House of Representatives
23 October 1913

5th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2459

QUESTION

PROTECTION OP PILLAR-BOXES

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Last year, several inventors sent into the Department of the Postmaster-General models of pillar- boxes arranged for the prevention of pilfering of letters, one patentee providing for electrical connexions between the pillar-boxes and thenearest exchanges. Seeing that there have recently been robberies of pillar-boxes in Adelaide, will the Postmaster-General ask the mechanicians, and gentlemen in high positions in the Department, if they have done anything to prevent interference with pillar-boxes?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
Postmaster-General · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– Certainly.

page 2459

QUESTION

POSTAGE STAMP

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

-I ask the Post master-General how long he intends to continue to print that particular design of stamp which so effectively advertises the emptiness of Australia?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
LP

– I should like to have had the new stamp issued long ago, but the printing of stamps is a matter within the Department of the Treasurer.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Cannot the honorable member go back to an old design?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– I think that all the old dies have been destroyed.

page 2460

QUESTION

BURNIE MAIL SERVICE

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– In view of the nearness of Burnie to Melbourne, and of the importance of that city as a centre of distribution, will the PostmasterGeneral insist on the steamers of the shipping companies, with which he is now making a contract for the conveyance of mails, entering the port three times a week, as they enter Launceston?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
LP

– I shall inquire into the matter; but I do not think it will be possible for the steamers to go to Burnie three times a week.

page 2460

QUESTION

AMERICAN POSTAGE

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Postmaster-

General endeavour to arrange for penny postage with America ? We now have penny postage with all other Englishspeaking parts of the world. The Fisher Administration attempted to arrange for penny postage with America, but failed to get the United States Government to agree to their proposals.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
LP

– I shall be very pleased to try to do this.

page 2460

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S REPORT

Mr THOMAS:

– Does the PostmasterGeneral intend to lay on the table this session the annual report of his Department ?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
LP

– Certainly; if it is ready in time.

page 2460

SMALL-POX OUTBREAK

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Trade and Customs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I promised yesterday that I would obtain a report concerning the removal to the quarantine station at North Head of the unfortunate woman who subsequently died there. That report has now come to me from the Secretary to the Department of Public Health, . and I shall lay all the papers on the table of the Library. The doctor who visited the patient writes -

On being told that shewassuffering from small-pox, she urged that the should be removed without delay to the quarantine station, as she expected to be confined within a day or two. Her husband also requested that she should go to the quarantine station, as he considered that she would there be certain of proper medical supervision andskilful nursing during her impending confinement. The patient was able to walk about, and stated that she felt better since the rash had appeared on the previous day. . . .

It was both her own and her husband’s wish that she should not remain where she was, but be transferred to the quarantine station. According to usual routine, my report was made to the Department, with the result that she was removed to the quarantine depot on the same day by motor ambulance, in charge of a skilled nurse, and there handed over to the Federal authorities for transport to the quarantine station at North Head.

page 2460

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL DESIGNS

Mr. Griffin

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister of Home Affairs if his attention has been called to the statement attributed by today’s Age to Mr. Wunderlich, that no Australian architect competed for the designing of plans for the Federal Capital, and, if so, I ask him is that statement correct? Mr. Beale is also reported in the Age to have been unwise enough, either from lack of knowledge or unkindness, to allude to Mr. Griffin as a tenthrate architect. I ask the Minister whether, since Mr. Griffin won the Commonwealth prize against the whole world, and enjoys the high opinions of various architects in New South Wales and Victoria, the honorable gentleman considers that Mr. Beale was justified in what he said ?

Mr KELLY:
Minister (without portfolio) · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– One Australian design was purchased by the Government for £400, and some forty designs were received from persons giving Australian addresses, amongst whom were engineers, surveyors, and architects. The competition was duly advertised in Australia, and it was open to any Australian to compete. It is regrettable that a gentleman who is making such a sacrifice for Australia as Mr. Griffin is making, should be considered a fit targetfor the remark to which the honorable member calls attention. Mr. Griffin enjoys a very wide reputation, not only in America, but alsoelsewhere, as one of the best town planners anywhere.

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Will the Honorary Minister be good enough to supply the House with a memorandum of the qualifications of Mr. Griffin for the work which has been committed to him?

Mr KELLY:

– I shall be only too happy to give honorable members the fullest information.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Is not the fact that Mr. Griffin won the first prize against all the world, the only certificate that ought to be asked in this House of his ability?

Mr KELLY:

– That fact would, I think, be sufficient for honorable members generally, combined with the fact that the prize design by Mr. Griffin has been very favorably commented upon by scientific people in other parts of the world.

page 2461

QUESTION

LIBERAL PARTY’S FUNDS

Mr MATHEWS:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

-The citizens of Sydney are making arrangements to receive our esteemed and worthy High Commissioner; and, to prevent trafficking in tickets, are allowing only a certain number to be allotted. Could the Minister of External Affairs see that the money thus obtained is not devoted to political purposes ?

Mr GLYNN:
Minister for External Affairs · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-I am afraid that this matter does not fall within my province. It is a public reception by the citizens of Sydney.

page 2461

QUESTION

CASTLES EXCAVATOR

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

-Some five weeks ago I put some questions on the notice paper relating to Castles Excavator, and the Honorary Minister promised that he would lay a return on the table. Is that return ready yet?

Mr KELLY:
LP

-I saw the return three or four days ago. It had really slipped my memory, but I shall see that it is laid on the table to-day or to-morrow.

page 2461

QUESTION

LETTER-CARRIERS’ HALFHOLIDAY

Mr BURNS:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the PostmasterGeneral given any consideration to granting a Saturday half -holiday to the lettercarriers in Sydney and suburbs ?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
LP

– I am inclined to think they already have that holiday, but I shall look into the matter.

page 2461

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S REPORT

Mr THOMAS:

– Can the PostmasterGeneral give us some idea when his annual report will be available?

Mr AGAR WYNNE:
LP

-I shall inquire, and let honorable members know.

page 2461

QUESTION

FREEDOM LEAGUE

Mr ARTHUR:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Is the Honorary Minister aware that posters are being displayed at railway stations in Victoria and other places containingmisleading statements about the Defence Act - that such posters declare that we are under the operation of martial law, and so forth? Will the Honorary Minister see what can be done to prevent these mispresentations ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Are these the posters of the Freedom League ?

Mr ARTHUR:

– I think so, and I ask what can be done to prevent those misrepresentations, and the consequent discontent with the defence scheme?

Mr KELLY:
LP

– I will bring this question under the notice of the Minister of Defence, and see what can be done.

page 2461

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FACTORIES

Mr SAMPSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– When may we expect to have the balance-sheets, up to June, 1913, for the Harness Factory and the Clothing Factory established by the Government? The last balance-sheets were up to June, 1912.

Mr KELLY:
LP

– I hope that the balance-sheets will be ready for honorable members when the Estimates are under consideration.

page 2461

QUESTION

CADETS

Mr PAGE:

– I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a paragraph which appeared in the Age of this morning, relating to the treatment of a cadet who is the sole support of his widowed mother. Knowing the big heart of the Prime Minister, I have only to ask him to bring this case before the Minister of Defence, in order to see whether some relief can be given, not only to this lad, but to others similarly circumstanced ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

-The trouble seems to be that we cannot get perfect administration, even perfectly sympathetic administration. Such cases as the honorable member mentions are provided for in Lord Kitchener’s report, which specially points out that there is no need of compelling boys like these to undergo training. If I remember rightly, Lord Kitchener specifically lays it down that any boy who is the sole support of his mother should be exempt; and there is a whole series of exemptions which might very well be taken out of the roll if only the officers administering thescheme would go to the trouble to do so. Only a little more than half of the men who are eligible for training are required to complete the armies of various countries; and we know that cost determines such establishments all the world over. In Germany, if I remember rightly, only about half of those eligible are taken, because the country cannot afford to train the whole, and does not need the whole. Under the circumstances, it appears that all that is required is sympathetic and sane administration. I shall be very glad to call the attention of the authorities to the case.

Mr ARTHUR:

– Is the Honorary Minister aware that the senior cadets of Bendigo are required to assemble at Wellsford, 4 miles away, and that no means are provided for their conveyance, although they have to be on the spot at 2.30, while they do not leave work till 1 o’clock ? Also, is he aware that the cadets at Chewton are required to walk 6 or 7 miles in order to drill at Castleniaine, and will he consider what can be done to obviate this inconvenience which is causing much discontent with the defence scheme ?

Mr KELLY:
LP

– I shall certainly bring the matters referred to under the notice of the Minister of Defence to-day, and communicate further with the honorable gentleman.

Mr POYNTON:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Seeing that cadets are being trained for the protection of the States, will the Prime Minister take steps to ascertain whether the State Governments will place their railways at the service of the trainees ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Yes, I shall be very glad to do so. I do not think it would hurt the States at all if they showed a little more sympathy towards this training, which is costing the State and Federal taxpayers an enormous amount of money.

page 2462

QUESTION

FITZROY DOCK

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the new manager of Fitzroy Dock been appointed, and, if so, when will he take up his duties?

Mr KELLY:
LP

– I think the new manager was appointed by the late Minister of Defence.

Mr West:

– No.

Mr KELLY:

-I know the matter was under his consideration; but if the honorable member for South Sydney will give notice I shall give him an answer.

Mr HOWE:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– How does it happen that a sum of£2,000 is provided in the Estimates for the salary of the general manager if the Government do not know who is to have the position, and what his abilities are?

Mr KELLY:

– The late Minister of Defence authorized this position, and, after due consideration, decided that £2,000 was the salary which ought to attach to this very important and responsible office. So far, apparently, the office has not been filled, but it will have to be filled this year, and it is for that reason the money is required.

page 2462

QUESTION

QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is very irregular for honorable members to rise to ask questions without notice, after the business of the day has been called on. I think it is twice this has occurred today.

page 2462

QUESTION

MEMBERS SUSPENDED

Mr POYNTON:

-I wish to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the two honorable members who were unfortunately suspended yesterday are not in the Chamber. Is there any barrier preventing them being present to-day?

Mr SPEAKER:

-None whatever. Their suspension was only for the remainder of the sitting, and if they are absent to-day it is at their own option.

page 2462

QUESTION

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Mr PAGE:
for Mr. Higgs

asked the Treasurer, upon notice-

  1. Whether he will be good enough to furnish an abstract of the proposed expenditure of £5,746,853 on Defence?
  2. On what pages of the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure are the various totals shown?
Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-In reply to the honorable member’s questions, I have to state that an abstract of the proposed expenditure of£5,746,853 on Defence is given on page 69 of the Estimates. The amount of £64,114 for rent, repairs, is arrived at by deducting£26,000 Defence proportion of estimated savings of £75,000 shown on page 183 from £90,114 shown on page 182. Under New Works the amount of £550,930 was arrived at by deducting from the amount of£649,930 shown on page 247 the amount of£99,000 the Defence proportion of£205,000 shown as savings on page 258. The remaining items under New Works are shown on pages 263 to 265.

page 2463

QUESTION

PANAMA EXPOSITION

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

With reference to a leading article in a recent issue of the London Times contrasting Australia’s participation in the proposed Panama Exhibition with the action of the Mother Country -

Is the Commonwealth actually committed to this participation, and what will be the cost?

Will he inform the House of the position in which the Government stands in relation to the question ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is - 1 and 2. No; but the Government is prepared to contribute £20,000 towards the cost of representation.

page 2463

QUESTION

SMALL-POX OUTBREAK

Mr PAGE:
for Mr. Webster

asked the Prime Minister, upon, notice -

  1. Whether he has read the published reply of C. Killick Millard, M.D., D.Sc, medical health officer for Leicester since1901, to Professor Berry, of Melbourne, re his letter on vaccination ?
  2. In view of the information contained in Dr. Millard’s letter regarding vaccination and the results thereof, will he appoint a Royal Commission to investigate and report on the present epidemic in New South Wales, and kindred outbreaks in Australia, to ascertain the cause, nature, surroundings, treatment, control, and result thereof?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

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

  1. Yes, and Professor Berry’s reply in yesterday’s Argus.
  2. I have already announced that the matter of an inquiry is under the consideration of the Government.

page 2463

QUESTION

MARRIAGES OF BANK CLERKS

Mr PAGE:
for Mr. Higgs

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Western Australian Legislative Assembly has adopted a clause providing that any person or corporation that prohibits, under threat of dismissal, the marriage of an employe over 21 shall be liable to a fine of £500, or three months’ imprisonment?
  2. Will the Prime Minister introduce a Bill to similarly deal with those banking companies in other parts of Australia which now prevent bank clerks from marrying?
Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I shall be glad to consider this matter when progress has been made with Bills already introduced.

page 2463

QUESTION

RECIPROCAL TRADE

Mr PAGE:
for Mr. Tudor

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether any further steps have been taken in relationto the proposed reciprocal trade arrangements between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominions of Canada and New Zealand ?

Mr GROOM:
LP

-No, not yet; but the matter is receiving the attention of the Government.

page 2463

NATIONAL REGIMENTS

Mr PAGE:
for Mr. Tudor

asked the

Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon no tice -

  1. Is it correct, as stated in the Press, that the Scotch Regiments are to be retained in the Australian Defence Forces with distinctive uniform ?
  2. Will the. Defence Department provide special distinctive uniforms for English, Welsh, Irish, or other regiments?
Mr KELLY:
LP

– It has been decided to retain certain national battalions of a limited number, under conditions which are now under consideration.

page 2463

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FACTORIES

Mr BRENNAN:

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

  1. Has the Defence Department received any reply from the manager of the Commonwealth Harness Factory to a criticism by Messrs. Holden and Frost, published in the Sydney Bulletin of 16th October, 1913, on the manager’s report and balance-sheet; if so, will he lay such reply on the table of the House?
  2. Has the Defence Department received any reply from the manager of the Commonwealth Clothing Factory to a criticism by Messrs. Alfred Bowley and Co., published in the Age newspaper of9th October inst., on the manager’s report and balance sheet; if so, will he lay such reply on the table of the House?
Mr KELLY:
LP

– Replies have been received, and will be laid on the table.

page 2463

QUESTION

FREEZING WORKS AT PORT DARWIN

Mr PAGE:
for Mr. Finlayson

asked the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is proposed to erect freezing works at Darwin ?
  2. Whether any steps have been taken towards the erection or establishment of the same?
  3. Whether any negotiations have been entered into with any person or persons regarding the same ?
  4. Whether the House will have an opportunity to discuss any proposal or agreement submitted by or to the Government before afinal decision is arrived at?
Mr GLYNN:
LP

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

  1. The matter is under consideration.
  2. Yes. A site has been selected, and sketch plans have been prepared.
  3. Discussions have taken place with representatives of the company, who are considering the construction of works.
  4. If it is decided that the Government should build the works there will be opportunity for discussion in connexion with the Estimates of the proposed expenditure which will be submitted. Any arrangement that may be entered into under which freezing works would be constructed by private persons or a company will contain provisions amply safeguarding the interests of producers and the public. It may not be practicable to submit before finality any proposal or agreement.

page 2464

QUESTION

SUSPECT DEPORTED

Dr MALONEY:

asked the Minister of

External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Was an individual named Carl Peters sus pected of being connected with the white slave traffic ?
  2. Was Peters persuaded to leave the Com monwealth by the Federal authorities and given a free passage to Java, instead of the matter being fully inquired into with a view to securing conviction and punishment in the event of guilt being proved ?
Mr GLYNN:
LP

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

  1. An Armenian named Peters, a recent arrival in Australia, was reported by the police to the Department of External Affairs as being an undesirable character. There was no evidence on which action could be taken that he was connected with the white slave traffic.
  2. Peters was induced to leave the Common wealth, and the amount of his passage moneyto Java, from which place he came to Australia, was advanced, a written undertaking being given that he would repay the same within two weeks of his arrival at Sourabaya.

page 2464

ADDITIONS, NEW WORKS AND BUILDINGS

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
LP

-I wonder if I can appeal to the House to allow the Works and Buildings Estimates to go through the final stage before proceeding with the business of the day. I merely ask for the third reading of the Appropriation Bill to be passed. We have been more than a fortnight discussing these Estimates, and I do not see that any good can accrue from further discussion. I would like to get the Bill through so that it can be sent to the Senate at the earliest possible moment.

Mr THOMAS:

-I am afraid we cannot accede to the Prime Minister’s request. On account of some remarks made yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, who is not present, is very anxious to speak on the third reading of the Bill.

page 2464

DECIMAL SYSTEM

Coinage, Weights, and Measures

Mr DANKEL:
Boothby

.- I move -

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should take into consideration the advisableness of establishing the decimal system in respect to coinage and weights and measures.

On more than one occasion, honorable members in this Parliament have tabled motions similar to this, and it is not the first time I have put the matter forward, not in a public way, as a member of Parliament, but in a semi-public way, verbally and by literary means. It is more than twenty years ago since I first brought it under the consideration of the people of South Australia, at which time so far as Australia was concerned, I believe that mine was but a voice crying in the wilderness. No one had advanced the matter in any serious way, and in South Australia my proposal was considered an abstract one, and merelyone for academic debate, but the time has now gone by for us to look upon this important question in that light. It is stated in this morning’s newspapers that the combined Chambers of Manufactures throughout Australia have unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the decimal system of coinage and the metric system of weights and measures, showing that people from whom we might, perhaps, have expected some opposition, are anxious to have brought about this change in our industrial life. A little while ago, when glancing through the Acts of Parliament of the Dominion of New Zealand, I was agreeably surprised to find that, as far back at 1908, that Legislature passed an Act making it possible by proclamation at any time, to initiate the metric system of weights and measures. Section 25 of that Act, which is No. 206 of 1908, provides -

It shall be lawful for the Governor at any time by proclamation to declare that from and after a date named in the proclamation, the metric system, as described in the third schedule hereto, shall be the only system of weights and measures recognised for use in New Zealand, and thereafter it shall not be lawful to use any weights and measures other than those described in the said third schedule.

Five years ago, therefore, the people of New Zealand recognised the vast importance of this subject. It will be observed that I have not submitted a motion couched in hard and fast terms directing that the Government ‘ ‘ shall ‘ ‘ bring in -legislation dealing with this matter.

Mr King O’Malley:

– The honorable member has submitted a motion, elastic in its terms.

Mr DANKEL:

– Elastic, but not ambiguous. I have done so because, in the first place, 1 do not wish to embarrass the Government in regard to this matter, whilst, secondly, I recognise that even the passing of an iron-bound motion would not compel the Government to bring in, at any particular period, legislation dealing with the subject. It is just as well, perhaps, that the matter should be left to the good sense of the Government, and the terms of my motion show that I am prepared to trust them to give effect to it in the event of its being carried. Another point of which we should not lose sight is that, having regard to the state of parties in this Parliament, my proposal would give the Government an opportunity to bring forward a purely non-party measure, the passing of which, I am convinced, would prove of great benefit to the people of this vast continent, and to generations as yet unborn. I desire to say, with all humility, that I possess, not only a full knowledge pf the theoretical side of the decimal system of coinage and weights and measures, but a practical acquaintance with the working of the system. In my youthful days - in the first three years of my school life - we still had in existence on the Continent of Europe the old system, but iti 1868 notice was given that within three-and-a-half years a change to the decimal system would take place. There was a transitory period during which I was attending school, and, as my father was interested in business, I had an opportunity at the same time to see the practical working of the system which was initiated in the course of my scholastic studies. Leaving that part of the world I had an opportunity once more to test the almost antiquated system still in vogue in Australia with the result that I came to the conclusion that the system which I now urge should be adopted was vastly superior to that at present in operation almost throughout the British Empire. There are some objections of a more or less trivial character to the change which I propose. There are also a few weighty ones, and perhaps some very weighty reasons, which may be urged against it. With these I shall deal later on. As honorable members are aware, the decimal system is by no means new. It was started during the turbulent times of the first French Revolution - a revolution that brought about many changes, one of which did harm to thousands, while others bestowed benefits on untold millions. During that time of great commotion, the French Legislature of the day deputed certain French savants to evolve a different system of coinage and weights and measures, and they wisely chose one that was different from any other in existence at that period. They were probably influenced by the consideration which weighs with our friends, the Esperantos, who have produced an entirely new or artificial language in order not to stir up international jealousies. It speaks volumes for the system itself, and it is an everlasting monument to the ability of the great Frenchmen who evolved it that it has not been altered - even in any minute particular, so far as I know - from the day that it left their brains, now 120 years ago. It has been adopted by 500,000,000 of the human race. Practically every civilized country has adopted, or is about to adopt, it, and I feel certain that the day is not far distant when it will be in operation throughout the length and breadth of the great British Empire. Before dealing with the decimal system, let us glance for a moment at what I may describe as the present-day quartoduodecimal conglomeration. It is not quite as bad in relation to coinage as it is in respect to weights and measures. Under it, we have the sovereign of twenty shillings, and the half-sovereign, but we have the shilling divided into twelve pence, and it is there, in my opinion, that it is at fault. There may not be so much objection to our present system of coinage, and, therefore, it seems to me to be easier to bring about a change in regard to it than it is to make a change in respect of weights and measures. I am aware that in the United Kingdom the opposite “opinion appears to be entertained. Men and women there, who have given serious thought to this subject of decimalization, apparently hold the view that the metric system, as applied to weights and measures, should be the first to be taken in hand, leaving for a later .period the change with respect to coinage. They seem to think that the transition from the present inadequate system of weights and measures to the metric system would be the more easily accomplished.

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

– It has already been adopted in a scientific way.

