House of Representatives
28 September 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

QUESTION
- PROTECTION OF ABORIGINES
QUESTION
- NEWCASTLE COAL VEND
QUESTION
- AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY : INTEREST CHARGES
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE
QUESTION
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN PAPUA
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL ROLLS
PAPER
QUESTION
- DEFENCE
QUESTION
- OLD-AGE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FINANCE) BILL

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

page 3804

QUESTION

PROTECTION OF ABORIGINES

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the fact that complaints as to the ill-treatment of aborigines in one or other of the States have constantly been published, will the Prime Minister consider whether the- Commonwealth can take action to prevent occurrences which arc undesirable in themselves, and tend to injure the” reputation of this and the State Governments? We have not much power in this connexion, but we should be able to intervene, by formulating a code of rules for the guidance of those who have to do with these unfortunate people.

Mr DEAKIN:
Prime Minister · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– I am sure that any call of humanity will be responded to by Australians as a whole, and, if it is possible for the Government to assist to safeguard the rights of the few remaining natives of this country, or to render abuse of authority over them impossible, it will be happy to do what it can. As the honorable member said, our powers in this regard are so limited as to be almost nonexistent. There is the authority of public opinion. Should an opportunity arise in which our assistance can be given, it will be most cheerfully and willingly tendered.

Mr MATHEWS:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– Has the Federal Government supervision over aboriginal stations? If not, will the honorable gentleman appeal to the State Governments to stop such’ practices as, the whipping of women by .men, whether the victims be coloured people or others?

Mr DEAKIN:

– The publicity given to the fact’s referred to has already assisted to form public opinion on the subject. This may prove little less potent than a law, operating without a formal communication from the Government, which might be misinterpreted.

page 3805

QUESTION

NEWCASTLE COAL VEND

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to know from the Attorney-General if he has seen a report published in the newspapers to the effect that the Newcastle Coal Vend refused a cargo of coal to a vessel called the Lama, on the ground that the ship was not on the list of vessels authorized to be loaded by collieries connected with the vend, and because the vessel, is new to the trade? Is he aware also that the owner of the Laura is reported to have stated that he was informed by the manager of the Hilton Colliery that the supplying of the Laura with a cargo could be arranged if permission could be obtained from the Union Steam-ship Company, but not otherwise? Will he have inquiries made to ascertain whether the Newcastle Coal Vend is a combination engaged in restraint of trade, in contravention of the provisions of Part II. of the Australian Industries Preservation Act ? If the provisions of the Act do not cover tha Laura incident, will he take an early opportunity to amend the Act to cover all attempts by private individuals or corporations to interfere with the free trading rights of the community?

Mr GLYNN:
Attorney-General · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Free Trade

– The honorable member was good enough to send to me a copy of the newspaper paragraph to which he refers, which! I have read. The Department is at present engaged in making inquiries under the Australian Industries Preservation Acts 1906-7, with a view to putting a stop to interference with external or Inter-State trade by the action of monopolies detrimental to the public. I assure the honorable member that the Government will endeavour, by insisting on compliance with the provisions* of the law, to put an end to alleged acts such as “that to which he has drawn attention. As I. see no reason for doubting the efficacy of the law, I think that there is no reason for introducing an amending Bill.

page 3805

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY : INTEREST CHARGES

Mr POYNTON:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I “wish to know from the Prime Minister whether he intends to take action to prevent the buyers of harvesters and drills from having to pay high’ rates of interest on their purchases? The following statement, taken from the report of the Royal Commission, shows the interest charged on deferred payments, the date of purchase being taken as ist November -

International Harvester Company of America - Deering Line (Victorian prices, 1.2.09).

The interest charged on deferred payments for drills, the date of starting or purchase being taken as 1st April, is as follows -

In view of the exorbitant rates shown by these figures, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to take any action to prevent the farmers of this country being fleeced when they purchase implements on the time-payment system?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– Speaking from memory, the fairness of the cash prices charged for agricultural implements was one of the subjects of inquiry on .which a good deal of conflicting evidence was taken ; this may lead to another reading of the report upon the extreme and exorbitant rates of interest such as some of those to which the honorable member has referred.

Mr Chanter:

– “ Cash price “ is merely a fiction in practice.

Mr DEAKIN:

– What I understand the’ honorable member to mean is that the cash-price system is rarely used. The absolute purchase of machines for cash would occur in but’ a few cases, if the honorable member is correct.

Mr Poynton:

– About 34§ per cent, of the sales are for cash prices.

Mr DEAKIN:

– It would appear that two machines are bought on credit for every one for which cash is paid. But as I recollect - and am reminded - one question exists as to our jurisdiction, and another as to the means of making any Act effective. These matters are under consideration. There is also the question whether when we are dealing with prices, we should stop there.

page 3806

PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN PAPUA

Mr MCDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask the Minister of External Affairs, without notice, whether his attention has been drawn to an ordinance recently published in Pa.pua, having regard to the protection of native birds ? I understand, from what I have read, that the old method of treating this subject has been altered, and that power has been given to the LieutenantGovernor to use his discretion in giving permission to those collecting birds for the purpose of propagating their species in other parts of the world. What I especially desire to know is whether the Government will see that the fullest possible protection is extended to the native birds of Papua?

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

– I understand that the intention of the new ordinance is to give the fullest possible protection to the birds. I believe that a very limited power is given to collectors purely for scientific purposes ; but I will look at the ordinance again, since the honorable member has drawn attention to it.

page 3807

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ROLLS

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Minister of Home Affairs a question without notice, in reference to a matter about which I have previously addressed questions to him. It relates to the preparation of electoral rolls. A paragraph is published in to-day’s Age in which it is stated that-

The Commonwealth Electoral Department is working at high pressure preparing for the revision of all the rolls for the coming general election. The entire rolls for the whole of the six States will be in the printer’s hands by the end of December.

I desire to know whether that statement is correct or not? If the rolls are not to be in the printer’s hands before the end of December, when does the Minister expect that they will be out of his hands?

Mr FULLER:
Free Trade

– I have already informed the House that my instructions were that the rolls were to be ready for distribution on the 31st December. As the honorable member has called my attention to the paragraph which he has quoted, I will see whether my instructions are being carried out.

Mr CHANTER:

– I wish to ask the Minister of Home Affairs whether he is aware that the police in some of the suburbs of Melbourne - to my own knowledge the statement is true - are not collecting names for the electoral rolls, but are simply leaving at houses papers for people to fill up or not, as they choose ? The Minister will recollect that, in the past, it has been the duty of the police to collect names, and all necessary particulars, and supply the information to the registrars, in order that names might be placed on the rolls.

Mr FULLER:

– I should be glad if the honorable member for Riverina would supply me with information as to specific cases such as he has mentioned. If so, I will cause inquiries to be made. I understand that the police have, as a rule, been carrying out their work satisfactorily ; but

I should be very glad to make inquiries into such cases as have been instanced by the honorable member.

