House of Representatives
9 December 1921

8th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Elliot Johnson) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers.

page 14217

HANSARD DELETIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

– An honorable mem ber has complained to me that in the course of a speech made by another honorable member certain passages were read from a letter which reflected on him personally, in a manner which the speaker would not have been allowed to do in the course of his own remarks. The rule of Parliament is that a member must not quote from documents, newspapers or letters, passageswhich reflect upon any other member of the House, or statements which he could not make in a speech. Were that not the rule, the practical effect of the quotation of such passages would be to allow some one, who was not a member of the House, to express in this Chamber opinions about a member which another member of the House would not be allowed to utter. With the concurrence of the House, I propose that, when matter of the kind complained of inadvertently gets into Hansard, I should instruct the Principal Parliamentary Reporter to eliminate it, because it would be grossly unfair to an honorable memberto allow him to suffer under such circumstances.

page 14217

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

General Post Office, Sydney

Mr. GREGORY presented the report and minutes of evidence of the Public Works Committee on the remodelling of and additions to the General Post Office; Sydney.

Ordered to be printed.

page 14217

QUESTION

TREASURER’S SALARY

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

As the Parliament has not been made aware of the date of the appointment of a new Treasurer of the Commonwealth, will he inform the House whether, during the period ofsuch apparent vacancy, the salary will revert to the Treasury, or what will become of it.

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

– This matter will receive consideration when the new Treasurer is appointed.

page 14218

QUESTION

MILITARY OFFICERS’ PAY

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

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

  1. What are the names of officers of the Defence Department receiving £800 and over per year?
  2. What offices do they hold?
  3. What werethe corresponding rates of pay of such officers in 1911 and June, 1914?
Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
Assistant Minister for Defence · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The information required by the honorable member will be laid on the table in the form of a return.

page 14218

QUESTION

CIVIL AIR SERVICE

Regulations - Accident in Western Australia.

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Whether the Federal Government, in conjunction with the State Governments, has drawn up regulations with a view to controlling the air service of Australia?
  2. Do the Government insist upon only qualified men having charge of aeroplanes in Australia?
  3. If not, will the Government take immediate steps to secure the safety of passengers and pilots using aeroplanes in Australia?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– As this matter is one which concerns the Defence Department, I would ask that the questions be addressed to my colleague, the Acting Minister, who, I understand, has the information available.

Mr BOWDEN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Has the Minister received any information as to the cause of the aerial disaster in Western Australia?
  2. Is the Commonwealth in any way responsible for the accident either through neglect to prepare landing places or otherwise?
Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NAT

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

  1. No official report has yet been received. The Controller of Civil Aviation is now in Western Australia, and will personally investigate this matter.
  2. No. From a perusal of the published reports, I am inclined to agree with Major Brearley’s theory that the accident was due to the stalling of the machine at an altitude too low to permit of the pilot recovering control.

page 14218

QUESTION

MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCE

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it true that some members of the House of Representatives are paid a lower allowance than others; if so, will he indicate the number of members who draw the smaller allowances, and the amounts they draw?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– In answer to a similar question,’ Sir Joseph Cook’, when Acting Prime Minister, said that he did not know what good would result from the publication of details. It appears that the attitude taken up on that occasion should be adhered to.

page 14218

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Parliamentary Representation

Mr JACKSON:
BASS, TASMANIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Will he give the House an assurance that a Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible moment nextsession, having for its object the granting of representation in the House of Representatives for the residents of the Northern Territory?
  2. As it will take considerable time to compile an electoral roll for the proposed new division, will the Prime Minister, through the Home and Territories Department,see that the Chief Electoral Officer is instructed to at once commence that work?
Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– Yes.

page 14218

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr. Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.

page 14218

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to -

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 14218

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act - Report of the Repatriation Commission for the year ending 30th June, 1921,

Ordered to be printed.

Quarantine Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1921, Nos. 186, 187.

page 14219

APPROPRIATION BILL 1921-22

In Committee (Consideration of Senate’s requests) :

Second Schedule.

The Parliament.

Special Messenger, in charge of stores and stamping correspondence, £250.

Clerk of the House of Representatives, £1,250.

Senate’s Requests. - Increase salary of Special Messenger to £275; reduce salary of Clerk of the House of Representatives to £1,000.

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

– The Senate has made requests, which, in effect, amount to this : That there should be an amendment of the Appropriation Bill to increase the salary of one of its officers, and to reduce the salary of one of ours. That is a proposal to which we cannot agree con amore, and we ask the Committee to refuse to comply with both requests, but we intend to bring in a Bill to increase the salary of the Senate’s official. Ministers are quite prepared to agree to that increase, but we object to the reduction of the salary of an official of this House. The Senate must not be permitted to interfere with the control by this House of its own officers. I therefore move -

That the requested amendments be not made.

Mr WATT:
Balaclava

.- I expected the Leader of the Opposition to say something about this proposal. Surely it is an unusual procedure to allow another place, in defiance of tradition, practice, and ruling, to increase the votes of the most important money Bill of the session.

Mr Charlton:

– There is a precedent for what is being done.

Mr WATT:

– If it is permissible for the Senate to increase by £25 the appropriations which the Committee of Supply has voted for the services of the Crown, it is permissible for that Chamber to increase them by £1,000,000. The amendment strikes at the power of the purse, which resides in this House.

Mr Hughes:

– I have moved to refuse the request. : Mr. WATT. - I thought I heard the right honorable gentleman say that he did not object to the increase.

Mr Hughes:

– Two requests have been made by the Senate, one to increase the salary of a Senate official and the other to decrease the salary of an official of the House of Representatives. We propose, at this stage, to refuse to comply with both, leaving the Appropriation Bill as it stands, and to bring in a new Bill covered by message to provide for the increase to the Senate official’s salary.

Mr WATT:

– The procedure, as I am informed of it now, technically protects the rights and powers of the House, and, therefore, does not raise the issue to which I directed attention, but I understood the Prime Minister to say that the increase would be assented to, and I ask the Government to pause before agreeing to introduce a special measure to provide for this increase of £25.

Mr Charlton:

– That is a matter to be discussed when it comes before us.

Mr Hughes:

– The request, of the Senate for an increase relates to the salary of one of its own officials.

Mr WATT:

– Yes ; but this Committee must not be committed to the increase.

Mr Groom:

– Still, the Senate is entitled to make requests in connexion with the Appropriation Bill.

Mr WATT:

– We were told that this was an amendment. The House must deal on its merits in connexion with a special message with the Senate’s proposal to increase a salary by £25.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Ordered -

That the Bill be returned to the Senate accordingly.

page 14219

WIRELESS COMMUNICATION

Debate resumed from 7th December (vide page 13986), on motion by Mr. Hughes -

That this House approves of the execution by the Prime Minister of the agreement proposed to be made between the Commonwealth and Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, a draft of which has been laid upon the table of the House.

Upon which Mr. Charlton had moved, by way of amendment -

That all the words after the word “That” be omitted, with a view to the insertion of the words “the whole question of wireless be referred to a Committee of this House for investigation and report.”

Mr MARKS:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; IND NAT from 1929

.- In order that we may judge fairly the proposal submitted to the House, and estimate the wonderful advantages that it may yield to Australia, it is necessary to briefly review the history of wireless in Australia, and to expose the bungling that has taken place from its inception in 1911 until the present time. In 1911, the Commonwealth Government decided to erect wireless stations in Australia, and a contract was let for the establishment of one station at Pennant Hills, Sydney, and another at Fremantle. As an instance of the remarkable workings of the Postal Department, a piece of ground at Pennant Hills, comprising 40 acres, and covered with bush and scrub, was selected. A firm in Sydney offered to grub and clear the ground, and pay the Department £250 for the timber thereon, but the Department carried out the clearing for itself, at an ultimate cost to the Government of £4,000, including the cost of erecting two small buildings. Then it was decided to manufacture wireless apparatus in Australia, and, whilst the suggestion was a good one, and whilst the work put into the locallyproduced wireless gear has been of an excellent character, the designing of it has been faulty from start to finish. We endeavoured to make gear that did not infringe any of the master patents that were in existence throughout the world, and in that way the efficiency of the service has been jeopardized, and the country has not received that advantage from wireless that it should have derived. When the Government of the day decided to make wireless sets in Australia, the works atRandwick belonging to the late Father Shaw were selected for that purpose. Notwithstanding that officers were appointed by the Government to supervise the construction of those plants, the Government departed from the recommendations of their own officials; designs that were condemned by their experts were accepted and sent by them to different stations.For instance, a plant was installed at Mount Gambier that had been condemned three times by the engineer of the Department, and yet people wonder why that station did not work effectively for ten months. In addition to that, the Shaw works imported rotary converters from America, substituted their own name-plates for the American nameplates, and in this way endeavoured to prove to the people of Australia that they were manufacturing certain wireless gear in this country, when, in reality, they were not doing so. This sort of thing has been continuing ever since wireless has been in existence in Australia. It has never had a fair chance, although if there is one science that can be applied to the development of industry in the Commonwealth it is wireless telegraphy. I come now to the time when the Shaw Wireless Works at Randwick were purchased by the Government for £50,000. Any one who is familiar with those works knows that the Commonwealth paid through the nose for them ; in my opinion we paid at least 50 per cent. more than the works were worth.

Mr McWilliams:

– If we do not mind we shall pay through the nose for this proposed contract, before we are finished.

Mr MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Under the Balsillie regime a great deal of bungling took place, for, apart from the things I have mentioned, the- officers were badly selected. Wireless is a science that needs close study, but the men selected to operate it were mainly mechanics from the telephonedepartment, who had never handled wireless apparatus, and had no training or experience in connexion with it. Yet men like that were expected to make a success of the system. At the inception of the war the Navy Department took over wireless communication from the Postal Department, and confusion became worse confounded. Public money was poured into the gutters, figuratively speaking, and it was heartbreaking to those officers in the Department, who were enthusiastic in their work, to see the waste that took place. The Navy Department insisted on making receiving apparatus and supplying sets to every wireless station in Australia. These sets cost thousands of pounds, and they would do anything but receive messages. Our alleged experts, who designed them, thought they could do things that Marconi and the Telefunken Company and other big wireless concerns had been trying without success for years to do, namely, to produce receivers that would receive over a wide range of waves. So bad were these sets that the operators preferred to take their own detectors into the stations, rather than use those supplied by the Navy Department.

Mr West:

– Are the experts to whom the honorable member refers officers of the Navy Department?

Mr MARR:

– Some of them. Quite recently, before the control of wireless was transferred back to the Postal Department, the authorities decided to provide a safeguard against a breakdown of the plant at Pennant Hills, and paid the Railways Commissioners in Sydney £6,000 to run an electric main out to the wireless station, apart from the cost of the installation of extra gear, although a duplicate plant could have been bought for £800.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– Why did not the honorable member place these facts before the House earlier?

Mr MARR:

– I had not the chance to do so. I placed upon the notice-paper a motion for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the waste of public money in connexion with wireless, and to prove the incompetence of the officers who were controlling the Department. I have asked many questions in this House concerning wireless mismanagement, and the replies, in practically every instance, appeared to have been drafted with the object of deceiving the House. On one day I placed upon the businesspaper sixteen questions, not one of which was answered correctly. When Sir Joseph Cook, who was the Minister for the Navy at the time, asked me if the questions were satisfactory, I told him that they were entirely satisfactory, having regard to my noticeof motion, which was on the business-paper, because I could prove by them that the officers who had drafted such replies were not reliable.

Mr McWilliams:

– This is the most serious charge that has ever been made against a Minister in this House.

Mr MARR:

– Ministers have to rely upon the answers given to them by the Departmental officers. I could talk on the history of wireless in this country for hours, but as time is pressing I must be brief, and come to the proposition that is now before the House. Both the Department of the Navy and the. Postal Department have mishandled wireless ever since its inception in Australia. If a person goes into any post-office in Australia, apart from the General Post

Offices, and tries to send a wireless message to any ship along the Australian coast, he creates immediate consternation. No radio forms are to-be . found. The officers do not know what are the rates to be charged, and they cannot say whether any boat on the coast is in wireless communication with the mainland. There is no progressive country in the world in which wireless has been retarded as it has been in Australia. If the control were in the hands of a company wireless would be boosted, and placards would be posted inviting the public to utilize wireless. But the Department never thinks of advertising. I may mention one instance which shows the attitude of the Postal Department towards any officers who show any enthusiasm in their work. A lineman saw that by using ends of wire which he cut off, the Department could be saved a few thousands of pounds per annum. He made a suggestion to his foreman, who reported it to the supervising engineer. He in turn forwarded it to the engineer for the State, and it was referred to a Board. The Board approved of the suggestion, and recommended that the lineman be paid £5 for it. Then the Chief Electrician in New South Wales was called upon to report as to why this idea had never been thought of before. Here is another instance of the wonderful working of the Department. There are wireless stations at Darwin and Townsville and in Papua. Regulations were issued providing that wireless messages from one land station to another must be sent through the nearest station. But if a man at Darwin desires to send a wireless message to Papua, notwithstanding that- the stations at Darwin and Papua can communicate direct, that message must; according to the regulations, be sent on the land line to Adelaide, thence through Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, and Townsville, whence it is transmitted by wireless to Papua. The reason for this round-about procedure is that Townsville is a little nearer to Papua than is Darwin.