Mr DANKEL:

– Quite so. It has, for instance, been adopted in connexion with all electrical work, and generally, I believe, in all branches of science. Even granting that, however, I fail to see that it should be easier to make the change from the present system of weights and measures to the metric system than it would be to introduce decimal coinage. Chambers of Commerce and Chambers of Manufactures in Australia advocate, as a first instalment, the introduction of decimal coinage, leaving to a future date the introduction of a metric system of weights and measures. The English system of weights and measures is one that has simply grown up with the course of time ; it is not the result of the combined wisdom of great thinkers, as the decimal system is. In the olden days, they took the yard measure from the length of the King’s arm, and the inch measure from the length of the King’s thumb; and the whole system might very well be called the ruleofthumb system. We have the mile measuring 1,760 yards, the yard measuring 36 inches, and the foot measuring 12 inches; there being no easily-recognised ratio of one to another. Our systems of measurement are absolutely inadequate in these days, and stand in the way of commercial development. Our system of weights is even worse than our system of measures. When a ton is spoken of, we do not know whether a ton of 2,000 lbs. or one of 2,240 lbs. is meant. When we speak of a hundredweight, we refer, not to a cental, but to 112 lbs. Then we have the stone weighing 14 lbs. A bushel of wheat weighs so much, a bushel of oats something else, and other bushels have other weights. The learning of the various weights and measures taxes the brains of the growing community unduly. We have three measures of weight - apothecary’s weight, troy weight, and avoirdupois weight. Liquid measurement, is just as involved. Every person of common sense in Australia, let alone every educated person, must realize that, by theretention of our present system, we arestanding in our own light. In my opinion, the British Empire is making a mistake in clinging to this system,, which has been thrown over by civilized nations. Honorable members, no doubt, understand the decimal system. There is noneed to sing its praises, because it recommends itself. Like a good article, it doesnot need advertising. But the question arises, How are we to alter our present system of coinage to the decimal system ? It would not be necessary to change many of our coins. I would propose the adoption .of the florin as the unit. That would allow of the retention of the sovereign, the half-sovereign, the shilling, and the sixpence. AustriaHungary has a two-shilling piece for the unit of its coinage, coupled with the decimal system, and has found it very satisfactory. The florin, or twoshilling piece, could be divided into 100 cents., its value being 96 farthings. A 2 cent, piece - about d. in value - would be the smallest coin that we should need in Australia. In adopting this system, we should do well to get rid of the unwieldy bronze coins that we now use. To carry any large number of pennies or halfpennies now requires very strong pockets. For bronze coins we might well substitute nickel coins, as they have done in America and other countries, these being lighter and less bulky, and having a neater appearance. If I desired, I could read to the House great slabs of literary matter to support what I have said; but I would sooner state the case as it presents itself to my mind, and allow those who desire to consult literature on the subject to do so for themselves. I am sure that no honorable member wishesme to read out to the House what he can read for himself. The adoption of the metric system would, perhaps, haveconsequences reaching further than those of the adoption of the decimal system. The metric system is a uniform one. The metre, or stick, as it is called in some countries, has a length equal to the fortymillionth part of the circumference of the globe, measured through the poles, and is the unit of the system. In the ascending scale, we have the decametre, or ten metres; the hectometre, or 100 metres; and the kilometre, or 1,000 metres. In countries where the metric system is used, kilometres are employed for reckoning distances, much as we use miles. On the descending scale, we have the decimetre, which is one-tenth of a metre; the centimetre, which is one-hundredth of a metre; and the millimetre, which is onethousandth of a metre. This is a very simple system of lineal measurement. For liquid measurement, the litre is the unit. A litre contains about one and threequarter pints, or about 2 lbs. of water of a certain density; and it ascends and descends in multiples of ten, similarly to the metre. For the measurement of surfaces, the are is the unit, it being equal to 100 square metres. One hundred ares make one hectare, which contains about 2£ acres of our measurement, and is the term generally used in speaking of large areas. Before proceeding to deal with the objections to the changes that I propose, let me point out some of the advantages that would accrue from it. They are manifold, but I shall speak of only a few. In the first place, the adoption of the decimal and metric systems would make arithmetic a much easier thing for our children, and would save fully .twelve months’ tuition in the primary schools. If an article cost 56 cents., it is easy, to reckon by the decimal system what 100 articles of the same kind would cost. You merely add two noughts, and place a dot before them, and you get the result - 56 florins; but, with the English system, a rather difficult computation would have to be made. I know that my children have much more difficulty with their arithmetic lessons than I. used to have with arithmetic in Germany under the decimal system. If the decimal system of coinage and the metric system were adopted by the British Empire, and by the people of the United States of America, who now have the former only, it would mean uniformity in these matters throughout the civilized world. That would certainly be of great advantage ; and, further, I believe it would tend to bring nearer that day of universal peace for which we all long. The nomenclature of the system is the same in all countries where it is adopted, and a common way of reckoning throughout the world is bound to have the effect of bringing the peoples of the world more closely together. I could enlarge on the manifold advantages which this system would confer on the commercial life of Australia, but I intend to devote the time at my disposal to some of the objections we hear, or have heard, from time to time. As soon as anything new is proposed a large number of people are always found to oppose it, owing to that conservative strain which runs throughout’ human nature. I know that some of my friends, who are radical, or even absolutely socialistic, or anarchical, in their political ideas, and would repudiate any idea of conservatism, are in their private life the most conservative of all. When it was proposed to replace the old horse trams in Adelaide with electric traction many people were heard to declare that they would not care if the old system remained for ever, and this was simply because of some little arrangements as to alighting, and so forth, to which they had become accustomed in the course of years; but now, of course, no one would dream of suggesting that we should go back to the old state of things. On another occasion an acquaintance of my own bitterly opposed the introduction of the deep drainage into Adelaide, considering that it would do more harm than good, but as time went on, and the system was established, this gentleman became the chairman of an important Board of Health in the metropolitan area, and sang quite a different tune. This strain of conservatism, as I say, we find running throughout the human kind; and it is only natural when a system, which, after all, is not so very different from that it seeks to replace, is suggested that a vast number of people should make objections, particularly before and during its developmental stages. I was a boy of ten or twelve, on the Continent, when this system was introduced there, and I remember that a great number of people found fault with it, but they very soon got over any annoyance they may have felt. The great mass of the workers very readily adopted it, as has been proved in other countries over and over again. If they are given proper wages and good living conditions they do not care whether they have to reckon in pennies or in cents. The other day a gentleman in South Australia, in talking over this matter, said that the workingmen’s wives would not like to go into a shop and ask for a kilogramme of butter, but I may say that, even at the present time, in Germany, the people still ask for their butter, and other commodities, in pounds, the only difference being that for a pound they get half a kilo, or a difference of a few ounces. Then it is said that the introduction of this system would mean that the business people would have to alter their methods, but this was not found to be the case in other countries, where the people very readily fell in with the new method. An objection is sometimes raised that this system would necessitate the alteration of old, or the installation of new, machinery. True, this had to be done in other parts of the world, but, apparently, it did not amount to very much. Besides, the system would not be introduced straight away, but a period of possibly three to five years would elapse, allowing plenty of time for the people to absorb the new idea. It is said the system would necessitate the storekeeper providing new scales, but so far as the ordinary balance scales are concerned, they could be just as readily used as at present. Doubtless some of the weighing machines would have to be discarded in course of time. There is, however, another fairly weighty argument. If we initiated the system here, and it were not adopted in the United Kingdom at the same time, it is said it would mean a dislocation of business - that there might be a tendency of the trade of Australia and the other self-governing colonies drifting to those countries where the decimal system is in operation. I freely admit there may be something in that apprehension, because I know that countries, where there is a decimal system, are more inclined to deal with countries similarly circumstanced. However, if a law were passed in Australia initiating the metric and decimal system, we should again show a beacon light to other parts of the Empire, as we have done on many other occasions. It would, to a degree, at any rate, force the hands of the authorities at Home, especially if they feared to lose some of their trade.

Mr Carr:

– It would have to be an Imperial matter.

Mr Boyd:

– Canada has altered her coinage.

Mr DANKEL:

– We could, at any rate, initiate a decimal system of coinage as a first step towards bringing about the entire reform. I regard this as a very important matter for all the people of Australia, and I hope that the day will come when the whole of the British Empire will adopt a system which would be of the greatest advantage from a commercial point of view. If nothing comes of this motion beyond once more drawing the attention of the people of Australia to the subject, it will be something to the good. I am certain that the great commercial interests of Australia are awakening to the fact that, by postponing this reform, they are standing in their own light.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

.- The honorable member for Boothby is to be commended for submitting this motion. His earnest appeal strikes me as a comment of some considerable force on the difficulty there is in bringing public opinion to appreciate a reform which, to any one who gives it the slightest attention, is absolutely necessary and almost inevitable. This is a matter which has before engaged the attention of the Federal Parliament. In 1902, a Select Committee was appointed to go into the whole question of decimal coinage, and it brought down what I am justified in calling a very interesting and instructive report. As a member of that Committee, I am very glad to say that the work was done with much enthusiasm, and we had the benefit of the special knowledge and study brought to bear on the subject by the late Mr. G. B. Edwards, whose tragic death we all deplore. The Committee’s recommendation was unanimous; and while I do not desire to traverse the ground covered by the honorable member for Boothby, I may remind honorable members that the difficulties he mentions were brought before us and dealt with in a way that I think shows that they can be overcome. We can take as a basis for the reform the present sovereign, and we can make a decimal coinage on that basis with very little alteration. The Select Committee recommended that we should have the sovereign and silver coins of the present value of 2s., ls., and 6d., and that the bronze coinage should represent decimal fractions of the sovereign, and be known as 4 cents, 2 cents, and 1 cent respectively. Thus the alteration would only apply to the present bronze coinage, and, in view of the undoubted advantage of the simplification of brain work in all calculations in money matters, and of the other advantages to be derived, the wonder is that we have not been able to persuade others in the Empire that the change should be adopted. But that is exactly where the difficulty arises in following up the report of the Select Committee. In June, 1904, a resolution was carried in this House in the following terms -

That, in the opinion of this House, the necessary legislation should be introduced to give effect to the recommendations contained in the report of a Select Committee on Commonwealth Coinage and Currency, adopted by the House on the 19th June, ig.03.

That resolution was carried unanimously, but, in spite of that, we are still working on the old unscientific basis. The difficulty undoubtedly has been to persuade the Imperial authorities to adopt the change in Great Britain. We are in a somewhat different position from that of Canada, which has adopted a decimal system almost identical with that of the United States. On account of her proximity to the United States, and because of the amount of trade between the two countries, it was only natural that the monetary system of those two countries should be identical. In Australia, We do the bulk of our business with the Mother Land, and it was repeatedly Urged before the Select Committee, by business men and others, that great trouble would arise in regard to business relationships between Australia and the Mother Land if ‘Australia adopted a coinage of her own. I think the difficulties have been somewhat exaggerated. The calculation necessary to adjust matters would be very simple; and just as Australia has shown the lead to the Mother Land in regard to legislation in many other ways, she might easily take this step and give the Old Country the lead in the matter of decimal coinage. There is in Great Britain a large amount of inert public opinion, and an indifference to this reform, which it will take man, years for the enthusiasts in favour oi monetary ‘reform to overcome; but 1 know these enthusiasts are working hard, and if we in Australia, following the recommendations of the Select Committee, and the terms of the resolution carried in this House, introduce the proposed legislation, it will not only give Australia a reform that will be of considerable advantage, but it will also strengthen the hands of those endeavouring to secure the change in Great Britain, and undoubtedly lead to the adoption of the same principle throughout the Empire.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- The honorable member for Boothby is to be commended for bringing forward this motion, so that the matter may be considered by the House once more. I remember the very fine speech made in the House upon the subject by the late Mr. G. B. Edwards. I understand that, on that occasion, a motion similar to that moved to-day was agreed to almost unanimously. Of course, this is a question requiring special study, which, I suppose, the honorable member for Boothby has given to it; but, in one aspect of it- the decimal coinage aspect - it would appear that the reform suggested could be brought about with very little inconvenience. Certainly, if arrangements cannot be made with the Imperial Government to adopt the system, it would be quite safe for Australia to adopt it. Mr. Knibbs, the Commonwealth Statistician, and an authority on this question, indicates that the confusion that would follow our adoption of the proposed system would be very slight. The matter has been debated in this Parliament ever since the commencement of Federation, and I know that it received the favorable indorsement of the Prime Minister in 1904, while we have also a resolution carried almost unanimously in 1910. As indicated by the honorable member for Perth, Mr. Knibbs takes the sovereign as the basis, and, in a special paragraph dealing with coinage, he makes the following remarks -

Considered apart from the cognate subject of decimal weights and measures, the introduction of a decimal coinage would present no great difficulties. Of the various systems that have been advocated from time to time, the one that appears to meet with most favour and presents the maximum advantage, would retain the sovereign as the unit, but would divide it into a thousands parts instead of the present 960 farthings.

Then he points out the different denominations our coinage should take, and proceeds to say -

As only the subdivisions of the present shilling would be altered, such a system could be introduced with less disturbing- effects on the arrangements of trade than other proposals, e.g., one which would make the present farthing its unit.

The subject of the decimal system has been dealt with in the House of Commons, but it is a regrettable matter that it has not taken a more prominent place in the discussions at the various Imperial Conferences that have been held. 1 think the decimal coinage and the metric system should be subjects for fruitful discussion at an Imperial Conference, and I hope that if the motion submitted to-day does not have the effect of causing the decimal system to be adopted in Australia, it will at least stimulate whatever Government ma.y be in power to have this question prominently brought before the Imperial Conference at the first opportunity in order that it may be discussed. Though there are many difficulties connected with the adoption of the metric system, the sooner the change is brought about the less will be the expense of bringing the Empire into line with other nations. The metric system is particularly one that should be settled at an Imperial Conference, but the decimal coinage system is one our Government could take in hand for the approval of Parliament, and at once open up negotiations with the Imperial Parliament to see whether it would not be advisable for Australia to do the same as Canada has done.

Mr Poynton:

– What is to prevent Australia adopting the decimal coinage ?

Mr SAMPSON:

– There is nothing to prevent it. Canada has her own system. We know that decimal coinage could be adopted in Australia with probably a minimum of friction, but as an integral part of the Empire we should endeavour to bring about uniformity in our coinage and weights and measures through an Imperial Conference. At any rate, it would be well to first exhaust those means before introducing the system in Australia. I can see no great difficulty in adopting the decimal system of coinage. As Mr. Knibbs points out, the only substantial alteration that will be required will be in the parts of the shilling.

Mr Poynton:

– And it will bring two large sections of the Empire into line straight away.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Yes. There was formerly a good deal of difference respecting the coinage of our own silver, but now we find it a great advantage. We shall soon be in a position, I hope, to do away with the cumbersome bronze coins we are using, and to adopt the nickel coin. I understand the Government are now considering this point. Coining our own silver has had the effect of creating another industry in Australia.

Mr King O’Malley:

– And we are making £200,000 a year by doing it.

Mr SAMPSON:

– It was anticipated that we would make a profit of £60,000 a year when we started coining our own silver, but we find now that the profit will probably be three or four times that amount. This is not a party question, and it is one that may well be considered by the Government. It should simplify business in Australia.

Mr Poynton:

– We have made one step in the direction by doing away with the half-crown.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Yes, and we are seriously contemplating the abolition of the copper coinage, and the adoption of the suggestion of the honorable member for Balaclava, that we should have a nickel coin. Both the metric system and the decimal system have been commented on by leading statesmen in Great Britain. A Select Committee of the House of Commons reported in 1895 in favour of both systems, and a year or two later a motion, tabled in the House of Commons, to adopt the decimal system was only defeated by a narrow majority, showing, not only that the feeling in favour of adopting the decimal system is unanimous in Australia, but that it is growing, and continuing to grow, in Great Britain. I hope that, as the result of the passing of this motion, the Government will make the question a live one. I hope that they will see fit to adopt it as part of their policy, and to provide for a system of decimal coinage, even if it is not prepared at this stage to introduce a metrical system of weights and measures. I trust that the Government will open up negotiations with the British Government, even before the next Conference, with a view to the simultaneous adoption of one, if not both, systems here and in the Old Country, and that, even if the Imperial authorities cannot see their way to make such a change, the Government will be prepared to bring about in Australia the adoption of, at least, the system of decimal coinage.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Groom) adjourned.

page 2471

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Increase of Payments

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EdenMonaro

– I move -

That, owing to the increased cost of living, an increase should be made in the payments to old-age and invalid pensioners.

I offer no apology for bringing this proposal before the House. As a matter of fact, I submit it with a feeling of genuine pleasure, because it seems to me that in increasing these payments we shall simply do an act of justice to the aged and invalid poor of this country. I look back with much satisfaction to my association with the introduction of this beneficent system. I was a member of the first Select Committee appointed in New South Wales, many years ago, to inquire into it, and it was as the result of our report that legislation was introduced in New South Wales providing for the treatment of our aged and invalid poor in a way very different from that to which they had previously been subjected. I also remember with satisfaction having moved in this House for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the question of a Federal system of old-age pensions. The honorable member for Darwin was, I think, the first to mention the matter, but I secured the appointment of a Commission to investigate it. At that time honorable members viewed with alarm the proposal for a Federal system, because of the expenditure which it would involve, and I dare say some will view with a good deal of misgiving the present proposition to increase the payments.

Mr Poynton:

– It was only the Governments of those days that felt any alarm.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I think that a good many honorable members viewed my proposal with alarm, but I would urge upon those who may be inclined to take fright at this proposal to increase the pension payments, that it is our duty to look after the aged poor and the invalids of the Commonwealth in the best possible way. Why should we not provide, in a reasonable way, what is necessary for their subsistence? The Royal Commission of which I was chairman visited every State in the Union, and we held something like sixty-two or sixty-three meetings, at every one of whichI had the pleasure of presiding. As the result of our inquiries, we recommended that a pension of 10s. per week should be granted to the aged and invalid poor of the Commonwealth, and I had the satisfaction of being a member of the Government which gave effect to that recommendation. In .the circumstances, therefore, having been closely associated with the introduction of the system, I have some right to bring it under review, and in doing so I ask honorable members to recall to mind the reasons that actuated us in fixing the payments at 10s. per week. It will be remembered that the Commonwealth was not so prosperous in those days as it is now, that we had to return three-fourths of our . Customs and Excise revenue to the States, and that we had to ask ourselves what was the most we could afford to pay, and what was the lowest amount that would provide a living for these people. After consideration we determined upon a payment of 10s-. per week. I find that the average pension amounts to between 9s. and 10s. per week, certain deductions being made in the case of those who have other sources of income. The figures supplied by the Treasurer show that the maximum pension is about 9s. 7d. per week, so that honorable members will see that a very large number of our pensioners must be subjected to deductions. At the time we believed that 10s. per week would be sufficient to enable the recipients to provide themselves with the necessaries of life, but I do not think any one will deny that seven years ago 10s. would purchase as much as 12s. 6d. will purchase to-day. We ought to.be prepared to pay such a sum as will give thesepeople as good a living to-day as they could secure by the expenditure of 10s. per week when we first passed this legislation.

Sir John Forrest:

– Has the honorablemember totalled up the cost ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– No matter what it costs, my contention is that Australia is rich enough- to be able topay a reasonable amount.

Mr Sampson:

– What increase does the honorable member propose?’

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

-I am not tied to any particular amount. The Oldage Pensions Act was assented to on 10th June, 1908, and was proclaimed on 15th April, 1909, but the first payments were not made until 1st July, 1909. I am satisfied that at the time that the Act was assented to 10s. would buy as much as 12s. 6d. would buy to-day, and, that being so, we should be justified in raising the payments from 10s. to 12s. 6d. per week. I am not, however, tied to that increase.

Mr Page:

– The honorable member would not object to the Treasurer increasing the payments to 15s. per week?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Not at all. If the Treasurer thinks the increase I have mentioned is not sufficient I shall be prepared to accept an advance. I realize that we shall have to find the money to provide for this alteration, but, at the same time, I cannot forget that plenty of money is being found for undertakings which do not commend themselves to me as much as this does. The qualifying age for women was reduced to sixty years by proclamation dated 18th November, 1910, but the first payments were made as from 15th December, 1910. That part of the Act which relates to invalid pensions was brought into operation on the same date, and payments were also made as from 15th December, 1910. The number of old-age pensioners in the Commonwealth on 30th June, 1913, was as follows- New South Wales, 30,869; Victoria, 25,434; Queensland, 11,221; South Australia, 7,752; Western Australia, 3.484; Tasmania, 4,183; total, 82,943. The estimated cost of increasing the maximum pension from 10s. to 12s. 6d. per week during the current year is £640,000 per annum. I agree with the Treasurer that we must carefully consider the whole question before we call upon the people of Australia to bear this additional impost, but can we continue to claim that we are paying old-age pensions equal to those paid when the system was first introduced, if it can be shown that, owing to the increased cost of living, the payments to-day are not sufficient to keep body and soul together?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · PROT; WAP from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– A great many pensioners have a little money of their own.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– No doubt that is so. I think that we might well have some alterations made in the ad ministration of the Act itself. I have taken serious exception to the opinion which seems to prevail in the minds of some people that these pensions are in the nature of a charity. The honorable member for Darwin, and others, who sat with me on the Royal Commission, . will remember that our very first recommendation was that they should be granted, not as a charity, but as a matter of right. The old pioneers, who blazed the track and made the country suitable for us to live in, are as much entitled to a pension as is a Judge, and deserve just as well of the people of this country. It would be a case of Heaven help many of us, if we had not had these enterprising pioneers to clear the way for us. I therefore press this proposal upon the favorable attention of the Treasurer. The poor are always with us, and we should see that they are not neglected, even if it becomes necessary to impose extra taxation in order to provide for them. There are plenty of sources of revenue as yet untouched. Some members of the Commission suggested, for instance, that there should be a tax on sport; that every person who enters a race-course, a theatre, or a stadium, should be called upon to pay a small tax for this purpose

Mr Thomas:

– I am in favour of a tax on those who attend race meetings.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Sportsmen are the most generous men in the country. Then, again, any one entering a ballroom - and I suppose the honorable member is amongst those who do so - would willingly pay an additional penny on his ticket to assist in the maintenance of the sick and the aged poor.

Mr Sampson:

– Could we impose such a form of taxation?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Yes, we have the power, but I have always set myself against special taxation for this purpose. One matter of administration which is capable of improvement relates to the delay which takes place in granting applications for pensions. Sometimes a delay of two or three months occurs and that is altogether unreasonable. We know that the Treasurer has a warm and generous heart, and I ask him to give special attention to this matter, and to see that there is no delay. It is all very well to tell me, as the officials do, that a pension, when granted, is paid as from the date of application, with the result that the applicant gets his back payments in a lump sum, but meantime be may have been starving for weeks. I ask the Treasurer to exercise his power, and to see that this delay does not take place.

Sir John Forrest:

– The system is controlled by a Commissioner.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– But the right honorable gentleman controls him.

Sir John Forrest:

– No.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Then, if I were in the Treasurer’s position, I would quickly send out a “chaser.” I hope that the idea that the pension is paid as a matter of charity will be exploded, and that we shall divest this question of any party complexion. We all realize the responsibility of our position. The sum of £640,000 would mean a large increase to our annual expenditure, but we must look after the army of distressed sick and aged. There are many sources of revenue which might be relied on to provide funds for the increase which I suggest, and it could also be provided for by stopping extravagance. There are many items in the Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill on which savings could be effected for the benefit of our invalid and aged. It must be remembered that the money given to these people is spent in the country. I make no excuse for having brought forward the motion, which, I am sure, will commend itself to the good sense of honorable members generally. I appeal to the Treasurer not to allow his official feelings to get the better of his sound sense, and ask him not to condemn the proposal merely because he feels that he cannot afford it. Australia is the richest country on God’s earth, where every commodity can be produced. Let our aged poor share in our prosperity; let them feel that, in the time of plenty, we are prepared to give them consideration. There are financial difficulties in the way of what I propose, but they can be overcome. If the Treasurer will tell the House that he will give the generous consideration for which I ask, his financial genius will enable him to find the means for doing so. I should like a vote on the motion this afternoon, because I feel certain that, if four-fifths of the members of the House support my proposal, the Treasurer’s political sagacity will cause him to take notice of the fact. Believing that I am proposing what is right, I leave the motion in the hands of the House. I do not insist on a pension of 12s. 6d., but, after careful consideration, that has seemed to me to be a fair amount. However, I shall be ready to listen to argument, and to agree to any reasonable arrangement whereby our sick and aged poor may share in the pros- perity of the country.

Mr SHARPE:
Oxley

.-I feel sure that the Prime Minister will agree to the motion, because it is part of the policy of the country to make sufficient provision for the aged, and they cannot live on the allowance that they now get. There has been a general increase in the price of commodities all over Australia, and in many instances the pensions that are paid are wholly absorbed in the payment of rents. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro has told us that, in his experience, the pensions are not sufficient to keep those to whom they are paid in a position of comfort, and honorable members will agree that that is so, and that it is absolutely necessary that the pensions shall be increased.

Mr Riley:

-Rents have gone up all over the place.

Mr SHARPE:

– I did not hear the honorablemember for Eden-Monaro speak of the rise in rents, but it is one of the main reasons for increasing these pensions. I have several pensioners in my division, and know that they cannot live on their present pensions. The Government are very generous to those whom they employ, as can be shown by an analysis of the Estimates, and they should show generosity to the old-age pensioners as well. The law requires amending in other respects besides the rate of pensions. I think that too much value is placed on the property owned by pensioners, which results in the allowances given to them being quite insufficient.

Mr King O’Malley:

– We changed that.