Mr Chanter:

– I will supply the Minister with particulars.

page 3808

PAPER

The Clerk laid upon the table the following paper : -

Public servants receiving less than£110 per annum - Return to an Order of the House, dated 31st August, 1909.

page 3808

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Pay - Light Horse, Deniliquin District

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked theMinister of Defence, upon notice -

On page 133 of the Estimates the following item appears : - “ Company Sergeant-Major, Quartermaster-Sergeant, and Staff Sergeants, 6s. per day “ -

Is it proposed to pay this rate?

Has npt the rate previously been 5s. 6d. to 5s.9d. daily?

In most of the other items is not the estimate rate paid to the holders . . of the positions ?

Will he arrange to pay 6s. daily in future?

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

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

It will be observed that the Estimates state 6s. as the maximum rate of pay for the ranks mentioned. The actual rates are provided for in the Financial and Allowance Regulations, and are as follow : -

Company Quartermaster-Sergeant, 5s. 6d. : Company Sergeant-Major, 5s. gd., and Staff Sergeants, 6s. per day.

No. The amounts paid are as stated in reply to 1, and the Estimates have been the same for the last five years. .
Whenever the rate is given as the maximum, the actual pay is in accordance with the Financial and Allowance Regulations,
Yes, when entitled under the regulations.

Mr CHANTER:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Has he yet considered the application made by residents of the Deniliquin district to form a squadron of Light Horse?
1. If so, has he decided to grant the said application and make early provision for the establishment of this useful arm of the Military Force ?

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

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

Yes.
The position is that all corps for which provision has been made on the current Estimates have been raised ; and that no funds are therefore available at present for any increase to the existing organization. If, however, an expansion of the Light Horse Regiments in New South Wales is decided on in the near future, the suitability of Deniliquin and adjacent towns as localities in which mounted units may be raised will receive consideration.

page 3808

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

With reference to Old-age Pension Applicants -

Does he think this question asked of aged men and women is a necessary one - viz., their mothers’ maiden names?

Will he give to the House the name of the originator of this question?

What section of the Act demands this information ?

If the mother’s maiden name is withheld, would it debar any claimant?

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

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

The question is asked for identification purposes. It. is necessary to obtain some specific information in each case in order that the paying officer may, in case of doubt, by repeating the inquiry verbally, be certain that he is paying the proper person. 2.It was adopted from the Victorian Questions.
No section.
No.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Does he consider it a necessary question to ask an old-age pension claimant of 65 years and upwards the names of his children, the dates of their births, with the name of the State and place, and also the places where the births were registered, under a penalty offive years’ imprisonment ?
If this information be refused, will the 65-year-old claimant be prevented from obtaining a pension ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

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

Yes. The age of the claimant in a large number of cases is determined by a reference to the registration of the births of the children. In many instances, the length of residence is proved in the same way. There is no penalty, unless a statement is wilfully made which is untrue.
In many cases the claimant would be prevented from obtaining a pension if the information were withheld, as it would notbe possible to prove his age or length of residence.

Dr MALONEY:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Will he inform the House when he expects to have the replies of “ all Magistrates and Registrars” to whom his circular has been sent?
Will he let. the House know the contents of such circular?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

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

It will probably be some weeks before replies are received from Queensland and Western Australia.
The circular read -

Circular. 16th September, 1909.

Sir, - I have the honour to inquire whether, as the result of your experience, you consider any of the printed questions at present asked claimants, their friends, or police, are unnecessary, and, if so, which. Have you received any complaints on the matter?

I shall also be glad .to learn whether there are any questions which you think it would be advisable to ask in addition to those at present prescribed.

page 3809

QUESTION

FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES

Mr CROUCH:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Whether on the 27th March, igo6, Bowden Bros, and Co. obtained judgment foi £3,021 on an insurance policy against the Imperial Marine Insurance Company of Tokio in the Supreme Court of New South Wales ?-
Whether this Japanese company has since neglected or refused to pay the judgment?
Did the company just before the judgment was obtained close up its Australian branch, and remove its assets from Australia?
Have Bowden Bros, and Co. been since unable to obtain payment, as Australian judgments are not recognised in Japanese Courts?
How many insurances, and what amount of premiums, did this company collect in Australia?
Did the Supreme Court of New South Wales request .the Japanese judicial authorities to take evidence on commission in this case?
Did the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs reply that “ the Japanese law contains no provision of this kind “ ?
Did the Supreme Court then next request the British Consul at Yokohama to take the evidence?
Did the Japanese Foreign Office object to this, stating it could not recognise such a right in a Consular Officer?
Are there any other Japanese companies transacting any forms of insurance or ether business in Australia?
Does the Government propose to allow such companies to continue trading under these circumstances ?
What remedy has an Austr.il ian judgment creditor, against a Japanese defaulter?
Is not defaulting by Japanese trading and insurance firms notoriously common?
Will he send the whole matter to the Federal Insurance Commission?

Mr GLYNN:
Free Trade

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are - 1 to 4 and 6 to 9. The Government has recently received information to this effect, but otherwise, is unacquainted with the facts. 5 and 10. I am not aware.

The question of legislation on the subject is being considered.
It, of course,, is not usual, in answer to questions in the House, to give advice upon questions of law; but, on the information sup plied, the ineffectiveness Qf the judgment in this case seems to be due to the absence of assets in Australia and the non-recognition by Japan of foreign judgments.
I am not aware.
Yes.

page 3809

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That the House meet to-morrow at 10.30 a.m., and that at 1 p.m. the sitting of the House be suspended until 7.4^ p.m.

Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert

.- I take exception to the finnicking way in which the Government are conducting the business. I do not see why we should meet at half-past 10 o’clock to-morrow morning, and later in the day suspend our sittings until 7.45 p.m. To break the day in the way proposed is entirely unwarranted and unnecessary. We have had previous experience of similar petty special adjournments, and I am sure honorable members will agree with me that the practice followed has not expedited business in the least. Instead of meeting to-morrow morning at half-past 10 o’clock, we might meet at half -past 7 or 8 o’clock in the evening, and sit half-an-hour later than usual. I have no doubt that, following the usual practice towards the close of every session, the Government will later on in this session ask that Monday afternoon should be devoted to Government business. That will be all that will be necessary to expedite business. I suggest to the Prime Minister that, instead of breaking the day, we should meet to-morrow at 7.30 p.m. instead of in the morning as proposed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3809

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FINANCE) BILL

Debate resumed from 24th September (vide page 3800), on motion by Mr. Deakin -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to alter the provisions of the Constitution relating to finance.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · Swan · Protectionist