Mr Wise:

– Is the honorable member speaking of the Navy Department or the Postal Department?

Mr MARR:

– I am speaking of the Postal Department.

Mr Wise:

– We only took it over twelve mouths ago.

Honorable- members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I must ask honorable members to conform to the rules of the House. It is grossly discourteous to loudly converse when an honorable member is speaking, and it is very difficult for the occupant of the Chair or the Hansard reporter to follow what is being said if members persist in conversing in an unnecessarily loud tone. If honorable members wish to enter into a discussion between themselves while an honorable member is addressing the Chair, they should do so in tones that will not disturb the proceedings of the House.

Mr MARR:

– If it is essential for us to advance in wireless work - and it is - and keep abreast of other nations, we should have a laboratory where men can experiment with this science, as is done in other parts of the world, where wonderful progress has been made. We have the opportunity of considering, several propositions, and whilst I hold no brief for the first proposal, I consider, after weighing all the facts and the statements made most carefully, that that of the Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) T limited is the best.

Mr Fenton:

– What authority has the honorable member for saying that?

Mr MARR:

– I am expressing a personal opinion, which I think I am entitled to do, as I had under my control in the war a great number of stations that handled more business in one day than the whole of the Commonwealth stations do in a month. When I returned from the war I made certain suggestions to the Government, and the Minister controlling the Department at the time told me, in effect, to mind my own business.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– What Minister was that 1

Mr MARR:

– He is not a Minister now, but was controlling the Post and Telegraph Department. We have been asking for some time how much longer it will be before any advance is made with this science. Numerous requests have been made for an up-to-date system, and business people, particularly, are anxious, to have a more efficient means of carrying on their International transactions. It was announced in the press quite recently that a message had been received from Europe in one-fifteenth of a second. The speed at which a message travels is 186,000 miles a second, and although communication^ are transmitted over .long distances with such rapidity it took the Post and Telegraph Department five hours to send the same message from Melbourne to Sydney.

Mr Wise:

– It did not.

Mr MARR:

– That is the information I have.

Mr Wise:

– The honorable member is referring to a statement in the Sydney Sun, which is a tissue of lies.

Mr MARR:

– If the information is incorrect I am prepared to withdraw the statement.

Mr Wise:

– It is only one of those vile attacks which are constantly made upon the Department by that paper.

Mr MARR:

– With an up-to-date wireless service Australia would be able to keep in line with other progressive nations; we would be able to gather and distribute press news, and such, a service would also be of material assistance to business people. This is an excellent means of applying science to industry, and as that policy . has been advocated from time to time it is the duty of the Government to act when the. opportunity offers. I believe that the first proposition mentioned in this connexion is the most .favorable. The second relates to the Radio Communication Company Limited of London, and if the books of that company are investigated, it will be- found that every one associated with its directorate is connected with existing cable companies. It is obvious, there- fore, that the object is to delay wireless coming into competition with cable services.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– With which company are those interested in cable ser- “ vices connected?

Mr MARR:

– The Radio Communication Company Limited. The British Government, some time ago,, appointed Sir Henry Norman to make investigations, and he submitted a scheme to the Imperial Government. In 1914’, before the outbreak of war, Sir Henry Norman got into touch with von Lepel, of Germany, with the idea of bringing the von Lepel system into the Imperial wireless chain, and even at the outbreak of hostilities we found Sir Henry Norman in communica- tion with, von Lepel. to ascertain whether he was to be mobilized for service with the German Army, or, if not, would he come to Westminster and meet the directors of the Radio Communication Com,pany Limited. If we are to achieve success we must have expert officers con-‘ versant with the most modern practice, which, unfortunately, we have not at present. The policy of the Government appears to be to discourage efficiency, and grant promotion and preference on the basis of seniority.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– Is that the policy of the Government?

Mr MARR:

– Yes, right through the Service. An officer displaying ability and initiative does not receive consideration at the hands of the head of the Department; and, even if he submits valuable suggestions, they are not considered, because the departmental head is always afraid of being displaced. Australia “occupies an isolated position. There is no country in the world that is in greater need of up-to-date wireless communication, bub notwithstanding this it appears to have been the policy of past Governments to staff the Department with men who knew very little concerning the most modern practice. Objection has been raised by some honorable members concerning the directors of the company, and the share the Government will have in. its control.

Mr West:

– The Government have no control whatever.

Mr MARR:

– Yes, a controlling interest in the shares.

Mr West:

– Who has to find the money?

Mr MARR:

– The Government and the company in practically equal shares, and those who find the money do control the business.

Mr Considine:

– I do not think the honorable member has read the agreement.

Mr MARR:

– I have it before me now. Personally, I would prefer to see an independent chairman. Some of the points mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) and by the honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) in regard to the assets we possess are worthy of consideration…; but are they of any great value ?

Mr Maxwell:

– Has the honorable member any idea of the value of plant?

Mr MARR:

– The land and buildings are valuable, but I would not purchase sixpence worth of the wireless plant.

Mr Maxwell:

– What is the value of the. Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited plant being brought into this agreement?

Mr MARR:

– I have inspected the. plant, which is the largest in Australia, but I could not express an opinion as to its worth without examining it very closely. The longer we delay a. settlement of this question the more difficult it will be to have allotted to us a wave length that will give an efficient service. Longdistance messages are transmitted most successfully on a wave of between 10,000 and 20,000 metres, and the longer we wait the greater the difficulty will become. Three years ago we could have had almost any wave length, but to-day we are being surrounded by stations in the Pacific. America has five there; Japan has recently completed one station, and has another in course of construction.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– What is the wave length used by Japan?

Mr MARR:

– I cannot say at the moment. In Java, at present, a highpower station is being erected to permit of direct communication with Holland. America is erecting a high-power station at Shanghai, and France is about to construct one at Raratonga and in FrenchIndoChina. Time does not permit me to deal with the wonders achieved by wireless, or to refer in detail to the efficient means of communication which were established to assist the Army on the Western and other Fronts. When an Army was stationary, the cable and telegraphic system proved efficient, but when the troops were scattered and on the march, nothing could compete with the wireless telegraphic system.

Mr Atkinson:

– Is long-distance wireless firmly established?

Mr MARR:

– Yes. Australia received high-power messages from Berlin, from which point despatches were daily transmitted throughout the war. On a number of the battle fronts we received the news of the world. Our men were able to keep themselves in touch with the new* with the aid of little pack sets, distributed among the “. diggers “ themselves. We in Australia may be likened to a dumb man, who has his sense of hearing, but cannot reply to any one who may speak to him. For many years this continent has been in that one-sided position, while other countries have equipped themselves both to hear and to answer. I trust that this House will consider the proposition solely on its merits, and will “give its approval to the scheme under review.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

– I am . pleased that the Prime Minister has agreed that the wireless proposition shall be referred to a Committee for investigation and report. I trust that, in the best interests of Australia - both city and country - the Committee will insist upon the fullest probing of the whole subject, and ascertain without doubt which system among those offered is the best. I have been informed that the original scheme which was sought_ to be established in this country, if it had been carried out in its entirety, would have been scrapped before to-day. The Marconi interests have learned that they made a mistake in connexion with ,some of the wireless stations which they erected around the coast of Great Britain and Europe. When wireless was inaugurated in England, under the control . of the Imperial ‘ Postal authorities, I made myself acquainted with the subject through my close personal association with the then Commonwealth Postmaster-General, the late Mr. Frazer, who was an enthusiast in the matter. Mr’. Frazer was to some extent responsible for the erection of a station at Epping, in New South Wales, and in encouraging the late Father Shaw to erect hia wireless plant at Randwick. Father Shaw, I might add, was a wealthy mau before he set out upon Ms experiments, but he died comparatively poor because of his efforts to establish wireless communication between Australia and the outside world. I strongly oppose the suggestion to permit private enterprise to control or maintain any interest in Commonwealth wireless activities. If tHere is one national service which should be entirely in the hands of the Government, it is wireless communication. Much of the matter which passes to and from the wire* less stations - and” this applies most particularly in time of war - is of an urgent, secret nature,- and Government servants alone should control the whole business. In my view, the same should apply to our cable systems. It was originally intended, when the cables ,were laid in order that Australia might be brought into immediate touch with other countries, that the Government should possess sole authority. To-day, however, the public of Australia get really a very poor service by means of the submarine cables. Much of the news sent to us from the other side of the world is valueless. Too much of the space devoted to cable messages in the daily press consists of trash - choice tit-bits, for example, about the matrimonial infelicities of British aristocrats. It was never intended that the cable highways should be congested with such rot.

I cannot help feeling that the private interests at present associated with the wireless scheme which the Government are asked to take up as part shareholders are anxious to draw the Government in because they fear they will not be able to carry on financially. With the Government behind them, these private interests would be able to fall back upon public money to compensate them in the event of loss, and remunerate them for what they have already put into the proposition. I object to the Prime Minister being given a free hand. There should be the closest scrutiny by a Committee of the Federal Parliament. There is no Commonwealth Treasurer to-day, and we know that the Prime Minister is absolutely reckless in his handling of public funds. The people interested in the wireless scheme have .got on the right side of the right honorable gentleman. He has lost his cautious balance, largely due, no doubt, to insidious propaganda carried on by friends’ of the Marconi system - lords and dukes, and the like - while the Prime Minister was in England. It would be fatal to the best interests of the Commonwealth if the right honorable gentleman were permitted to go ahead without check. His common sense and his usual able control of public affairs have been undermined. I do not suggest, of course,1 that there has been anything in the nature of questionable influence brought to bear on him. But I know that the Marconi interests are not above that sort of thing. The Prime Minister would like to mesmerize honorable members with his persuasive voice and his flailing arms; but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) has saved the country, possibly, from a financial mistake by insisting upon a close investigation by a specially appointed Committee.

When the late Mr. Frazer was PostmasterGeneral, at the time of the erection of the wireless station at Epping, I visited the place in his company, and took a keen interest in the subject, as my father had had some connexion with electrical matters. After the station had been established the Commonwealth naval experts advised that the Marconi system was not the best that could be installed. They expressed the view that the Telefunken system was better - that it was a more easily understood method, and was not so complicated, generally. Further, it was held by those experts that the Marconi system could only be employed over the city of Sydney at night-time, whereas, with the Telefunken installed, the station could carry on through every hour of the twenty-four. Honorable members will, perhaps, remember the Marconi scandal in England. Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, a brother of the then Attorney-General, SirRufus Isaacs - now the Viceroy of India, Lord Reading - was one of the. leading personalities in the Marconi Company. It was stated that Sir Rufus Isaacs himself held a considerable number of shares in the concern. The influence, or pressure, brought to bear upon the Imperial Government was so great that the Commonwealth Naval authorities were warned to keep quiet, and to refrain from favoring the Telefunken system. A controversy raged in this Chamber between the then PostmasterGeneral and the present State Chief Justice, Sir William Irvine, who had been given a retainer to defend the Marconi interests inthis country. I might mention at this stage that, as an outcome of a public inquiry in Great Britain, it was proved that a sum ranging between £300,000 and £400,000 was paid by way of bribes to members of the British Government, and that Sir Rufus Isaacs was one of those who shared therein. I relate these details to lead up to the reason why the wireless works at Epping were not gone on with. Subsequently, a law suit was brought against the Commonwealth Government with respect to the erection of that station, and having to do with the failure of the Government to pay a royalty to the Marconi interests. I recollect that a compromise was agreed upon, but I do not know how much it cost the Commonwealth Government.

Mr Bruce:

– Does the honorable member say that it was proved by investigation in England that Sir Rufus Isaacs had accepted money from the Marconi interests?

Mr WEST:

– I do not know the exact amount.

Mr Bruce:

– But that is altogether untrue.

Mr WEST:

– Serious trouble developed between the Marconi people and the British Government. I know that that sum which I have mentioned was paid.

Mr Bruce:

– If the honorable member says that Sir Rufus Isaacs was proved to have received money by way of a bribe from the Marconi company, his allegation is totally incorrect. Any such suggestion was utterly disproved.

Mr.Fenton. - Did he not receive money from that source for campaign purposes?

Mr Bruce:

– Nothing of the sort.

Mr WEST:

– The trouble was that the Telefunken was a German system. It had secured preference in quite a number of places over the Marconi method.

Mr Marr:

– Not because of its superiority, but for the reason that it was cheaper.

Mr WEST:

– At any rate, the interests of the Marconi Company were very strongly pushed in England, and here also. I mention these details to emphasize the need for very thorough inquiry. I trust that the Government will take no further action until the report of the Committee shall have been received. Usually, I know, the Prime Minister says he will do as he likes. He is not inclined at any time to take the slightest notice of any Committee or individual. Honorable members should be especially careful to prevent the right honorable gentleman from taking any unwise action upon his own authority at the present stage, when the Government have been voted ample money to carry them on for many months.