Mr SHARPE:

– The law has not been sufficiently liberalized. In my electorate there are two old people who own a couple of houses, in one of which they live, but the rent from the other is not sufficient to keep them, though the value of their property prevents them from drawing pensions. Something should be done for persons in that position, and I think that an amendment of the Act is necessary to that end. When old persons have property like this, which they are not inclined to sell, they should be given a sufficient allowance to enable them to live in comfort. The small increase that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro suggests will be hardly sufficient to cover the advance in the prices of commodities of late years. No doubt the hon.orable member will have sufficient influence with the Treasurer to secure the serious consideration of his proposal. I feel sure that when an amending Bill is introduced, the increase which he advocates will be provided for. Australia owes its present position to the early efforts of its old people. They developed the country, and have done the hard work of pioneering. Many of them struggled hard to save money for their declining days, but were overtaken by misfortune, and found themselves unable to accumulate sufficient to keep them in comfort in their old age. They draw pensions, not because they are desirous of living on the charity of the country, but because they are entitled to anything the country can give them in return for the good work that they did in the early -days. The Government should seriously bear that in mind. I hope that, having dealt so liberally with the Public Service, the Government will deal liberally with the old-age and invalid pensioners. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro did not, I think, refer to the position of the blind. They, in my opinion, need more consideration than they receive, and I hope that when the law is amended they will be better provided for. Every blind person in Australia should be entitled to a pension, whether in an institution, and doing work, or not. A blind person may be able to earn a little money, but he cannot earn sufficient to give him the comfort and happiness that we desire for him. There can be no greater affliction than blindness. The number of blind persons in Australia is not very large, but that is a greater reason for giving their case generous consideration. I hope that the amending Bill will provide for them an allowance which will enable them to live in greater comfort than they can at present enjoy. There are two blind institutions in my division, which I have visited on many occasions. The blind are highly intelligent, and able to discuss almost any question that is brought forward. They spend their nights in being read to, and seem to be able to grasp ideas more quickly than persons whose visual faculties are unim- paired. I am very desirous of having them better provided for, and I am sure that the honorable member for EdenMonaro will assist me in getting what I want. Our aged people are very dear to me, and I feel sure that not only members on this side, but also honorable members opposite, will support the proposal to deal with them and with our blind friends more liberally. I hope that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro will not allow his motion to be lost sight of, but will press it to a division, and will use his influence with the Government to secure the introduction of a measure, even this session, which will grant the relief that he has asked for.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

.- I am very glad that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro has brought forward this motion, and I advise the Treasurer to make a statement to the House of the Government’s intention in regard to it. This is a question which should be above party politics. No doubt we are all imbued with the highest humane ideals. There are in our midst persons who, in their declining days, find themselves in poor circumstances through no fault of their own. When the pension system was inaugurated in New South Wales thirteen or fourteen years ago, 10s. had as much purchasing power as 15s. has now, the prices of commodities and rents having increased so much. This Parliament has acted very generously towards the highly-paid public servants in increasing their salaries, and it has increased the wages paid to all Commonwealth workmen. The increase of wages brings about an increase in the prices of commodities, and our unfortunate invalid aud old-age pensioners have to battle against high rents and high prices, making it very difficult for them to support existence at all. This is a subject on which we should have short speeches, and come to a division very quickly. Honorable members on both sides are, I believe, agreeable that every consideration should be given to our old and invalid people. Money spent in this direction is money well spent, and it would be better to devote more to this object than to the very expensive naval and military system which we have initiated. The Government show no desire to cut down the defence expenditure, and they should certainly take into consideration those people who have made it possible for us to have a Navy at all. We have a splendid asset in our country, the wealth and revenue of which are increasing by leaps and bounds. The late Government left a surplus of £2,600,000, and I do not see a better way of spending that than in increasing the payments to our aged and invalid citizens. If the Government devoted £600,000 to increasing invalid and old-age pensions, they would still have £2,000,000 left of the Fisher surplus, and I am sure that their action would be indorsed by the people of the country. When the late Government proposed the maternity allowance, they were asked where the money was to come from; but they faced the position, and the public do not complain of the expenditure of £600,000 per annum which that allowance involves. I believe the allowance is approved by the country, and the present Government would doubtless obtain much political kudos, and strengthen their position, if they adopted the suggestion contained in the motion. I know that, personally, I should not attempt to make any political capital out of such a humanitarian act. The honorable member for Wimmera has a reputation as a generous citizen, and I have no doubt he will support the motion.

Mr Sampson:

-Is it proposed to pay the extra amount out of borrowed money?

Mr RILEY:

– Certainly not.

Mr Sampson:

– All the revenue is hypothecated.

Mr RILEY:

– I do not believe that half the money we are voting on the Works Estimates will be spent this financial year. The only idea of the Government in submitting such large votes is to have a surplus.

Mr Sampson:

– Will the honorable member help me by suggesting what reductions we could make in the Estimates?

Mr RILEY:

– The Speaker would rule me out of order if I were to attempt to deal with that matter. Our population is increasing every year, and also, of course, our revenue and commerce. The three years of the Fisher Government showed an increasing revenue, and we may anticipate the same under the present Government. If a referendum were taken, I firmly believe this proposal would be adopted by a majority of two to one. People are clamouring for more money on account of the high cost of living, and we know that on this ground the salaries of members of Parliament, and of the public servants, have been increased. This affords an argument, and a strong argument, for favorable consideration of the motion, for which, I am sure, we feel indebted to the honorable member for Eden-Monaro. It is not a party question, and I hope we shall have an early division, so as to show that this House at any rate contains members who have some humanitarian feeling in their breasts.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · Swan · LP

. -I should be glad if honorable members would agree to postpone this motion for further consideration, because it is not one to be dealt with in a moment. I move -

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to; debate adjourned.

page 2475

QUESTION

ELECTORAL LAW: ROYAL COMMISSION

Mr. SINCLAIR (Moreton) [4.32). -I move -

That a Royal Commission consisting of five members of this House should be appointed to inquire into and report upon -

the conduct of the Federal elections, 1913;

a better method of purifying the electoral rolls;

the prevention of plural voting or per sonation at elections;

a more perfect system of conducting. elections.

The time has arrived, I think, when the people of Australia demand an up-to-date Electoral Act. My object in submitting this motion is not so much to go into the past as to endeavour to formulate a scheme suitable to the electors of Australia ; past history will be appealed to by me only in order to find a way of avoiding mistakes in the future. It will be admitted by both parties that the party machine is grinding fairly hard at the present time, and that it is impossible to consider any large and important questions on their merits, with the result that they have to be set aside. Candidates are in many instances selected by a small junta, or selection committee, and they having received the stamp of approval of the party, the great bulk of the electors must either vote the party ticket or be defeated at. the polls. Some system could surely be adopted whereby the electors can give expression to their opinions without fear of their party being defeated. As to preferential voting, I have an open mind. I have never yet been able to bring myself to think that preferential voting is faultless, or even that it is the best system. It may, of course, be the best, but, at any rate, some system should, and no doubt could, be devised whereby a true reflex of the minds of the people of Australia could be shown in this House. There are many considerations that are, perhaps, as important, if not more important, than those of party. There is, for instance, the question of the Tariff, which has the effect of splitting up parties. Both sides of the House are trying to console themselves with the idea that the fiscal issue has been sunk.

Mr SINCLAIR:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– If it would, I should be pleased to have the proposal considered.

Mr Burns:

-Would the honorable member be prepared to support it?

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I do not say that I would. . I am not prepared at the present time to support preferential voting, but I am prepared to give every consideration to the evidence of experts of experience, to see whether they can substantiate their claims in support of that method or in support of the referendum and recall. As to . the fiscal issue, we parliamentarians may sink it, but I question whether the people of Australia are prepared to do so. Indeed, I do not see any reason why they should be asked to sink the issue, if some machinery can be devised to enable them, not only to vote on party lines, but also to vote on that issue and other large questions which come up from time to time. Many a man is put up as a candidate who is notpopular, but his party feel that they cannot jeopardize the seat by splitting the vote, much as they would like to have some one else to represent them. I have had some experience of preferential voting, and it has not made me enamoured of it, while I have also seen the exhaustive ballot tried under similar conditions, and fail. Then there is the question of allowing every elector who can enrol to exercise the franchise. Provision is made to some extent in the Electoral Bill now before the House to effect this purpose by restoring the postal vote, and, I believe, that if that vote can be properly safe guarded, honorable members on both sides will be prepared to agree to its restoration.

Mr Sharpe:

– No one on this side will agree to it.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I have heard honorable members on the Opposition side say that they would agree to the restoration of the postal vote if properly safeguarded, and I regret that the honorable member should speak as he has done. It shows narrow-mindedness for any honorable member to say that he will not extend to the people of Australia the right to vote, and properly safeguard it. According to the Honorary Minister, there were at the last elections 77,000 people who were disfranchised through the abolition of the postal vote, owing to their being ill, or infirm, or too far removed from polling booths to vote personally. I have no desire to discuss the Electoral Bill, but I feel quite satisfied that even the honorable member for Oxley would not object to an inquiry into the matter to see if some safeguard cannot be established, so that the sick and infirm, and out-back settlers can have the postal vote restored to them.

Mr Poynton:

– Do you not think that the Electoral Bill should be postponed until such inquiry is made?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– There is a good deal of argument in favour of what the honorable member suggests. The question of enrolment also needs some consideration. Means should be provided whereby all electors entitled to be enrolled should get their names on the roll with the least possible trouble and friction, and electors should be made to feel reasonably secure that when their names are enrolled they will not be erased for any trivial cause. There should be no stuffing of rolls. I cannot accept the statement made by the honorable member for Wide Bay, that there must necessarily be inflated rolls. There is room for improvement with regard to the removal of names. I think persons’ names should be kept on the rolls for more than a month after they leave a particular district, that is, until they are satisfied where their new residences are to be permanently fixed, and it seems to me a very unfair thing on our part to adopt the provision that any person who leaves a district for over a month- must have his name erased.

Mr King O’Malley:

– And then we prosecute them for not being on the roll.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– While we make every provision for enrolment, I think we should also make every provision to see that the rolls are kept pure, and that there is no duplication. I regretted very much to read the remarks of Senator Barnes, a few weeks ago, at Prahran. He said it would be - necessary for the supporters of the Labour cause to watch the rolls and see that names were not struck off without proper cause.

I have no objection to that. It is the right of every one, even political organizations, to watch the rolls. But I take exception to these remarks -

It would be quite easy for a registrar to write out a card and lose it, and the person objected to would thus know nothing about it.

I believe that we have, in our Electoral Department, men who are anxious to carry out their duties in a fair way, and I have no desire to cast any reflection on the officers of the Department. In fact, I think, generally speaking, the people of Australia, in their calm moments, are ready for a fair deal in regard to electoral matters. I admit that at election time people get excited and, perhaps, do things and say things which, upon calm reflection, they will not do or say.I do not think that any Electoral Registrar in the Commonwealth would make out a card for the purpose of losing it. Under the Act passed in 1911, an elector can have his name enrolled a number of times if he wishes. Though this may not be responsible for the inflated state of the rolls, it appears to be beyond all doubt that they are inflated. There is abundant evidence that they contain a number of names that should not appear on them. The adult population of Queensland, on 31st March last, could not possibly exceed 323,000, yet there were 363,057 names on the Commonwealth rolls on 23rd April. I have worked out these figures myself. They do not quite agree with some of those worked out by others with regard to the inflation of the rolls, but I venture to say they are not far from being correct. I have not gone into the deductions that should be made for lunatics, prisoners, and so on; but, calculating on the adult population of 52 per cent., we should have 323,000 electors for Queensland. On the same basis, the adult population of Victoria would be 729,890, but the enrol ment was 830,286, an excess of 100,396. Again, the Commonwealth adult population should be 2,492,512, but the enrolment was 2,758,394, or an excess of 265,872.

Mr Poynton:

– Your figures do not agree with the figures given by Mr. Knibbs.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– It is my own calculation, based on the last census taken in 1911, and brought up to date by the Commonwealth Statistician. I know that he estimates the inflation at 175,000. Let me now read an extract from a speech made by Mr. J. G. Appel, Home Secretary for Queensland. The speech was delivered in the Queensland Parliament. Time will not permit me to give the whole of the speech. I shall read just one extract with regard to the Commonwealth Electoral Division of Oxley. I may say that Mr. Appel had the assistance of Mr. Thornhill Weedon, the State Statistician, in making his calculation. The extract reads -

Or 24.27 per cent. increase.

The excess is one-third of the increase of population for the whole State, according to the Government Statistician. . . . The most remarkable thing in that connexion is that, taking the State roils, which I venture to say are nearly as perfect as it is possible for them to be-

Opposition Members. - No !

The HOME SECRETARY. - As nearly perfect as it is possible to make them, and the number of electors on the State roll for Oxley is 30,550.

I do not wish to delay the House, but I would urge that every effort should be made to prevent double voting. The recent scrutiny of the rolls was of very little help to candidates in finding out whether there was double voting. When the scrutiny was authorized, I asked the Electoral Officer to allow candidates’ scrutineers to mark the roll to see who had voted. I fought strenuously for this, but, in common with every candidate throughout

Australia, was refused the right to see the marked roll. I cannot see what possible harm would be done by allowing candidates to ascertain who had voted. It certainly would not involve any violation of the secrecy of the ballot. Hundreds of residents in my division were away in the Old Country, and did not vote at all.

Mr West:

– The honorable member cannot say that they would have voted for him had they been here.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– That is immaterial; but what I could have told, if I had seen a marked roll, was whether or not others had voted in their names. The Electoral Act of 1911 made it quite easy for persons to vote more than once. I desire now to call attention to a circular headed “ Confidential circular, for information of presiding officers,” which was sent out by the Department on 4th January, 1911, just prior to the referenda. I have a decided objection to the reading of confidential circulars, but I think that that which I am about to quote has already been laid on the table of the House and embodied in our records. The circular reads -

Advice has been obtained that an elector does not lose bis right to vote because some one personating him has voted in his name, and therefore an elector who, not having already voted at the elections or referendum, claims to vote, and answers satisfactorily the questions put to him by the presiding officer, is entitled to vote, notwithstanding that some one else has voted in his name, and his name has been marked off on the list of voters. Presiding officers should act upon this advice should occasion arise, but it is not necessary or desirable that it be promulgated for public information.

That being the law of the land, every elector had, in my opinion, a right to know it. A similar circular was sent out just prior to the last general elections. Honorable members will recollect that, when the amending Bill was before us in 1911, the honorable member for Maribyrnong expressed great indignation because some one had issued a paper showing the electors how to vote.

Mr Poynton:

– It was supposed to be a facsimile of the ballot-paper.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– It was not a facsimile, and the objection was that it was misleading.

Mr Poynton:

– It contained the statement, “If you do not vote in this way, your vote will be informal.”

Mr SINCLAIR:

– That is so. To prevent such papers being issued in the future, the principal Act was so amended as to provide that - .

In addition to bribery and undue influence, the following shall be illegal practices : -

  1. Printing, publishing, or distributing any electoral advertisement, notice, handbill, pamphlet, or card containing any representation of a ballot-paper, or any representation apparently intended to represent a ballot-paper, and having thereon any directions intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote.

There is a proviso that candidates may issue printed cards showing electors how to vote, this permission being given, I understand, because it was thought that there would be no likelihood of a card being mistaken for a. ballot-paper. As the Labour party were responsible for this so-called reform, they should have been the first to observe it, but, as a matter of fact, they did not. I have here the “ How to vote papers, which were issued by the Labour party in Queensland.

Mr Sharpe:

– They were very useful, too.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– They were, from the point of view of the honorable member’s party. The papers showing how to vote on the referenda questions were almost facsimiles of the ballot-papers. They were the same in colour, and almost the same in wording as the ballot-papers. I received a set of these papers, and on21st May I wrote to the Electoral Officer as follows -

Dear Sir, - I enclose herewith copy of “ How to Vote” papers being issued by the Labour candidates in the Oxley Federal Division. These appear to me to be contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act, especially the referenda one. I would be pleased to know if they are in order, as my committee are anxious to distribute similar papers, but haverefrained doing so on my advice.

Thanking you in anticipation of a prompt reply,

Yours faithfully,

Sinclair.

The Electoral Officer in Queensland sent these papers to the Chief Electoral Officer, who, in turn, forwarded them to the Crown Law Officer for advice. The Crown Law Officer gave a decision, which has not yet been made public, and sent on the papers to the Attorney- General for action or advice. The AttorneyGeneral of that day - the honorable member for West Sydney - has not yet given his opinion to the Department, but he did give an opinion to his party in Queensland, which caused them to withdraw the first issue of these papers, and to substitute another which was almost the same. I think I had just as much right to receive the Attorney-General’s advice as the Labour party in Queensland had.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Was any action taken?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– No action has yet been taken. I invite honorable members to examine these papers for themselves, and to say whether they are not dangerously near to, if not an absolute infringement of, the Act. The effect of their use, in one instance at least, was to disfranchise a lady who, it was thought, intended to vote for me. It is difficult to point to specific cases, but this is one. The lady in question went to vote at Silkstone, and was handed a set of these papers by workers for the Labour party. She was told that all she had to do in order to record her vote was to put them in the ballot-box, and that is all she did. Hearing of what had happened, I had my scrutineer on the watch for the papers, and here is a paper which represents the vote cast for me by this lady at the last general elections.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– How did the honorable member get it?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– My scrutineer got it out of the ballot-box.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is a serious statement - that the honorable member’s scrutineer stole papers out of the ballot-box.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– That is not so. The incident proves the necessity of having a scrutineer. My scrutineer not only got this paper, but several others.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Who is this wholesale thief of ballot-papers?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– If the honorable member will assist me to obtain this inquiry, I shall be able to give him a lot of information.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We want an inquiry as to how the honorable member’s scrutineer was able to steal ballot-papers.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– It was not a ballotpaper, but a “ How to vote “ paper issued by the Labour party, and used to deceive one of my supporters.

Mr Sharpe:

– The presiding officer had no right to give the honorable member’s scrutineer that paper.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Everything in the ballot-box which was not a ballot-paper was discarded by the Divisional Returning

Officer, and my scrutineer, acting under my instructions, kept his eyes open and picked up this paper as soon as it was thrown on the floor. I think I have made it sufficiently clear that the Act has been infringed; that the Labour party which amended the law two years ago with a view of preventing the use of electioneering papers likely to mislead, were the first to use them, and that they used them in a wholesale way reflecting discredit upon them. Other irregularities due to the hurried nature of the elections also occurred. To these I do not take any great exception, but I would point out that it is within the power of the House to remove the cause. The public are under the impression that honorable members receive £600 per annum, whereas from the date of the dissolution of Parliament until our re-election we are not paid anything. The ex-Minister of Home Affairs had in view the very laudable object of seeing, as he told me, that the ‘ Christians should not be too long without their money,” and he therefore hurried on the general election. I am not. willing to sacrifice efficiency, even for my own benefit, but it would be a fair thing to amend the Parliamentary Allowance Act to allow the sitting member to draw his allowance until his successor is elected. If that amendment of the law were made, we could have an interval of three months, if necessary, between the dissolution of Parliament and the election, which would give the officers of the Electoral Department time to make their arrangements perfect. They had hardly sufficient time on the last occasion.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– If what the honorable member suggests were done, a sitting member would be fighting his opponent with the nation’s money.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I do not think so. The sitting member must perform the duties of his position until his successor has been elected, and during an election campaign has more work to do than falls to his share at any other time, because he comes into contact with so many persons, and is thus asked to attend to many things which would otherwise not be brought under his notice. At the last election, for some unexplained reason, the ballot-boxes used in Queensland were made in Victoria. They arrived in Brisbane by steamer on the 5th May, but, that being a holiday on which the wharf labourers were not working, were taken up the north coast, and did not get back until the 16th May. As it takes three weeks, and even more, to reach some parts of the Kennedy division, the House can imagine the bustle that there was to get the boxes distributed throughout the State in time for the election. It is surprising that there were so few irregularities and mistakes, but there were some. The absent voting provision was responsible for a good deal of trouble. In my opinion, absent voting is a good thing, and should be retained. Rut the electoral officers, and not the general public, as happened .in some cases, should have charge of the polling booths. Quite a number of persons were unable to vote because of the shortage of ballot-papers. At Mount Crosby an elector told me that he found it impossible to get into the polling booth in the morning, and therefore could not record his vote. As to what happened at Oxley, which is on the border of the Oxley and Moreton divisions, a great part being in one, and the balance in the other, I have had this letter from a friend. He says -

I got out of bed yesterday, and went to Oxley to vote, at about 2 p.m., only to find that the presiding officer there had only been supplied with five absentee declaration forms. The presiding officer applied to his superior at Sherwood, and that official is supposed to have forwarded an application to Brisbane for forms. David Hunter also visited Oxley in a motor, and took away an application for forms. Attempts were also made to get forms at other booths, but all were short. We were all satisfied the authorities would send the forms, but they did not arrive - at least they had not arrived when I left, at £ p.m. Finally, I had to drive to Cooper’s Plains in the cold westerly wind at considerable personal risk. I managed to get about a dozen voters to the Plains, but you lost at least twenty more around here. Oxley residents are very indignant over the matter. . . . There is a lot of sickness about here, and old folks, who would have gone the few yards to Oxley, would not face the 3 miles or more to the Plains.

Mr Sharpe:

– -Coorinda is the polling place nearest to Oxley. Over 100 absent voting papers were returned from that booth on Monday morning.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Coorinda is not in the Moreton division. My correspondent refers to the afternoon between 2 and 5 p.m. There was a shortage of ballotpapers also at Blenheim. The presiding officer there sent to Laidley for 100 voting papers, which were taken out to him, but in the afternoon they were short at

Laidley, and had to send to Forest Hill, and consequently for three hours could do nothing. A gentleman named Hunter went to the presiding officer at Kangaroo Point, or to some other place in the Oxley division, and got 100 ballotpapers without being required to sign any acknowledgment. They were simply handed to him, and he took them to the officer for whom they were intended. That was a loose way of doing business. A great many irregularities occurred, of some of which there is definite proof, while others can be supported only by hearsay evidence, with which I do not wish to deal. I think that I have made out a case for investigation, and do not wish to labour the matter further. It may not be usual to nominate the members of a Commission, but I would suggest the appointment of the honorable members for Denison, Melbourne, Wakefield, and Hume, together with the mover.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

.- I support the motion, because, if ever there was a time when an inquiry was needed it is now. There have been wholesale charges of irregularity, though no evidence in support of them. An example of that has been given this afternoon. The honorable member for Moreton exhibited a dummy ballot-paper, which he says his scrutineer picked up on the floor of a polling booth. He alleged that the party to which I belong informed a lady that all she had to do was to go to the polling booth and drop this paper in the ballot-box. The honorable member told his scrutineer to be on the look-out for it, and by some mysterious means it came into his possession. What evidence is that to bring before the House? What proof is there that the scrutineer did not mark this imitation ballot-paper himself, and hand it to the honorable member, saying, “ This is what the dreadful Labour party have done.” The story is so palpably thin that I am astonished that it was introduced as evidence of an irregularity.

Mr Sinclair:

– Does the honorable member uphold the infringement of the law?

Mr POYNTON:

– I would not uphold any infringement of the law, but the story would not be accepted as evidence in any” Court.

Mr Sinclair:

– I can produce the lady.

Mr POYNTON:

– That would not prove anything. I should like the motion to be amended by the addition of the following paragraph -

  1. The charge that the electoral rolls, on 31st May last, were unduly inflated to the extent of 175,000 names.

Statements have been made to that effect by honorable members opposite, but we have had no evidence in support of them. We have heard nothing from the Chief Electoral Officer to show that they are true. I should like also to add this paragraph -

  1. The charge that 85,000 names were added to New South Wales electoral roll by the use of dummy cards on the authority and instruction of the Fisher Government.

There has been only one electoral Select Committee since the Commonwealth was established, and it was on the recommendations of that Committee, of which I was a member, that the first Electoral Act was framed. It is absolutely essential that an inquiry should be undertaken forthwith. If the Government are sincere in their desire for legitimate reform, why should they burke an inquiry of this character ? If they have any evidence, they have not given the House the advantage of it in regard to the alleged irregularities at the recent election. There have been charges galore, but the inquiries instituted by the Liberal party themselves disclosed nothing, and the Chief Electoral Officer, in his report, practically disposes of the allegations that were made. In that report it is pointed out that the errors probably do not amount to more than three in 1,000, and that apparent duplicate voting was accounted for by the ^act of different persons of exactly similar names being on the rolls and wrongly ticked off - that the facts pointed more to clerical errors than wilful acts. In the interests of the electors, who have been maligned in every part of the Continent, there should be a most drastic and searching inquiry. If there are irregularities, let us put an end to them, but do not condemn the whole body of electors upon the mere gossip of irresponsible persons, especially in the face of the testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer that he knows of none. In my opinion, the Government ought to postpone the further consideration of the Electoral Bill until such evidence as could be elicited by an inquiry enables them to bring down an up-to-date measure. I suppose, however, that the honorable member for Moreton has no assurance from the Government to that effect. The first Select Committee, to which I have referred, consisted of seven members, and, as they were not paid for their services, the cost to the country was only that incurred by a visit to Sydney. The report was produced in reasonable time, and on that report the present Minister of Trade and Customs, as the then Minister of Home Affairs, framed the Electoral Act on which the second election was held. We have had the broad statement that 77,000 odd persons, who were ill and incapacitated, were disfranchised by the abolition of the postal vote. As to that number being ill and incapacitated, the statement is absolutely incorrect, and yet it has been made over and over again. If a reasonable proposal to restore the postal vote, with proper safeguards for the secrecy of the ballot, is made, I shall support it, but I cannot consent to that privilege being accorded on broad, indefinite statements, such as we have had in this House and in the newspapers time and again. Every inquiry made, so far, has cleared the character of the people, and not one scintilla of evidence can the AttorneyGeneral produce that there were any irregularities or anything but that which might be expected at election time. It is unfair to the electors to charge them with all these political crimes, in the absence of any evidence.