– I desire to express my views in .connexion with the question involved in the motion before the Chair, because, apart from my present official position in the Government, I was a member of the Conference that framed the agreement with the States. I was also a member of the Federal Convention of 1897 and 1898 that framed the Constitution, and a member of the Premiers’ Conference that afterwards met in Melbourne in February, 1899, and made amendments upon, the Commonwealth Bill as framed by the Convention, and in particular suggested a limitation of the operation of the Braddon clause to ten years, though under the Commonwealth Bill as it left the Conventions, its operation was to have been permanent. The right honorable member for East Sydney and myself are the only two members of this House who were members both of the Federal Convention that framed the Constitution, and the Premiers’ Conference of February, 1899. Of the remaining four Premiers who were members of that Conference, Sir George Turner, then Premier of Victoria, has, unfortunately, retired from political life, and the other three Premiers, Sir James Dickson, Premier of Queensland, Sir Edward Braddon, Premier of Tasmania, and the Right Honorable C. C. Kingston, Premier of South Australia, have all, I regret to say, gone to the undiscovered country. No more important question than that now under consideration has had the attention of this House at any time since the establishment of Federation. I think it is right, on an occasion like this, that the views on this question of those who framed the Constitution should briefly be placed before honorable members. It was thoroughly understood, when Federation was established, that the States were permanently to have a share of the Customs and Excise revenue. Those who framed the Constitution had for their object the improvement of the financial position of the States, and had not the slightest desire or intention to impoverish them.

Mr Mathews:

– Does not the right honorable member think that they intended the functions of the States to be reduced?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I ask honorable members not to interject, because I do not intend to answer interjections. I have quite enough to do, and, as honorable members can see, I am not too well to-da.y. The Convention fixed the return to the States at three-quarters of the net Customs and Excise revenue, and fixed it permanently, subject1, of course, to the Constitution!. No expressions such as “ for all time,” or even “ permanently “ were used, but the effect of the proposals of the Convention was that this division of the revenue - three-quarters to the States and one-quarter to the Commonwealth - was to be of a permanent character. Every one knows, of course, that the Premiers’ Conference, without interfering with the pro portion as between the States and the Commonwealth, limited the term of that provision to ten years, specifying that thereafter the distribution should be “as Parliament might provide.” I think those words are important. ‘ They did not say that the arrangement should terminate at the end of ten years, but left it discretionary with the Federal Parliament to say whether it should continue under the same conditions or on some modified basis. We have at present almost arrived at the” first epoch - the end of the ten-year period, and I should like to show what the framers of the Constitution thought of this question. What was the bargain made by the parties - because it was a bargain? Six autonomous, almost sovereign, States, of their own free will, in time of peace, without any pressure, in their own interests, came together, and formed this Union, and it is therefore most important to know what was in the minds of the framers when they made that arrangement for Federation. It is not right that we should look at the matter from the stand-point of what is in our minds at this time; but we ought to give great consideration to what was in the minds of those who made the bargain. Are we to act so as to recognise the honorable understanding then arrived at, or are we to take our, stand solely on the legal bond? I need not repeat the truism that this Parliament and the Parliaments of the States are agents for the same people. That is a significant fact that every one of us is inclined to overlook at times - that there is only one people in Australia, and that we represent them in regard to certain matters, while the State Legislatures represent them in regard to all other matters. The people have two agencies, but both Commonwealth and State Parliaments are elected by the same people. If in our arrangements the Commonwealth in carrying out its functions obtains some advantage that is detrimental to the States, or vice versa, then the same people will either have the advantage, or suffer. The late Mr. Kingston, on the 1 2th March, 1898, at the Melbourne Convention, said, in reference to the Braddon section, or as it was afterwards termed the “ Braddon blot “ - I refer to section 87 of the Constitution, which provided at that time for a permanent return to the States of three- fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue -

I think we are indebted to Sir Edward Braddon for having successfully carried a provision of this sort.

That is the Braddon clause -

Unless you lay down this hard and fast line, I think you wi-11 find that there will be gradual invasions by the Commonwealth on the surplus which should be payable to the States. . . . Without this amendment - that is, the permanent Braddon clause we leave the States at the mercy of the Federation. … I am sorry we have not adopted the basis of a per capita distribution to come into force immediately or at some future time.

Sir Frederick Holder, our late lamented Speaker, who also represented South Australia at the Convention said -

If the Federal Treasurer has not the statutory obligation upon him to make a certain return to the States, he may not make it. Hs may establish large defence organizations, 01 spend it in other ways, and then it will be said, “Where will the States be”? As the States are surrendering £6,000,000 of revenue it is not an unreasonable request to have some assurance as to what the return shall be.

Sir Edmund Barton, who was the leader of the Convention in 1897-8, said at the meeting in Melbourne -

While I have been against the principle of a guarantee - that was the Braddon clause -

I now accept that principle as carried by the

Convention.

Sir William Lyne, now the honorable member for Hume in this House, who was 3 member of the Melbourne Convention, said on the 12th March, 1898, in supporting the Braddon clause -

I have, on every occasion, advocated that there should be some definite return to the States provided for. I hailed with great pleasure Sir Edward .Braddon’s amendment when he brought it in. It is simple and effective, arid will coincide entirely with what I have advocated upon this question. “What a falling-ofT was there.” The great political champion of the States then ; the political opponent of the States now ! I myself said at the same time, on the same subject -

It is like beating the air to tell us that we (that is, the States) are to give up our great revenue producer - the Customs - and that we are to have no guarantee whatever that any part of that money will be returned to us, although we shall each have to provide for the payment of our public debts.

Sir Edmund Barton, in summing up the work of the Convention, said of the Braddon section -

It is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties of Customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that on the whole it will be a useful and beneficial provision.

The present Prime Minister said of the Bill, with the Braddon clause in it as a permanent provision -

A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

This was the spirit of those who framed the Constitution. They trusted the people of the future ; they provided for a permanent return to the States which has averaged for the last three years £1 18s. 6d. per capita. The amendment limiting the Braddon section to ten years gave no index that would suggest a substantial diminution of the amount to be returned. We now . propose to reduce it to L1 5s. per capita, with a special provision for a number of years in the case of Western Australia. The average annual loss to the States, if the proposed agreement had been in force during the past four years, would have been £2,713,000. In. dealing with this question - the substance of which is the per capita amount of Customs and Excise revenue to be annually returned to the States, and the permanency or otherwise of that provision - it is well to consider the scheme which was formulated by an important political party at Brisbane in July, 1908. I shall, therefore, devote a little consideration to that scheme. My excuse for so doing is my anticipation that the chief opposition to the Government proposals will emanate from honorable members opposite. The basis of that scheme was -

That the States should continue to receive a share of the Federal revenue.
That such annual share be paid to the States in the form of a fixed sum per head of the population.

In regard to these two principles there is no difference between that scheme and the proposals of the Government. The Brisbane Labour Conference adopted these principles in July, 1908. On 30th March, 1909, when the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister, he delivered an important policy speech at Gympie. Having attained to the important office of Prime Minister and Treasurer he appeared to view this question with different eyes from those with which he viewed it when he occupied a seat on the Ministerial cross benches.