Mr FLEMING:
Robertson

.- I do not intend to delay the House at this stage, as I know that there is an intense desire on the part of honorable members to bring our proceedings to a close. It is most unfortunate that such an extraordinary statement as that made this morning by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Marr), which is deserving of considerable debate, should have been put before us at the last moment, because I am convinced that if the whole question were gone into as it should be, even more would be disclosed than has been suggested by the honorable member. As it is, we can say practically nothing about the matter, as the House has its mind set on getting into recess as quickly as possible. The statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) when submitting this proposed agreement was, in my opinion, unsatisfactory. He told us that wireless communication was necessary. I agree withhim, and concur also in his view that Australia cannot afford to be left out of the stream of events. The right honorable gentleman told us further that a relay service would be unsatisfactory. With that the House, I believe, will also agree; but the fact that such a service would be unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean that we should approve of this agreement. On the scientific side, of which I know nothing, it may be satisfactory ; but on the business side it is certainly open to criticism.

Mr Corser:

– The shareholders in the Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited would not have put their money into such a venture if it were not satisfactory.

Mr FLEMING:

– As to that we have also been told that the shareholders in the company will control the situation. In the case of an ordinary company that is so, but it is absolutely misleading to say that in this case the holders of the majority of the shares - that is to say, the Commonwealth Government - will do so. The holders of the lesser number of shares will appoint the greater number of directors under this agreement, so that whatever the majority may propose in general meeting can be overridden by the directorate. That is an absolutely improper position in which to place the shareholders of any company.

Mr Marks:

– The directorate may do that, except in regard to certain matters specially provided for in the agreement.

Mr FLEMING:

– I accept the honorable member’s correction. I repeat, however, that in respect of matters of general policy and control the directors will be able to override the will of the holders of the majority of the shares. That is a position for which I could never stand. I oppose this agreement because I believe it is unfair to ask the people of Australia to become shareholders in a company under conditions that a man would never think of advising a member of the ordinary public to accept.

Mr Marks:

– Might not commercial control be better than political control?

Mr FLEMING:

– But in this case we have a hybrid arrangement, which is neither the one thing nor the other. Because it is impossible to say what the Commonwealth will secure under this arrangement, or what it will stand to lose under it, I shall oppose the motion unless the Prime Minister gives the House a definite promise that he will have the whole matter inquired into by a Select Committee, so that the people and their representatives may know what sort of a bargain it is, into which we are asked to enter.

Mr WIENHOLT:
Moreton

.- I feel that I must make my position plain. This is one of two proposals which the Prime Minister, on his return from England, put before the House, and concerning which he, himself, asked the House to come to a decision. The second proposal related to the question of airships. I am uncompromisingly opposed to both. I am against spending £500,000 in put- ing the Commonwealth into this “shandygaff “ company, and I am absolutely opposed to referring the agreement to a Select Committee on the understanding that it shall have the right, on behalf of the Parliament, to consent to the Government entering into it.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I protest against the Commonwealth Government entering into this semicompanymongering scheme. Rather than that the Commonwealth should enter into this agreement, it would be better either for the Government to control the whole service as a national undertaking, or to allow a company to do so as a purely private concern. The agreement was brought before the House at practically the last moment, and every layman at once detected in it serious errors which ought never to have been made. I am quite prepared to allow a Select Commit- tee to be appointed to thoroughly investigate the proposals, not only of the AmalgamatedWireless (Australasia) Limited, but of other companies which have been negotiating with the Government, but it must be on the distinct understanding that the report of the Committee shall be submitted to the House, and the House itself given an opportunity to determine whether or not the agreement shall be entered into. I shall never be a party to this House surrendering, even to a Select Committee of its own members, its right to deal with the finances of the country. If, as has been said, this is a question of extreme urgency, then let an arrangement be made by the Leaders of the three different parties in the House that Parliament shall be called together early in the year - as soon as the report of the Select Committee is ready - on the distinct understanding that it shall meet only for the purpose of deciding this question on the report of that Committee.

Mr GROOM:
Minister forWorks and Railways · Darling Downs · NAT

– It has been found necessary to make one or two technical alterations in the agreement as laid on the table of the House, I therefore desire to move the adjournment of the debate in order that, with the leave of the House, I may substitute the amended agreement for that already laid on the table.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Groom) adjourned.

Mr. Groom, by leave, laid on the table of the House an amended agreement in substitution for that presented on 7th inst.

Debate resumed.

Mr WISE:
PosrmasterGeneral · Gippsland · NAT

.- During the debate this morning, the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Marr) went out of his way to attack the Postal Department. I did not hear the earlier part of his speech, but I was present when ho went so far as to father a charge which was made in the Sydney Sun of 6th inst., that, although the first wireless press message flashed from England to Australia in one-fifteenth of a second, the Postal Department, having taken charge of it, occupied five hours in sending it from Melbourne to Sydney. I interjected at the time that the honorable member’s statement was absolutely incorrect, and I desire now to read to the House a letter received by the Secretary to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department from Mr. Fisk, managing director of the Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited thanking us for our courtesy and promptness in giving him authority to deliver the wireless message. The letter is as follows : - 5th December, 1921. Dear Sir, - I wishto thank you for your courtesy and promptness in replying to my letter of this morning, and for the authority to deliver the wireless messages received at our experimental station at Koo-wee-rup from the Marconi station at Carnarvon. - Yours faithfully, E. T. Fisk.

Had he asked for that permission a week earlier he would have obtained it.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out (Mr. Charlton’s amendment) stand part of the question - put. The House divided.

AYES: 35

NOES: 26

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

– In accordance with what I have just intimated, I move -

That the following words be added to the motion: - “subject to investigation and apiproval, with such alterations as they may deem necessary, by a Committee, consisting of six members of this House, two nominated by the Prime Minister, two by the Leader of the Opposition, and two by the Leader of the Country party, and three members of the Senate”.

This Committee will be charged with the duty of investigating the wireless project, and scrutinizing the agreement, making such alterations in it as it deems fit and proper to. safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth, and, subject to its approval, I shall be authorized to sign the agreement as altered in accordance with its wishes. The Government will accept full responsibility for the matter. We have not only sought the approval of this House, but have also submitted the matter to the Senate as it has been submitted here.’ Admittedly the form is unusual, but the circumstances are unusual. It is an Imperial project, and was discussed at great length at the Imperial Conference. The motion I submitted in this House was to give effect to an agreement arrived at by the representatives at the Conference -British, Dominion, and Indian - and which they agreed to submit to their Legislatures, namely, the unanimous determination of the Conference to promote a scheme for linking up the Empire by a system of wireless. Already the British, Government have begun their part of the business ; but what they do will be quite useless unless the other parts of the Empire cooperate. If the Commonwealth do not take action now it will probably be eight months before this Parliament will be in a position to even consider the question. Immediately Parliament meets next year, it will have to concern itself with financial and other matters of the first importance. For” that reason I am now asking the House to appoint a Committee which may satisfy itself that the contract with the Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited is the better of the two schemes submitted. I think that I shall be able to assure the Committee, if I cannot the ,

House, that there are in effect only two schemes.

Mr Charlton:

– Will you submit both to the consideration of the Committee?

Mr HUGHES:

– Certainly ; and if the Committee considers that the third proposal is to be preferred, I shall have nothing to say in opposition. On this Committee the Government will be in a hopeless minority. I shall not be a member of it. The matter to be considered must stand on its merits. The Committee can do what it pleases. It will have access to all the documents. But an immediate decision is required, and for that reason I am asking the House to intrust to the Committee the task of deciding whether the scheme submitted will be a good one for the Commonwealth to undertake, and whether the contract in its present form will protect the interests of the Commonwealth. If not, I trust that the Committee will draft the contract in a form to which it- can give its approval.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– I have no desire to add much to what I said on Wednesday in regard to this matter, but I want to make it perfectly clear that honorable members of the Opposition strenuously object to this method of procedure. A very important question, involving the Commonwealth in a heavy liability, is brought down late in the session, and the House is asked to appoint a Committee to investigate it, and submit recommendations which will enable the Government to shape their course, that is, as to whether they will carry out this wireless project or not. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) says that the Government are prepared to take the responsibility of entering into this particular contract, and, of course, the Government must accept responsibility for whatever they do. However, the Committee the right honorable gentleman has asked the House to approve of will also be obliged to accept some responsibility in the matter.

Mr Hughes:

– Certainly; all such Committees accept responsibility.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I could understand the Government accepting the responsibility of ignoring the recommendations of the proposed Committee, but when they propose to shelter themselves behind this Committee it is not the proper procedure to follow. In any case this matter is too important tobe dealt with in the way proposed.. Parliament should decide this question, and it was for that purpose that I submitted my amendment, which has been defeated, to permit of the question coming before this House at a later stage for ratification. However, when the House re-assembles, the Opposition will exercise its right to criticise anything which it considers is not in the best interests of the Commonwealth.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

.- Although I am opposed, on general principles, to the procedure which has been adopted, I will support it on this occasion, because each party in theHouse will have equal representation on the proposed Committee, no matter what the disparity in numbers may be in the Chamber andbecause it will also have on it members of the Senate who will not necessarily, the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) assures me, be Government supporters, but will be men specially qualified to deal with this subject. In view of the urgent importance of the matter, I feel that it should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment, and for that reason I intend to support the amendment.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

. -It shows the impropriety of the proposition we have before us when weare asked to debate it at a stage of the session when time does not permit us to do so properly. Our experience in connexion with some of the company arrangements made by the ‘Commonwealth Government should warn us to be careful. We have had one “wireless” purchase already. The Commonwealth was to receive almost untold profits from the wool-tops arrangement, which was submitted to usby the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) with even a greater flourishing of trumpets than we have had on this question. Where are those profits today? The procedure suggested in regard to the wireless contract is most dangerous. I shall not say a word against the proposed Committee,but I claim that it is wrong for Parliament to delegate its rights to any Committee, no matter how constituted. What is the alternative? We are told that it is absolutely necessary to rush this matter through in a very short space of time, and have it finally dealt with before Parliament meets in June or July next; but what is there to prevent Parliament being called together earlier for the special object of dealing with this matter?

Mr Hughes:

– If that is the desire of honorable members I shall take no exception to it. In fact, I would rather welcome it.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It is a very proper suggestion to make, and, it having been put forward, the onus rests on the House of saying whether it will agree to the amendment or not. My only desire now is to enter an emphatic protest against permitting any Committee to conclude any transaction such as this, without seeking the ratification of Parliament; and I shall record my protest in the only possible way by voting against the amendment.

Mr FLEMING:
Robertson

.- Honorable members seem to be anxious to come to a vote on this question, but we are being compelled by the procedure adopted to do what we do not want to do. It is not fair for the Government at the last moment of the session to attempt to force such an important matter through - the House simply because honorable members want to get away from their labours as quickly as possible. What are we here for ? We are here to protect the interests of the public, and why should the Government be allowed to make this proposition, which is not a proper business proposition - no one would so describe it - and, because it is the fag end of the session, tell honorable members that they are’ expected to say nothing. I know nothing of any arrangement or agreement between parties, or leaders of parties; so far as my own Leader (Dr. Earle Page)is concerned, I have perfect freedom to say what I like, and speak as long as I like. The method proposed of dealing with the question before us is to debase Parliament. It is not opportune that important measures should be introduced at this, stage of the session, and honorablemembers denied the right of debating them.

Some honorable members may desire to leave for their homes this afternoon, but, in my opinion, it is time that we took a stand in defence of the constitutional rights of the people. The filching away of those rights has gone on for years - ever since by means of the War Precautions Act we gave the Government a free hand, with, I believe, the approval of the country. But I do not think that in these times of peace the people will longer approve of their rights and privileges being handed over to others, and their representatives being deprived of the right of criticism. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Marr) commenced to-day to make revelations which, had he been allowed to continue, would have astonished the House and the country; and that honorable member knows it. But because we are near the end of the session, and the Government know that honorable members are in a great hurry to get to their homes, the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) handed a note to that honorable member, who then concluded his speech as quickly as possible. That is not a fair position in which to put the House. I voted for the creation of this Committee, but it was in the belief that it would submit its. findings for the approval of this House. It may be that the Committee will not fairly represent the opinion of Parliament, even if it is composed of members of several parties; and unless we are given full and fair opportunity for discussion of its decision, we have no right to go into recess. I do not see why the Government should be empowered to act on its findings without any reference to Parliament. I feel very strongly on the question, because, during the last few years I have been watching, and I have seen the rights of the people being handed over tothe control of a small autocracy in Parliament. This tends to destroy the belief of the people in parliamentary institutions at a time when such destruction of faith is dangerous. There should be no lessening of the confidence of the people in the public institutions; it ought to be restored and strengthened; and it is for us to show that we are careful of the public interests and capable of protecting them. I, therefore,protest againstthe amendment, and hope it will not be carried.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put. The House divided.

AYES: 34

NOES: 28

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 14230

BILLS FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: -

Public Works Committee Bill:

War Precautions (Coal) Bill.

Electoral Bill.

page 14231

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.