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

– The honorable member does not connect me with those accusations ?

Mr POYNTON:

– No, I do not.

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

– I asked the question because you mentioned me.

Mr POYNTON:

– The AttorneyGeneral asked for certain returns in connexion with the matter, and on every occasion he has clearly said that he makes no charge.

Mr King O’Malley:

Senator McColl is making charges to-day.

Mr POYNTON:

– It was Senator McColl who saidthe dead were taken out of the grave to vote. I look on the ballotbox as too sacred a thing to be interfered with in the way alleged; but, on the other hand, the honour of the electors ought not to be impugned on irresponsible gossip. I feel confident that if a Royal Commission be appointed the character of the electors will be thoroughly vindi- cated, because- I do not believe that one irregularity could be proved. There were charges of duplication made in my own district, but they were proved groundless. One lady was supposed to have voted at Hergott Springs, and to have also voted, at another place over 100 miles away, although there was no railway or other quick means of communication. The explanation was that another person of exactly the same name, who did not vote at all, was ticked off as having voted. In another case a highly respectable farmer voted as an absent voter in Adelaide, and was also supposed to have voted at Tumby Bay, although the ocean lay between, with no steam service at the time; in fact, it was impossible for him to have done so. The explanation in this case was that his nephew, of the same name, John Calderwood, had voted at Tumby Bay in person. In every case I found that the supposed duplication was an error on the part of the clerk. I have filled the position of scrutineer many times, and I defy any man to go through the whole of the day’s work without making some mistake. As we know, the Chief Electoral Officer admits that three errors in every 1,000 votes are not unreasonable under the pressure, especially when, as on the last occasion, something like 80 per cent, of the people polled. I shall support the motion.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Monaro · Eden

– I support the motion because so much has been said that we ought to clear the atmosphere. I disagree with the conclusion of the honorable member for Grey, who contends that, because the inquiries that have been made are not very conclusive or clear, therefore there were no informalities or irregularities. Everybody knows that the rolls were in a rotten state.

Mr Poynton:

– That has to be proved.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I have had a little experience of rolls, and I can say that those of New South Wales were very bad. Of course, I am not taking any exception to what happened, because we were all elected. I should like this inquiry to cover the appointment of those who are placed in charge of the various districts. The present system is to appoint the postmaster as the Returning Officer, though he may be only a temporary or relieving man, with no experience of the duties. Why should we not’ have permanent men, so that the experience of one election will prove profitable at the next?

Mr Poynton:

– Some of the postmasters are very good men.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Quite so ; I am casting no reflection upon them. All I can say is that the experience of the honorable member, and others, are a revelation to me; we are infants compared to them. I should not like to put up for a constituency in South Australia or Queensland after what I have heard. One Queensland honorable member has charged another with “ working the oracle,” and yet the former has managed to secure something out of the ballot-box. Those honorable members know so much that if they will start a kindergarten, I shall be glad to attend.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And so shall II

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I hope that if this Commission is appointed it will be above party suspicion, and composed .of men in this House in whom we have confidence. Charges have been flung around, and we are all agreed that some inquiry is necessary. There were some very curious things- at the last election; and I could tell some stories if I felt inclined. There were some duplications in my district, but, as they were the names of ladies and gentlemen who supported me, I went no further; besides, I knew they were above suspicion . I rose to support the motion for the appointment of this committee or commission. I hope it will be a body that will give satisfaction. I hope it will be one that we can have confidence in, and one without party bias. We are not so much concerned with the last election. What we wish the committee to demonstrate is what should be done in regard to the next election, which is probably not far off. Perhaps it would be well if this committee could recommend that Parliament be elected for five years, because in the present circumstances no sooner are we through one election than we are faced with another.

Mr SHARPE:
Oxley

.- I support the motion to appoint a commission to inquire into elections, because it is absolutely necessary to have some inquiry, and if the Government have any consideration for the people of Australia and any regard to the slanderous statements made by many of their supporters, it. is only fair that they should grant the request of the honorable member. No honorable member was- subjected to as much criticism as was directed towards me. The honorable member for Moreton knows that all the statements appearing in the press were absolutely untrue. That is borne out by the recent scrutiny of the rolls in my electorate. On account of the Oxley seat having been held by a Liberal from the inception of Federation, and because I secured a majority of 3,000, the press had to say something, and one of the statements made was that after the rolls were scrutinized it would be found that about 1 votes was recorded for every elector on the roll. As a matter of fact, there were 38,238 names on the roll for the Oxley division, and the number of votes recorded at the election was 31,372 - a percentage of 82. The honorable member for Moreton has referred to a statement made in the Queens-, land Parliament by Mr. Appel, but Mr. Appel’s statement was made in ignorance of what was likely to happen. It was made on the Tuesday following the election, and Mr. Appel could not be in the position then to make a proper statement concerning the election. However, that is only characteristic of many statements Mr. Appel makes, and I do not think much notice need be taken of it. I am sorry the honorable member for Moreton attached any importance to’ it. He must know that it was afterwards found to be absolutely untrue.

Mr Sinclair:

– You are unfair to Mr. Appel; he based his statement on the information supplied by Mr. Weedon, the State Statistician.

Mr SHARPE:

– It was unfair to me, because the charge was practically against my election. It made out that there was something dishonest in the votes recorded for me. If Mr. Weedon supplied the figures, as the honorable member for Moreton says, then I maintain that he was not in a position to supply them. They were Federal figures in connexion with a Federal office, and he was not in a position to supply them to Mr. Appel. However, that is merely by the way. I wish to refer to the postal vote that the honorable member for Moreton seeks to have restored. I think every member ot the Opposition is agreeable to the appointment of a committee as suggested by the honorable member, and, seeing the many statements made in reference to the late election, the Government should not hesitate to assist the honorable member in bringing about what he desires, but when consideration is given to the pro- posal to restore the postal vote, I hope it will be bumped out. I agree with the honorable member for Moreton that the absent vote was of great service at the last election, and that it is of as much value as the postal vote. In fact, I consider it is of more value, and that it will give more satisfaction.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Do you not think that the sick are. entitled to vote ?

Mr SHARPE:

– I am prepared to give the sick people a vote, but they are the only people whom I would allow to vote by post. I am agreeable to the introduction of a system that will allow the sick people to vote by post, but only on the certificates of doctors or nurses. I have seen the postal vote used in so many ways that I cannot agree to its restoration. People are enabled to do so many things by means of the postal vote, things which they can do only by means of it, that I do not consider it would be’ wise to adopt the system again.

Mr King O’Malley:

– It is the rich man’s Moses.

Mr SHARPE:

– It is the man who has the most money that can get votes by aid of the postal vote, and I hope the clause in the Electoral Bill seeking to restore it will not be passed by this Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not discuss the Electoral Bill.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member is slandering the people of Australia by saying that they are susceptible to money.

Mr SHARPE:

– It is no greater slander than has been cast on the people of Australia by members of the honorable member’s party. We have had an experience of the postal vote in Queensland. It is the man who has the most money who gets most of these votes’. However, I merely wished to refer to the postal vote because the honorable member for Moreton has done so, and I thought I had the same privilege.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honorable members can make passing references to the Electoral Bill, but must not discuss its merits or provisions. In this case the honorable member specifically referred to a clause in the Electoral Bill.

Mr SHARPE:

– The honorable member for Moreton also referred to enrolments. The rolls, at the last election, were not as perfect as I would have liked to see them, because there were not sufficient officers to have many of the names that were wrongly on the rolls removed. There was not time for the officers to purify the rolls before they were sent along to the printer. But I do not think that mattered very much, so far as the last election was concerned, judging by the result of the scrutiny. That scrutiny proved that people of Australia are decidedly honest in electoral matters. I claim th’at there was not a single duplication during the whole of the election. The records, furnished as the result of the scrutiny, are those of mistakes in every case. I think the highest number of alleged duplications in any division was 140. The -result of the inquiry was a great tribute to the honesty of the people of Australia. I would be prepared, after the closing of the rolls, to put on additional clerks for the purpose of clearing them up, and thus removing some of the criticism that came about after the late election. That is the only thing that need be done in connexion with the rolls. I do not think the Act needs amending to any great extent, except to give the sick and invalid people the opportunity of voting. Further than that, the Act does not require any considerable amendment. I have nothing further to say, except to tell the honorable member for Moreton that he has my whole-hearted support in bringing about this inquiry.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

– I quite agree with the honorable member for Moreton. I am glad he has brought on. this motion, because I think the comments on the recent election were a great reflection on me, as the Minister then in control of the Electoral Department. In fact, it was made to appear that I did nothing but scheme and plan to corrupt the whole of the voters of Australia.

Mr Sinclair:

– I did not make that charge.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Nobody has said it. To blacken a woman’s character you do not need to charge her directly with crime. You have only to throw out your insinuations, and the neighbours will do the rest. If ever a man tried to make a perfect roll I did when I was Minister; if ever a man tried to get the Department up-to-date, and put it on a business scale, I did; but I at once confess that when a man goes into that De partment ha has to take things as he finds them. To get a Returning Officer, we must secure the services of a magistrate or a postmaster, who usually has all the work he can possibly do. Then the postmaster has to get another man, and that other man can devote only a little time at nights to electoral matters. He is too busy otherwise. These people have to make their living. I at once saw the weakness of this system. But another weakness is that the Minister cannot get the money he requires for the Department. It is all a question of finance. If the Minister goes to the Treasurer, he finds that the Treasurer wants a surplus. Every Treasurer believes that he must make his reputation by having a surplus, so certain sections, certain districts, and certain activities are starved in order to gain that end. I am glad this motion has been brought on, apart from this nonsense about corruption, because I believe that we have to deal with a number of partisan’s. When I was stumping the country many people who said they could not read or write told me that they went to certain polling booths to vote in favour of the referenda questions, yet at those -polling places not a vote Was given in favour of the referenda. Those people told me that they could not read or write, but I am not going to say that the men in charge, because they were partisans, took care not to let these men and women vote for the referenda. These are the sort of stories - the “ flyers “ - one hears. Some one gives a ‘ flyer “ a start, and it keeps on flying and gathering force, like a snowball rolling down the “ Rockies “ ; which, by the time it reaches the bottom, is so big that you would want the whole nation to shovel it away. That is precisely the position in regard to many of these electioneering stories. I claim that the Royal Commission, if appointed, would bring up a report which must have a beneficial influence upon our electoral system. It would go into the whole question, apart from the consideration of stories and slanders, and would recommend a system that must prove of benefit to the people. I take the view that we should have a permanent Returning Officer in each division, and that we should do away with the printed rolls. My three years’ experience as a Minister teaches me that the £12,000 to £15,000 spent on printing the rolls is an absolute waste of money, because they are really antiquated before they leave the printing machine. I should be prepared to give evidence before the Commission in favour of the appointment of a permanent Returning Officer at a salary of £200 or £250 a year, in each division. These permanent officers would cost less than -we pay at present to print what are really useless rolls. We should substitute for the printed rolls index cards such as are used in some of the States of America.

Mr Poynton:

– They might suit the purposes of the Electoral Office, but what about those outside who desire to know who are qualified to vote?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– “Under such a system, every person seeking enrolment would sign two cards instead of one, as at present. One of these cards would be retained in the Central Office, while the other would be sent to the Returning Officer of the division in respect of which the person claimed the right to vote. The relation of the Divisional Returning Officer to the Chief Electoral Officer would be very like that of principal and agent. When I represented certain corporations, I had agents in different districts. I required them to live there, and to become acquainted with the people, so that they could introduce me to them, and it was my business to secure the fellow whom they could not secure. Why should we not be able to run the Electoral Department on the same lines ? In this way alone shall we be able to secure a satisfactory system. Mr. Oldham is a splendid officer, and is absolutely impartial. There is no politics in him. If he has any leaning at all, it is to the other side, but as to that I have nothing to say. I am satisfied that his one desire is to do the right thing, but he also is hampered by want of money. Under my scheme, he would visit each division, and interview the permanent Returning Officer, whose headquarters would be the post-office in the principal town of the electorate. Steps would be taken to see that the name of every person over twentyone years of age was recorded. The Department at present is costing us £30,000 or £40,000 a year. I believe that we are paying from £25,000 to £28,000 a year to our Registrars. Are we doing this merely for fun ? If we are, then we ought to abolish the system, and let it disappear once and for all. With perma nent Returning Officers in each division, we should have a system of exchanges. When a man changed his place of residence, and sought to have his name placed on the records, the Returning Officer for the division from which he had shifted would take his card out of the index box, and send it on to the Returning Officer for the division to which he had removed.

Mr Archibald:

– Suppose the man who had shifted did not’ apply for enrolment in respect of his new division ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Then he would be prosecuted. Is it not strange that, although we have society, wealth, luxury, and prejudice helping to keep people off the rolls, we have a law declaring that those who are not enrolled shall be liable to prosecution and punishment? Just as a man, before he puts his money into an investment, examines the proposition from every side, so should we examine our electoral system. Under my scheme, the Returning Officer in each division’ would make a tour of inspection from time to time, would interview his officers, and would also avail himself of the assistance of the police in seeing that all the people entitled to vote were enrolled. I would provide for compulsory voting as well as for compulsory enrolment, and I also think that the Commonwealth Government should provide vehicles to convey to the poll those who are living in country districts, and who are some distance from the nearest polling place. The Commonwealth should also pay for scrutineers. I would make a regular business of the whole thing. Election day is the greatest in the year. Is it not the day on which the people create the machine that has to carry on the whole system of government ?

Mr Sinclair:

– Hear, hear ! It is the foundation of the system.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– It is the foundation of the nation’s prosperity, integrity, and progress. The name of every man and woman entitled to vote in respect of a division would be indexed aider the card system, and the cards would be kept in boxes and sent out by the Returning Officer to the various polling places to which they related. I would have separate boxes for those who came forward and said that, although they were over twenty-one years of age, their names were not on the list. If a man made an affidavit to that effect, I would require him to place his signature on an index-card, which would be put in a separate box, and later on, if necessary, the position in regard to such persons could be investigated. The permanent Returning Officers should be strictly nonpartisan. We must not forget that an honest ballot is the life’s blood of a pure community. If ever people on either side tried to corrupt the ballot, or to secure their return by votes that ought not to be cast, the hopes of this nation would be quickly destroyed, and it would not be long before we had a name like that which Tammany Hall has made for itself in New York. I can remember that, in the case of one election there were 12,000 people on the roll, and 28,000 voted. We cannot beat that in this country. I told my constituents that if it could be shown that 300 votes had been improperly cast for me I would resign. I am glad that this motion has been brought forward by the honorable member for More ton. I hope that the Government will accept it, and that the further consideration of the Electoral Bill will be postponed until we have the report of this Commission. After all, the Electoral Bill is only a spite Bill. It has a lot of spitfire in it, but no real essence. Honorable members on both sides should come together, with the object of passing such an Electoral Bill as will be for all time a benefit and a blessing to Australia. I recognise that we can never get a perfect electoral system, because perfection cannot come out of imperfection. In this matter we have to deal with human beings, and whether they are born in Australia, America, or anywhere else, they have all passed through the same mould. I heard the honorable memberfor Robertson speaking the other day on the question of nationality. He said that he was born in Australia, and I was glad to hear it. Then he said he was a self-made man, and I was very glad to hear that, too, because it relieved the Almighty of a tremendous responsibility. It is a matter of no importance where a man is born. . Human nature is the same all the world over. Let the Committee make suggestions. I do not say that my scheme is perfect. If a man wishes to vote, saying that his name is John Williams, and he has apparently been personated, the Returning Officer should ask him for his signature, and at once compare it with that on the claim card, allowing him to vote if the two appear alike. I hope that the Government will put aside the Electoral Bill until we can get a report from the Committee, and that then both sides will come together, so that we can provide for clean elections, and not have chargesmade by defeated parties after each campaign. I know that when a man is defeated he feels bad. At one time, in South Australia, I was defeated by fourteen votes, although we polled 98 per cent, of the names on the roll, emptying the cradles and the graves. I felt bad on that occasion, but I made no charges. I told them that within two years I would be either in this House or in the House of Commons, and I came here.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
ParramattaPrime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · LP

– It seems to be the general desire of honorable members opposite that electoral matters shall be inquired into, and there is an equally ardent desire on this side, both parties appearing to be of one mind on this, occasion. The honorable member for Darwin spoke of the Electoral Bill as “ a spite Bill,” but may I remind him that it provides for the very machinery he suggests, though it does not go quite so far. It provides for the appointment of quite a number of electoral inspectors to go through the country, as he suggests, seeing that the electoral machinery is kept efficient. That is one of the main proposals of the Bill.

Mr Sharpe:

-Would the honorable member put an inspector into each division ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– All these matters are governed by considerations of finance. The electoral machinery could be made so expensive as to almost bankrupt the country. One has to be very careful as to the statements one makes, if only for financial reasons. But the electoral machinery must be put into a better state. The fundamental trouble now is that at each election we have to rely on a lot of scratch appointments. The men appointed are not experts, and in many cases do not know much about the electoral law. If there were a number of inspectors, devoting their whole time to instructing these persons in their duties, and disseminating information about electoral matters in every nook and corner, at the same time investigating the rolls and the whole machinery operating iu each electoral office, we should accomplish pretty well all that the honorable member for Darwin has suggested. We ^should have better business methods and more responsible control. No doubt, the postmasters do their very best, and give service far beyond what they are paid for. One cannot say a word to men like these, knowing the small sums which they receive and the tremendous responsibilities which they assume! It is the same with those who collect the rolls. But, speaking by and large, as a rule, in this world, you get what you pay for, what you buy in the market; that is, so far as the ordinary run of services is concerned. It applies to the service obtained from the man at the bottom, who works for a daily wage, right up the scale, to the man at the top, who receives a large salary.

Mr Bamford:

– We do not pay the Chief Electoral Officer too much.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I quite agree with the honorable member. We must make up our minds to spend a good deal more upon our electoral machinery before we can hope for smooth and efficient working. I doubt if it will ever be perfect, seeing that it has to be worked on election day by many hundreds of persons who for three years at a stretch have no connexion with it.

Mr Higgs:

– I thought that the honorable member was going to exercise economy when he got into office?

Mr King O’Malley:

– Extravagance In this matter is economy.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Wise expenditure with a view to securing efficient service is the essence of economy. As both sides desire this inquiry, I shall not stand in the way of it. I am far from satisfied with things as they are. The Minister, worried with all the various cares and duties incidental to the control of a big Department, cannot properly undertake this investigation, and, therefore, _if the motion be carried - I shall offer no objection to it - the Government will try to make the Commission, or whatever body is appointed, fairly representative of the whole House, and as far removed as possible from a party composition. Some inquiry must be made to put an end to the trouble that occurs after each election, and to give the public a guarantee that the best business ability that can be pressed into this service is obtained by the Government. We shall make every effort to obtain as fair an inquiry as possible.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

.- The promise of the Prime Minister to appoint a Royal Commission removes the necessity for continuing the debate. I wish to express my approval of the honorable gentleman’s suggestion that the Commission must be thoroughly representative. The somewhat innocent suggestion of the honorable member for Moreton that certain members whom he named, taking three from one side and two from the other, should make the inquiry, is a strange one, in view of the fact that there are thirty-seven members on each side of the House.

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

– He could not take two and a half members from each side.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No; but it would be possible to take three members from each side. My idea is that the Prime Minister will understand that the Commission is not to be strictly confined in its scope by the wording of the motion; its investigation will have to be wider than is proposed by the honorable member for Moreton if it is to do what, honorable members on both sides desire. The inquiry must be one. at which none can cavil. All matters relating to the election and referenda of 1913 must be investigated. The Commissioners must inquire into, not merely the purification of the roll, but also the means of obtaining a perfect roll, and must ascertain, not only how names should be taken off the roll, but also what is the best system for putting them on the roll. I thank the Prime Minister for promising that the Commission shall be fairly representative of both sides. I see no reason why we should follow the old practice of having an unequal number of members. Seeing that political parties in this House and in the country are equally divided, it would give more satisfaction and result in a more acceptable report to have an even number of members, half representing each political party.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Matters of this sort must rest with the Government.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I recognise that, but the motion provides for a Commission of five; I do not think that the Government should feel compelled to appoint a Commission of five.

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

– The honorable member for Moreton does not insist on that.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I suggest that the Government, in framing the Commission, should not consider itself strictly bound by the wording of the motion, but should provide for a full and complete investigation by a Commission thoroughly representative of this Chamber. The selection of the members of the Commission, and the determination of their duties, must be left to the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2488

EXCISE TARIFF (SUGAR) BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without request.

page 2488

SUGAR BOUNTY BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 7.45 p.m.

page 2488

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

Third Reading

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · Swan · LP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

It is very important that this Bill should be sent to the Senate as early as possible; and I do not say that for the sake of saying it, but because I believe it to be urgent and imperative. The works of the country, since the beginning ofJ uly, have been paid for out of Treasurer’s Advance - that is, works in hand; and new works have not yet been begun, or, at any rate, to a very small extent. The Treasurer’s Advance is exhausted, and a temporary Supply Bill will have to be on the table on Tuesday next, and I do not wish to ask for more Treasurer’s Advance funds for public works. It is very inconvenient that we should not have an appropriation for works and buildings. For some reason or other, a great deal of time has been taken over this Bill.