Mr FISHER:

– No.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I shall, I hope, be able to prove every statement that I make. After becoming Prime Minister, both at Hobart in February, and1 at

Gympie in March of the present year, the honorable member endeavoured to make it appear - and he still persists in doing »so - that the scheme formulated by the Brisbane Labour Conference does not contemplate a per capita, distribution of the Customs and Excise revenue, but merely the permanent return to the States of a fixed sum annually. If that be so, what is the meaning of the words? -

That such annual share be paid to the States in the form of a fixed sum per head of the population.

Do they not mean that a per capita distribution is to be made?

Mr Fisher:

– They mean that a fixed sum is annually to be distributed per capita. I was present at the Conference, and I know what was decided upon.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I shall be able to show the honorable member what others think of the matter. Under the scheme framed by the Brisbane Labour Conference a fixed sum would annually be returned to the States - a sum which in 1909 would have amounted to £5,229,017 - and an additional £250,000 per annum, decreasing by £10,000, yearly to Western Australia. Under that scheme, as it is interpreted by the Leader of the Opposition, the payment to the States in 1909 would have been £5,479,000, whereas the amount payable under the Government scheme would, on the same population, have beer £5,549,000. In other words, the contribution under the former scheme would have been only £70,000 less than under the latter. But that is not all. The honorable member for Wide Bay, who was Prime Minister at the time, concluded this portion of his speech by holding out to the States the hope that they would receive even more than that amount. He said -

In leaving this subject, I desire clearly to state that the Commonwealth is riot bound to limit its contribution to the State funds to any amount that may be agreed upon. -

He was then catering for the favour of the States. Being Prime Minister, he naturally desired to be upon good terms with everybody. He went on to say -

It may be taken for granted that the Commonwealth Parliament will be fully aware of the necessities of the States, and that it will not permit any extravagance in Commonwealth expenditure, and that it will endeavour in the future as in the past to hand over to the States not only so much as it is bound to do, but to supplement such amounts whenever it is possible.

Nothing could have been fairer or more reasonable than that declaration. He added -

I congratulate the Hobart Conference on having arrived at a decision that the bookkeeping period should be abolished and that the surplus should be divided on a’ population basis with a special concession to Western Australia.

How different is the honorable member’s tune only five months later? Speaking in this House, on 25th August last, the honorable member said-

In my opinion, apart from the method, the amount proposed to be given to the States is excessive.

Again, he said -

I think that it is too much, and that it would be absolutely impossible for any Government to provide it in later years.

Fifteen days later, namely, on 9th instant, having had a little more time to consider the matter, he said -

I should be ready and willing to support any proposal to give even a larger sum than 25s. per head, provided that it was associated with the transfer to the Commonwealth of the State debts.

On 25th August, the amount proposed to be returned was, in the honorable member’s opinion, .too much ; on the 9th September, the agreement was a reasonable and a fair arrangement, and he was willing to give even more if it were associated with the transfer of the State debts. I am glad to be able to take the honorable member at his word in regard to the transfer of the State debts. We propose that they shall be taken over, not by force, but ‘with the full approval of the Governments of the States. We propose something more than that. We intend to ask the people to vote at a referendum, not on one Bill, but on two - on the Constitution Alteration (Finance) Bill, and on the Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Bill. It has been asked, ‘’ Why not deal with both subjects in one “Bill ? Why deal with them in two?” The suggestion that we should deal with the two subjects in one measure is unreasonable. We have dealt with them separately in order to give the electors of Australia a wider latitude. Some may approve of the proposed distribution of Customs and Excise revenue, but may disapprove of the transfer of the whole, of the debts, or vice versa” ; and if the two subjects were dealt with in the one Bill, they would have to swallow or reject both our proposals. As it is, they will be able, if they so desire, to accept the one and reject the other. I have referred to the opinions expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, and I propose now to direct the attention of the House to remarks make by his first lieutenant, the honorable member for West Sydney. On 10th September, the honorable .member said, as reported in Hansard, page 3335-

To that arrangement there are two objections, both of which, I think, are fatal. One is that the payment is too high and the other is that the arrangement itself is to be permanent.

Apparently, the honorable member forgot that, on 1 2th August, he had stated in this House, as reported in Hansard, page 2430-

Whatever may be the shortcomings of the Brisbane (Labour Conference) scheme it had at least the merit of practicability. It was not merely a temporary expedient for the next year or two, but a settlement for all time. ‘

I will leave the honorable member to explain that political somersault, which took place within a month, and I am quite willing that he should try, if he can, to wriggle out of his statements. I wish now to quote the views expressed by Mr. Bath, Leader of the Labour party in Western Australia, and a representative of that State at the Premiers’ and Treasurers’ Conference, held in Melbourne, on 9th October, 1906. At that Conference, Mr. Bath moved -

That the Braddon clause be continued in perpetuity in conjunction with the bookkeeping system.

He said -

All we desire is a continuation of the Braddon section - the return of three-fourths of the Customs and Excise revenue to the States.

That was a plain unequivocal statement. Later on, Mr. Bath said -

When moving the motion for the perpetuation of the Braddon clause my desire was to obtain the opinion of the people on one direct issue. …. I want to see the question of the financial relations between the States and the Commonwealth placed before the people free from any other conflicting issue.

– He was not.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

- Mr. Dacey, on 26th July, 1908, said -

Some people say that the scheme of the Labour party is unfair to the State. Others say it is unfair to the Commonwealth. I have this to say, with regard to its being more unfair to the State than Sir William Lyne’s scheme, that at the end of eleven years we shall have reached the amount offered by Sir William Lyne to-day, when the amount returned to the State will go on increasing with the increase of population; and it is much more satisfactory to us that we should share in the increased revenue of the Commonwealth than that we should never get more than ^8,750,000 at the most.

Let me give some figures for the nineteen years covered by the honorable member’s statistics. In Germany, from 1889 to 1907, the population increased by 27 per cent. ; the import duties increased by 92 per cent. ; and the import dutiesper capita increased from 6s. 5d. to 9s. 8d. In the United States during the same period of nineteen years, the population increased by 40 per cent. ; the import duties increased by 50 per cent. ; whilst the import duties per capita increased from 14s. 2d. to 16s.1d. In Canada, during the same nineteen years, the population increased by 30 per cent. ; the import duties increased bv 123 per cent.; whilst the import duties per capita increased from 20s.1d. to 35s. 5d. In New Zealand, for the same period, the population increased by 50 per cent. ; the import duties increased by no per cent. ; and the import duties per capita increased from 48s. to 67s.

Mr Bruce Smith:

– If the right honorable member takes the figures for a further period, he will find that they show a decrease.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I cannot look into the future. I have taken the very years chosen by the honorable member for Flinders, and from his own figures I think I have proved that his argument was not borne out by his statistics. His statement, as I listened to it, was one that affected me very much. It was evidently made with great deliberation. The honorable member attempted to prove that in all cases in which a mild system of Protection has been adopted, the invariable tendency is to show a perpetual falling in the amount of revenue per head which is yielded by the Tariff.