Ordered -

That the message be taken into consideration in Committee forthwith.

Clause 2 -

Section 14 of the principal Act is amended -

by inserting in sub-section (1), after the word State,” thewords “or being a barrister or solicitor or barristers or solicitors of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State”; ….

Section proposed to be amended - 14. (1) The Governor-General may . . . . appoint any person or persons holding the office of Justice of the High Court or Judge of T he Supreme Court of a State to be the deputy or deputies of the President…..

Senate’s Amendment. - After “ State “ insert “ of not less than five years’ standing.”

Motion (by Mr. Groom) proposed - .

That the Senate’s amendment be agreed to.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- As I understand the amendment, it is to limit the choice of Deputy Presidents to barristers and solicitors of five years’ standing; and I wish to say that I am opposed to the proposal.

Mr Hughes:

– If there is to be any discussion, I shall ask the Chairman to leave the chair.

Progress reported.

page 14231

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCE

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

– If the honorable member desires to speak by leave, he must, of course, have the unanimous consent of the House, and I remind him that the suspension of the Standing Orders must be approved by an absolute majority.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That the Standing Orders be suspended, to enable the honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) to submit a motion.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I offer no objection to the motion, because the question of the parliamentary allowance is one that ought to be discussed. I wish it to be distinctly understood, however, that the division on any motion the honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) may move must be taken, at the latest, at 5 minutes past 4 o’clock, in order to enable honorable members to catch the Inter-State trains. I shall offer a few remarks, and one or two others on this side desire to speak.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

.- I move -

That this House is of the opinion that -

1 ) The Ministers of State Act 1917 and the Parliamentary Allowances Act 1920 should be amended so as to reduce the salary of each Minister of State and the allowance of each senator and member of the House of Representatives by the sum of £200; and (2) the Government be instructed to forthwith bring in Bills to give effect to this resolution.

I regret that the discussion of the subjectmatter of my motion could not take place at the beginning of the consideration of the general Estimates, because what I propose should form part of a general scheme of economy, in which consideration might be given to our statutory obligations, as well as the ordinary appropriations for the year. By reason of the fact that it could not then be discussed, the discussion of the statutory obligations could not be directed with the energy necessary to make any attempt at alteration successful. I do not move this motion because I think that the allowance now paid to members of this Parliament is excessive; I move it because of the slump in the national income, and because of the altered position of the country’s affairs since the allowance was increased to its present figure. This Parliament is the highest Court in the land, and it is incumbent on its members to take the lead in a movement for national economy. The country must live within its income, and we should show that we mean to face the issue of financial solvency. I supported the measure which increased the allowance paid to members of this Parliament, and in this connexion I should like to repeat what I said when the proposal for an increase was being considered, because I do not withdraw one iota of the opinions I then expressed. This is from the official report of my speech -

I recognise that there cannot be proper representation of every class in the community, especially the industrial classes, unless there is payment of members. Neither can there be stable government unless every class in the community is properly represented in Parliament. If, therefore, we are to have payment of members, the pay should not be skimped in any way, but should be ample to attract the best men. In the first place, it should bo ample, in order to increase the competition for the position, thus attracting the best men to the National Parliament. Secondly, I believe that an increase of salary will bringabout much more quickly the further subdivision of Australia into self-governing provinces. The present cost of Legislatures must be lessened; and I think that, by making adequate provision for the payment of members of this Parliament, we shall bring the people of Australia much more quickly to a right state of mind upon this question.

One consideration that influences me in now proposing the reduction of the allowance is that the question of constitutional reform seems to have been shelved by this House indefinitely. I went on to say -

My own position is that, before entering the House, I made upmy mind as to the annual loss I could sustain, and I am willing to continue through this Parliament, and through any subsequent ones of which I may be a member, still bearing that loss. But I realize, from the short experience I have had in travelling between Melbourne and my own State, that there is no possibility of a member from other States, or even of a Victorian country representative, living within his present parliamentary salary. For that reason, I think it would be grossly unfair if I were to stand in the way of this proposal for no other reason than that I am a little more fortunately placed than are some of my fellow members.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Does not that hold true at the present time?

Mr Maxwell:

– Yes.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– I have never agreed with the contention that Parliament has no right to fix the allowances of members. I maintain that it is its function to do so. But under present conditions, with the prices of primary products falling rapidly, it is the duty and privilege of honorable members to give the public a lead in economy by reducing their salaries.

Mr Cunningham:

– Do you mean to reduce your fees as a doctor ?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– My professional income dropped several thousands a year by my entrance into Parliament, and this year it has declined still more. Last year Australia’s exports declined to the extent of £18,000,000, and in the first four months of the present financial year they have declined an additional £4,000,000 over the decline in the corresponding period of last year, that is to say, our position in eighteen months has gone back £3,000,000 a year in the value of exports. The prices of all primary products are falling. Wheat, which was 9s. per bushel, is now only 4s. 6d.; butter, which was 278s. per cwt., is now about 136s. per cwt. ; and practically all other primary products are dropping in like ratio. Likewise, the income of those on the land is falling, and a dairyman whom I know, who in October of last year made £140, made only £60 during October of this year, although his production of butter has continued about the same.

Mr Lavelle:

– Does he own his holding?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– No; he rents it. He has had to discharge one of his hands, and his wife and children have to work in the dairy to keep the place going. Many stockmen are similarly situated, and persons whose means of. livelihood are the dividends of companies in which their capital is invested are finding it hard to live, because of the reduction or passing of dividends. If we turn to the finances of the nation, we see that its income is falling; loans are coming due to the extent of something like £390,000,000 within the next six years ; the Federal Government, and practically every State Government, is faced with a deficit on the year’s accounts; and there is an apparent drift towards national bankruptcy. It is time, therefore, that this Parliament, like that of South Africa and New Zealand, gave a lead by facing the issue, and showing that economy, like charity must begin at home. It is obvious that our taxation is as high as the country can bear. Indeed, it is so oppressive that we must fmd some means of reducing it. Unless we economize in our own expenditure, we shall not be able to effect economy elsewhere. In New South Wales they have found it necessary to reduce the basic wage. Time will not permit me to speak at greater length on the subject, but I hope that the House will agree to .my motion and give a lead to the whole continent.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I am pleased that this question has been ventilated, and I wish to say briefly - because the time at my disposal is short - to our critics in the press and among the public that the members of the Labour party have never endeavoured to burke the discussion of this subject. Were that our object, we could have taken advantage of the Standing Orders to-day to prevent the honorable member for Cowper (“Dr. Earle Page) from, moving hil motion. I desire to make that fact perfectly . clear to those critics who tomorrow will publish comments on the debate. I am. surprised that the honorable member thought it necessary to move the motion, seeing that it is only eighteen months ‘ since Parliament determined, by substantial majorities, to increase the allowance paid to its members. It cannot be necessary to take this action in order to ascertain the -views of members on the subject of parliamentary remuneration, and the fact that the motion has been moved makes one wonder whether certain honorable gentlemen may not be afraid that an election is within a measurable distance. Should the motion have been moved with a view to influencing electors, it says little for those responsible for it. Men who come into Parliament should possess backbone, and be able to stand up to their opinions, despite the criticism levelled at them. I was glad that the honorable member said that he did not -“question the right of Parliament to fix the remuneration of members; because some persons outside have represented our action in increasing the allowance last year to be on a par with the conduct of a burglar. They lose sight of the fact that section 48 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to deal with the subject of remuneration.

Mr J H Catts:

– It lays upon it the duty of doing so.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes. If it were not for that provision of the Constitution, the honorable member for Cowper could not have moved his motion. I understand that the honorable member proposes that our allowance should be reduced by 20 per cent. He said that he was sorry that the reduction could not be moved at the beginning of the consideration of, the Estimates^ because we could have followed it up with a general attack. Upon whom ? I suppose, upon the public servants and then upon, the workers of Australia. The workers of this country have had an uphill fight to get wages somewhere approaching the cost of living, and now that wages and costs are about on a balance, the honorable member for Cowper and those who follow his lead would reduce wages by 20 per cent., although the cost of living has not fallen to any extent worth speaking about.

I put this view to the House. Are we, as representatives of the people, worth a salary of £1,000 per annum ? I have not during my public life alluded to my personal affairs, but whenever that question has been put to me I have answered it in. the affirmative. When I have been asked whether I am getting a fair remuneration for my services to the country, I have always replied “ No.” I say without hesitation that we are not too well paid, and 1 say that despite the fact that before entering political life I had to borrow money to contest an election. Will any one here say that with £600 or £800 a year a man could put by anything for a rainy day? Are men not “deserving of an adequate salary who hold high and responsible positions such as we do, who are, in effect; the directors of the affairs of the Commonwealth, and have been chosen by the electors themselves?

Mr Bamford:

– We deal with millions of money.

Mr J H Catts:

– And most of us have to live in two States.

Mr- CHARLTON . - Most of us are put tj> the expense of keeping up two homes. We know that in many cases men have impaired their health by a devotion to public duty. In any event, a man who has. served his country in Parliament for a term of ten or twenty years is unable to return to the employment which he left, and is it fair that when at the end of such a term a man can no longer remain in Parliament, he should Be without anything to live on ?

Mr Fenton:

– And in bad health.

Mr CHARLTON:

– What man’s health is not impaired by twenty years of parliamentary service ? I do not wish to be personal, but I cannot help drawing attention to the fact that those who are moving for the reduction of the parliamentary allowance are chiefly men whose expenses in attending to their parliamentary duties are much less than that of their fellows, and that many of them have professional or business incomes which supplement their parliamentary allowance. Moreover, these men do not give the continuous service to the country that men like myself give. I hardly ever leave this House. When Parliament is in session I never travel my constituency, because I think my duty is to the country, and the country’s work is in this Chamber. Any man who devotes the whole oi his time and such talents as he has been endowed with to his country’s service, is surely entitled to a fair remuneration . I shall put before the House the facts of my own financial position. I desire them to go before the public. I have no wish to hide anything. In a period of nine and a half years, prior to the date when the allowance to honorable members was increased to £1,000 a year, I received, at £600 per annum, £5,700. In that time I had to fight five elections, the cost of which I have estimated- at the low figure of £150 each, although one of them cost me £265. They absorbed £750. The campaign in connexion with the amendment of the Constitution cost me £60; the conscription referenda campaigns, £40: and the loss of pay for six weeks during each of four dissolutions, £300. My Melbourne expenses - twenty-six weeks in the year at £3 10s. per week - amounted to £864 10s. ; the income taxation for nine and a half years, £270; and electoral expenses at £2 per week, although I daresay they amount to more, £988.* The total expenditure for the nine and a half years was £3,272 10s., leaving a balance of £2,427 10s., equal to the magnificent salary of £255 10s. per annum for my services to this country. Will any honorable member say that that remuneration is fair?

Mr Wise:

– The actual figures in my case do not work out as well.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I doubt if mine do; but I have erred on the conservative side. I wish to hide nothing, and I have no hesitation in saying that I had to mortgage my house for £300, and it took me ten years to pay off that debt out of my salary. This increase of the allowance to £1,000 per annum increased my nett income to £655 10s., but as an offset to that, Federal and State income taxation has increased by £57 per annum, and my Melbourne board and lodging by £2 per week, or £52 per annum. Loss of pay for six weeks at the election period accounted for £40 per annum. I lose, on the allowance, £120 for three years, which is £40 per annum. These figures make a total increased expenditure of £149, which, taken from the £655 10s., reduces my nett income to £506 10s. There are honorable members in this House who have wealth behind them; others have professions or businesses from which they augment their parliamentary allowance. Those honorable members want to reduce my allowance by £200 per annum. I am certain that when my electors, and those of other honorable members, know the facts, they will say that the proposal is ridiculous, and that they did not know that our nett income, after paying expenses inevitably incidental to our positions, is so> small. What is the idea that permeates the criticism by the press, and some of those honorable members who are afraid to stand up and fight for a fair thing ? It is that we receive a nett income of £1,000 per annum. We receive nothing like that. Deduct the expense of maintaining two homes, the cost of fighting elections, the loss of six weeks’ pay at election time, and contributions to charities - and a man must needs have a heart of stone to refuse many of the appeals that are made to men in our position - and mere than half of the salary paid to us is gone. Yet we are told that it should be further reduced by £200. If our critics would analyze the position honestly, and with a desire to deal fairly with their fellow men, they would never attempt to reduce the salary which Federal members are receiving to-day. Membership of this Parliament is the highest position to which any man in the country can attain. Does a man enter this House without ability ? Many an honorable member has to force his way up from the very lowest rung of the ladder. Some of us have fought our way to Parliament from the pick and shovel. Men advance like that only by reason of ability and force of character. We give our services to the country; and will anybody say that the country has not benefited? Members on opposite sides of the Chamber have their political differences, but we are all animated by the desire to id’o the best within our power for the country. And if we give conscientious service according to the measure of our abilities, we are entitled to expect reasonable remuneration. The increase of salaries by £400 per annum distributed over Australia’s population of 5,000,000 costs the people of this country less than 2d. per head per annum. Do honorable members think that when the people know the facts they will think that we are overpaid? The constant reading of newspapers may create in the public mind a’ certain impression, and I am sorry to say that this daily newspaper propaganda influences a good deal certain members of Parliament who should know better. The people do not know the facts, and they, are led by the press to think that, instead of being honorable men intent on doing our best for our country, we are in these positions only for the sake of what We . get out of them. I have fought all my life to win better conditions for the working man. I have endeavoured to get wages increased, whenever I could. Always I have resisted strongly any reduction of wages, and I shall fight to maintain the salary which is now paid to hon.orable members of this Parliament, because it is no more than a fair remuneration for the services we give to the Commonwealth.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- The agitation for the reduction of salaries of honorable members is largely the outcome of the criticism of the Melbourne Age. The Melbourne Age Newspaper Company is one of the greatest profiteers in the Commonwealth. The public are now charged 2d. per copy for that paper, which before the war was sold to them for lid., and honorable members will recollect that the Age boasts of having a circulation of about 160,000 per day. If honorable members will make a calculation they will find that the Age is charging for its papers about £180,000 more than it did before the war, and it has also increased its advertising rates by 33 per cent. In all probability, if we could see the balance-sheet of the Age we would find that its proprietary is amongst the most objectionable profiteers and extortionists in Australia. I hope that Victorian members of this Parliament will not be led by the continual vilification of this Parliament by the A ge into thinking that the public of Australia are likely to be affected by that campaign of abuse. Since the parliamentary allowance was increased to £1,000 per annum the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Foley) and the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Hunter) have been elected to this Parliament. I venture to say there was no criticism of the salary of £1,000 when those honorable members were before the electors, and I am reminded by an honorable member that the Age’s so-called “ anti-salary grab “ candidate at the Ballarat by-election lost his deposit.