Mr West:

– It is the Treasurer’s own fault, for not giving information.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I do not think that is the reason for the delay; certainly it was not the reason why we were kept here for hours last night by two members of the Opposition. It seems to me that the parliamentary machine requires alteration when two honorable members cans detain the whole House for hours in that way. However, I now merely desire to impress on honorable members that it is very necessary this appropriation should be agreed to; and I hope the third reading will be passed as soon as possible.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

.- The third reading of thisBill cannot be permitted until some comment has been offered on what transpired in the previous stages, so that different statements made by honorable members may be cleared up as far as possible. I assure the Treasurer that the Opposition have absolutely no desire to delay the passage of the Bill, and there does not appear on record any indication of such a desire. The mere fact that honorable members have exercised their undoubted right to criticise the items of expenditure, and to deal generally with the provisions of the Bill, is no indication of any wish to even temporarily harass the Government. Surely the Treasurer does not suggest that we should quietly grant his permission to embark on an expenditure of some £3,260,000 without seeking for information - though certainly we were not able to obtain any - or without criticism, if the direction in which it is proposed to expend the money does not meet with unanimous approval ? As it happens, there is not that unanimous approval, and, consequently, some criticism has been offered. I regret to say that we sought in vain for information. Even one or two members opposite were unable to obtain that information they desired, and the honorable member for Eden-Monaro was moved, in his disappointment and wrath, to refer to a portion of the Estimates of the Government he supports as amounting to a “public scandal.” These are exceptionally strong words from a supporter, and, in the circumstances, we are justified in the action we have taken. On the second reading, it was the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to call attention to the proposed increases in the staff at Garden Island and in the staff at Cockatoo Island. The right honorable member pointed out that, on the 30th June last, the establishment at Cockatoo Island was twenty-one, and the annual expenditure £6,416, while the Estimates before us provide for an establishment of forty-five, and an expenditure of £14,006. At

Garden Island, on the 30th June, the establishment was forty, with an annual expenditure of £12,911, while the establishment now proposed is seventyone, with an annual expenditure of £15,311. The Leader of the Opposition asked for information regarding the proposed increase, but no satisfactory explanation was vouchsafed. The Prime Minister, when he spoke, said, in effect, that the Government were committed to these increases because the previous Minister of Defence had .either actually made or approved them. That was a very clear and emphatic statement, and I honestly believe that the Prime Minister was under the impression he was speaking correctly. His information, I gathered, had been obtained from the present Minister of Defence, and I took it that a mistake was being made through no fault of his own. However, the assistance of the Honorary Minister was called in, and he actually quoted from certain official papers with a view of, not merely emphasizing, but actually proving, the statements that the increases had been approved by the ex Minister. One of three positions is inevitable : Either the Honorary Minister did not understand those papers, or he did not fully quote them, or - which I should regret to believe - he did not quote them correctly. From a statement by the previous Minister of Defence, it is as clear as possible that he did not approve of those increases, and that the present Government were in no way committed to them. Today, I am pleased to say, when Senator Millen was confronted with the situation in another place, and when he was called upon to fully quote the same papers, it transpired that, as stated by the Leader of the Opposition, the late Government were in no way responsible - that Senator Pearce had not given approval, and that those increases, so far as the managerial staff, overseers, and foremen are concerned, are solely the work of the present Minister. I am not here to say whether these increases are necessary or not, or whether they should be made.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the honorable member say that there was no arrangement made with the State Government to take over the staff on Cockatoo Island ?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There was an arrangement in regard to seven experts, in addition to their staff. Those seven had been practically arranged for by the State Government.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Was there no arrangement similarly in regard to Garden Island ?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No. In connexion with Cockatoo Island there were seven experts on the Estimates of the New South Wales Government, and it was essential to take them over in the terms of the agreement, but, so far as Garden Island was concerned, the thing was taken over as a going concern, with the liabilities attaching thereto, but with no approval whatever for an increase in the staff. The staff has subsequently been increased. For the moment I am not prepared to debate whether it is essential that there should be an increase, or whether it is a good or a bad move, but I am here to take exception to the assertion of the Ministry that they are committed to these increases. I am anxious to emphasize the point, because I know that every honorable member on the Ministerial side, when discussing these matters during the next twelve months, will, without hesitation, shield himself, or attempt to do so, behind the word “ commitment “ when the subject of finance crops up. Honorable members on the Ministerial side have to explain why they propose to spend, during this year, over £4,000,000 more than was spent last year. They may be able to explain it, but no doubt it is a serious matter to them, more particularly when one considers that they won their position in the House by declaiming against the alleged extravagance of the Fisher Administration. In the first place, they declaimed against that alleged extravagance; they called it by all manner of names - a “ carnival,” a “ debauch,” “ torrential expenditure,” and so forth - and created in the public mind the impression that there was something wrong by referring in general terms to the millions spent by the Fisher Administration, and when they come into office with full and complete control, when they can do absolutely what they wish in connexion with this expenditure except in so far as they are statutorily committed, we find their Estimates amounting to over £4,000,000 more than was spent last year.

Sir John Forrest:

– That includes the loan expenditure on the transcontinental railway, and other railways.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They will be called on in certain directions to make an explanation to the public. Their one and only explanation up to the presnt time is that they are committed to the expenditure, and that they cannot help themselves. We have this striking instance in which they actually go the length of pretending to quote from official documents to prove that they are committed in a certain direction. But so far as these additions to the staff at Cockatoo Island and Garden Island are concerned, I say that they are not committed to them, and that Senator Pearce, the late Minister of Defence, did not make approvals of this description. When, in addition to making an ordinary allegation, a Minister will actually pretend to quote from official documents in proof of the allegation, though the full and complete quotation from these documents would show conclusively that he is wrong, and that Senator Pearce is correct in his rebutting allegations, it seems to me to be taking a stand that is highly regrettable and deplorable.

Mr Sinclair:

-Surely that is not correct?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The statement of Senator Pearce is quite clear and definite.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– You are quite right. It is very clear, and I shall quote it in a minute.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– In the Senate today, Senator Millen, the Minister of Defence, was asked to produce the papers and quote from them, and his first statement was, “ It is a long document ; I do not propose to quote fully.” But there was an imperative demand that he should do so, and accordingly the papers were fully quoted. The documents showed conclusively that Senator Pearce had not approved. They showed that he had specifically refused to make these additional appointments on the recommendations of his officers.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Do you really say that?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, I do.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I am amazed at you.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– What about the figures the Honorary Minister gave us last night?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– One of three positions is inseparable from this : either that the Minister did not quote correctly, or that he refrained from fully quoting, or that he did not understand the papers from which he was quoting. The documents read in the Senate to-day show, first of all, that Senator Pearce specifically declined to make these additional appointments except in regard to two or three clerks; and, secondly, that wherever the dock or managerial staff were referred to, Senator Pearce declined to make any appointment, saying that it would be unfair to the new manager to do so. He refused point blank to tie the hands of the new manager; but, towards the end of his term of office, as the work was increasing, he did approve of the appointment of two or three additional clerks. So far as I can see from the Estimates, there are only eight clerks on the island altogether; there must have been some at the time the island was taken over. The position seems to me to be so acute that I feel justified in putting on record here a brief statement given to me by Senator Pearce. He says, in reference to Garden Island -

This was an Imperial Establishment, which was to be transferred to the Commonwealth. Captain Rolleston was the officer in charge. His. term expired before the transfer took place. It was obviously undesirable for the Imperial Government to appoint his successor, as we were taking it over, and so the late Government appointed Captain Henderson practically to fill Rolleston’s place.

As regards other positions proposed to be filled for which recommendations were made, approval was given by Senator Pearce for draft Estimates.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– In accordance with his arrangement with the Imperial authorities and the State authorities. Would you repudiate that?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I say again that the honorable member is incorrect. There was no approval given by Senator Pearce.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And I say there was.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Then there is a distinct difference of opinion. And before this Bill is finally let go we must have the official document in this Chamber, from the Senate, and have it fully quoted, so that the matter can be cleared up. It is an important matter. We had the Prime Minister on the one side yesterday making what I honestly believe was a mistake-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– You admit that Senator Pearce signed the draft Estimates, in which all these items were appearing ?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable member is again incorrect. The honorable member should not interpolate his opinion in the middle of a sentence. The matter is too important. “We have the Prime Minister on the one side, holding the highest responsible position in the country, and we have on the other side Senator Pearce, who for three years occupied the position of Minister of Defence, who has the reputation throughout Australia of being an honorable man. I am convinced that he would not knowingly say an incorrect .thing. Whatever we may do in the heat of debate, whatever statements we may make occasionally, I am confident that neither the Prime Minister nor Senator Pearce would knowingly make an incorrect statement on so important a matter. I shall read on from this statement, supplied to me by Senator Pearce -

As regards other positions proposed to be filled for which recommendations were made, approval was given by Senator Pearce for. draft Estimates.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Hear, hear !

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The cheers of the Prime Minister call for some explanation. Draft Estimates are merely the proposals of officers from sub-Departments.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I am speaking of what is at the back of the draft Estimates - the agreement with the State.

Mr Tudor:

– The honorable member is shifting his ground now.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not wish to deal with that aspect of the case at present. I hope the Prime Minister will not force me to do so. Draft Estimates are merely the first proposal which the officers from various sub-Departments submit to the central Department. They do not commit the Minister at the moment, and they do not commit anybody other than the officers, who are not responsible to the Parliament, as a Minister is. Senator Pearce says -

No final Estimates in regard to Garden Island were approved, as it was intended to consider the whole question of the possible duplication’ of the- staff between Garden Island and Cockatoo Island when the final Estimates were being dealt with. That stage was not reached because of -the late Government going out of office-.

It could not be clearer. The final Estimates were not approved. No commitment was made; no appointments were made; and if, subsequently, appointments were made, and provision, is made on the present Estimates for them, it must be either that the present Minister of Defence has knowingly made them or he has allowed them to be made unknowingly. I do not know which situation he prefers.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– So far as actual commitments are concerned, there are none now. There will be none until these Estimates are through, in that sense.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I hope the Prime Minister will not attempt to side-track or shift his ground. His emphatic statement on the assertion of the present Minister of Defence was yesterday that the present Government are committed to these increases.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I shall make it again, even more emphatically.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Prime Minister is at liberty to do so, but I say that there is a distinct difference of opinion, and there is no justification for the honorable gentleman making the statement. He should not make it. There is nothing to prove that Senator Pearce by any word, act, or deed, committed the present Government to this Increase. The statement supplied by Senator Pearce goes on to say -

Under the Imperial Establishment there were marines in the Royal Navy. There are no marines in the Royal Australian Navy. It is understood that marines were used for guard and watch duties on Garden Island, and it became necessary, therefore, to appoint police to take their places. These appointments were, therefore, approved. But the proposal to retain ten officers and too petty officers and men (see page 100, Estimates), was not approved by the late Minister.

And yet we find them in the Estimates.

Sir John Forrest:

– Do you wish to strike them out?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not prepared to say so, because we were unable to obtain information. The Treasurer does not know why these men are to be retained. The Minister representing the Minister of Defence does not know why they are to be retained.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But you do say there is extravagance;

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have not said so in this connexion.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member’s leader said it very emphatically last night.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You must not commit me to what some one else is alleged to have said. I have not said it. Can any honorable member say why ten officers and a hundred petty officers and men are to be retained on Garden Island? It must not be forgotten that these are seagoing men, who ought to be on their ships, and not retained on Garden Island. To do what? No member of the Ministry knows why they are to be retained there; but, apparently, for some reason unknown to Parliament, and even to responsible Ministers, 110 officers, petty officers, and men are to be retained on this Island. Speaking with some slight experience of both sea and army, I do not know why sea-going men should be retained there. I cannot understand it. It has been suggested that they are to be in a sense the servants - the term is known in the Navy - of certain officers. I hope such is not the case. But we are justified in asking why this additional personnel is retained on the island. Senator Pearce goes on to say that, so far as he knows, no reason can be given for the retention of these men -

As regards Darling Harbor (Victualling Dep6t) and Spectacle Island (Ordnance Depot) the officers appointed there were officers previously in the employ of the Imperial Government, and were appointed with some minor readjustments of salary; but no new appointments,’ other than these, were made in regard to these establishments, and certainly not the overseers and foremen, &c, provided on these Estimates.

Here, again, we have a very emphatic statement.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Whose statement is it?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It was made by Senator Pearce, and it is of such importance that I feel justified in placing it on record, because of the difference of opinion that prevails, but mainly because honorable members opposite, when questioned in regard to additional expenditure, invariably allege that they are committed to it. Here we have a specific instance of additional expenditure to which the present Government were not committed. I come now to Cockatoo Island -

Cockatoo Island Dockyard, it was arranged, was to be taken over from the New South Wales Government. There was a staff employed there, who were borne on the list of permanent offi cials of the State Government. During the transition period it was arranged that thisstaff should continue to manage the affairs of the dockyard, being lent to the Commonwealth by the State Government for the purpose. With respect to two of these officers - the Secretary and the Accountant - it was subsequently arranged that they should go back into the State Service, and their positions were filled by Commonwealth appointments. The late Government, had decided to obtain a general manager for the dockyard, and to seek his advice in regard to the staff necessary for the efficient working of the yard. To that end, they had advertised throughout the world; had received applications. They had fixed no salary. They had appointed a committee in Great Britain to go through the applications received. That committee had made recommendations on the eve of the Government, going out of office, and in consequence no appointment was made by the out-going Government. Senator Pearce refused to make appointments on the staff other than those indicated, and some minor appointments to the clerical staff, rendered necessary by increase of work. He refused to do so on the ground that such action would tie the hands of the incoming manager.

He refused to do this, on the ground that such action would tie the hands of the incoming manager. This is not a verbal, but a written statement, made with a full knowledge of all the facts. Notwithstanding it, however, the Government,, with a desire to shelter themselves behind their predecessors, allege that they are committed to this additional expenditure. This statement is too important to pass by. Then we have the further statement -

Proposals submitted by the Naval Board were certainly approved for draft Estimates following the usual practice of the Minister, which was, upon receiving Estimates of subDepartments, to approve of them for draft Estimates, and when all sub-Departments’ Estimates were in, to then go through them as a whole, and prepare his final Estimates for submission to the Treasurer. The latter stage was never reached, and in consequence no final approval of estimates for these establishments was given by Senator Pearce. The approval given was merely a temporary approval for them to be submitted at a, later date on final Estimates.

This left the situation entirely free. Nothing could be more honorable, upright, or courageous.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– But is there not a temporary approval mentioned there ?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There was approval of the draft Estimates, but the honorable member, as one who has held office, willnot say that mere draft Estimates committed either the Minister of that day or his successor.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does not the honorable member know that these men were put on the draft Estimates because Senator Pearce had arranged with the State to take them over? This is a complete misrepresentation .

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is not. The agreement was to take over the staffs as they then existed, and they were taken over. But those staffs are not covered by the increase to which exception has been taken by the Leader of the Opposition. ‘

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Surely, if these men were placed on the draft Estimates, that amounted to a commitment?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And Senator Pearce does not deny it.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– This statement by Senator Pearce is fairly emphatic. I would point out to the honorable member for Eden-Monaro that we took over practically two islands, with their separate staffs. It was intended to work the two together, and that a general manager of undoubted ability and experience should be appointed. Applications for the position were called for, but Senator Pearce, as Minister of Defence, refused to make any appointment until the general manager was there to advise him.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Did he suggest the salary ?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There was a suggestion with respect to the salary to be paid, but no salary was fixed.

Sir John Forrest:

– How could the exMinister invite applications for a position if he could not tell applicants what was the salary attaching to it?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It would be quite possible to call for applications to fill a newly-created position without mentioning the salary. Would the right honorable gentleman fix the salary for an office without knowing anything in regard to it ? After all, he is sufficient of an autocrat, no doubt, to fix salaries for the whole world. We had our limitations, and we were not prepared to decide what was a fair salary to attach to a position of such magnitude as this. I desire, however, to come back to the interjection made by the honorable member for EdenMonaro. The Naval Department, for instance, knowing that there was to be an increase in its work and that certain alterations were to be carried out, made its recommendations on draft Estimates to the then Minister of

Defence, who merely said, “ These draftEstimates can come up to me later on for approval or otherwise when it becomes my duty to consider the final Estimates.” That was the only stage reached. There was no commitment of any description.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– That is the usual course.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Certainly, it is.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member for, Adelaide evidently does not know much about the framing of Estimates. Why are these draft ‘ Estimates initialed or signed ? Does not the honorable member know that they are signed to be sent on to the Treasury ?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No.

Sir Robert Best:

– That is what is done.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– My honorable friends, because they happen to have been members of Cabinets of different character, are seeking to confuse the issue by suggesting that the mere appearance of the initials of the Minister on draft Estimates submitted by sub-Departments commits that Minister, or any one else, to the expenditure for which they provide. They suggest, also, that a sub-Department’s draft Estimates are sent on to the Treasurer before they have been finally approved by the Department or the Minister controlling it. How utterly absurd is the suggestion. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro is fairer in this matter, since, speaking with Ministerial experience, he points out that it is not correct to suggest that draft Estimates from sub-Departments are sent on to the Treasury. Such Estimates do not, and cannot, commit the Minister.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– But if they were based on an agreement there would be a commitment.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But they were not based on an agreement. The agreement was to take over the staffs as they existed under the State, and we took them over. Since then, however,, the staffs on both islands have been materially increased, and it is in regard to that increase that this difference of opinion exists. For instance, we took over the Cockatoo Island dockyard staff of twenty-one persons, with an additional seven who were then under agreement with the State of New South Wales. But these Estimates make provision for a staff of no less than fortyfive, and it is this increase to which exception has been taken.

Mr Manifold:

-Were not the fortyfive employed by the New South Wales Government on Cockatoo Island ?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No.

Mr Manifold:

-I think that the honorable member will find that they were; that they were temporarily employed.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Temporary employes are not under the agreement.

Mr Joseph Cook:

-As a matter of fact, the present Minister has made only one appointment.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-That may be. That, however, is not the point. We have on these Estimates provision for an increase in the staff that we took over from the New South Wales Government - an increase from twenty-eight to forty-five.

Mr Joseph Cook:

-Absolutely incorrect.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If the present Minister of Defence has not knowingly made more than one appointment, there has apparently been an increase without his knowledge, or, in other words, he is making provision on his Estimates for an increase.

Mr Joseph Cook:

-Not at all.

Sir John Forrest:

-It is a pity that the honorable member does not know more about the matter.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I am sorry that the right honorable member should continue to grumble; but, after all, the remark he makes is merely that of an irritable gentleman.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member is wrong in his statement about this matter.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If I am, then I am merely reading a statement made by Senator Pearce. I shall read the paragraph in question once more, so that there may be no misunderstanding -

Proposals submitted by the Naval Board were certainly approved for draft Estimates, following the usual practice of the Minister, which was, upon receiving Estimates of subDepartments, to approve of them for draft Estimates, and when all sub-Departments’ Estimates were in, to then go through them as a whole, and prepare his final Estimates for submission to the Treasurer. The latter stage was never reached, and in consequence no final approval of estimates for these establishments was given by Senator Pearce. The approval given was merely a temporary approval for them to be submitted at a later date on final Estimates.

Surely this clearly shows that there was no commitment.

Sir Robert Best:

– It is incorrect so far as the practice is concerned.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The practice followed by the honorable member when a Minister is not necessarily the practice followed by others.

Sir Robert Best:

-I think it is.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If the honorable member’s practice was wrong, it is not to be said that others would follow it.

Mr Agar Wynne:

-In the Postal Department I have had to pay considerable sums in respect of accounts initialed by my predecessor or his deputy.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr Page:

– Who was the deputy to whom the honorable member refers ?

Mr Agar Wynne:

Senator Findley.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. A Minister may initial accounts for payment.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What is wrong with this? Come to the point.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The point is that when this increase in the Estimates was challenged, the honorable gentleman, acting on the statement of his Minister of Defence, alleged that the increases were commitments, and that his Government had no option in the matter. He may be able to explain why these increases should be made. They may be perfectly proper; but we must take exception to this continual excuse on the part of the present Government - to their constant attempt to get behind the late Administration when challenged with regard to any expenditure, and to their declaration that they were committed to it. Here we have a specific case in which they were not committed.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the honorable member say that there is no commitment unless a Minister actually provides for it on the Estimates?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– A Minister is not committed unless he finally approves of the Estimates and submits them to the Treasurer. Even then his Government is not finally committed if the Treasurer refuses to adopt, and cuts down, the Estimates.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– As he generally does.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As he generally does, and I believe that the Treasurer cut them down pretty severely on this occasion. Even until then the Ministry are not committed. . Until they make the Estimates public, they are not committed..

The Estimates had not been finally approvedeven by the Ministers in their Departments, and had not been sent on to the Treasurer.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Is not the main point at issue whether the men are required ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No ; whether they were taken over from the States or not.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The main point, so far as I am concerned, is this: that the proposed expenditure for the current year exceeds last year’s expenditure by over £4,000,000, and that this large increase is excused by honorable gentlemen opposite, and particularly by Ministers, on the ground that they are committed to it by the action of their predecessors. That statement will be scattered broadcast. The party newspapers are publishing it, and honorable members will repeat it from every platform, at every social, and at every little gathering of men,women, and children. They will allege, when asked, “ Why did you gentlemen, who were elected to put the finances on a sound and proper basis, spend £4,000,000 more than your predecessors, about whose extravagance you complained so bitterly?” - when that is asked, as it will be very often, they will make this puerile excuse, that they could not help themselves, because the previous Ministry had committed them to it.

Mr Patten:

-That is very largely true.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That will be the one and only excuse that the honorable member will allege. Neither he nor any other member of the party will stand up boldly and say, “ This policy is my policy, and consequently I approve of the expenditure on it. “ They will shield themselves behind the allegation that they were committed by their predecessors and cannot help themselves. Do they object to this expenditure on the Navy and military? They allege that the defence policy is their policy. If it is their policy, they must provide the money for it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member’s leader was objecting to it last night.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The only expenditure to which they take exception is that on the maternity allowance, to which they are committed, and from which they cannot at present escape. So far as the expenditure on the Post Office, old-age pensions, the Navy and Army, and all other Departments of the Public Service is concerned, they claim that it is in furtherance of their policy. If so, why do they not stand up like men, and acknowledge that the expenditure is their expenditure? They should not creep behind their predecessors for shelter. I do not wish to repeat the statement too often, but during the recent elections many serious, alarming, and unwarrantable references were made to finance. Honorable members opposite then spoke in millions. They frightened the electors; they made the public timid. Large numbers of persons actually believed that some frightful wrong was being perpetrated; that the country was being rushed into a very maelstrom of extravagant expenditure. We asked for the items to which they took exception, and then they became as dumb as it was possible for men to be. Now they have complete control of the finances, and can do as they like, except where statutory commitments are concerned, they are increasing the expenditure by over £4,000,000. They have a perfect right to do so, and I do not complain of that; but they should stand by their proposals. They should acknowledge that the expenditure is in furtherance of their policy, and that they approve of it. They should not seek shelter behind their predecessors. This is another paragraph of Senator Pearce’s memorandum -

Further, the Government, if it makes appointments under these Estimates, is practically tying the hands of the future manager, who may find himself with unnecessary officers in some cases, and without the necessary ones in others.

That shows that Senator Pearce took a definite and, I think, a proper stand. He was instituting what for all practical purposes was a new Department. He was providing for the building of ships, and particularly of naval ships. He called for applications from men competent to take the responsible position of manager of a huge ship-building yard, and to control the expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. He said., in effect, that, not being expert in these matters, he preferred to receive the advice of whatever expert might be appointed as to the staff that would be required, so that the Garden Island and Cockatoo Island establishments could be worked in conjunction, and as economically as possible. Senator Pearce, therefore, refrained from making these additional appointments. They may be necessary; I do not say that they are not.

But it may be advisable to refrain from making them until the manager has had an opportunity to view the position for himself , and to communicate to the Government what staffs he will require for this important work. There is one other matter to which I desire to draw attention; it is the peculiar situation in which we find ourselves in regard to the Cockburn Sound Naval Base. I should not have troubled the House this evening with any reference to the matter if it had not been for the regrettable illness of the honorable member for Fremantle, a young man who, whatever may be our political differences, we welcome to this Chamber as giving indications of useful service to the country in this National Parliament. I hope that his illness will be of the shortest possible duration, and that we shall soon be able to welcome him back to the place that he honours. The Ministry have informed us that they have invited an engineer of great ability to advise them in respect to the Naval Bases. Until his advice is obtained, they say, the work must be stopped. We find that the work at Cockburn Sound has been stopped. The Naval Base there is within an electorate that rejected a supporter of the present Ministry, and elected an Oppositionist. The work at Westernport, the site of another naval base within an electorate represented by a Government supporter, has not been stopped. Work was commenced at these two places on the recommendation of the Australian Navy Board. Apparently the present Ministry do not think that the Board is competent to give advice about this work. They say, “We must have the advice of an expert from England.” I think that, under these circumstances, I am justified iu asking why they have not stopped all the naval works. If the Australian Navy Board is competent to advise in respect to the work of the Westernport Naval Base, it should be competent to advise in respect to the work at the Cockburn Sound Naval Base. But I have been given to understand that the work at the Westernport Naval Base has not been stopped, although that at the Cockburn Sound Naval Base has been stopped.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– What is the inference ?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not know.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Then why make the statement?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statement is correct.

Mr Tudor:

– The Cockburn Sound Naval Base happens to be in an electorate represented by an Oppositionist, and the Westernport Naval Base is in the electorate of a member of the present Ministry.

Mr Boyd:

– That statement is equivalent to a charge of corruption against the Government. i

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Yet honorable members opposite say that defence matters are not a party question !

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Government, have said that they do not intend to go on with the work at the Naval Bases until they have had the advice of an expert from England. Work was proceeding at these bases on the advice of the local Navy Board, and is still proceeding on that advice at the Westernport Naval Base, but at the Cockburn Sound Naval Base it has been stopped.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Also on the advice of the Australian Navy Board. Why does not the honorable member state that fact?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not know that.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member does know it.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If, in the first instance, when Senator Pearce had charge, the Board recommended the Government to go on, and now that Senator Millen has charge it recommends the Government not to go on, I may reasonably ask of what manner of men is it constituted?

Mr McDonald:

– It is time to get rid of the whole lot of them.