Mr Bruce Smith:

– ButI do not think that the honorable member for Flinders took the limited period with which the right honorable gentleman has dealt.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The honorable member took the exact period with which I have dealt. It seems to me, however, that instead of proving his case, his figures prove the opposite. His tables show, I think, that although the population in the countries mentioned by him has increased, the import duties and the import duties per capita have increased at a much greater rate. I wish, also, to refer to the speech made last week by the honorable member for Parkes. I quote him the more readily because I know that he is a man of independent thought, who invariably expresses fearlessly the views at which he arrives. I am glad to tell the honorable member that. I am absolutely in accord with every word I propose to quote from his speech. He said -

I am quite sure that nobody ever thought for a moment that in limiting the Braddon clause for ten years it was intended by the representatives of the States, or by the people of the States, who approved of the Bill in its amended form, that that ten years’ period was to be the limited time within which the States were to enjoy a large share of the Customs and Excise revenue. It was looked upon as a temporary expedient to enable the Parliament and the people to acquire experience with regard to the financial relations of the States and Commonwealth. It was always expected and expressed by all the leading thinkers upon Commonwealth questions that when the ten years’ period came to an end, instead of the Braddon section being allowed to expire altogether, some steps would be taken to substitute another ar. rangement of, perhaps, a modified character. Does any one suppose that if the representatives of the States in the Convention had been told that this arrangement which they had made for the sharing of the revenue was intended to be brought to a termination abruptly at the end of ten years the Constitution would have been adopted by the States? I venture to say that there would have been one unanimous protest throughout Australia against the adoption of the Constitution under such circumstances.

This is the exact state of the matter, and justifies the action of the Government in asking for support for this agreement. The Prime Minister has placed the whole matter in connexion with the agreement before honorable members, and has dealt with almost every aspect of it. It is unnecessary for me to repeat what the honorable gentleman has said. Imay, however, say that we have in this matter a higher duty than that dictated by selfinterest, and that is to be fair and honest. Every one is aware that the States entered the Federation in good faith. They transferred to the Commonwealth their great engine of financial safety, namely, taxation through Customs and Excise. They trusted the whole people of Australia. They knew that at the time they had a burden of £7,000,000, which had to be paid annually as interest on their public debts. The amount has since been increased to £9,000,000 per annum. In spite of that fact, there was a feeling in the Convention that the Federation was necessary, and that we might trust the people in the future. This Government and those who support them do trust the people; and if we have an opportunity we shall ask the people to approve of what we propose to do. We shall ask them for their approval at the next general election. We shall appeal to them with confidence, knowing that we are proposing what is fair and just to all. The main objection to the agreement, so far as I have been able to gather, seems to be to the provision for embodying its terms in the Constitution. If the agreement did not contain such a provision, it would perhaps be too much to expect that honorable members opposite would have supported it; but, ,at any rate, the arguments they have used against the proposal would to a large extent have been cut from under them. I think that a great deal too much has been made of this provision. The agreement says, nothing about “ all time” or permanency. The proposal is merely that the terms of the agreement shall be embodied in the Constitution by the people of Australia. It is proposed that the people shall place them there just as they have done in the case of all its existing provisions. Though, for my own part, I have no doubt that for many years there will be no desire to alter this agreement, because I hope and believe we shall be able to work out our destiny under it, still, if times of difficulty and disaster should come upon us, the same power which embodied this agreement in the Constitution can if it pleases put something else in its place. That will be a matter for the consideration of the Parliament and people of the day. The object of placing the agreement in the Constitution is to give stability to the proposed arrangement, so that a chance Parliamentary ma jority shall not be able to alter it, and that the people alone shall be entitled to do so by a direct referendum. If I remember rightly, the Prime Minister dealt with this matter fully. Let us imagine this financial question between the Commonwealth and States being open for discussion on every platform at every general election, and made the sport of contending parties, not’ only at elections, but in this House. What a perennial source of dissension and difficulty it would be. The Tariff is supposed to constitute a perennial source of division between parties. It has been said that if it were removed we should have no room for differences of opinion. We must have something on which to fight on all and every occasion, and the Tariff supplies such an object. So it would be with this agreement if it were not embodied in the Constitution. The amount to be given to the States would be a subject for discussion at every general election, and by contending parties in this House. Will any one say that that is a prospect which we could look forward to with any degree of equanimity or satisfaction? We should avoid such a thing by every reasonable means. I believe that every honorable member in this House is agreed that the States should not be at the mercy of any political party. The only way in which we can prevent that is to embody the agreement in the Constitution, and so place it beyond the reach of contending political parties. In support of the view that it is wise and necessary to embody the terms of the agreement in the Constitution, and so place it to some extent, at any rate, beyond the interference of political parties, I am in a position to quote from the honorable member for Flinders, who, when Premier of Victoria, at n Conference held in Melbourne on the nth February, 1904, expressed himself substantially as I am doing now. There had been a Treasurers’ Conference, and after the Treasurers had met in conclave, there was a meeting of the members of the Conference, which the Prime Minister and myself were invited to attend. On this very question as to what, was to be the ararrangement after the Braddon section became alterable at the end of 19 10, the honorable gentleman said : -

The position which was taken up by most of the Treasurers in ‘Conference was that first of all it was absolutely essential to any provision for taking over the State debts that there should be a continuation of the protection of the Braddon clause. . . . We emphasized in the strongest way that without that amendment of the Constitution, not only would it be quite impossible te enter into any discussion of the proposal for taking over the States debts. but that the whole of the finances of the States must, in the future, be entirely dependent, not merely upon the Commonwealth, but on a chance majority in the Commonwealth Parliament, at any time, quite uncontrolled by the ordinary safeguards that attach to the expenditure of public money in Constitutionallygoverned countries. This is not distrust of the Federal Parliament or of the Federal Government, but an absolute distrust and apprehension of that state of affairs which enables a central parliamentary body to spend, or places it in the position and in the temptation of being able to spend, large sums of money entirely free from the restrictions without which Parliamentary government, so far as finance is concerned, becomes a snare and a delusion. That is the view -which we hold, and we hold it in the strongest way. . . . My views in connexion with it were entirely indorsed at the recent Premiers’ Conference, and I believe that every State Treasurer present at this Conference feels as strongly upon this point as I do. I have no doubt that the position has only to become known to the people of the Commonwealth to have it imperatively insisted upon that some such protection shall be assured in order to maintain the relations arising out of Federation.