We are told that we did not consult the electors before increasing our salary. We did not consult the electors when we fixed the salaries of the ‘Justices of the High Court at £3,000 and £3,500 a year. Did the Melbourne Age, .which sends its writers into the gallery to vilify members of Parliament, ask the public for permission .to increase the price of its paper or its advertisement rates? No; it knew perfectly well that because of its rich and powerful organization it is able to impose the increased charges upon the public. It takes a great deal of capital to start a daily newspaper, and the A ge feels secure against competition. Although a certain amount of increase may have been justified by the advance in the price of newsprint, that is not sufficient excuse for the profiteering charges which the Age now makes. After the eloquent speech delivered by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) I would be quite willing to say nothing more, but the general public do not know anything of the duties of members of Parliament, and I doubt whether the majority of Victorian members in this

House ever consider the distances that have to be travelled by honorable members from other States, or the area in square miles of their electorates. I sub mit to the House, first of all, a statement showing the area in square miles of each electoral division and the distance from Melbourne of the chief polling place: -

Before quoting the figures forthe Victorian constituencies, I wish honorable members to note the contrast between them and those relating to the electorates in some of the other States. I understand that the honorable and eloquent member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt) is in favour of a reduction of the salary to 600. He represents an electorate 7 square miles in area, and within a few minutes’ travel of this Parliament House. The electorate ofFawkner, represented by a most distinguished opponent of the increase of salary (Mr. Maxwell),has an area of 4 square miles. The electorate of Wimmera, the largest in this State, com- prises 21,435 square miles, whilst the total area of Victoria is only 087,884 square miles, not as great as the area of some of the single electorates in other States. The figures for the other States are as follow : - >

Some idea of the vastness of the Australian continent may he gathered from a map which, no doubt, honorable mem bers have seen, showing that Australia could swallow up nearly the whole of Europe. . For further comparative study the areas given below will prove of interest : -

The Barrier electorate is 76,824 miles in extent. It is larger than Belgium (11,373 square miles), Bulgaria, (24,380 square miles), Denmark (15,360 square miles), and Holland (12,048 square miles) combined, the total area of those four countries being 63,161 square miles. The electorate of Capricornia is 73,130 square miles in extent. Its chief pollingplace is 1,704 miles from Melbourne. Nearly a week’s train travelling is required to get to Rockhampton. The electorate of Fawkner ‘ is only 4 square miles in extent. The chief polling-place is 4 miles from Melbourne. The Federal division of Kennedy is 255,082 miles in extent, and the chief polling-place, Charters Towers, is 2,185 miles from Melbourne. The honorable member for Fawkner can go to his business place in Melbourne in ten minutes. The honorable member for Kennedy could not reach Charters Towers from Melbourne in less than ten days. Victorian members of the House of Representatives have stated that if the Federal Parliament did not meet in Melbourne they would not remain members, because their business interests would not permit of their leaving this city. Is it not unfair of those members to refuse to those who come from distant States a larger allowance than they themselves receive? Members of Parliament make the Commonwealth laws.Commonwealth Judges administer them. Members of Parliament who make the laws get £1,000 a year, and no allowance for hotel expenses when travelling. The Judges who administer the laws receive the following: - Chief Justice, £3,500 a year, and up to £4 4s. a day hotel expenses for himself and Associate, besides railway, coach, and steamer fares when away from home. Other Judges receive £3,000 per annum, and up to £4 4s. a day allowance for hotel expenses for themselves and their Associates, besides railway, coach, and steamer fares when away from, home. Members of Parliament fixed the salaries of the Judges, and they appointed the Judges for life. Members of Parliament have to go up for election every two or three years, and have no fixity of tenure. We could have fixed our salaries at the same amount as that paid the Judges, namely, £3,000 and £3,500 per annum, but we did not do so, believing that £1,000 per annum was a just and liberal allowance for members of the Federal Parliament.

I deeply regret that honorable members are not permitted to discuss this question fully. I have had very long experience of parliamentary life. I may say that I have, to attend to between 5,000’ and 6,000 letters per annum from correspondents in my own electorate. I have had to fight for my political life, on an average, every two years, and I am not permitted to draw any election expenses. When I am consulting my electors, in my efforts to secure re-election, I am in receipt of no salary. Altogether, I affirm that the payment of £1,000 per annum to Federal members is not too large an allowance. In the United States of America members of the Senate and i the House of Representatives each receive £1,560 per annum. In addition, £500 for each member is paid as an allowance for a secretary, and every member is provided with two rooms in which to conduct his business. Members of Congress are also entitled to 10d. ner mile for travelling expenses whenever they depart from the Seat of Government. In hasty conclusion, I urge that the sum now being paid to members of this Legislature should certainly be- retained.

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

[3.481 - I am sorry that I find myself unable to support the motion. By what process of reasoning the honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) has brought himself to advance such a proposition I cannot pretend to be able to understand. Circumstances are not materially different now from those which existed some months ago, when the original proposition for the increase of members’ salaries was introduced in this Chamber. That motion, I would remind honorable members, received the approval of a very large majority, including the honorable member for Cowperhimself. The present suggestion is very far-reaching. I shall direct my remarks to that portion of it which has relation to the salaries of Ministers for State. I say without hesitation that the salaries paid to members of the Commonwealth Government are inadequate. Speaking for myself, I hold that it is a reflection upon the people of this country that they should pay the Prime Minister of Australia a salary which does not nethim anything like £2.000 per annum.

Mr Watt:

– Hear, hear !

Mr HUGHES:

– Unless we are prepared to deliberately shut the door of this Legislature against ability, and to uphold the view that only those who cannot find scope for their talents outside may enter here - that only the mediocre may take their seats in the Federal Parliament - we should at least adhere to the present payment of members. Surely no one will say that this is a place in which public men - men of outstanding talent- may not come in order to do something for the benefit of their country ! Here is a country, the home of a Democratic community, of a people who make the laws under which they live, and by which they are conditioned. If, for the future those laws are to be made by low-priced labour - by mediocre personalities - we shall be damning Democracy as effectively as by way of the sword and revolution. I say nothing ofthe criticism always directed against public men. Criticism is regarded as the prerogative of the people in respect of their selection of public men. And, no matter how one in a public office may become irritated by that criticism, it is right and well that the people should be free to probe the actions and motives of their servants. But the people, having the freest choice to select the best men who may offer themselves, should be ready to pay salaries commensurate with the nature of the duties with which they are to be intrusted, and in keeping with the dignity of the positions which they are required to fill. When honorable members consider that there are dozens of men in this city who receive a higher salary than I do - and I have the honour to fill the highest position that the Commonwealth has to offer - it will surely be admitted that such a state of affairs amounts to a reflection upon Australia. Complaints have been frequently made that men of ability do not enter these halls. I know that such as do come here do so at great personal sacrifice.

I should have thought that the honorable member for Cowper would have had some regard for the circumstances of his own profession, or of mine. Would he suggest for one moment that a member of the British Medical Association should be free, and held blameless by his colleague, to practise his own peculiar form of etiquette and charge for his services just such a fee as he deemed fit, no matter how inadequate or disproportionate to those generally charged by other physicians ? One who behaved in that fashion would be rightly regarded by the British Medical Association as a “ scab.” Members of the Federal Legislature, however, are to be looked upon as the wicked boys of the Commonwealth. While every one else is to have the full fruits of his labour, they must not dare to look for such a reward. If the people want cheap political representatives, in God’s name, let them have them.

I shall now say this for outside consumption: I have never yet hesitated to make known the inadequacy of parliamentary remuneration. And I have never yet had one single question put to me: on the hustings concerning salaries. I have done my part, I think, to raise the wages of the people of this country. Is the labourer - the instrument himself, in this instance - unworthy of fair hire? If I can get into Parliament only by offering my services at a price which is less than the remuneration earned by my fellows in other walks of life I shall stay outside. I have always been, in this matter, one who has stood for the rights and privileges of those among whom I have worked in the sphere of law-making. I may be involved in many differences of opinion; but every honorable member knows that, if he does his duty in this most exacting sphere - one which unfits him for any other line of activity - he is by no means lavishly repaid. And he knows, further, that if he falls, he falls - like Lucifer - too often, never to rise again. At thesame time, there is about public life a glamour of excitement. Even so, those who enter pay a heavy price. They draw deeply upon their reserves of health, and upon their pockets.

I say, unhesitatingly, that there are very few men in the Federal sphere of legislation who could not do better for themselves in other walks of life. I do not pretend that I must have more money in order to live; but I maintain that I should be paid, as a Minister of State, a salary commensurate with my position, and which might be fairly compared with the emoluments of those occupying similar but less onerous and far less responsible positions in commercial life. I will serve this Commonwealth, as a member of Parliament, or as a Minister, for nothing - if that should be necessary. But if I am to be paid, I ought to be paid that which I think is a fair salary. If the Australian people cannot afford to pay me, I shall be prepared to serve them for nothing. But I shall not offer my services, in the present circumstances, for less than I think is fair.

Mr GABB:
Angas

.- I desire to make a brief explanation regarding the speech which I delivered in this Chamber, upon this same question, more than a year ago. I then said it was my intention to take the increase of salary, and to give the amount, first of all, to a widow who had been unjustly treated by the Government, and whom they had refused to compensate, and then to others in my electorate. Thereafter, I added, it was my intention to hand over the greater part of the extra sum to the party towhich I belong. I realized on second thoughts, however, that if it would not be right for me to take the additional amount, and use it for my own purposes, it would not be proper for me to employ it in other directions. Therefore, I have not drawn one penny of the increase from that day to this.

I have listened very attentively to the statement of the Leader of my party (Mr. Charlton), and I must admit that anything he says I weigh most carefully. The honorable member is one of the members of the party whom I feel that I can, and do, respect.

Mr Atkinson:

– That is pretty rough on the rest.

Mr GABB:

– The fact of my saying that I respect one honorable member does not eliminate all other honorable members from my consideration. However, while I respect my leader, and have listened closely to his utterances, and am persuaded that what he says regarding his own case is true, I must assert that I am not compelled to view this matter from his standard. Upon a salary of £600 per annum I can carry on, with enough to maintain my home, and to fight my election campaigns, and still have a little to spare. In my mind, however, this subject is not one having to do with a precise amount of salary. Honorable members ought to be paid what they are worth. The particular point which concerns me arises out of the manner in which the increase was brought about.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) said that that was all right.

Mr GABB:

– I admit that the Leader of the Country party said that it was within the power of this Parliament to do what it has done. I know something now of the ways of members of this Legislature. I have seen too many evidences, during my brief experience in these halls, to be in ignorance to-day. I do not wish to be unfair, and, possibly, I am wrong ; but it appears to me that the old members of this House had the whole scheme worked out in their minds before the last general election. If the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition had gone to the country, and announced their intention, upon returning to Parliament, to increase honorable members’ salaries. I would have felt vastly differently upon the whole subject. I am here, however, not merely to further my own interests, but as the representative of a large body of the public. When, within a few months of having been returned to the Federal Legislature, honorable members deliberately set out to increase their salaries by 60 per cent., they deliberately broke faith with the electors who sent them here. I do not believe that 5 per cent. of the people who sent us here even suspected that we would take that action so soon after our return, or at any time. I amgoing to do what the Deputy

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) has said every man should be prepared to do - I am going to have the backbone to stand up for what I think is right. I honestly believe that we were wrong in increasing the parliamentary allowance. That being so, we shall not do right even by reducing it to £800, since that amount is £200 in excess of the allowance that was payable to us when we were elected. If it was wrong to raise the allowance from £600 to £1,000 per annum, it is equally wrong to support raising it to £800.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What does the honorable member think of those who voted against the motion to increase the allowance to £1,000, yet are drawing that increased allowance? That is the position of a lot of members of the Country party. !

