the alternate Thursday -

Orders of the Day.

Notices of Motion

page 1359

ADJOURNMENT

Ministerial Courtesies : Late Sittings : Suppers and Cabs - Proposed New Coinage - Military Disorganization

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– I desire to call the attention of the House to one of the most disgraceful articles that I have ever seen in agreat daily newspaper. I refer to an article appearing in the Age of yesterday in regard to the affairs of the House.

Mr Batchelor:

– The thing is beneath notice.

Mr HUTCHISON:

-I should not have referred to it were the facts of the case properly represented. Amongst other things the article says : -

Apropos of nothing in particular, the Leader of the Opposition blazed up into a sudden fit of wrath, accusing the Government of throwing aside all the decencies and courtesies of life.

That is not so. Honorable members will recollect that the reason why the Leader of the Opposition was indignant in his reply on Friday was on account of an extraordinary statement made by the Prime Minister in regard to the division that had just taken place. The article goes on to say that the honorable member for Maranoa stated that

There had grown up a custom of providing, on nights of late sittings, a free supper for Government supporters and a free cab to take them home. The Labour party, as a section of the Ministerial following, had always enjoyed these little perquisites.

That is not so.

Mr Kelly:

– From what paper is the honorable member quoting?

Mr HUTCHISON:

– From the Age of yesterday.

Mr Kelly:

– Where is it published?

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I desire to say that all sections of the House have enjoyed similar courtesies on other occasions at the hands of other Governments.

Mr Batchelor:

– And in other Parliaments.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– The same courtesies and hospitalities were extended by the Fisher Government, and were accepted by every section of this House. That remark applies not only to late sittings. I have the bills showing that honorable members accepted the hospitality of the Fisher Government just as members of the Fisher Ministry and their friends accepted hospitalities from previous Governments, not only on the occasion of late sittings, and not only in the form of cabs being provided - properly so - for conveying honorable members home when the House sat late,- but also on the occasion of the prorogation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I feel some difficulty about permitting the honorable member to continue his remarks until I know whether he is making a personal explanation or not. Standing order 268 reads -

No member shall read from a printed newspaper or book, the report of any speech made in Parliament during the same session.

Of course, we always waive that limitation when personal explanations are being made. I could not prevent the honorable member from making a personal explanation. If he assures me that he is making a personal explanation, he may continue: but, if not under the standing order I have quoted, I could not permit such extracts as I have referred to to be read.

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I desire to make a personal explanation. The article from which I was quoting coes on to say -

On two or three nights during the recent debate some of the Labour speakers purposely delayed the sittings past midnight so as to compel Ministerialists to miss their trains.

Mr Batchelor:

– That is a deliberate lie.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– As the honorable member for Boothby remarks, that is a deliberate lie. To begin with, there were no debates continued until after midnight, and no honorable member on this side continued a debate in order that honorable members should miss their trains. The article further says -

On the two or three nights of late sitting, when it wreaked its vengeance on Government supporters by compelling them to miss their trams and trains Government supporters were, as usual, indulged in free suppers and cabs at the private expense of Ministers, but, of course, the Labour members were omitted from these trifling luxuries. They were in another camp, and by all the laws of war and even decency thrown upon their own resources.

I am glad to say that that kind of thing has never been recognised in this House, whatever may have been our political differences. I for one would not care to remain in public life for one week if we were not able to extend ordinary social courtesies to each other. The article continues -

Even Scrooge, though “ hard and sharp as flint,” would not have expected the man with whom he was at open war to ask him to supper and pay for his cab home. That was reserved on Friday last for the Australian Federal Labour party.

That was not so. I have described the position as it always existed. The article continues -

It has proclaimed aloud to the world that it is willing to feed at the expense of its foes; accept graceful courtesies from people whom it reviles as beneath contempt -

The only other extract I shall make is this -

The Prime Minister said that the Government took the entire responsibility of the course followed, as the Labour party had gone out of its way to declare all withdrawals of ordinary courtesies from Ministers, and had therefore, it was to be presumed, placed itself beyond the acceptance of hospitality.

I want to say that this is not so. The Government will admit that honorable members on this side of the House granted pairs for the last division taken. There was no caucus resolution in regard to pairs at all. The granting of pairs rests entirely, as it always has done, with honorable members themselves.

Sir John Quick:

– Is that so now?

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Yes; and if it were not so, 1 should not say that it was.

Sir John Quick:

– I was refused a pair by an honorable member who sits on the front Opposition bench.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– That is quite another thing. To show how courteous honorable members on this side have been, let me say that when the Supply Bill was being1, discussed at the request of the Leader of the Opposition, and because an arrangement had been made and agreed to between the leaders on either side to allow the Government to have a vote on a particular night, I resumed my seat without completing my remarks. What was the result of that courtesy ? We immediately found the honorable members for Wentworth and Fremantle, and even the Prime Minister himself, getting up and delaying business after that courtesy had been extended from this side. But that did not end our courtesy. In the middle of my utterances on the want of confidence motion, and at the desire of the Government, I was requested to ask leave to continue my remarks, and I did so. If any of the statements which I have quoted from the Age article were true, these things would not have taken place. I think that it is only due to the members of this House to show the country the disgraceful tactics that are being adopted by the press to misrepresent honorable members on this side.