– Unfortunately, in every community a section is to be found whose members can never credit others with being influenced by patriotic motives, but who are always prone to look a gift horse in. the mouth. If those who voted and fought for Federation are now to have their motives impugned, I have nothing to say. As everybody knows, the Federal Convention in 1898 proposed that the Commonwealth should return to the States three-fourths of its Customs and Excise revenue, whereas the proposed agreement contemplates the return to them of 25s. per head, which, for 1910-11, it is estimated would represent £2,373,100 less than the three- fourths. In ten years, the reduction in the payments to the States under the proposed agreement would be £2,642,213 less than the three-fourths. Yet this immense diminution in the amount returnable to the States, which has been agreed to by the Governments of the Commonwealth and the States, is opposed by honorable members opposite. I do not think that anything proposed by us would satisfy them. I think, therefore, that it would be useless to try to please them. I am glad, however, that during the last week or two honorable members opposite seem to have evinced a better feeling in dealing with this question. They do not seem now to be so hostile to the States as they were last session, and even during the early part of the present session. Nothing has given me more pain or shocked me so much in the course of my political life as the spirit almost of repudiation evinced by honorable members opposite. We hear them speak of “our revenue,” “our interests,” and “ our rights,” as if they were unmindful of the conditions under which Federation was established. Any one would think, listening to the remarks of some honorable members, that the whole of the Customs and Excise revenue belonged to the Commonwealth, and that the States had no right to a share of it. I join issue with those who hold that view. Up to the present time, three-fourths of the Customs and Excise revenue has been returnable to the States, and, for the future,, some arrangement which will be fair to both parties must be arrived at. This matter should not be decided solely on the basis of the obligations of the Commonwealth. We should do what is fair to both, as intended by the Constitution. As to the future, both the Commonwealth and States must work out their own advancement, and the Commonwealth being the stronger, I have no doubt that its task will prove the easier. With the weight of

Defence cast upon us in a manner that has never before been experienced, with an annual expenditure of £2,000,000 on oldage pensions, which we have not had to provide for hitherto, the Government have a great burden to shoulder in carrying on the affairs of the Commonwealth. But the burdens of the States are also enlarging every day. New avenues of expenditure - new railways, roads and bridges, waterworks and .harbors - have to be provided for by them, and, unless we approach this question with a sense of the obligations resting upon both the Commonwealth and the States, we are not likely to do right. Unlike some honorable members, I have no fears for the future. I am not in the habit of being afraid of what my judgment tells me I ought to do. I am not always looking backward and afraid to go forward. The past is useful only as a guide to the future, and if we are to be hampered by fears of our own imagining, we are not likely to succeed.

Mr Webster:

– We are to rush blindly onward ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Some people are always afraid. If it should be found in the future that this agreement works out disadvantageous^ to the Commonwealth or to the States, the people will have to be appealed to, ‘and their mandate obtained. I believe, however, with the honorable member for Mernda, that the day when such an appeal will have to be made is a long way off. We must ‘not forget. that the taxpayers of the Commonwealth and the States are the same, and that the revenue is expended in the interests of the same people. The States and the Commonwealth Governments are like two managers of one establishment, each carrying out different duties. The Commonwealth has received as its share from Customs and Excise duties, during the past three years, an annual average of 12s. 2d. per head of population, and if this agreement had been in force, its share per head would have been more than doubled. If the proposed agreement had been in force since Federation, the Commonwealth would have received £23,621,^06 more than it has received. This would have been an enormous sum for the States to relinquish. The agreement means a reduction in the amount returned to the States during the year 1910-11 of £2,373, too. To those who say that we are proposing to give too large a sum to the States - and I certainly do not agree with that idea - I would reply that we shall be giving it to the people whose representatives we are. We are not proposing to sink it in the sea, or to give it to strangers. We are not going to use it to assist the people of other nations. We are simply proposing to give it to those whose agents we are, and whose interests we are here to safeguard. We are now approaching the second decade of the Commonwealth’s existence, or what I may describe as the second epoch in our Federal destiny. If we can enter upon it, as I believe we shall - and as our proposals will insure- with separate and independent financial arrangements, amicably and unanimously agreed to; with power to take over the whole of the State debts; with our industrial legislation placed on a sound Federal # basis ; with the trans- Australian railways connecting east and west and north and south agreed to; with military and naval defence placed on a firm basis, the Commonwealth acting in concert and in unity with the Mother Country; with the Federal Seat of Government decided upon ; with old-age and invalid pensions firmly established ; and last, but not least, in friendship and goodwill with the Governments and Parliaments of the States, and with our kinsmen in the Old Land, we shall indeed have cause to rejoice. If these attainments herald our entry into the second epoch of our Federal life, as I believe they will, we shall have ca.use to congratulate ourselves, ‘and we shall know that our labours have not been in vain. Our Constitution was brought into existence by the people, and it cannot be altered except with the consent of the people. I hope that honorable members will take a broad view of this question, and that they will approve of the proposals of the Government. I personally feel a special responsibility in urging the acceptance of what I consider a fair and reasonable arrangement to all concerned. I cannot but rememmber that I was, to some extent, responsible for my own State entering the Federation, and that I have a strong moral obligation to see that its interests, and the interests of the Commonwealth and the States generally, are protected and safeguarded. In conclusion, I reiterate that we have no fear of the result of our proposals, for we believe that we have justice on our side. Our electors are also the State electors, and we shall appeal to them, feeling sure that they will do what is best, and also what is just and right.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

.- The Treasurer undertook to reply to speeches which have been delivered on the proposed agreement, particularly the speeches of the honorable member foi Mernda, the honorable member for Flinders, and the honorable member for Parkes; but it will be admitted that any one of these gentlemen is as well qualified as, or, perhaps, better qualified, than the gentleman who happens to be Treasurer of the Commonwealth for the time being, to form a correct opinion on this question. I must take exception to the contention of the Treasurer, reiterated time after time, that every honorable member who is courageous enough to differ from the proposals submitted by the Government is an enemy of the States. I worked as hard in my way as the Treasurer did in his. to bring about Federation; and I refuse to be classed as an enemy of the States. I recognise, what the honorable gentleman fails to recognise, that we can be a friend of the States in another way than by permitting them to continue squandering the revenues of the whole of the people of the Commonwealth ; and no honorable member knows better than the Treasurer what has taken place in this connexion. No one knows better than the honorable gentleman what was in the mind of the people when Federation was accomplished. It was said that there Avas to be retrenchment in expenditure and reduced taxation by the States; but, instead, both expenditure and taxation have been increased. The public debt of the Commonwealth has been increased by, practically, £50,000,000 during the last ten years.

Mr Sampson:

– That does” not apply to every State.

Mr Sampson:

– The Federal Parliament handed back so much money because it was afraid of public opinion.

Mr CHANTER:

– And it appears to be afraid of public opinion now. If it were not, it would at once adopt the financial scheme suggested by the honorable member for Mernda, or some other arrangement that would keep the control of Commonwealth finance in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, instead of giving it away to others, who are not, and never have been, Federalists. I am proud to believe that the great majority of the members of this House do regard their duties here as something more than parochial, and look upon themselves as the representatives, not only of the particular districts which return them, but of the people of Australia as a whole. When we are faced with the necessity of arriving at a decision on a big financial question, we must deal with it in a practicalway. I recently put to the Treasurer the following questions : -

What amount of revenue from Customs and Excise duties did the several States of the Commonwealth derive in the years 1899 and 1900, specifying each?
What amount per capita was that, based upon the then existing population?