Mr GABB:

– I admit that I prefer those who voted for the increased allowance and have drawn it to those who voted against the increase but have since taken it. I find that I shall not be able to catch my train to Adelaide tonight. I have been interrupted to such an extent that I shall not be able to conclude my remarks as soon as I had intended, and I shall therefore speak for a few minutes longer.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– The honorable member is not the only one who wants to catch a train. There is still plenty of time for a vote to be taken before the Adelaide express leaves.

Mr GABB:

– There is not sufficient time to enable a division to be taken on the amendment which I intend to move as well as on the motion. A berth on this evening’s express has been booked for me, and the probabilities are that since I shall not be able to leave until to-morrow I shall have to sit up in the train all night. I am prepared, however, to do that, and to submit to any personal inconvenience rather than that I should be debarred from standing up in this House for what I believe to be the rights of the people. I wish also to take exception to the way in which the ex-Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) persistently and consistently refused to disclose the names of those who had not drawn the increased allowance. Again and again he was asked to supply that list, but refused to furnish it.

Mr.Fenton. - We shall have the names painted in gold in the corridors.

Mr GABB:

– That is not what I am seeking. My point is that it is not within the province of the Treasurer or the Government to withhold from the public knowledge of the amount drawn by any servant of the taxpayers, whether it be the humblest office boy or the Prime Minister. The ex-Treasurer finally replied to my request for this list by saying, “The honorable member, at all events, is not drawing the increased allowance.” He evidently thought that I specially desired to have that fact published. Nothing was further from my thoughts. My sole object was to make sure it was impossible for any honorable member to declare outside that he was not drawing the increased allowance when in fact he was. It is for the public to judge whether or not any value attaches to the refusal of certain honorable members to take the increased allowance. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) spoke of public servants and the salaries paid them. I make bold to say that there was never an agitation on the part of the Public Service for increased pay that was so hastily given effect to by the Parliament as was this sudden agitation for an increase in the allowance of honorable members. If the Government would show as much expedition in doing justice to the lower-paid ranks of the Public Service as was displayed by them in this case, their action would be most commendable. I move -

That the figures “200” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “ 400.”

If my amendment be agreed ‘to, the allowance or salary paid to honorable members will be brought back to £600 per annum. That is the only proper course to take if we are to keep faith with the electors who sent us here. If honorable members want to be paid for their services at the rate of £1,000 a year, let them say so on the hustings, and win the approval of the people, if they can, to such a project.

Mr Maxwell:

– I second the amendment.

Mr. HECTOR LAMOND (Illawarra)

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

– I think it well that honorable members should understand that if the motion “ That the question be now put “ be agreed to it will render it impossible for a vote to be taken on the amendment moved by the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb), since that amendment had not been submitted to the House when the honorable member for Illawarra moved his motion.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– ThenI ask leave to withdraw my motion. I have no objection to the amendment being put. My only object in moving “That the question be now put “ was to secure the honouring of the agreement that a vote on this question should be taken at 4.5 p.m.

Motion “ That the question be now put,” by leave, withdrawn.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

. I hope that the honorable member for Illawarra (Mr. Hector Lamond) will not persist with his motion for the application of the “ gag.”

Mr SPEAKER:

– That motion has been withdrawn. Does the ‘honorable member desire to speak to the original motion ?

Mr CONSIDINE:

– Yes. I do not think it is right that we should pro- ceed—-

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
Wakefield

– I move -

That the question be now put. The agreement to take a vote on this question at a certain time should be honoured.

Motion “ That the question be now put “ negatived.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.-1 desire very briefly to reply to the contention advanced by the Leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page). He is the only leader of a party who has stated in this House that the object which he has in view in seeking to reduce by £200 a year the allowance of £1,000 per annum to members of the Commonwealth Parliament is that an example may be set for the reduction of wages outside.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– That is the point.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I think it is. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), as the head of the Government, has said that since the increase in the allowance to honorable members nothing has taken place that would justify any action of the kind indicated. That also, I believe, is the opinion of the majority of honorable members. I am supporting the status quo. I supported the original motion to . increase our allowance from £600 to £1,000 a year, and I shall support the workers outside Parliament in resisting any attempt to cut down their wages just as strongly as I shall fight for the maintenance of the remuneration we now receive. The honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) has said that his chief objection to the increase relates to the manner in which that increase was brought about. He is the only one in thisHouse who has taken up that stand.

Mr Bruce:

– I took up the same attitude when the motion for the increase was before the House.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The honorable member also claims to adhere to that position. My point is that the same objection will hold good with regard to the original increase of the allowance from £400 to £600 per annum. That increase was made in precisely the same way as was this increase from £600 to £1,000 per annum. The honorable member for Angas, therefore, has no ground for takingexception to the way in which this later decision was arrived at. If his conscience will not allow him to take this increased payment of £1,000 a year, it should not allow him to take £600 a year. I do not wish to further occupy the time of the House. The only reason why I persisted in demanding a hearing was that I thought it most unfortunate that any honorable member should help our enemies in the press, in their propaganda against us, by submitting a motion which would enable them to say that those of us who believe in the increase would not allow the opponents of it in this House to give expression to their views. I would sooner remain here all night in order that every honorable member who is opposed to the increase might be heard rather than let such an allegation be made against the House. Let us go to the country, and if the people want other representatives who are cheaper in price, let them have them.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

.- Sir—-

Honorable Members. - Let us have a vote.

Mr MAXWELL:

– I do not wish to delay honorable members.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– I rise to a point of order. Is it in thebest interests of the country that honor able members should be “ gagged “ in this way on such an important matter?

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

– There is no point of order. It is not the duty of the Chair to express an opinion on the action of honorable members to which, apparently, the honorable member refers, and which, under the Standing Orders of the House, any honorable member is entitled to take.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

.- Sir, I do not care if honorable members do not catch their trains.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Play the game.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– I do not care two straws for honorable members’ opinions. The Government have not played the game with us.

Mr Charlton:

– Is the honorable member aware that his Leader entered into an agreement that the vote on this matter would be taken at 4.5 p.m.?

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– That being the case, and under the pressure of the circumstances, I shall say nothing further.

Question - That the figures proposed to be left out stand part of the motion (Mr. Gabb’s amendment) - put. The House divided.

AYES: 44

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the motion (Dr. Earle Page’s) be agreed to - put. The House divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 40

Majority . . . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 14244

CUSTOMS TARIFF (INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION) BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 14245

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

Bill received from theSenate, and (on motion by Mr. Groom) read a first time.

page 14245

ARBITRATION COURT

Mr GROOM:
Minis- ter forWorks and Railways · Darling Downs · NAT

(By leave.) I desire to make a statement in reference to a statement made in the course of a debate which recently took place here on the affairs of the Arbitration Court and arbitration matters generally. The honorable member for Illawarra (Mr. Hector Lamond), during that debate, made certain references to Mr. Justice Higgins, which were reported in the Herald, to the effect that the Judge had “ set the bad example of announcing his resignation if a certain Bill were passed, without waiting for the Bill to become law.” On behalf of Mr. Justice Higgins I have to say that the statement is quite wrong - that the Industrial Peace Bill was assented to on or about the 11th October, 1920, and that he did not announce thathe Would resign until the 25th October. Mr. Justice Higgins desires that this correction should be made. With the permission of the honorable member for Illawarra, I sent to Mr. Justice Higgins a report of the honorable member’s speech, in which it is stated that His Honour had announced that, owing to certain contemplated action, he would not hear cases that were brought before him; that from that announcement started the “ unhappy mixture of Judicial and Executive functions” ; and that Mr. Atlee Hunt, President of the PublicService Arbitration Court, ought to be exceedingly careful of the examples Judges set in the Courts over which they preside. In justice to Mr. Justice Higgins, who is not in a position to speak for himself here, I have to say that he informs me that he never made any such statement.

Sir Robert Best:

– This is all wrong - quite against the usage of Parliament!

Mr McWilliams:

– How can a debate on this be stopped?

Mr GROOM:

– I am merely pointing out that the statement made in reference to Mr. Justice Higgins is not correct; and it is the duty of one in my position to put the matter from the Judge’s point of view.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. This is but another evidence of the impropriety of Judges attempting to interfere with the Legislature. I feel it right, however, in reply to what the Minister (Mr. Groom) has said on behalf of Mr. Justice Higgins, to call attention to one fact. His Honour says that he did not announce that he would resign until the 25th October. I desire to read an extract from the Age of the 25th August, 1920, two months before the date on which Mr. Justice Higgins says he announced his intention. The Age reports that His Honour said -

It may be quite possible that I may be compelled to resign the office of Presidentof this Court, and, therefore, it would be better to let my successor make his own arrangements. In view of the Bills that are just now before Parliament, it would not be seemly for me to make any further statement, excepting that I can make no arrangements as to taking new cases.

The Argus report is. substantially in the same terms. I have not the slightest doubt that His Honour made those remarks, and I am perfectly sure that for months afterwards he refused to take cases, while acting in other respects as the President of the Court.

page 14245

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

In Committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendment resumed (vide page 14231) :

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Works and Railways · Darling Downs · NAT

. - This amendment has reference to the qualification of those who are to be appointed Deputy Judges of the Arbitration Court. The Bill, as it left this House, provided that those Deputies must be barristers or solicitors, or Judges of the Supreme Court of a State. The Senate has amended the clause by providing that those appointed shall be of not less than five years’ standing in the profession. Naturally, the persons appointed to these positions will be of some experience, and, as in the case of other judicial appointments, there must be a reasonable qualification.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I am rather surprised at the action of the Senate in making such an amendment, and I am still more surprised that the

Minister (Mr. Groom) proposes to accept it, and for reasons that are anything but satisfactory. ‘ The honorable gentleman states that he is prepared to accept the amendment because he thinks those appointed should be of sufficient experience to qualify them for the position. I have had considerable experience in Arbitration matters, even prior to my becoming a member of this House; I formerly did a great deal of Arbitration Court work, and it has been my duty to engage legal assistance on many occasions. I venture to say that, at any rate, in some cases, the men who proved to be most adapted for Arbitration work had not been barristers for five years. Why were they better fitted for such work than others with anything from ten to twenty years’ experience in the legal profession 1 Simply because, while preparing for the Bar, they had followed occupations which brought them in touch with industrial matters, on which, in consequence, their minds had become concentrated.

Mr McWilliams:

– They were experts ?

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes. Will any one say that a man thus trained is not qualified to occupy a position on ,the Arbitration Court Bench? I see no reason why he should be regarded as ineligible simply because he has not been qualified for a period of five years. On one occasion, when a solicitor was required to act on behalf of an industrial organization, we found that of those in that particular town, most of them oldestablished, there were only two who could give us the benefit of any special knowledge in industrial law, and the one we found most suitable was not of “ five years’ standing.” We had the same experience in engaging counsel. On several occa-sions King’s Counsel have been engaged, but they did not have the same grip of industrial matters as some solicitors. I do not see the justice of the restriction made by the Senate. It would have been much better to leave the Bill as it was. The amendment limits choice; and if it be accepted, the Minister may find later that the most capable of the candidates have been qualified for only three or four years. I cannot understand what influenced the Senate in making the amendment; for the measure, -when it left this House, seemed to be quite fair; it threw on the Government the responsibility of selecting the best men from the widest possible choice. I regard the amendment as a step in the wrong direction, and I ask the Minister not to so readily agree to it. The Minister’s attitude may be due to the fact that we are nearing the end of the session, and,’ desiring to clear up the business, he thinks the easiest way out is to accept this and other amendments presented to us. I do not think that is the proper course to pursue. Of course, if the Minister really thinks the amendment desirable, I can take no exception to his action; but if he is only acting from expediency, I cannot approve it. Our only object is to make this legislation a success, and the choice ought to be left quite open, so that the most suitable persons may be appointed, irrespective of whether they have been in the profession one year or twenty.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- I am opposed to the amendment made by the Senate. . It is a pity to limit, not only the area of choice of judicial officers, but the discretion of the appointing authorities themselves. I grant that it is unlikely the choice will be made from a junior member of the Bar who has been qualified for less than five years, but such a thing may well happen. I ‘suggest that the senior members of the profession are not likely to be much attracted to these positions ; and, that being so, it is all’ the more necessary to leave the way open for virile, active-minded young men who have given study to this class of legislation. The discretion, after all, remains with the Executive, who, I presume, are not likely to make a choice of an unsuitable man, especially for the position of Judge. At all events, I record my protest against any limitation which may exclude men who, from every point of’ view, are suitable.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– I do not agree with the objections that have been voiced against this amendment. It is of the utmost importance that the best men possible should be secured for these positions. The qualifications of a Judge embrace not merely knowledge of the law, but general experience’ of affairs, and acquaintance with business and trading methods, and capacity to judge the value of evidence. A young fellow who has been admitted to the Bar for only three or four years can hardly have obtained the necessary experience, nor acquired the judicial habit of mind necessary for adjudicating upon the questions which are brought before the Arbitration Court. A limitation such as that suggested by the Senate is not unusual. The same limitation is contained in our Judiciary Act, and I have seen a similar limitation in other Acts, but containing a term of seven or ten years. Having regard to the importance and character of the work of the Arbitration Court, we must take every precaution to insure the appointment to its Bench of persons of the highest qualifications.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Sitting suspended from4.50 to8 p.m.

page 14247

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1921-1922

Mr. Speaker reported the receipt of a message from the Governor-General, transmitting Supplementary Estimates of expenditure for the year ending the 30th June, 1922.