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is time for an inquiry, if the Board could recommend the Fisher Administration to go on and expend money, and the Cook Administration to stop spending money. The interjection of the Prime Minister would lead one to believe that the Board is too pliable. Ministers are justified, if they so desire, in bringing out this expert, but, unfortunately for them, there already have been reports in respect to Cockburn Sound, not from Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, but from a senior to him in the same firm. Looking up the records, I find that, in 1887, Sir John Coode, the head of the firm to which Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice belongs, personally inspected Cockburn Sound. The Western Australian Government, of which the present

Treasurer was Premier, desired to make a harbor at Fremantle for ocean-going steamers. Sir John Coode furnished a report in response to the wish of the Western Australian Government. ‘ He stated that he had put borings down in the Success and Parmelia banks - which obstruct the entrance to Jervoise Bay, and are the cause of the Cook Government delaying the works - towards the end of 1886, and had found that those banks were composed almost entirely of sand, and that it was not improbable that a channel might be selected across either one of the banks, to afford depth for ocean-going steamers, without encountering rocks. The only doubt was the composition of the sand-banks, which proved satisfactory later. He reported, also, that if the proposal were adopted, he would need some further bores to finally determine the matter. Such bores were put down by the Fisher Government, and proved entirely satisfactory. Sir John Coode added that there was little change in the actual configuration of the banks in a period of thirty-three years which he had under review. He said that a channel through Parmelia bank would be sufficiently sheltered from the sea. for navigation by large steamers in all weathers. The Western Australian Government, however, preferred, for reasons best known to the present Treasurer, a site known as Owen’s Anchorage, and wished the channel dredged through the Success bank. Sir John Coode, whilst agreeing to do this, at the same time unmistakably favoured Jervoise Bay. He urged that a channel should be cut through Parmelia bank in any circumstances, as being less exposed in rough weather. He considered that perfect shelter would be attained in Jervoise Bay, about 6 miles south of Fremantle, whence a railway might be easily run to connect with the line at Fremantle. Even ths Agent-General, in sending the report on to the Treasurer, said -

The anchorage suggested in Jervoise Bay seems to be the very best in all respects, and, in fact, the only practicable shelter.

The Government, however, stuck to its preference of Owen’s Anchorage, and Sir John Coode, while agreeable to furnish advice, reiterated on 21st October, 1891, his opinion that Owen’s Anchorage was inferior in’ all respects to Jervoise Bay. Captain Archdeacon, of Holyhead, an eminent navigator, of the Royal Navy, who had been engaged in survey work at Cockburn Sound, reported on 22nd August, 1891 -

Jervoise Bay … is the natural site for the shipping port if Cockburn Sound is opened.

Sir John Coode is perfectly correct in his belief that the channel could be navigated with safety in all weathers and under all conditions.

Sir John Coode, on 2nd October, 1891, had reported that he had carefully examined samples of sand from Success and Parmelia banks, and had no hesitation in saying that such sand was capable of being readily dealt with by a pump dredge. This cleared up any doubt whatever as to the practicability of cutting a channel. The Treasurer, notwithstanding the experts’ views, prevented the harbor from being placed at Jervoise Bay, and he now prevents a Naval Base from being placed at the best favoured spot, advancing as an argument that Mangles

Bay- never referred to in the report quoted, but a bay to the south of Jervoise Bay, and with a difficult and rocky passage - is superior. Sir John Coode, as we have seen, pinned his faith to Jervoise Bay. Admiral Henderson, furnished with Sir John Coode’s reports, prior to inspecting the site, also recommended Jervoise Bay. The Commonwealth Government then decided to further test the matter. In conjunction with the Western Australian Government, it, in 1912, put down bores in the banks named to a depth of 40 feet, and demonstrated that there was nothing which could not be easily removed by a dredge. Tests were also carried out, which proved that there had been no movement in the sand-banks for forty years.

Sir John Forrest:

– Who is the author of all this?

Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The figures and dates are from the official records of the Western Australian Government, but, so far as the assertions are concerned, they are mine. We have the peculiar situation that, years ago, despite the advice of experts, the Western Australian Government, of which the Treasurer was Premier, refused to go on with the works so far as Jervoise Bay is concerned. It is reasonable to suppose that if the experts had advised in the direction he personally desired he would have gone on with the work. Recently, the Naval Board advised the Fisher Administration to practically accept the advice of Sir John Coode and Admiral Henderson, and open

I.