The right honorable gentleman, in his reply, gave figures for all the States, of which those for New South Wales were as follow : -

Customs and Excise Revenue, 1898-1899, £1,608,859; 1899-1900, £1,736,377.
Amount per capita, 1898-1899, £1 4s. 3d. ; 1899-1900, £1 5s.11¼d.

– But there was an increase of 30,000 votes in favour of the Bill as amended.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– I grant that. The voting on the original Bill as it left the Convention was : In Victoria, 100,220 for the Bill and 22,000 against; in South Australia, 35,800 for and 17,300 against; and in Tasmania, 11,-794 for and only 2,716 against it. We know that the first referendum in New South Wales failed, not because a majority of the people of the State did not favour the Bill as originally passed, but because the statutory majority was not obtained. Those who are supporting this agreement say that since a majority of the people in each of the States voted for the Braddon clause as originally passed by the Convention, as well as for the clause as amended at the Premiers’ Conference, they should have an opportunity to say now whether or not this alteration should be made I think we make a great mistake in our definition and use of the words “States”; I much prefer the word ‘ ‘ people. ‘ ‘ We might compare the electors of the Commonwealth to one body of shareholders with two bodies of directors. Calls are made on the same body of shareholders ; and now for ten years there has been a certain allocation of the funds in accordance with the wish of the electors. That period has expired; and it is proposed to go back to the same electors, and ask them how the money shall be allocated in the future. If honorable members refer to the debates of the Adelaide and Melbourne Conventions, they will find that the speakers, almost unanimously, pointed out that the salvation of the States depended on their securing a certain proportion of the revenue for all time. It is strange to hear Protectionist members arguing that the proposed agreement is going to kill Protection, when we remember that it was the Free Trade members of the Convention who inserted the time limit, on the ground that otherwise Free Trade would be killed, and the Federation compelled to put on such enormous duties as would seriously hamper the industrial conditions of the people. We find that the right honorable member for East Sydney, the present Attorney-General, and other Free Traders, all voted in favour of the time limit, while the Protectionist members, including the honorable member for Hume, supported an arrangement providing for an allowance lo the States for all time. Sir George Turner who, as a financier enjoys a very high reputation, speaking in Melbourne, said -

Unless we carry some such provision (Braddon section) which will protect the States so that they will not lose a large amount we shall dislocate the finances to a considerable extent.

I do not say to the extent of insolvency or bankruptcy, nobody ever dreams of that, but that the Treasurer of a particular State would be forced to put on extra taxation. If we are to frame a Constitution which will be acceptable to the people of the States we must be prepared to say to them that we feel perfectly certain that such provisions have been made as will not throw further burdens upon them.

Sir William Lyne said

I hailed with very great pleasure Braddon’s amendment. It is simple and effective, and will coincide entirely with what I have advocated on this question. I also think that, as regards the small States as well as possibly the larger States, this is one of those clauses which will help very materially to recommend the Bill.

These words are very important -

I asked Mr. Reid what position the States would be in if they got only 5s. in the ?. Under this provision they get 15s. , The States will have a much better chance of getting the money if this provision is retained.

Mr Fisher:

– Read up a bit.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member has affirmed that, under the proposed agreement, the Commonwealth will not be paying the States too much. But he fears that the electors will not understand the issue presented to them, and holds that the question is one which should be decided by this Parliament. The people will not understand it, declares this high priest of labour. He urges that they are not to be trusted in the matter because they are not so competent to decide it as is this Parliament. We can decide this matter. The people would not understand it.” There is not an elector in Australia who could not understand it after five minutes’ explanation. Honorable members have been dragging in side issues to hide the main point. Although always talking about trusting the people, they are afraid to do so in this case. Any amendment made in the Bill will be equivalent to tearing up the contract into which the Government have entered, which cannot be altered without the consent of every signatory.

Mr Wise:

– Had the Government any authority to make a contract?

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– When the Prime Minister signed the agreement,- he imposed upon the Ministry full responsibility for it, and if Parliament amends the Bill in any material respect, it will take the control of the finances out of the hands of Ministers, a thing which no Government could submit to and live.