InCommittee of Supply:

Mr GROOM:
Minister forWorks and Railways · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That therebe granted to His Majesty to the service of the year 1921-22, Department of the Senate, a further sum of £25.

Honorable members will recollect that the Senate returned the Appropriation Bill with a request that the salary of the. special officer in charge of stores and stamping correspondence be increased by £25. This House could not agree to an increase of the Appropriation Bill in any way, but the additional amount is being provided by means of the Supplementary Estimate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Resolution of Ways and Means covering resolution of Supply reported and adopted.

Committee to prepare a Bill appointed, and Bill to carry out the foregoing resolution presented by Mr. Groom, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 14247

BILLS RETURNED FROM SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: -

Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Bill.

Iron and Steel Bounty Bill.

page 14247

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Message received from the Senate that it had agreedto the amendments in this Bill recommended by the GovernorGeneral.

Sitting suspended from8.7 p.m. to 10.30 a.m. (Saturday).

page 14247

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

(No. 3).

Mr SPEAKER:

– This discussion is irregular. It will be impossible for the Minister to give to the House reasons for his proposal unless and until he has been given leave to make it. The opportunity for stating reasons for what is proposed will arise when leave has been given to move for leave to introduce the Bill.

Leave granted.

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Works and Railways · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend sections 3, 4, 14, 18, and 19 of ; to repeal sections 37, 38, and 40 of; and to insert new sections 10a, 12a, 23, 36a, 37, 38, and 40 in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1915-1918, and for other purposes.

This House recently passed a Bill which gave relief in a number of cases in which hardship was created by the Income Tax Assessment Act, but, unfortunately, that measure has been rejected by the Senate.

Mr McWilliams:

– Is it not a fact that when senators were asked to deal with it, they had not a copy of the Bill before them?

Mr GROOM:

– I am afraid that I would not be allowed to discuss what took place in another Chamber. Our duty now is to consider what, in the circumstances, should be done. I am moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Bill which I wish to bring in will not contain provisions of a contentious nature, but it will contain those provisions of the last Bill, under which substantial relief would have been given to taxpayers who are in need of it.

Mr Bowden:

– Is this purely a relieving Bill? It does not introduce new taxation.

Mr GROOM:

– That is so. This Bill contains practically only the relieving provisions of the old Bill.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I shall not take any objection to the course that is proposed beyond remarking that for the Government to introduce practically a new measure, right at the close of the year, after most members have returned to their homes believing the present business of the Parliament to be finished, is a strange procedure. This is, to all intents and purposes, new legislation. We are not supposed to know what happens elsewhere, but we know that the Government ought to have control of its business in both Houses of the Parliament. What has happened shows that, while it may have a majority in this Chamber, it has not a majority in ‘the Senate, although that body is supposed to consist of Government followers.

Mr Jowett:

– In the. ratio of thirtyfive to one.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes. The Senate has negatived this motion for the second reading of an important Government measure, and this House is being humiliated by the submission of a proposal that fresh legislation be passed to be sent to the Senate, and, in effect, to eliminate from the Bill which we passed a couple of days ago provisions, which a majority here consider essential.

Mr McWilliams:

– You do not challenge the right of the Senate to reject a measure sent from this House?

Mr CHARLTON:

– No. My contention is that the Government should have a majority in the other Chamber which would give effect to the wishes of this House. If it has not, the present Ministry should not be on the Treasury bench. The honorable member for Nepean (Mr. Bowden) may approve of .what has taken place, but he was in a minority on several matters when the last Bill was being discussed here. The honorable members who were with him, although they are Government supporters, seem elated by the fact that the measure that we had passed was rejected in another place. However, it is for the Government to say what is to be done. On behalf of the Labour party, I enter my protest against the course proposed. I have not known, since I have been in Parliament, such a course to be taken. I do not know whether other honorable members have knowledge of similar procedure.

Mr Jowett:

– We are making history.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Yes, and byandby we may find that the powers and privileges of this Chamber have dwindled away, and that it has become subordinate to another body. If the Senate, which is composed of Ministerial supporters, is not prepared to do the reasonable thing in regard to the expressed wishes of this Chamber, which is the people’s House, the time is fast coming when, if we are to retain the reins of government, we shall have to fight it.

Mr BOWDEN:
Nepean

.- It is to be regretted that the Income Tax Assessment Bill, with which we dealt during our last sitting, was not introduced “ until the end of the session. Certain promises were made by the Treasurer in his Budget speech. He said that anomalies in the Income Tax Assessment law, under which many cases of hardship and injustice had arisen, would be removed. Practically the whole House was in favour of granting this relief. But the amending Bill that was introduced not only provided for the giving of relief in certain cases, but also attempted to impose further taxation in many directions. The taxation was to be considerably increased by provisions which were in the nature of a side issue to the original proposal. It is due to this House, to another place, and to the electors that they should have an opportunity to express their views on these new proposals for taxation.

Mr Mathews:

– They were not new proposals, but merely the strengthening of old proposals.

Mr BOWDEN:

—That is a question of opinion. I think that the Bill which we passed during Thursday’s sitting provided for fresh taxation, and I say that before such taxation is imposed the House should have a fair opportunity to study its probable incidence.

Mr Fleming:

– Does the honorable member say that the Bill which we passed would have imposed more taxation than it relieved?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– Why not see the Bill which it is proposed to introduce now, before “ stone-walling “ it.

Mr BOWDEN:

– I have not occupied much time in making speeches here during the past few years, and should not have risen to speak now had I not been singled out by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton). What was done in another place meets with my approval, and I think that the course now proposed by the Government is a proper one. I understand that it is intended to give relief in those cases in which it was promised, and that later a Bill will be introduced to provide for further taxation. The House will then have an opportunity to consider these proposals.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I am thoroughly convinced, by the action the Government have taken, that they are a spineless and weak-kneed Ministry. They are not prepared to put up a fight against another place, which chooses to ignominiously “boot” out a measure sent to it for its approval after having been agreed to by a majority of honorable members here. The time has arrived when we should either doubledissolute the Senate or electrocute it; because there is a principle involved in this business when we find that we have such a weak Government that it is prepared to give way every time to the Senate and take no steps whatever to defend the privileges and rights of this House.

Mr Atkinson:

– In what way has the Senate done wrong?

Mr FENTON:

– I wish the little “ State Righters “ in this Chamber would remain silent, or put on national spectacles. At this late hour of the session, when we are so close to Christmas, I am not disposed to be acrimonious, but certain happenings during the past week in another Chamber in respect to the rights of this House have lowered the dignity of the House of Representatives, and there is hardly any protest except from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) and the few followers he has who have not yet departed for their homes. I am sure none of them would have left if the position that has arisen had been anticipated. Honorable members seem to be treating the matter in a hilarious manner, possibly because their ideas have been carried into effect by another Chamber. Evidently they are prepared to agree to what the other Chamber has done. They are ready to bow the knee to Baal, and say, “ Thank God, we have another Chamber!” However, we shall see what the Government propose in their new Bill which they have introduced in accordance with the instructions of another Chamber. It can be but a mere skeleton of what passed yesterday in this House. I accord with the protest honorable members opposite have raised; it is certainly not right, and it is not to the credit of the Government, that an important piece of legislation dealing with taxation and affecting a very large number of people should be brought forward at such a late stage of the session. If I am spared, never again will I allow such a position of affairs to arise in this House as has arisen in the last few days.

Mr McWilliams:

– The Senate cannot be blamed for that.

Mr FENTON:

-No ; that part of their protest is legitimate, and if they had sought an amendment of the Bill as a means of expressing their protest against the action of the Government in remitting to them a measure of this important character at such a late hour of the session I would have agreed with them; but without the slightest regard for the feelings of this Chamber they have used a big military boot and punted the Bill right out of their Chamber.

Mr McWilliams:

– Was it not fair to claim that senators should have been supplied with copies of the Bill?

Mr FENTON:

– It is a flimsy excuse. Their proper course in the circtimstances was to adjourn the discussion of the measure until conies were supplied. That is what would have been done here in similar circumstances. Some of our parliamentary pioneers would have scoffed at the idea of the people’s House taking the action of the Senate lying down. I remember the fights between the Upper and the Lower Chambers in Victoria at a lime when there was not one Labour member in Parliament. The members of the Lower House in Victoria would never have tolerated the action the Senate have taken had it been taken by the Legislative Council; but our weak-kneed and spineless Government and their complacent followers are ready to give way. If honorable members are prepared to treat this matter as a huge joke I am willing to let them do so, but I shall continue to regard it in earnest, and demand my rights.

Mr Charlton:

– If honorable members are anxious for a fight on this question, they can have it next week.

Mr FENTON:

– I blame the Government for bringing such an important financial measure forward at this late hour, but, even though they may be overcome by a sort of Christmas feeling, they are not entitled to say to the Senate, “Tes, we admit that you have done wrong, and have overstepped the bounds of your privileges in regard to financial measures, not only on this occasion, but on others, but we are prepared to bow to your decision, and will do what you ask us to do.” Senators will now go away preening themselves on having scored a notable victory over the House of Representatives, and with the knowledge that it will know what to do in future in regard to any financial measure in respect to which it does not get its own way.

Mr FOLEY:
Kalgoorlie

.- I have my seat booked for this afternoon’s train to Perth, but I am prepared to stay here for another month rather than permit injustice to be done. I want to study the wish of other honorable members to conclude the session, but I appeal to those who appear to be treating this Bill, if not with levity, at least with inattention, to give it the consideration its importance deserves. The previous Bill was introduced in deference to a promise given, not to a lot of people who could afford to wait for any length of time to learn the effect of the new taxation proposals, but to a number of men in this Commonwealth who are, undoubtedly, doing something to help to develop it. I .refer to miners, and I know what it will mean to a lot of prospectors if they are not given some relief in the direction proposed. I am not worrying about new taxation proposals, but I am anxious to see the relief clauses, which were in the Bill rejected by the Senate, passed into law. I am not excusing the Government for not having given the Senate the opportunity of realizing the contents of the measure on which they were asked to vo’te.

Mr Mathews:

– I do not know that the honorable gentlemen knew what they were doing.

Mr FOLEY:

– I am not casting any aspersions on honorable senators. Now, I do not wish to discuss at this stage their attitude in regard to financial measures, but I ask the Minister for an assurance that this substituted measure preserves the relief that was given by clause 6 of the defeated Bill to the mining industry.

Mr Groom:

– I will give the honorable member that assurance as soon as I can get a chance to introduce the Bill.

Mr FOLEY:

– I am particularly concerned in retaining that relief which was given to a prospector who, having found a payable show and npt having the capital with which to work it, sells it and accepts shares in part payment. It appears from the buzz and hum of conversation in this chamber that those honorable members who have occupied the most time during the session, many of whom live close to their own homes, are not now prepared to give a fair deal to others of us from distant States who have been detained in Melbourne for the last four months.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I do not think that the Senate would have rejected the Income Tax Assessment Bill so readily had not Senator E. D. Millen been absent through illness. At the same time, I protest against the Senate’s rejection of one of the financial measures agreed to by this House. Are honorable members seized of the fact that our national income is not sufficient to pay our debts? Do they not know that we need more revenue and that there are large companies who are robbing « this country by evading taxation? I have previously referred in this House to the position of the British Imperial Oil Company.

Mr Groom:

– The provision relating to the taxation of income of non-resident persons is retained.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I hope that that company will be made to pay the taxation that is due to the Commonwealth. I believe it has defrauded the Commonwealth of over £2,000,000 . Surely members of another place, knowing the financial difficulties of the country, will see their way clear to amend the mistake they have made. If necessary, let us meet again next week in order to help the Government against the Senate in this matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented by Mr. Groom, and motion proposed -

That this Bill he now read a first time.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

– I remind the House of the practice of Parliament in relation to the offering of a Bill twice in the one session. May says -

It is a rule, in both Houses, which is essential to the due preformance of their duties, that no question or Bill shall be offered that is substantially the same as one on which their judgment has been already expressed in the current session.

To rescind a negative vote, except in the different stages of Bills, is a proceeding of greater difficulty, because the same question would have to be offered again. The only means, therefore, by which a negative vote can be revoked is by proposing another question similar in its general purport to that which had been rejected, but with sufficient variance to constitute a new question; and the House would determine whether it were substantially the same question or not.