2498 *Appropriation (Works* [REPRESENTATIVES.] *and Buildings) BUI.* up Jervoise Bay as a Naval Base. The work was proceeding, and, had we remained in office, the work would, in all probability, still be proceeding; but we have the peculiar coincidence that the very moment a Ministry comes in of which the honorable member for Swan happens to be a member, the work is stopped, and the advice of the experts of years ago is put on one side, and possibly, unless they be subsequently approved by the coming expert, the recommendations of Admiral Henderson will also be put on one side. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Who is the author of the phrase " **Sir John** Forrest, for reasons best known to himself " ? {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I am the author, and I accept full responsibility. A Naval Base in Western Australia is imperative. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Was this place ever reported on for a Naval Base? {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It was recommended by Admiral Henderson. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- What as ? {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- As a place for a Naval Base. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- No; as a place for inspection. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- And we have the expert advice of an eminent engineer to the effect that it is a good and safe place for ocean-going steamers. {: .speaker-JWG} ##### Mr Fowler: -- It has never been reported on as a Naval Base. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Honorable members may go on with their interjections, but they cannot sweep away the important facts that I have related. Once before, expert advice, as I say, was not acted on because it did not suit the Ministry of which the Treasurer was the leader, and now, again, work is stopped for some reason not yet explained. I hope that the work will be proceeded with at the earliest possible moment. If the expert advice was not taken on a former occasion there is a fair possibility of the expert advice of **Sir Maurice** Fitzmaurice not being acted upon, notwithstanding that there is, to some extent, a commitment on the part of the Ministry. These were the two points to which I desired to call attention, because their importance appeared to justify me in doing so. {: #subdebate-32-0-s2 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs · Parramatta · LP -- We have listened to one of those diatribes in -which the honorable member for Adelaide frequently in dulges. They are very clever, almost perfect, from a rhetorical point of view ; thelogic may be faultless, but the facts areall wrong. The trouble with the honorable member is that he makes everything, right, always at the expense of the facts, and we have to go after him and give the facts which he has omitted, misstated, or misrepresented, either by innuendo or in some other of his clever dialectical ways. For the last half-hour he has been attempting to politically injure the Treasurer, but, luckily, the Treasurer stands too high in his own land to be affected by either the blame or thepraise of the honorable member. All hisefforts to make political capital out of the supreme question of National Defence are made with the ulterior motive of damaging the Treasurer politically. {: #subdebate-32-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member is not in order in imputing ulterior motives to an honorable member. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am going tosay that it is an ulterior political motive. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member is not in order in using those words {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Well, I withdraw even that statement, and say that he is trying to injure a political opponent. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The Prime Minister is wrong in imputing motives. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- All I said wis that, for the last half-hour, the honorable member had been indulging in a dia.tribe with an ulterior motive, namely, ;oinjure a political opponent, and not ioclear up facts concerning National Defence. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- It has been la.d down on many occasions that charging any honorable member with having m ulterior motive is against the practice of the House. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- We are told constantly that we must keep this question of the Navy high above party politics - that we must carry on the work of constructing our Navy, and of operating it, far removed from the disturbing influences which pertain to the winning and losing of seats. It is said that, on mis one matter, there is to be a truce to our party warfare; and yet the honorable member has delivered a speech of an hour, every sentence of which has been devoted to the one object of destroying the Government and their party, and with special reference to the Treasurer. I have not time to deal with the honorable member at length to-night, because I desire to refer to some other matters. In the first place, I desire to say, despite the asseverations of the honorable member, that **Senator Pearce** agreed with the State Government to take over the officials at Cockatoo Island, and agreed with the Imperial authorities to take over the officials at Garden Island. I am not on the question of whether the ex-Minister is responsible for the signing of the draft Estimates - that is, as it may be - but it acquires a significance beyond the ordinary if the signing is an act subsequent to a solemn agreement made with the Imperial authorities on the one hand and the State authorities on the other. What did **Senator Pearce** agree to with the State and Imperial authorities? That is the crucial point of the whole question. It is not so much a matter whether he signed the draft Estimates, and was intending to revise them. If an honorable roan, he could not revise them after having bound himself to those two authorities to take the officers over. {: .speaker-KQP} ##### Mr McDonald: -- Does the Prime Minister not think that **Senator Pearce** is an honorable man? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -If the allegations of the honorable member for Adelaide are right, there is a reflection on **Senator Pearce.** I am not impugning the honour of **Senator Pearce;** it is the honorable member for Adelaide who is doing so by suggesting that, after agreeing to take those officers over, **Senator Pearce** was not committed to do so merely because he signed those Estimates. There lies the imputation on **Senator Pearce's** honour, if imputation there be. I say, again, that it is not a question of whether" **Senator Pearce** signed the draft Estimates, but a question of whether he entered into those solemn agreements. And **Senator Pearce** himself does not deny either of them, but, on the contrary, has affirmed them in another place. The present Government have appointed a single officer to these Departments since they have been taken over. What we have done is to find the money to pay the officers for which the previous Government were responsible. It seems to me that things are coming to a pretty pass when we have the suggestion that, although previous Governments have agreed to take all the officers over as part of a huge transaction, it is still open to their successors to repudiate the agreement by omitting to provide the money on the Estimates. Here we have, in the person of the honorable member for Adelaide, a paragon of national honour ! The new ethic he is laying down is that when we have made an agreement with the Imperial Government and the State Government, we may lay it aside at will simply because it is not in black and white. Arguing by analogy, we should be quite correct, according to that ethic, in . repudiating entirely the bargain that was made with the Western Australian Government for the powellised sleepers. The contract is not signed yet, but we are honouring it. As honorable men, we feel that the agreement made between these two Governments should be honoured as binding upon the honour and conscience of the Federal Parliament. ColonelRyrie. -Although it is a bad contract. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -The agreement is there, and this Parliament has no right to besmirch its honour by repudiating, under any possible circumstances, agreements which have been made in good faith. That is the position in regard to Garden Island and in regard to Cockatoo Island Dock. Here is a statement of the honorable member for Adelaide - I wrote it down as it came tripping from those eloquent lips of his - >What has been done, does not commit anybody. That is to say that **Senator Pearce,** the soul of honour, may make solemn agreements with these two authorities, and they do not bind anybody to anything. I am sure **Senator Pearce** would not subscribe to that ethic. If he were here he would brush it aside with scorn. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The only thing wrong with your statement is that I made no such suggestion. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member said that we are not committed merely because **Senator Pearce** has signed these draft Estimates. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Not to the increases. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- What does the honorable member mean by increases? {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- You are committed to the staff as we took them over from the State Government, but you are not committed to any increases above that staff. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member is now shifting his ground with his usual trickiness. I have read of how they catch eels, and how they need holding. The honorable member is. not to be allowed to slip out of it in that way. According to his own statements, we are only responsible for the Estimates. Let me take the very last statement of the honorable member, that we are only responsible for the increases. I point out, in reply, that we have made no increases, except to the extent of one or two salaried officers. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- We do not know whether you have or not. All we know is that you are making provision on the Estimates for them. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Provision to pay, I repeat, those men you engaged. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- That is not correct. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: **- Senator Pearce** has admitted to-day that it is correct, and, like Brutus, **Senator Pearce** is '"' an honorable man." {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- The country will take his word. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- And I am taking it. Another point in this indictment from the honorable member for Adelaide is that there are 100 petty officers , and men at Garden Island. The honorable member ' ' does not know why they are there." "What are they doing there?" he asks. " What are seamen doing on shore at all?" The answer is simple. They are waiting to be drafted into ships. They are waiting to go to sea. At present they are temporarily waiting to be drafted on to the ships. The honorable member for Adelaide makes a distinction between the appointment of, and the agreement to appoint, a manager. Again, the answer is that **Senator Pearce** made this recommendation - of course, on the advice of the Naval Board. No one suggests that he did it on his own account. He did it because the Naval Board suggested it was the proper thing. They said, " We are taking over a new set of conditions entirely, involving heavy obligations both in construction and repairs and docking, and everything else. We want a first class man, and will not get a man for that job under £2,000 a year." **Senator Pearce** said, "Very well, let it be £2,000 a year." Yet his champion says to us, " You are not committed; you can strike it off and repudiate it, if you like." {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I never said any such thing. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The present Government are not built in that mould. If the honorable member chooses to make party politics out of the naval question, we are not going to begin it. He says that there is an increase from twentyeight to forty-five men. I have already said that whatever the increase may be, there is only one appointment that is ours. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- I believe **Senator Pearce.** {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am not saying that the honorable member should not believe him, but I am going to believe the records. I am going to stick to the departmental records. The honorable member can say what he likes for political purposes. I am merely putting the facts on record as they are given to me. In regard to Cockburn Sound it is alleged that every inquiry has been made into Cockburn Sound. The ex-Minister of Defence says that **Sir John** Coode, the eminent engineer, came to look at this place, but it was from a totally different standpoint and with a totally different object It is said that we do not need any *mort* investigation regarding Cockburn Sound Again, I say that we prefer to rely or **Sir Reginald** Henderson rather than th« honorable member for Adelaide, or even **Senator Pearce.** They say there is no necessity to get an expert; **Sir Reginald** Henderson said there was; and there i» an end of it. Whom are we to rely on. the honorable member for Adelaide, wm all his dialectical ability, or that eminent gentleman whom they are entitle! to take the credit for bringing here ? We say that we prefer a naval expert on a nave matter. Of course, on a political matter, we would take our friend's advice every time; he could give points and lose others in regard to politics; but we prefer to tate a naval expert to advise on this entirely naval matter. In his report, **Sir Reginald** Henderson said - >The harbor of Cockburn Sound, including Owen's Anchorage and Jervoise Bay, to be examined thoroughly *as soon as possible* by experts, with a view to locating the site of the future Naval Dockyard. I have not the slightest doubt **Sir Reginald** Henderson knew that **Sir J** ohn Coode had been there. It is very probable he knew about that former visit. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: **-Senator Pearce** says he did. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- **Senator Pearce** says that this naval expert knew all about the previous visit of **Sir John** Coode, and yet in spite of that he says, " You must get another expert to make an examination of this place with a view to locating the particular site for these establishments." Sensible men going into this business to see it through and put it on a proper basis, and to build a Naval Base in Western Australia of which Western Australia and the other States will be proud in the future, as an efficient establishment for naval works, to carry out all the obligations that will be imposed on it, prefer expert opinion to the opinion of either **Senator Pearce** or the honorable member for Adelaide. Now in regard to these commitments. The honorable member has been talking and dreaming "financial commitments" for the last month. He is anxious to point out that we are not committed to anything; that we must stand up to our full responsibility for initiating all the increased expenditure, and for all that has made these Estimates as heavy as they are this year. Let us examine that claim. The honorable member again began by misstating the facts. He says that we are proposing to spend£4,000,000 this year more than was spent last year. **Senator Pearce** says£7,000,000, other honorable members say £5,000,000. One must be careful about his language. It is quite true that our Estimates are about £4,000,000 more than the actual spendings of last year, but it is very probable that when we have tried our hardest to spend all this money this year, just as they did last year, we shall have more than£1,000,000 unspent. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Oh ! This is news. The Prime Minister has given his case away. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Of course, I have given away the case because I am stating facts. The honorable member does not keep facts on the premises; they are always strange to him. I am merely pointing out that last year the late Government did not spend - after doing their very best - within a million of the amount they put on the Estimates. The exact amount to which they committed the country last year was £24,883,000, or, roughly, £25,000,000. They had £22,683,000 on ordinary Estimates, and then they had loan commitments, including the dock, to the extent of £2,200,000, making altogether nearly £25,000,000 which they committed the country to last year. If we could take our Estimates of this year and their Estimates last year, there is a difference, not of £4,000,000, but of only a little over £2,000,000. What do these facts mean ? They mean that whereas there has been an increase of 33 per cent.per annum during their three years of office, our estimated increase -never mind the actual spending or what they are going to be - is between 7 and 8 per cent., as compared with their average of 33 per cent. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -Still it is an increase. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -And I shall tell the House why it is an increase. I shall come in a moment to the question of commitments. In the year1909-10, when the Fisher Government took office, the expenditure in respect of ordinary appropriations, excluding loans and amounts paid to States, was£7,867,000, or £1 16s. per head of the population. This year's Estimates provide for an expenditure of £17,800,000, or £3 12s. 9d. per head. In their case there was an average annual increase of11s. 3d. per head per annum, whilst our estimated increase this year is 2s. 6d. per head. I want to point out that, so far from this Government being guilty of gross, unrestrained, and irresponsible extravagance, it has, by sheer dint of hard work, scotched the extravagance. {: .speaker-JTI} ##### Mr Burns: -- By an increase of £5,000,000 in the expenditure. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I have just quoted facts showing that the increase is a little over £2,000,000, yet the honorable member still shouts, " An increase of £5,000,000." {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It seems like that *Arabian Nights.* {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -I am sorry that these facts seem so much like the *Arabian Nights.* My honorable friends opposite and facts are strange bedfellows. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I shall expose the honorable gentleman's fallacies when we reach the general Estimates. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member cannot shake these facts. There is an increase of 2s. 6d. *per capita* in the expenditure this year; but as against that I should like to point out that the increase in defence expenditure alone this year is 4s. 9d. *per capita.* That being so, since our total increase is only 2s. 6d. *per capita,* there must be a decrease of expenditure in other directions. There must be a very striking economy in many other ways. Another fact which ought to be taken into consideration in this connexion is that there is this year an increase of£510,000 in the statutory commitments which no Government may escape.I do not hesitate to say that if honorable members opposite had remained in office this year there would have been millions more on these Estimates, and more taxation into the bargain. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- There would not have been provision for an expenditure of £27,000,000. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Provision would have been made for an expenditure of £27,000,000 and a few millions more. Coming to these statutory commitments, which I repeat are inescapable, we find that in the first place there is in respect of parliamentary allowances an increase of £4,252, last year having been a broken year. Then we have £5,405 more for the High Court Judges, Public Service Commissioner, and inspectors, and the Industrial Registrar. We have also to pay £5,790 in respect of the Inter-State Commissioners, an additional £330,952 for invalid and old-age pensions, an increase of £237,220 in respect of the maternity allowance, and an increase of £65,551 in regard to other bounties. Let me show what these "other bounties" are. In the case of the bounties on natural products, there is an increase of £4,408, and in respect of the iron bounty an increase of £34,902. Then we have a new item in respect of the bounty on shale oil. It amounts to £16,241, and it may or may not be required during the year, although, personally, I should not mind if it were. The bounties on wood pulp and rock phosphate - these have all been approved by Parliament, but we are making financial provision for them for the first time this year - represent £10,000, or a total of £65,551 in respect of these other bounties." Will honorable members say that these are not commitments ? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- They are; and good commitments, too. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Then there are some commitments after all? In respect of the surplus revenue to be paid to the States, we have this year an increase of £05,070. These items altogether amount to £948,000. When from this amount is deducted a sum of £438,000, due to the abolition of the sugar bounties and several other things, it will be seen that, on these items alone, there is a net increase of £510,000 - all statutory commitments, which a Government, no matter to which party it belongs, must face. There is another item which we have to pay this year, and most of which is new. I refer to the fact that a sum of £89,716 has to be paid by way of interest on inscribed stock. Is that a commitment? Some Government, before this Ministry came into power, has been borrowing. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It is a parliamentary commitment in respect of the Northern Territory and the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway, for which practically every member of the House voted. It is not a party matter. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- Allow me to say that, as usual, the honorable member's facts are all wrong. This is quite a different item. Those to which the honorable member refers run into a quarter' of a million more. Does not the honorable member know that we have on the Estimates this year £800,000 for interest alone, and that the Commonwealth already has a public debt of £7,750,000, in addition to the transferred properties? {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I know that. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- And yet the Labour party are the non-borrowers, who do not believe in " Ikey Mo and the three balls." They borrow and hide, whereas we borrow in the open, and quite straightforwardly. That is the difference between the two parties. Last year the Fisher Government incurred loan obligations amounting to nearly £2,250,000. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That is quite right, and not one member of the honorable member's party took exception to it. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -I am only pointing out the inconsistency of the Opposition, who have been prating about loans ever since these Estimates have been laid on the table. Our total loan Estimates this year are£3,000,000, whilst theirs in respect of last year were £2,250,000. This certainly shows a slight increase; but one would think, when listening to the Opposition, that we were inaugurating a new policy, and that borrowing should never see daylight here. {: .speaker-KQP} ##### Mr McDonald: -- Let the honorable member look at the remarks which he made on **Sir George** Turner's Loan Bill. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- If I did, I should have to quote the remarks made by some honorable members opposite in support of that Bill. One of the keenest supporters of that measure was the honorable member for Grey, who regaled the people whomhe addressed during the election campaign with our enormities in attempting to borrow money. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- But I never supported a Loan Bill to provide£3,500,000 for the Navy. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- No, it was some other Loan Bill. It was your own, and not ours; but it was, nevertheless, a Loan Bill. If the policy which the honorable member and others of his party then supported had been carried into effect, this country would have had a very much bigger item in respect of interest on inscribed stock than the modest amount set down here. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- That is exactly what I said. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I knew that the honorable member would agree with me, as he used to do. Again, on this matter of commitments I turn to the huge Estimates of the Postmaster-General's Department, which seem to be towering up year by year, and making a greater and greater disparity between income and expenditure. The Postal Department is rapidly becoming the most serious problem that the Parliament has to face. Let there be no mistake about the matter. It is becoming our most serious problem, and will have to be gripped, and gripped very strongly, in the near future. Statutory increments in the Department represent £58,399 in respect of this year. Then there are increments to the fourth and higher class officers amounting to £12,820; £25,100 to provide for the Arbitration Court's award to postal electricians; £.124,278 for new staff; and £193,097 additional provision required for existing staff. I think that the Treasurer gave some of these figures in his Budget speech, and I apologize for going over some of them again. The increased cost of conveyance of mails amounts to £46,930; increased allowance to non-official postmasters, £16,690; increase for operating and maintaining wireless stations, £17,680; increase in repairs and maintenance of telegraph and telephone lines, £29,865; or a total of £524,859, less a decrease . in respect of some other items which reduces the amount to £405,521 - the amount represented here as being ordinary expenditure. Quite half these items represent increases which are commitments that have come to us, and are inescapable. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That is right; they are parliamentary commitments - not commitments by the late Government. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- They are commitments which cannot be evaded without repudiation, and, therefore, are not parliamentary commitments in theordinary sense. I find, also, that the amount provided forin the Estimates for 1913-14 for new post-office buildings is£270,413, of which £108,234 represents revotes - another commitment which the late Government did not spend. This is where they got their surplus. They left the surplus, but they also left the debts. There is £108,000 for re-votes, and £162,000 for new business. This year we provide, in addition, from loans, £170,000 for the purchase of sites for post-offices and similar expenditure ; but of that sum £70,000 represents commitments and re-votes. The word ' ' commitment ' ' has been used very frequently as a term of reproach during the discussion of the finances, and I am now replying to the gibes and jeers of the honorable member for Adelaide on the subject. I say that all these huge commitments, which are inescapable, amount in their totality to, I should think, at least £1,000,000 on the ordinary Estimates, in addition to the increased amounts that we are spending on new services, which, again, are commitments and obligations of a statutory character. Honorable members will begin to see what we have had to tackle in the three short months that wehave had for the investigation of these matters. When the Estimates were introduced, we had had control of the Departments for only two months, in which time we had many things to do besides investigating the finances of the country. These Estimates ought not to be regarded as, in the ordinary sense, our Estimates. We have to take the responsibility for them, and we do so; but we are taking responsibility for the Estimates of the other side, which we have shorn down by millions. That is the position of affairs. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- That is absolutely incorrect. The Fisher Government had not prepared its Estimates, and the honorable member knows that. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I am telling you the facts, and giving you official figures from the Estimates which cannot be controverted. An ounce of fact is worth tons of the dialectical skill of the honorable member for Adelaide. Honorable members have heard his fancies, and now they are getting a few of the facts. When but a beam of sober reason is displayed, Lo ! Fancy's fairy frostwork melts away. I come now to the Customs expenditure. There is an increase there of about £74,000 in the ordinary expenditure. Of this amount £59,000 is in connexion with lighthouses; but . we expect to receive light dues which will balance that amount. There are many items in the Estimates which, I think, ought not to be there, unless they are grouped in a special business account. Take this item. It represents only an advance, to be repaid during the currency of the year. But it goes into the credit and debit sides of the account, just as though it were expenditure in the ordinary sense. It is simply a loan to the Trust Funds, with which to operate the Department until the money can be repaid into the revenue later on. It swells the Estimates and makes the totals larger. Quite a number of items of this kind figure in the Estimates. The same thing applies in regard to the factory expenditure. We get grants at the beginning of the year, and pay them into the Trust Funds. They are our capital and trading accounts for the year. But as the money comes in, credits are put in the exchequer, instead of being put against these amounts in a specialized account. In this way the Estimates are swollen. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -Is that how the honorable member inflates the taxation per head? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -I am not dealing with that matter now, and do not wish to be led into it. Suffice it to say that the Treasurer the other day quoted a statement showing 'that since the Labour party took office, three years ago, the people of Australia, under the Governments of the States and of the Common wealth, have had to pay £1 10s. 4d. per head more than they were paying before that time, the bulk of the increases being due to Labour, and not to Liberal, administration. But I wish to stick to the commitments. I have spoken of the increase in connexion with the Inter- State Commission. There is an increase in regard to navigation, and an additional £9,000 for quarantine. That, again, is to be refunded by the States later on. For the Bureau of Agriculture the amount set down is£5,000. I wonder if this next item will be regarded as a commitment - ' ' Industries Preservation Bill,£20,000." That is to pay for the celebrated Vend case. We had nothing to do with that. Honorable members opposite called the tune, but we have to pay the piper. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- During the election campaign the honorable member claimed credit for having started that prosecution. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The great protagonist of the Opposition claimed that we did nothing, and that he did all. Whatever he may have done, he certainly did not pay; it is left for us to do that. These are a few commitments in the Customs Department. Then there are some in the Home Affairs Department. There the ordinary items show an increase of£25,000 only, and the increase is made up in this way : There is an addition to the permanent staff, which has had to be largely increased to undertake the work that has previously been done by temporary officers. In previous years, too, the States have been paid for work done by the Commonwealth. We are altering that system, but it means a large increase in expenditure. Another increase - but this may have to be taken off the Estimates later, if the Electoral Bill does not pass - is to provide for the ten electoral inspectors whom I mentioned this afternoon. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Is there anything down for a double dissolution? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- The honorable member knows that there is not; he would not be laughing if there were. In the Land and Survey Branch, only three months' expenditure was provided for last year, but this year we have to foot the bill for twelve months. That is another commitment. For the Federal Capital, there is an increase of £100,000. This is one of the heavy years in connexion with the Federal Capital. A sequence of years shows steady evolution, right up to the point when the buildings will be completed, and this is a heavy year,- preparations having to be made for the buildings next year. That accounts for the increase. In regard to other new works, there is a slight decrease this year. This Government has had to do a little retrenching in connexion with new works, the expenditure on which shows a decrease of about £37,000. Then there is the expenditure frOm loan money. The expenditure on the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway shows an increase of £793,000. Here, again, it is the fate of this Government to have to shoulder heavy expenditure this year. Honorable members opposite had all the light years, and all the surpluses; we have all the heavy years, and all the commitments and obligations. Then there is £80,000 for land for the Federal Capital. That is another increase, and a commitment from which we could- not escape. In the ordinary items of defence expenditure there is an account of £437,000; we have to provide this year for 22,500 junior cadets extra being taken into the service, and 17,500 senior cadets being passed into the Citizen Forces. That means not only more pay for the cadets, but also heavy additional expenditure for *personnel,* training, clothing, ammunition, stores, and such things. The Military College is taking thirty-eight more cadets, completing its full establishment of 150. That costs a huge sum, for the training of each cadet is very expensive. There is an increase for rifle clubs, and for the first time we are shouldering responsibility for aviation. Aviation has been mentioned in the last two Estimates, but this is the first time that a concrete, definite sum lias been provided for it. There is £84,000 for the completion of factories. The other day, the honorable member for Adelaide suggested in regard to the woollen mills at Geelong, tlie walls of which are three-parts up, that we had no responsibility in regard to the work, unless we liked to accept it; that we might pull the walls down, and scrap the machinery and plant that has been ordered. I suppose that if there were an appeal to the country, and we went out of office, and the other side came in, they would at once start to build again on the original foundations. That is the latest finance as expounded by the honorable member for Adelaide. In the Defence Estimates I find there are large- increases of permanent soldiers and officials; and this item is creeping up every year. We call this a Citizen Force, and it is one, but it necessitates a large staff for administration and training. Remounts are a much larger item than last year, but still they are a commitment, and so with military works of various kinds, which we may not escape, no matter how much we desire to do so. They have to be undertaken, because the whole administration has been, and must be, laid out with foresight and care if it is ever to become an administration worthy of the name. Then technical instructors for the artillery have to be provided for, and also a large increase in the Medical Corps. I wish to say here that I am not satisfied that the best is being done in this Department. I am not now saying one word about the character and efficiency of the training; but with a force which was estimated by both Lord Kitchener and Colonel Legge, after full and careful investigation, to cost £1,880,000 at the normal, it strikes one as strange that it should be costing over £3,000,000 when the scheme is not at the full. I should like this investigated as closely and keenly as possible; but the Minister cannot undertake such work while the House is in session, and while he has two huge Departments to administer in addition. The Government will have to consider very seriously what line the investigation is going to take in regard to these Departments. It is of no use making the investigation unless we are going to make it in the most expert way, and by means of real expert ability. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- I wish the Government would make it as quickly as possible. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I should like them to do so, and for that reason I shall be glad if we could pass one or two Bills before us. In this connexion, more than anything else, we require a Committee of Accounts. These are non-party matters. The late Government, I have no doubt, was in the grip of this vice, just as much as we are, and until the thing is un ravelled, and a proper system of costing applied to the details of these Departments, we shall never know properly what they are costing the country - how much is extravagance and how much economy. I am not saying that the expenditure is wasted, butI do say that the difference between£3,250,000 and considerably under £2,000,000 should be explained. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- We are paying our men more wages than before. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- I do not think that that is so; we are paying the rates laid down by Lord Kitchener. We may be paying the permanent men more, but that would not account for this huge difference. And so with the expenditure of other Departments. What we are going to do about the Northern Territory, I frankly tell the House I do not quite know. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- That is a different yarn from that which the honorable gentleman gave when over here. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -- My opinion now is much the same. A great deal of money has been wasted in the Northern Territory, and, in my opinion, the late Government, in their administration, put the " cart before the horse." All sorts of small settlements were endeavoured to be promoted in a climate in which the Administrator himself says men cannot do more than 80 per cent. of the work they can do in other warm parts of Australia, and where 25 per cent. more has to be paid for the work, in addition to special allowances. The railways are not yet through the country; this, therefore, is not the time to facilitate settlement, because the settlement cannot be kept there. People are sent up, but they come back. For some years now, we have had jubilation when anybody has gone to the Territory, as though the problem were settled. We shall not find the problem settled until men go there with their wives and families. The Administrator tells us that the women folk are not there ; and this is one of the troubles that is leading to the fretfulness of the men. We shall always have our special problems up there; but there are some requirements common to all sorts of settlement, and one of them is railways. The sooner railways are pushed up into the Territory the better. This internal development, away from the railways and in such climates, ought not to be persisted in. A recommendation came down for the purchase of a station near Darwin for closer settlement; but there are better climates than that for such a purpose. To dig, delve, plough, sow, and reap, men. do not desire a wet, moist climate, if they can find a somewhat drier, healthier, and more elevated one elsewhere. One hardly knows what to do until the Commission reports; but there is one thing we can do in the meantime, and that is not to waste more money than we can help on small experiments which, in the aggregate, make up nearly all the expenditure of the Department. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Acting on the advice of the Administrator all the time. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK: -I believe that the Administrator is a very clever man, but he is no more infallible than another. Any one going up there, under the same conditions, would be liable to make mistakes. I am not, however, suggesting that the Administrator is making mistakes, but merely claiming the right to express my own opinion. That gentleman may be found to be right, and I sincerely hope he may. This ought not to be a party matter. We have a most serious obligation in the development of this Territory, as an addition to the defences of the rest of Australia, amongst other things. These are some of the items which are commitments by our predecessors, and we have honored them, that is, some of them, because we have had to pare down a good many. I believe these Estimates would have been very much larger if the late Government had had the privilege of submitting them, for I know the paring we have had to do to make them fit at all. It is not true, however, to say that there are£4,000,000 more on these Estimates than on the Estimates of my honorable friends opposite; there is only a little over £2,000,000 more. This means 2s. 6d. per head more, as against the average of11s. 3d. per head more over the three years of office of the late Government, and 7 or 8 per cent., as against their average of 33¼ per cent. In the two months we have made a great effort to stop the extravagant expenditure that was leaping up; and I believe that, if allowed a little time, we could see our way yet to put the Departments on a more efficient and economical basis, to the advantage of the country and with great saving to the taxpayers. {: #subdebate-32-0-s4 .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter .- The Prime Minister commenced by complimenting the honorable member for Adelaide on being capable of presenting a case which seemed to be on a solid basis, but which, however, lacked facts. It will be admitted that the Prime Minister this evening, in characteristic fashion, when endeavouring to put his position before the House and the public, has altogether overlooked the points in the attack of the honorable member for Adelaide. This discussion arose out of the Estimates that were before us last evening. The Leader of the Opposition then made certain statements which the other side attempted to controvert; and, subsequently, I, myself, put certain facts before the Committee, and asked to be enlightened. The Honorary Minister said that if I would resume my seat he would give proof that the ex-Minister of Defence was responsible for the increased expenditure. ' When I heard that gentleman quoting documents, I came to ' the conclusion that it would be unwise, on my part, to contradict him, because I thought that the expenditure complained of had been approved by the ex-Minister. This evening, however, the honorable member for Adelaide has presented a statement from the ex-Minister himself, in which he says that he did not approve in the draft Estimates of certain payments to be made in connexion with the defences. He points out further that these draft Estimates had to be taken into consideration by him at a later period when he was dealing with the general Estimates. I can quite understand why that should be. The Minister of Defence may get the Estimates from the Commandant of Victoria, possibly two months before he - gets the Estimates from the Commandant of New South Wales, and he puts aside those draft Estimates until he can deal with the expenditure of the Department as a whole, and decides what works shall be carried out, and what the expenditure shall be. However, **Senator Pearce** did not come back to office to formulate the general Estimates. The present Government are responsible for those Estimates, and cannot shield themselves behind the fact that the ex-Minister of Defence had certain draft Estimates. If the present Government did not approve of the draft Estimates, why did they not cut out the expenditure they considered unnecessary? No Government, worthy of the name, would endeavour to justify themselves day after day with a cry of "commitments." I admire a man who will stand up to it. I admire a Government who will say, " These are our Estimates. We have given them full consideration, and we cannot see that we can reduce them £1 more than we have." I cannot admire those who say, " These are our Estimates. We are sorry we have had to increase the expenditure, notwithstanding that we told the people that there had been extravagance, and that if we were returned to power we would reduce the expenditure and cut down that extravagance." If they had pointed out to the people that the works were absolutely necessary in the interests of Australia, they would have been doing the right thing, but in place of that they are making it appear that, because they find they have had to increase the cost of government during their tenure of office, they are committed to it -by their predecessors. The point argued last night was in relation to the additional expenditure incurred on Garden Island and Cockatoo Dock. The Prime Minister, in replying this evening, said that in consequence of an agreement entered into between the late Minister of Defence and, first, the State Government in relation to Cockatoo Island; and, secondly, the Imperial authorities in relation to Garden Island, the present Government were bound . Any Government is bound to comply with an agreement. We take no exception to that. The honorable, member for Adelaide took no exception to it. What we claimed last night, and what we claim this evening, has never been answered by the Prime Minister. Our claim is that' Admiral Henderson, who is our guide in naval matters, said that once the Commonwealth Government accepted Cockatoo Island expenditure should be reduced on Garden Island. This point was not touched by the Prime Minister. If we admit that, having entered into the agreement, it is a fair thing to take over the officers - the Prime Minister says he has appointed only one additional officer, and I do not doubt his statement - nevertheless, the fact remains that, when Garden Island was taken over from the Imperial authorities there were only forty-one officers employed there, whereas these Estimates provide for seventy-one. The point at issue is not the agreement between the State Government and the Commonwealth. It is whether there should be an increase in the number of officers on Garden Island, seeing that Admiral Henderson recommended that there should be a reduction of officers there after taking over Cockatoo Island. We realize that it is necessary to have an efficient defence system, but we also realize that we should not have unnecessary expenditure in connexion with it. If there were forty officers on Garden Island when the Commonwealth took over the island, and one officer has been appointed since, as the Prime Minister says, then why do the Estimates provide for seventy-one officers? Where are the other thirty to come from ? Are they to be appointed by the Minister of Defence immediately these Estimates are passed ? If not, why is the money on the Estimates? The Prime Minister did not touch on this point. {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- He cunningly evaded it. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -I wish to emphasize this point in order to let the public know what we are complaining about. We have not, so far, got the information for which we have asked. The Prime Minister was careful not to touch upon it. We raised the point last night that there would be 100 petty officers and men stationed on Garden Island, and we asked why they should be stationed there? It is understood that the men are connected with the Navy, and that they are to be seafaring men, and should be on the ships. Page 100 of the Estimates says - >The following officers and men (sea-going) are also borne for duty, but are included for pay in Division 55, Permanent Force (seagoing) : -2 lieutenants, 1 engineer commander, 2 engineer lieutenants, 1 staff paymaster, 1 assistant paymaster, 1 chief gunner or gunner (T), 1 chief boatswain,1 boatswain, and100 petty officers and men. Total, no. I want to know why this complement of 100 men should be stationed on Garden Island ? {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -The 100 men are to be orderlies. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- We can make nothing of it. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Why did you not ask the Prime Minister when he was speaking? {: .speaker-KZG} ##### Mr ROBERTS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I asked him, but he spoke for an hour, and evaded the point. {: .speaker-JLM} ##### Mr P P Abbott: -- Did he not say that they were waiting to be absorbed on the ships? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- No. That was another body of men. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- Then to whom did those remarks of the Prime Minister apply ? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- These men are for duty on Garden Island, not on the ships. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- They are waiting to go on the ships, according to the Prime Min- {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- No. They are placed for duty on Garden Island. I have been asking for this information because it is necessary to have a thorough understanding before voting money for the purpose. However desirable it may be to have a Navy, we cannot go on voting money if it is to be wasted. This complaint has never been answered. Rhetoric is of no use. We desire to get an explanation of what this means. The matter was mentioned last night, and has been mentioned during the week, and yet we cannot get the desired information. The Estimates show plainly that there is provision made for seventy-one officers on Garden Island, whereas the staff under the British Admiralty was only forty-one. Why are the additional thirty required? Instead of reducing the number, we are increasing it. That is the point to which the Prime Minister should have applied himself. Then, again, in regard to Cockatoo Island, supposing the agreement exists, we should keep faith with it, but here we find that there were twentyone officers on the island - State officers, I suppose, whom we are to take over - with the addition of the seven experts appointed by the New South Wales Government, making twenty-eight altogether, and there should be no more provided for on the Estimates, unless there is some explanation made. The trouble is that there are forty-five. I do not say that those officers are not required at Cockatoo Island. Indeed, I believe that more will be required as the works are opened up. But how do the Government account for putting on the Estimates forty-five officers for Cockatoo Island as against the number there previously, whilst on the other Estimates they provide for seventy-one as against forty-one previously? No attempt has been made to explain the discrepancy. It was urged that the Labour party was responsible for this state of things. The Prime Minister reiterated that charge. The honorable gentleman ought to explain these points more clearly, so that the public may know what justification there is for voting the salaries of so many additional officers in both these places, in view of the fact that Admiral Henderson recommended that there should ultimately be a reduction on Garden Island. We have not yet had a satisfactory answer to that question. The. Prime Minister ran away from it by dealing with the Jervoise Bay question.I do not desire to say much on that matter, but on one point I should like to put the Prime Minister right. He tried to make good his position by stating that Admiral Henderson had reported in favour of what the Government are doing as to Cockburn Sound. To suit his own purpose the honorable gentleman quoted a part of a paragraph of Admiral Henderson's report, but not the whole of it. On page 56 of the report, paragraph *a,* occurs this statement - >The harbor of Cockburn Sound, including Owen's Anchorage and Jervoise Bay, to be examined thoroughly as soon as possible by experts, with a view to locating the site of the future Naval Dockyard. The Prime Minister stopped there and claimed that that statement justified his position. But let us read the paragraph further - >The site should include space for graving docks, buildings, slips, workshops, storehouses, and all plant, &c, for the building of ships, and for the repairs and maintenance of a fleet. It appeared to me that a site in the vicinity of Jervoise Bay was best suited for naval dockyard requirements. A channel for deep-draught ships would have to be dredged through the Parmelia and Success Banks, and slight dredging would be required in other places. It would probably also be necessary that a short breakwater should be thrown out from Woodlands Point. Admiral Henderson therefore believed that this was the most suitable place for such a work. Colonel Ryrie. - The Prime Minister merely said that the Admiral reported that exports should examine the site as soon as possible. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The Government did not stop the works at Flinders, because they are in the Attorney-General's electorate. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The Prime Minister quoted down to a certain point in the paragraph, and I think it will be admitted that he should have quoted the whole paragraph. **Colonel Ryrie.** -He was justifying the appointment of the expert. Admiral Henderson says that an expert should be appointed. The honorable member has just read the words to that effect. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -The Prime Minister said that the work had been stopped on the advice of the Naval Board. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- He certainly said that, and he quoted this particular sentence; but he did not complete the paragraph. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That is an old trick of his. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Of course. I am under the impression that we did not need a fresh expert to report after Admiral Henderson's clear statement. I make this point to show that the Prime Minister simply evaded what was not suitable to his own case. Colonel Ryrie. - The rest of the paragraph had no bearing on the point. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Getting away from naval matters the Prime Minister touched on the question of finance. He pointed to the action of his Government in bringing down Estimates which, as he states, provide for between two and three million pounds more expenditure than was incurred by the previous Government. In reality, these Estimates provide for between£4,000,000 and £5,000,000 more than the last Government spent. The Government intend to borrow money. The Prime Minister, however, pointed out that during the time our party was in office the expenditure went up by 33 per cent., or11s. 5d. per head, whereas in the year after this it is going up from 7 to 8 per cent., or a cost of 2s. 6d. per head to the taxpayer. He also attempted to justify the action of the Government by claiming that they have to meet commitments left by the previous Administration. It is the same old story as the party opposite told the electors. Every honorable member who wishes to be fair knows that there was complete justification for the expenditure incurred by the late Government. Moreover, the people knew that no additional taxation would be laid upon them to meet that expenditure. I venture to make the assertion that with the exception of the land tax the people had not to pay a farthing more in taxation during the *regime* of the late Government than they had previously paid. I challenge any honorable member opposite to deny that statement. We neither increased taxation nor interfered with the Tariff. The only tax that we imposed was that upon the unimproved value of land, and I am satisfied that the great mass of the people recognise that it is a fair thing for those who possess the wealth of this country to pay more for its defence than the general body of the workers have to do.. As to the Prime Minister's allegation that expenditure under the Labour Government increased by 33 per cent., it was well known when we were returned to office that the finances of the Commonwealth were in such a position that unless the Braddon section was altered it would be 'impossible for the Government to carry on. It could not be done. Immediately our party was returned to power additional expenditure had to be incurred in connexion with matters which no honorable member opposite would dare to repudiate to-day. First of all, we liberalized old-age pensions, which cost a considerable sum of money. Thepresent Government propose to liberalize the system further. We introduced the invalidity pensions, and had to find the money for them. Those two items cost the late Government £1,500,000 above what their predecessors had had to pay. The Prime Minister did not mention that this evening. Colonel Ryrie. - It is costing the present Government the same. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- The late Government had £14,000,000 to spend after the cessation of the Braddon section. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Moreover, we introduced the defence system which is costing - and necessarily so - so much money to-day. That expenditure was incurred out of revenue. We did not borrow a farthing for the purpose. . Did the Prime Minister and the Treasurer while they were in Opposition do anything whatever to prevent that expenditure? They professed to approve of it. Why then do they now carp about what the late Government expended, and what they approved of? The Prime Minister has been grumbling about our expenditure throughout his speech to-day. The Prime Minister forgets to mention that he was agreeable to it, and he dare not oppose it. He dare not say that he will repeal any of these measures. We had also to pay the grant to Tasmania, the Bill providing for which was passed by us. As a matter of fact, the present Government are proposing this year to increase that grant. It was additional expenditure for which we had to provide. I would also remind honorable members that the question of the transferred properties was hung up until the late Government took office. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- We are paying interest on them. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- No interest was paid upon them until the late Govern - lnent came into power. The right honorable member does not like to hear these facts. We took over transferred properties of the value of £9,000,000, and on these we had to pay interest at the rate of per cent. We had also to provide for heavy additional expenditure in connexion with the Postal Department. We made a special grant of £600,000 in addition to the ordinary expenditure of the Department for which we had to provide. During the election campaign honorable members opposite had something to say in opposition to the maternity allowance, but they have been a long while in taking action to repeal it. The Maternity Allowance Act cost the country £600,000, and we met that new expenditure out of revenue. The taxation was not increased for the purpose,and if a plebiscite of the people were taken to-morrow, I am confident that the action of the Fisher Government in placing that beneficent piece of legislation on the statute-book would be indorsed. These items of new expenditure which the Fisher Government had to meet make up a very large sum, and the fact that we met them without increasing taxation must redound to our credit. {: .speaker-L0P} ##### Mr Sampson: -- The Fisher Government did increase taxation. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Only by the imposition of the land tax. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That, I suppose, does not count. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The right honorable member cannot understand why the big land-owner should be taxed. He thinks that he ought to be clear. If that be so, why do not the Government bring in a measure to repeal the Land Tax Act ? The Prime Minister this evening said that his Government were increasing the expenditure this year by only 2s. 6d. per head of the population, as against an average annual increase of l1s. 5d. per head made by the Fisher Government. Is the comparison at all favorable to the present Ministry when we take into consideration the fact that its predecessors had to provide for the initiation of great works and schemes which came into operation only during the life of the last Parliament. What becomes of the statement made by the Prime Minister and his party in the country that they would reduce insteadof increase expenditure ? The honorable gentleman said that they could have expended millions more, but that theyhad inserted the pruning knife wherever they could, and had cut down the Estimates. Notwithstanding this, he declared, they were going to tax the people 2s. 6d. *per capita* more than they were taxed bythe late Government. Once schemes involving heavy expenditure have been initiated, it should not be necessary for any Government to rapidly build up the expenditure upon them, and I venture to say that had we been returned to power this year, our Estimates would have shown a reduction. The Estimates submitted by the late Government last year were much less than those which the present Government have brought down. {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- What item in these Estimates would the honorable member reduce ? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- That is a question which we have constantly put to honorable members opposite in connexion with their criticism of our Estimates. I am inclined to think that a reduction could be made on the Naval Estimates, and I certainly do not think that if we had remained in power the expenditure would have increased, as this Government propose to increase it this year, by 2s. 6d. per head. Mr.Rodgers. - What the honorable member says must go for nothing if he will not point out the expenditure which, he says, is unnecessary. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- It may go for nothing, so far as the honorable member is concerned- {: .speaker-KZT} ##### Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917 -- I am not satisfied with the expenditure. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- I am glad to have that assurance. Fair-minded people will come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister had no foundation for the case which he sought to make out to-night. When the expenditure is stated per head of the population, the belief is engendered that there has been an increase in taxation, but, as a matter of fact, the late Government, with the exception of the land tax, did not increase taxation by one farthing. We were able to satisfy, out of revenue, all the requirements of the Commonwealth, and to leave to our successors a surplus of over £2,500,000. The present Government expect that their expenditure will eat up, not only the current revenue, but the big surplus which we left them. The point which I wish to emphasize is that the Prime Minister this evening carefully evaded the real question at issue. He did not tell the House why the number of officers on Garden Island and Cockatoo Island had been increased. The honorable gentleman said that the Minister of Defence had made only one appointment; but the question he should have answered is why these Estimates provide for the staff on Cockatoo Island being increased from twentyeight to forty-five, and for an increase from forty to seventy-one in the case of the staff on Garden Island. He should also have told us what they are going to do with the 100 men who are to be placed on Garden Island. They are supposed to be naval men, yet they are not to take part in the working of any ship. Is there any necessity for such an expenditure? These points have not been answered by the Prime Minister. I want an answer to them. I did not interject last night, when the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs read certain documents, because I believed that everything was all right; but, having heard the honorable member for Adelaide this evening, and the Prime Minister in reply, I am satisfied that there is something to be answered, and that an answer should be given. The Prime Minister carefully evaded the very points with which we dealt last night. The position I take up is that, if this expenditure is necessary, we should agree to it, but that, if it is unnecessary, we should strike it out. I am not fighting these Estimates because I desire to delay them. I wish to see Parliament exercising full control over the Army and Navy. I do not wish to see established here a military caste, which will practically run the show, and do what it pleases. This Parliament should control all these matters. It was from that point of view that I spoke last night. I thought that the Prime Minister had made out a good case, but having heard more about the matter since, I find that that is not so. The exMinister states that they were only approved draft Estimates, and that the method he followed in regard to them had been his method for the three years that he was in office. Other Ministers may have different methods. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Does he mean that when he signed an authority it was only a provisional authority ? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: **- His** custom was to look into the draft Estimates, and to sign them as such, considering them fully later on, and deciding then what he would spend and what he would cut out. That has been his method right through. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- I took his approval as necessarily his approval of the Estimates. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The ex-Minister denies that he approved of the Estimates. He says that he approved only of the draft Estimates for further consideration at a later date. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- Does he deny that he made the agreement with the State ? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- In regard to that the Prime Minister carefully avoided the real question. I have admitted that any agreement made with New- South Wales and with the Admiralty in regard to Cockatoo Island and Garden Island should be honoured, but last night I asked why the officers at Cockatoo Island were being increased from twenty-one to forty-five. The Prime Minister did not deal with that point. Then at Garden Island there were forty officers when the agreement was entered into, and seventyone have been provided for in the Estimates, although Admiral Henderson says that the cost of the Garden Island establishment should be reduced on the taking over of the Cockatoo Island establishment. The Prime Minister has not dealt with these matters. If the additional officers have not been appointed, why should we vote the sums asked for; if the money is needed, the appointments must have been made, or must be in contemplation. The Prime Minister did not clear that up. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- Does the honorable member suggest that I should explain in detail everything that we are going to do ? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- No; but the matters raised last night should have been cleared up. We are considering whether certain additional expenditure at Cockatoo Island and Garden Island is justifiable. We must keep the Estimates as low as possible, and provide against unnecessary expenditure, but the Prime Minister has given us no information as to the appointment of additional officers. He has not told us anything in regard to the 100 petty officers that are to be at Garden Island. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- I have explained that they are men waiting to be drafted into the ships. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- The Estimates say- >The following officers and men (sea-going) are also borne for duty, but are included for pay in Division 55, Permanent Forces (Seagoing). Then follows an enumeration. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- They are to be drafted off Garden Island. Are. not these small matters to raise? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- They are important matters in this connexion. We should be told -why the men are needed at Garden Island. If there is work for them to do, I say, " Keep them." {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- The honorable member has been here for some years, but I have never known him to question the appointment of a man before. He is displaying wonderful zeal. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- As a representative of the people, it is my duty to look closely into proposals. for expenditure, and if I think any item' unnecessary, ,to speak and vote against it. When the' Honorary Minister brought down the papers last night, I thought that he had made a satisfactory reply, but in the light of further information, I think that he and the Prime Minister have signally failed to answer the case against them. It is a question of displaying zeal for the protection of the Exchequer and of the taxpayers. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- Well, knock out the items, and throw the men out of work. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- I do not wish to do that, but I wish for information as to what the men are. going to do. If the services of these men are required, they must be paid for. I wish to know why the Government are providing for so many more officers than have been taken over ? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- The honorable member has been criticising, ever since Parliament met, the Administration which he supported during the last Parliament. That Administration must have been very bad. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Ever since the Prime Minister took office, he has been speaking of the sins of his predecessors, and putting all responsibility on to them. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- I am willing to take responsibility for my own actions, but not for those of my predecessors. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- We are justified in seeking for information in regard to these Estimates. We are all anxious to have an efficient Defence Force, but we do not wish to pay more for it than is absolutely necessary. {: #subdebate-32-0-s5 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong -- It is not my intention to traverse the supplementary Budget speech delivered by the Prime Minister, in which the honorable gentleman evaded the main- questions at issue. I hope we shall not have an all-night sitting, but the honorable gentleman did his best to provoke it, and it is an indication of our restraint that we can resist the temptation he placed before us. Is it not ridiculous that any honorable member on the other side should attempt to fasten upon **Senator Pearce** the responsibility for advanced reports sent in prior to the making up of the Estimates for the year? Every one knows that we had an election this year, and that the late Minister of Defence went to Western Australia in March, and did not return to Melbourne until June, yet the Prime Minister attempted to fasten upon him the responsibility for the preliminary suggestions made by officers of the Defence Department throughout the Commonwealth in respect to the preparation of the Estimates for the financial year. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- I say no. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- Would any sane man contend that the lateMinistry had their Estimates for the current financial year made up prior to entering upon the election campaign ? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- I take it that Ministerial approval is Ministerial approval. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- What the honorable gentleman refers to was not Ministerial approval. He knows well that the fact that **Senator Pearce** initialed certain documents which were put before him merely indicated that in due time they would receive his consideration. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- They are signed, "Approved, G.F.P." with a date. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- . The documents referred to were only the preliminary suggestions for expenditure sent in by the officers of the Department. It is not to be believed that any Minister would dream of making up his Estimates of expenditure for the year two months prior to an election. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- I did not go on the Estimates. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- The honorable gentleman tried to fix upon the late Minister of Defence the responsibility for the suggestion set out in certain preliminary documents to which he affixed his initials. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- No. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I say yes. I have an advantage over the Prime Ministertonight, inasmuch as I had the opportunity to listen this afternoon to a discussion which took place in the Senate. I heard **Senator Pearce,** and, after him, **Senator Millen,** on this subject, and I can claim to know almost as much about it as does the Prime Minister. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- I hope I know what I have said. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- Sometimes the honorable gentleman does, and, like the rest of us, he sometimes does not know what he has said. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- I did not go on the Estimates at all, but on the agreement at the back of them. {: #subdebate-32-0-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I must ask the Prime Minister not to continue to interrupt. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- It is a common thing for an honorable member to make such a statement as I have just made in elucidation of a debate. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I do not mind a casual interruption, but the Prime Minister sits in his place uttering a continuous stream of interjections. That cannot be allowed under the Standing Orders. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I think that is an exceptionally well-merited rebuke. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- Is that in order? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member for Maribyrnong should withdraw that statement. I trust honorable members will assist me in carrying out the Standing Orders. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I regret having made the statement; but, if I were to emulate the Prime Minister, I would make a dramatic display on account of his persistent interjections. When a few interjections are made when he is speaking, he resumes his seat with an offended air. I repeat for the special edification of the Prime Minister that no sane man would think of believing that blame should attach to a Minister for signing preliminary suggestions for expenditure received from his officers in various parts of Australia, especially when a general election was about to be held. A man does not need to have been a member of a Ministry to know that, from the officers of every Department, there is every year a shoal of requests received involving considerable expenditure. The signature of a Minister in charge of a Department to such documents indicates that the requests are to be taken into consideration. He may later find it necessary to reduce the expenditure proposed, and, further, to subrait the Estimates to the Treasurer, or to the full Cabinet, where a further pruning process takes place. Very often the final say is left to the Treasurer. The Prime Minister has claimed that his Government have had to cut down considerably the expenditure proposed in these preliminary Estimates submitted by the officers of the different Departments, but if the previous Government had remained in power they would also have used the pruning knife upon them. If there is one thing emphatic in Admiral Henderson's report it is that once Cockatoo Island was taken over for docking, repairing, and other purposes, the staff at Garden Island should be reduced, yet we find that the staff has been increased, not only at Garden Island, but at Cockatoo Island also. **Senator Pearce,** in the document which was before us to-day, has told us that the Naval Board were anxious to have certain appointments made, but he, as a commonsense administrator - one of the best we have ever had in the Department - declared that, beyond a few men on the clerical staff, and some others, no one would be appointed until a general manager was there to take charge. In Cockatoo Island we are taking over a' great industry, and I have no objection to the expenditure of £850,000 for the land, the dock, and so forth. If we are to have a Navy, it is essential that we should be able to send the flagship for repairs should occasion require. And here I may observe that should the flagship suffer an accident near .the western coast of Australia, she would, under present circumstances, have to come right round to Sydney in order to be put right. This only shows how essential it is that there should be a Naval Base on the western coast, and Admiral Henderson, the greatest expert we have had here, has recommended Cockburn Sound. We must believe the statement of **Senator Pearce,** because he is an honorable man, whose word would be taken not only by the Australian people, but by the British authorities. The great bulk of the men at Cockatoo Island were not in the permanent service of the New South Wales Government, and are not. in the permanent employ of the Commonwealth Government, the only permanent men being those few whom **Senator Pearce** decided to take over. I do not wish to say anything harsh about the Defence Department, but those who administer it do not seem to really know where they are with respect to Cockatoo Island and the men employed there, the present Minister of Defence, I am sure, being decidedly mixed. In order to show that the men employed knew they were not permanently engaged, I may say that two elderly men in the clerical staff requested that they should be transferred to another Department of the State, in order that they might complete the service necessary to obtain their pensions. If **Senator Pearce** had decided to take over all the officers, how is it that we hear of such cases as that ? It is a grand thing to know that the Commonwealth has been able to take over such fine works, and I hope they will be managed iu the best interests of the people of the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister has been talking about the large expenditure, and I should like to point out one or two ways in which a saving can be effected. Ever since I have been in this Parliament, I have had complaints to make about our printing being done at great expense in the State Printing Offices. Our printing bill has attained such dimensions as to amply justify the establishment of a Federal Printing Office. And all of it is not done by the State. For instance, the *Year-Hook,* and all the publications issued from the Statist's office, are printed by McCarron, Bird, and Company, of Melbourne; and this fact, combined with all the other circumstances, must lead to the conclusion that the Commonwealth ought to do its own printing. If this were undertaken now, we should, on removal to Canberra, take with us a well-organized office. Something like £5,000 is proposed to be expended in connexion with stamp-printing, the purchase of machinery, and so forth, in the State Printing Office here ; and I am sure, considering what we pay the State Government in printing, that some saving might be effected if we did the work ourselves. Then, again, the duplication of the Cordite Factory, as recommended by a Committee which reported just prior to the late Government leaving office, would save one-third of the expenditure. I have to complain bitterly about the number of experts, and the big fees we are paying them to come to Australia to tell us something we already know. I understand that something like £2,000 is to be paid to a wireless expert, although there is already here one of the best in the world, who has established a system that will be invaluable to Australia. Further, while I do not mind the casual visit of **Mr. Griffin,** I think the Government are asking too much when they suggest that we should pay that gentleman £1,050 per annum for three years to superintend the works at the Capital, he to have liberty to devote half his time to private practice. The next expert is **Sir Maurice** Fitzmaurice, who is to be brought here at a cost of £4,700, although I believe we have in our Naval Department officers quite qualified to continue the work at Cockburn Sound. If. our own men can carry out the awkwardundertaking at Westernport to the satisfaction of the present Government, I do not see why we should pay such a large fee in connexion with Cockburn Sound to an expert who is a member of a firm the head of which some years before reported on the same site. We have here one of the best harbor engineers to be found in the world. In the last hundred years we have had to make many harbors; and I am sure that we could get the best advice on this subject locally, because we have Admiral Henderson's absolute approval of Cockburn Sound as a Naval Base, and one which is absolutely essential to our Fleet. Why do we need to pay £4,700 to bring out an expert on harbor construction? I can hardly conceive of a junior member of a firm going against what another member of the firm, and a far superior man, has said. I cannot conceive of **Sir Maurice** Fitzmaurice overriding the opinion of such an eminent engineer as **Sir John** Coode. I was referring just now to the Cordite Factory. The man who is manufacturing cordite here, **Mr. Leighton,** was brought out from the British service, after having put in a fine service in India, and started a similar class of work. We brought him out here as an expert. He is manufacturing cordite not only equal to, but superior to, that which was brought from the other side of the world. Yet I understand the Minister has set aside the man who was brought here to superintend the erection of the Cordite Factory, carried out all the difficult initial work, and is turning out cordite for small arms. I heard some complaint about the quality of -the cordite obtained from the Colonial Ammunition Company, which was proved to have little or no ground, but there has been no complaint of defective cordite since we started our factory. Now that we have put in a plant which turns out cordite for our small arms,- we ought to establish works for cordite manufacture for our big guns, and thereby save a third of what we have been spending. I understand that the Government, who are so much in love with spending money J and bringing out experts to tell us what we already know, have sent home an officer or officers to bring out information in respect to the manufacture of big gun cordite. As regards the main point which has been raised to-night, the Prime Minister glided off the point admirably, and got on to what I call a supplementary Budget speech. The honorable member for Hunter, the honorable member for Adelaide, and other honorable members, have been pleading for information. While I do not feel much inclined to cavil at expenditure in connexion with the Post Office, or any other Department, I do submit that, in connexion with defence, where the expenditure will not be of a reproductive character, we have to be very careful to see how the money is to be expended. The information has not been made available to us. I do not sit down making a threat, but I do think that it would almost serve the Government right if they were kept up all night on account of the meagre information which they have supplied, not only in respect to this measure, but in respect to others. I enter a protest against the information not being forthcoming. I believe that, so far as the officers and the Minister of Defence are concerned, there is a considerable state of mix in connexion with Cockatoo Island and Garden Island. I do not believe that they have been able to unravel it. We have never had a satisfactory explanation, and it seems that we never will. _ The blame must be thrown upon the Minister and his officers. It certainly cannot be thrown on those who, like myself, have been so patiently endeavouring to extract information. {: #subdebate-32-0-s7 .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON:
Grey .- I think, sir, it would be just as well if we had a quorum. *[Quorum formed.]* I am sorry that I have to detain honorable members, but I will not occupy more time than I think is necessary. I would not have risen but for a statement made by the Honorary Minister at a function on Monday night. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr Joseph Cook: -- There will be a Supply Bill next week. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- The Honorary Minister has made a claim for effecting a great sum of money, and taking credit to himself. A statement for which there is no justification ought not to be allowed to go forth without an explanation of the position that led up to what was done by the late Ministry. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- Ask him a question to-morrow. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- No, I have asked a question, but . received .no satisfactory answer. On Tuesday night I said - >I desire to invite the attention of the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs to a statement which he is alleged to have made in addressing the Women's National League last evening, to the effect that on one little item which came under his notice in the Department of Home Affairs he had saved South Australia ^125,000 in the manufacture of rolling-stock for the railways. I desire to ask him to what rolling-stock he was referring? * The Honorary Minister replied in these terms - >I did not say that I had saved South Australia *£1* 25,000; but I did say that, very shortly after I was' placed in charge of the Department of which the Prime Minister is the head, tenders which had been invited for the supply of ^126,000 worth of rolling-stock to enable the Oodnadatta-Port Augusta railway to be run by Commonwealth instrumentalities came before me. By arrangement with the State of South Australia, the purchase of that 3-ft. 6-in. gauge rolling-stock was obviated, and ^126,000 was thus saved to the Commonwealth. That is one of those half truths which can be correctly described as worse than a lie. The Honorary Minister made that statement at the function for one purpose, and that of taking to himself the credit of saving £126,000 to the Commonwealth. If he had been honest he would have stated what led up to the Fisher Government giving notice to the South Australian Government that they would return them an agreement which had been made between the State and the late **Mr. Batchelor.** It may not be known to honorable members generally that ever since the work was started at Port Augusta the authorities in the Home Affairs Department have repeatedly applied to the State Government to get the right of a roadway of 4 ft. 8^ in. on to that wharf. They ask for the right for the sole purpose of obviating the increased expense which would necessarily follow from having to load into 3-ft. 6-in. trucks to be shunted a certain distance and the contents put into other 4-ft. 8^-in. trucks and carried on to our road of construction. Not only did the State Government absolutely refuse to give that right, but they charged rates which were excessive. For instance, for the use of an ordinary 5 to 8 ton truck they charged the Commonwealth12s. a day, whereas the same Railway Commissioner leased to the contractors, Smith and Timms, who were constructing railways in another portion of the State, the same trucks at 2s. 6d. per day. The rate charged between the Victorian Government and the South Australian Government for a 10 to 15 ton truck is only 3s. a day, but the Commonwealth has been paying to South Australia no less than 12s. a day for a 5 to 8 ton truck. Our Supervising-Engineer, **Mr. Deane,** has repeatedly wanted to get some arrangement made with the State Government which would obviate that heavy charge. **Mr. Deane,** in a report on the 27th June of last year, says - >All ofthe material for the construction of the South Australian section of the line, amounting to over 200,000 tons, of which only a comparatively small proportion has been received, must be discharged from incoming vessels at the wharf. The South Australian Railway Commissioner expressed himself as being unfavorable to giving permission for Commonwealth railway stock to have direct access to the wharf. The Commonwealth owns the wharf and the tracks thereon. It pays interest on the cost of construction, and is also debited with extraordinary repairs and renewals. At the same time, the Commonwealth is called upon to pay wharfage rates under the ordinary public tariff in respect of every ton of material which passes over the wharf. These rates will average, I should say, at least1s. 3d. per ton, and probably nearer1s. 6d., so that on a 200,000 tons of business we would in the ordinary course be called upon to pay at least over , £12,000 in wharfage dues. It was to avoid this that overtures were made to the South Australian Government to allow the Commonwealth authorities to have a 4-ft. 8½-in. roadway on to the wharf and a road direct from the ship's slings to our own 4-ft. 8½-in. trucks. That request was refused. Again, in November of last year, **Mr. Deane** reported as follows: - >As the Minister is aware, the Commonwealth pays all the interest on the capital cost of this railway,, including: the station buildings, yards, and. wharf at: Fort Augusta, and, in addition, the cost of extraordinary repairs is debited to the Federal Government. For the outlay referred to; amounting to £84,000 per year for interest, and a varying annual sum for extraordinary repairs, the Commonwealth obtains no service whatever. On the contrary, the Home Affairs Department is paying, wharfage to the South Australian Railway Commissioner at full tariff rates for all material landed ex ships at the wharf, and, in addition, it is called upon to pay a heavy rate for the haulage of this material from the wharf to the Commonwealth depot, about three-quarters of a mile distant, the work being performed by the South Australian Railway Commissioner, who, in pursuance of the powers conferred upon him by the lease, absolutely refuses to allow the Commonwealth trucks to run on the wharf. Our unsatisfactory positionis accentuated by the fact that heavy repairs to the wharf are now necessary. I have prepared details of what is required, together with an estimate of cost, and the Minister has approved of an expenditure of £9,200 in strengthening and renewing the wharf. ... It is unreasonable that the Commonwealth should be spending large sums for interest and general upkeep of a property, and then have to pay further large sums for the privilege of using that property. It was in consequence of these overtures by the authorities in the Home Affairs Department, over which the honorable member for Wentworth now presides, that the Fisher Government, having failed to get the South Australian Government to meet them in a reasonable way, were compelled to give notice of their intention to terminate the agreement on the 1st January next year. Had the South Australian Government met the late Administration in the same spirit that it has met the present Government, there would have been no necessity to give notice of their intention to terminate the agreement. After all that the Commonwealth had done for South Australia, one would have expected that the Government of that State would have been satisfied, and would not have endeavoured to fleece the Commonwealth. It was only when every effort to obtain a reasonable arrangement with that Government had failed that **Mr. Thomas** gave notice of the intention of the Commonwealth to terminate the agreement entered into with that State by the late **Mr. Batchelor** I am sure that that gentleman never dreamed that the Government of his own State would have treated the Commonwealth in the way that it has treated it. At the present time the South Australian Government is charging the Commonwealth a demurrage rate of 12s. per day per truck, whereas the amount paid by a private contractor is only 2s. 6d. per truck. Then, again, the South Australian authorities are charging us 3s. per 1,000 gallons for water: {: .speaker-L1R} ##### Mr Agar Wynne: -- That is too hot altogether. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- I want the Commonwealth to be" treated in the same way that it treats other people. I was a resident ot Port Augusta for a number of years, and when I contracted to consume 100,000 gallons of water I got it at 6d. per 1,000 gallons. That is the rate which obtains at present. Every small stock-owner in the vicinity pays only 6d. per 1,000 gallons for water upon his undertaking to consume 100,000 gallons per year. Yet the Commonwealth is being charged 3s. per 1,000 gallons. When the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs told a meeting the other day that he had effected a saving of £126,000 upon rollingstock for this railway, he stated only half the truth, because, had the arrangement entered into by the late Government been given effect to, we should have still had the rolling-stock. Had the honorable gentleman told his hearers what led up to the late Government giving the South Australian Government notice of their intention to terminate the agreement, I would have had no fault to find with him. But he claimed credit for having saved £126,0CC upon one little matter which had come under his notice. If it had not been for the termination of the agreement {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- If the South Australian Government had not been given control of the wharf, in the first instance, the situation would never have arisen. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- When the late **Mr. Batchelor** entered into that agreement with the South Australian Government we had no use for the wharf. Nobody knew how long it would be before the proposal to construct the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway would be agreed to. But it was thought that when it came to handling our stuff, we at least would be treated the same as private individuals. Instead of that, they are charging for demurrage on railway trucks four times what is charged to private contractors. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Have these excessive charges existed from the time we gave the lease ? {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- We had no material to move for a long time after the lease was arranged. They have also charged us a wharfage rate of ls. 3d. to ls. 6d. per ton for handling all the material we require to get over that particular wharf. I was going to speak to this matter on the Address-in-Reply, but there was an, agreement pending settlement. The Minister boasted the other night that he had saved this money, but he cannot produce an agreement in which the arrangementsare set out. This is one of the arrangements that Ministers did not hesitate to repudiate. They have been talking tonight about honouring the commitments of the previous Government, but here they did not, though they are making anarrangement with the South Australian Government which I hope will be very satisfactory. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- It will save a lot of money. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- Does the honorable member think it right to charge 12s. per day for a truck when Smith and Timms pay 2s. 6d. ? {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- That is not true. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member must withdraw that remark. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- I withdraw the remark. I meant to say it was incorrect. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- Documents can be found where they are charging 12s. per day. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- But for how long are the trucks in use? {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- That is immaterial., We will have 200,000 tons of stuff to go over the wharf and be handled into these trucks. {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Richard Foster: -- Have you read the report of the Port Augusta traffic superintendent *1* {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- I have the Railways Commissioner's letter, in which he acknowledges that he charges 12s. per day,, whereas they charge Smith and Timms 2s. 6d. I do not wish to occupy the time of the House, but there are two sides to the story the Honorary Minister told at a tea party the other night, and I wish to put the other side in fairness to the lateMinistry. The present Minister of External Affairs will admit that the alleged saving is all a myth. There ought to bea different arrangement made at PortAugusta in regard to water, or we should put in our own water supply. South, Australia should treat us better consider- ing all the work that is being done at Fort Augusta and in the development of the Northern Territory. At least, we should be put on the same footing as private people. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2519 {:#debate-33} ### PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS **Mr. SPEAKER** reported the receipt of the following Message from the Senate : - **Mr. Speaker,** The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which has been agreed to by the Senate, and requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives therein, viz. : - " That, in the opinion of the Senate, section 51 of the Constitution Act should be amended to give the Parliament of the Commonwealth power to grant pensions to widows with young children dependent on them ; and that the necessary referendum of the electors of the Commonwealth be taken at the next general election." Thos. Givens, President. The Senate, Melbourne, 33rd October, 1912. . House adjourned at 11.23p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 October 1913, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1913/19131023_reps_5_71/>.