Mr STORRER:
Bass

.- I desired to address myself to this question on non-party lines, as I would address myself to such questions as the Capital site, Defence, transfer of State debts, the High Commissioner Bill, the Western Australia railway, and the transfer of the Northern Territory. The honorable member for Franklin, however, whether instructed by the Government or not, has made it clear that we are expected to deal with it on party lines. I hope that on such important questions, and even on minor ones, the wisdom of the House will allow proposals to be dealt with on their merits. While I have the honour of a seat here, I shall so deal with them. Therefore, I intend to vote for the motion. Ever since I have been in this Parliament, I have favoured a per capita distribution of Customs and Excise revenue. We have not had a true Federation .during the past nine years. It was understood that with Federation we should have one people, one destiny, one flag, and one purse. It was thought that Federation, by providing for the consolidation of the debts of the States, would bring about a large saving in interest. I do not propose to discuss the liabilities of the States, or their expenditure. Those are questions for their Governments and Parliaments and their electors. Neither shall I, in dealing with the question, as# it concerns us, make use of a great mass “of figures. Mr. Knibbs’ publications have been pretty thoroughly overhauled during the past few weeks. Dozens’ of tabular statements have been quoted, so that any one who attempts ‘to read the figures which have been given in the speeches of honorable members must become thoroughly bewildered in time. Indeed, the Treasurer and the honorable member for Flinders arrived at different conclusions from the same set of figures. We have been sent here to do what we think best in the interest of the Commonwealth, and it is absurd to suggest that any one of us would seek to injure the States. Yet the Treasurer, this afternoon, charged the honorable member for Hume with wishing to do so. The’ electors of the States would soon deal with any one who acted contrary to their well-being. The Prime Minister has asked us to trust the people, and I am willing to trust them, not only in this matter, but also in regard to unification. He will not put that question to them, although, if it is right to refer one matter to them, it is right to refer others of equal importance. I was opposed to the Draft Constitution Bill, because I favoured unification. No business mam would double his expenditure unless he thought that he would gain a corresponding profit ; but the people of Australia have largely increased their expenditure without much direct gain. I consider that a payment of 25s. per capita to the States would be a fair one to make. But if the Constitution is amended, to make the agreement perpetual, it will subsequently be difficult to effect any alteration, should that be deemed necessary, because such an amendment requires the consent of a majority of the people and of a majority of the States. I do not think that the Commonwealth can afford to pay more than 25s. per capita to the States. If 1 did, I would vote for a larger payment. But I do not agree with the honorable member for Franklin that the Commonwealth has been extravagant. When the right honorable member for East Sydney moved a motion of want of confidence in the last Deakin Administration, he charged it with neglecting to expend a sufficient sum on postal, telegraphic, and telephonic services, and with saving up money to return to the States. In ray view, that Government, knowing the necessities of the States, did right in assisting them as much as it could. The position of the Commonwealth and the States is very much like that of individuals. Every man, as a general rule, would like to spend more than he is able to do, but he finds’ that he must live according to his income, and consequently has to go without many things that he would like to have. And so with the Commonwealth. Wc could have expended with advantage much more than we have done on the extension of postal and telegraphic services, just as the States could expend a great deal of money on the construction of railway’s, roads, and bridges, if they had more at their disposal. As it is, they have to go slowly, and take advantage of the opportunities offering. The Commonwealth, in my opinion, did right in returning to the States as much as possible. If I were a member of a State Government, I should certainly be prepared to trust the Commonwealth, but we know that, unfortunately, in sections of the press and elsewhere, charges of extravagance are made for party purposes, sometimes against the States, and occasionally against certain members of the Federal Legislature. It would be a mistake, however, to bind the Commonwealth for all time to a per capita payment, of 25s. per annum to the States. 1 should certainly be in favour of such payment being made for the next ten years, and rather than that the agreement should bc lost to us altogether, I should vote for its continuance for twenty or thirty years. As the honorable member for . Parkes pointed out, we know more now concerning the finances of Australia than we did eight years ago, and our experience will be still broader ten years hence. If we agreed to make a per capita payment to the States of 25s. per annum Ibr ten years, we should be able, at the end of that term, to decide whether that. pa> ment should be continued, or whether it should be increased or reduced. We should then be able, if we found that the arrangement was endangering the Protectionist policy of Australia, to vary its terms. I should certainly be prepared to trust the people and their representatives to do what is- right at’ the end of the ten years’ period. The States ought to be satisfied with such a proposal, remembering that the State and the Federal Legislatures are elected by the same people, and that if we do not treat the States fairly, the people will have the power to select men who will. Members of Parliament might do wrong for’ a year or two, but, as soon as their masters - the people - discovered that they were doing so, they could promptly bring about a change. A few years ago in Tasmania the electors rejected the whole of the Ministry of the day, and returned only one or two of their supporters. It cannot be denied that this is one of the most important measures that has- been brought before us, both from the stand-point of Federal expenditure and the relations of the Commonwealth to the States. The transfer of the State debts is associated with this question, to a certain extent, although . it is, dealt with in a separate measure, and it is certainly one of the highest importance. During the Federal campaign, the people were told that, as a result of Federation, the expenditure of the States would be reduced, and that by the transfer of the debts alone a saving of about £1,000,000 per annum would be effected. In the circumstances, therefore, one cannot help regret-: ting that the transfer has not been made before, and that the strife of party should have raged so long. Instead of dealing with the financial question, as business men do, and endeavouring to effect savings in the interests of the people, we have been fighting,, party against party. It may be asked,. “ Why should we not make this payment to the States for all time?” in this connexion, let me say that I hope before manyyears to see many changes in Australia. I hope to see the day when the railways of the States will be controlled, if not by the Commonwealth, at least unitedly for Australia. As the honorable member for Riverina said in reply to an interjection, if we had a uniform railway gauge all over Australia it would be unnecessary, for instance, for passengers travelling by rail from Melbourne to Sydney to change on reaching the New South Wales border, and if there was a shortage of railway carriages in one State, supplies could be speedily obtained from another. About this time last year, on the occasion of the visit of the American Fleet, the railway carriages in Victoria were not sufficient to cope with the traffic. If we had had a uniform gauge, a supply could have been obtained from New South Wales, and in other ways savings could have been effected. If we had. a uniform system, great savings might be made in connexion with haulage and in other directions. I hope, also, to see the day when Australia will be far more self-contained than, it is. If the Protectionist Tariff is to have the desired effect, instead of importing manufactured goods from other countries, we shall be largely making them for ourselves. Manufacturers from abroad will be establishing works here, and in that way Australia will become more self-contained, with the result that her Customs revenue will be reduced. In the circumstances, therefore, I think it desirable that the proposed agreement should have only a ten years’ currency. At the end of that period the people could be trusted to deal with the whole question in a business-like. way. I do not see why we should not bc a self-contained community. We are going to manufacture our own small-arms, and build our own warships. Why should we not manufacture here everything that we require ? We have, for instance, land that will produce cotton,’ and the power to manufacture it into piece goods. This fair ‘land of ours possesses great possibilities, and if the legislators of Australia would only deal with this question in a straightforward, business-like manner, the whole country would be benefited. Although, as the result of an extension of our manufactories, our revenue from Customs’ would be reduced, we should have a larger population, which would tend to the better defence of Australia. I am not disposed to vote for the agreement being fixed for all time, but am certainly in favour of its being embodied in the Constitution in the terms of the Braddon section, its -operation to be for ten years “ and until the Parliament otherwise provides.” Surely the members of this Legislature, ten years hence, could be trusted, just as we are, to deal with the affairs of Australia. If the

Federal Parliament, ten years hence, seeks to deal unfairly by the States, it will be for the people to change its’ personnel, and to return men who will do what is test for Australia as a whole.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Agar Wynne) adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 September 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1909/19090928_reps_3_52/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives28 September 1909

QUESTION

PROTECTION OF ABORIGINES

Mr FISHER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:Prime Minister · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr MATHEWS:MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

NEWCASTLE COAL VEND

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GLYNN:Attorney-General · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Free Trade

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY : INTEREST CHARGES

Mr POYNTON:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr Chanter:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Poynton:

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

Mr HUGHES:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr HUTCHISON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir JOHN QUICK:Postmaster-General · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Mr THOMAS BROWN:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

QUESTION

PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN PAPUA

Mr MCDONALD:KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

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

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ROLLS

Mr TUDOR:YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr FULLER:Free Trade

Mr CHANTER:

Mr FULLER:

Mr Chanter:

PAPER

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

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

Mr CHANTER:

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

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Dr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

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

Mr JOHN THOMSON:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Dr MALONEY:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

QUESTION

FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES

Mr CROUCH:

Mr GLYNN:Free Trade

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr BAMFORD:Herbert

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FINANCE) BILL

Sir JOHN FORREST:Treasurer · Swan · Protectionist

Mr Mathews:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr FISHER:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Fisher:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Hutchison:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Webster:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Webster:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Webster:

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr Hutchison:

House of Representatives
28 September 1909

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:
Prime Minister · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr MATHEWS:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GLYNN:
Attorney-General · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Free Trade

Mr POYNTON:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr HUGHES:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Postmaster-General · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Mr MCDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr FULLER:
Free Trade

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

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

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

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

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

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr GLYNN:
Free Trade

Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · Swan · Protectionist

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925