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– I wish to ask the Treasurer if he proposes to order the new coinage from England before the proposed Bill dealing with coinage is passed by this House? If so, I intend to take every opportunity to protest against what I understand is to be done. I was told by the Treasurer to-day that on the new coinage there is to be a representation of the King’s head with the words “ King and Emperor.”’ This is a matter to which I referred before in this House, on the first day on which the Federal Parliament met. On the 21st May, 1901, I made reference to the wrongful use of the word “ Emperor,” by whoever prepared a certain document for the King to send here. Amongst other things, I said -

The records of the English House of Commons will show that when the Royal Titles Bill was passed Mr. John Bright and Mr. Lowe, who was afterwards Lard Sherbrooke, strongly protested against the use of this word Emperor in regard to India. It was pointed out by Mr. Bright that in the course of time the title of Emperor would be used, not only in regard to India, but would also be extended to Canada and other parts of the Empire until it came home to England. It was only after repeated assurances, to which I can refer’ honorable members if desired, given by the Government of the day that that word should never be used in any community outside of India, and should be used in regard to India, and India only, that the word Emperor was allowed to remain in the Bill.

The new coinage proposed is intended to circulate only in Australia. If it were proposed that it should be an Empire coinage, or that it should circulate in India, where the title Emperor might properly appear on coinage, there would be something in the proposal. We know the title of “ King,” and we know that it has a constitutional meaning which has been the growth of cen turies. It is the only title used in the Commonwealth Constitution, and the useof the title “ Emperor “ may impose to the extent that that title exceeds the title of “King,” some autocratic power differing from that of the constitutional Sovereign we know, and whose position is recognised and understood. If on the new coinage to be cir culated in Australia, the word “Emperor” appears, it may be assumed to involve all sorts of things in the way of the power of autocracy in excess of the power of a constitutional King. I protest against what is proposed to be done ; andI wish now to give notice that should the Coinage Bill make provision lor whatI understand is proposed, so far as I can influence any votes in this House, I shall endeavour to have a clause inserted in the Bill which will provide that the word” Emperor “ shall not appear on the coinage.

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

– What is the honorable member’s objection?

Mr CROUCH:

– That the proposed new coinage, which is to be circulated only in Australia, should bear a representation of the King’s head, and underneath the words “ King and Emperor.” Such athing would not be allowed in England or in Canada.

Sir John Forrest:

– I think the words are to be on the same side of the coin as the King’s head.

Mr CROUCH:

– What does that matter. Is the King Emperor of Australia ? And, if so, what is meant by that title?

Mr J H Catts:

– Is this a recommendation from England?

Mr CROUCH:

– I do not know where it comes from ; but it is a very bad recommendation.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– I - It is a violation of the essence of Democracy.

Mr CROUCH:

– I do not accept that interjection ; but I hold that is bringing into the Constitution an unknown force and power. The King I am loyal to. The “ Emperor “ is an Asiatic assumption. The matter is one in connexion with which I think a protest should be made, just as I made a similar protest on the firstlay on which the Federal Parliament met against any attempt to use this title to describe the Sovereign of a constitutional people.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Before the Prime Minister replies, I should like to ask whether he has noticed an article in this evening’s Herald headed, “ Our Defences. Is the Service Rotten? Startling Statements. An Inquiry Demanded. Sergeant-Major Daly’s Request.” Sergeant-Major Daly was in the Defence Force in New South Wales for some considerable time ; and, so far as I know, had a very good record. Recently he was placed under arrest, and has since been court-martialled. I had a conversation with him, during which he informed me that he intended to take the step which he has taken. He went from Molong to Sydney, and there placed his resignation in the hands of the military authorities as a preliminary to having his case investigated. He was charged with behaving in a discourteous fashion, and was put under arrest, it being stated that he had informed his commanding officer that he would not be “ found dead in such a rotten service.” I gather from the newspaper account that he has formulated some very serious charges. I shall not read them ; but as, for several years past, our military service has been in an unsatisf actory condition,I ask Ministers whether the time hasnot arrived for a searching inquiry by a Commission of experts to ascertain the causes?

Mr DEAKIN:
Prime Minister · Ballarat · Protectionist

– The coins now in circulation bear the inscription “ Britanniarum Omnium Rex Indiæ Imperator,” and the words “ King and Emperor “ are a short English rendering of the phrase.

Mr Crouch:

– On the present coins the monarch is described as King of Britain and Emperor ofIndia. We might very well put on our coins, “ King of Austra- lia,” but not “ Emperor.”

Mr DEAKIN:

– One side of the proposed coin may be regarded as Imperial, and there will appear the title, “King and Emperor,” without further definition. On the reverse, which is the Australian side, will be represented the physical contour of the Commonwealth. The words used on the Imperial side are a free and short translation of the title on the present coins, and there can be no trespass of regal or Imperial authority in consequence.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at11.18 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 July 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1909/19090720_reps_3_50/>.