I have compared this Bill with the one which has been rejected in another place, and I find several variations which, perhaps, in the opinion of the House, constitute this measure an entirely new one introduced in conformity with parliamentary practice.

Mr West:

– You say, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill differs from the one this House passed and sent to another place?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It differs in several particulars, but it is for the House to say whether or not it is substantially the same as the measure which has been rejected by another place. In my opinion the variations are sufficiently important to constitute the proposed measure a new Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GROOM:
Minis ter for Works and Railways · Darling Downs · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

No question as to the constitutional rights of the two Houses in relation to money Bills is at stake on this measure. This Bill is different from the one which has been rejected in another place. Clause 2 re-introduces the provision to exempt residents in. the Territory of Papua. This is done by an amendment of the definition of “ absentee.” The definition of income is altered in order to give relief to members of co-operative companies as defined. Clause 3 exempts from taxation income derived from sources in Papua, and income earned there by personal exertion by any person while there. Clause 4 lays down an averaging basis for taxation of incomes from primary production. Clause 5 prescribes the principle for granting relief in cases of double and treble taxation. This was recommended by the Taxation Commission. Clause 6 gives that relief to prospectors and working syndicates concerning whom the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Foley) is so anxious. Clause 7 increases the deduction allowable for each child from £26 to £30. That involves a remission of taxation to the amountof about £30,000. Clause 8 repeats the clause that was contained in the other Bill relating to special deductions under section 19 of the principal Act. Clause 9 deals with the taxation of income of non-resident persons, such as those to whom the honorable member for Melbourne referred, whilst clause 10 provides for the creation of Boards of Appeal.

Sir Robert Best:

– Will the Minister now inform the House what portions of the earlier measure have been omitted?

Mr GROOM:

– This Bill does not include in the definition of income the reference to trading assets which appeared in the other Bill. The measure also does not deal with trading assets which have reference to live stock. Further, it omits all reference to bonus shares; the whole of the proposed legislation bearing in that direction has been left out. There are retained, however, the references to mining operations which had been included in clause 6 of the previous Bill. There have been omitted portions of clause 7 ; this contained a re-definition of paragraph a of sub-section 1 of section 18 of the Act. As to clause 12,_ which had to do with retrospectivity where that aspect was relevant to the other portions of the previous Bill now omitted the necessary omissions have been made. On the whole, the Bill is practically a relieving measure throughout.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– I do not condemn another place for what it has done; it had a perfect right to take such a course of action. Honorable senators were placed in a most unfair position, just as were honorable members of this House ; . a vast number of measures has been hurled at us within a few hours. I hope, however, that a compromise can be brought about in the way that has been suggested. Without doubt, the measure now under consideration will prove a source of substantial relief.- Parliament has been placed at this advantage, namely, that the matters now included in the Bill have nearly all been investigated by the .Taxation Commission, The alterations of the Act’ provided for are of the most . urgent character. I refer particularly to that touching upon double taxation. The subject should have been taken in hand by the Government^ a long while ago. The Imperial Government, following upon arrangements which had been agreed upon, promptly performed their part. For months, however, the Commonwealth Government have failed to carry out their obligation. Substantial relief will be afforded to taxpayers in this direction, and it will be, particularly, at the expense of the British Government. An omission of which I complain has to do with bonus shares issued in regard to increase in value of capital assets. Serious embarrassment has been suffered by a large :number of companies which have made provision for the issue of bonus shares solely representing increase in value of the capital assets of the company Several in stances were mentioned by honorable members, in detail, when discussing the other measure. The present doubtful condition of the law has proved a source of confusion. The Government undertook to give relief in this connexion, but not as regards trading profits - for that is a controversial matter, and, for that reason, I do not desire to touch upon it at this stage. But I would like the Government to afford merited relief in regard to a great number of cases such as I have already spoken of. I know that a considerable amount of litigation would be saved by that course.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- It is to be regretted that another place did not pay this House the courtesy of dealing with the measure presented to it in a proper manner, that is to say, by considering the Bill in Committee and making such amendments as may have been deemed necessary. I understand that the objections of honorable senators had to do with the subject-matter of specific clauses; there was no excuse, therefore, for rejecting the Bill upon its second reading. I do not know whether 1 rightly understood the Minister (Mr. Groom) to .give the assurance nhat the relief given to co-operative societies, such as those, for example, in which miners are interested, will not be in any way interfered with by this new Bill.

Mr Groom:

– That is so. I might add that a further amending measure will be introduced,’ in all probability, next session. “The Government will have to consider the whole field of taxation in the light of the full report of the Royal Commission.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I take that for granted. Reference has again been made to the question of affording relief in respect of companies issuing bonus shares. My view is that they are already taking good care to provide themselves with relief from a considerable amount of taxation. These concerns have, in very many instances, done remarkably well in recent years, especially during the war. Huge profits have been piled up, even while large dividends have been paid; but a way has been found of evading taxation by putting capital to certain purposes. As the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. West) pointed out, some companies have so arranged their affairs as to absorb their additional capital and avoid being called upon to pay their just dues to the Taxation Commissioner.

Mr Bruce:

– While they may have saved something by not being required to pay upon income tax rates, there has been no question of avoiding their obligations under the company rates.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Anyhow, they have been in a very fortunate position. Their profits have been disguised from the public view by reason of the fact that, out of profits not distributed, they have added to their capital. Altogether, I repeat that they have done exceedingly well, and should not object to paying a fair and reasonable sum into the national coffers.

Mr HUNTER:
Maranoa

.- This Bill, in so far as it applies to primary producers, is a great improvement on that which has been rejected by the Senate. The alterations that have been made in the provisions relating to the sale of trading assets are what the Country party desired. A proportion of the capital of a man who enters into a grazing business is necessarily invested in stock. The sale of that stock is practically a sale of capital, and it is not right that any tax should be levied on the sale’ of capital. The deletion of the retrospective clauses relating to section 10 are also an advantage. When we were discussing the original Bill the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt) and the honorable member for Kooyong (Sir Robert Best), urged that the proposal in regard to the averaging of incomes was a concession to primary producers, and that it should be extended to every other person in business. Honorable members of the Country party hold that it is not a concession, but simply a restoration of rights. As to the suggested extension of this so-called concession to people engaged in trade or commerce, I have here a copy of a resolution passed by the committee of the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, and sent to the various Chambers of Commerce throughout the Commonwealth. It reads as follows : -

That in view of the reports which have appeared in the press to the effect that the majority report of the Royal Commission on Taxation that the system of averaging incomes for a period’ of five years for the purpose of income tax assessment might be adapted to other than primary producers, this Chamber expresses its strong disapproval of such a proposal as being inequitable to men engaged in trade and commerce, and favour the minority report of the Commission.

What, then, becomes of the honorable member for Balaclava’s argument?

Mr Bell:

– I favour the minority report of the Commission in the interests of the primary producer. Does not the honorable member ?

Mr HUNTER:

– Not in all respects. I have only, in conclusion, to express my gratification that the original Bill has been amended in this way.

Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot

.- I wish only to address a question to the Minister in charge of the Bill (Mr. Groom) . In view of’ the fact that . the clauses relating to the taxation of bonus shares, which appeared in the Bill that has been rejected by another place, have not been embodied in this measure, what will be the position?

Mr Groom:

– 4The position will remain as it is.

Mr Hughes:

– But the whole matter will, of course, be reviewed.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I presume that before the House meets again next year the Government will be in possession of the complete reports of the Royal Commission on Taxation.

Mr Hughes:

– Yes.

Mr FENTON:

– Is it the intention of the Government, on the receipt of those reports, to formulate measures covering the whole realm of taxation?

Mr Hughes:

– Certainly.

Mr FENTON:

– So that the House will have full time to discuss the whole of the arguments, pro and con, and pass an up-to-date measure?

Mr Hughes:

– ‘Yes.

Mr FENTON:

– I indorse the view expressed by my Leader (Mr. Charlton), and am prepared to admit that injustices are likely to arise in connexion with every form of taxation. Even in connexion with the taxation of bonus shares, for which the original Bill provided, hardships might have occurred.

Mr Prowse:

– Why not pass special clauses dealing with cases of injustice?

Mr FENTON:

– We cannot legislate for special cases. I cannot help thinking that the action of another place respecting the Bill passed by us earlier in the week has opened the door for the escape of “ big game.” I sincerely hope that the exemption will beraised so that relief may be granted to the poorer class of the community.

Mr BELL:
Darwin

.- I should be glad if the Minister (Mr. Groom) would state whether it is intended under clause 10 to appoint a Board of Appeal for each State, so that the Boards will be readily accessible to taxpayers in all parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr Groom:

– The clause gives power to the Government to appoint as many Boards as the circumstances demand.

Mr BELL:

– There should be an Appeal Board in each State.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

– Honorable members generally are dissatisfied with the way in which taxation and other financial measures have been submitted to the House during the last two or three weeks. The way in which they have been conducted is not at all creditable to the Government. Some honorable members thought that I had no serious purpose in view in asking from time to time when it was proposed to appoint a successor to Sir Joseph Cook as Treasurer. As a matter of fact, I was anxious that a successor should be appointed in order that the financial measures might be properly brought before Parliament. With a Treasurer to look after such measures, the errors that have been made would have been avoided. It is impossible for the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) to attend to the Treasury as well as to his own Department; he is compelled to leave to the Treasury officials many matters with which a responsible Minister only should deal. We have in both the Treasury and the Taxation Branch officers of whom any country would be proud; but it is not for them to deal with matters of policy, and they cannotbe blamed for any difficulties that have occurred. I hope that a successor to Sir Joseph Cook as Treasurer will be appointed without further delay. I am glad to know that the Government intend next session to bring in comprehensive legislation based on the report of the Taxation Commission, and I hope I shall bo well enough to vigorously criticise such measures. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding in regard to the bonus shares, but we know that, in their manipulation, the few individuals have benefited at the expense of the many. I have sufficient faith in the Taxation Commissioner to know that, in most cases, he and his officials are more likely to be right than are dissatisfied’ taxpayers. There is a natural propensity to growl at taxation, for no one is pleased at his assessment whatever the amount may be; but the taxpayer has not the advantage of the information possessed by the Taxation office. The honorable member for Kooyong, of course, is engaged in legal business, and, doubtless, views the matter from a different stand-point.

Mr Groom:

– I remind the honorable member that it is necessary to send this Bill to theSenate as soon as possible.

Mr WEST:

– I object to the railroad speed at which the Government are taking these Bills through in a House so sparsely attended as not to thoroughly represent the people of Australia. It is quite likely that honorable members who are absent might have important objections to voice against this Bill ; and I am sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) is in accord with the views I am expressing, though, I suppose, he is anxious for a holiday after the undoubted hard work that he has been doing lately. At the same time, this haste is not in the interests of the community, especially in the case of a Bill so important as that before us, and so likely to create dissatisfaction and discontent. We ought to endeavour to make the Bill as acceptable as possible to all concerned, and honorable members should have the courage to express their opinions regarding it. I do not mind who knows that I refuse to stay here all night in order to unduly rush business through; and I am sure that if the Prime Minister were on this side he would be as loud as I am in his objections.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported without amendment; report adopted.

Message recommending appropriation of revenue reported.

In Committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Groom) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a Bill for an Act to amend sections 3, 4, 14,18, and 19 of; to repeal sections 37, 38, and 40 of; and to insert new sections 10a, 12a, 23, 36 a, 37, 38 and 40 in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1915-1918, and for other purposes.

Resolution reported and adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 14255

BILLS FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: -

Income Tax Bill (No. 2).

War Precautions Act Repeal Bill.

High CourtProcedure Bill.

Repatriation Loan Bill.

Returned Soldiers Woollen Company Loan Bill.

Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill.

page 14255

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired under, at Cape Pallarenda, near Townsville, Queensland, for Quarantine purposes.

page 14255

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mr. Woolf’s Letter

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I ask the Government to permit Mr. Woolf to come to the Bar of the House to prove statements made in a letter that he has written.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What the honorable member desires can be done only on the vote of the House.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I desire it to be done next session.

page 14255

QUESTION

AIR-SHIPS

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Min ister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

(By leave.) - I bring before honorable members a matter of great importance arising out of a decision of the Imperial Conference this year, on which I reported to the House on my return from England a few months ago. I mentioned then that there were two matters on which I hoped this Parliament would express its wish before the session closed. One of these was wireless telegraphy, in regard to which an arrangement has been come to. The other was air-ship communication between the various parts of. the Empire. I pointed out that the British Government had a fleet of airships which it was willing to place at the disposal of the Dominions if they would agree to co-operate in a scheme for the maintenance of aerial communication between the various parts of the Empire. I shall not weary honorable members by discussing the matter just now beyond saying that a Committee of the Imperial Conference, joined with experts - air-ship and aeroplane - made a. careful investigation of the matter, and submitted a report which covered a period of two years of experimental operations, which could be conducted, speaking from memory, for £1,200,000, of which Australia’s share would be about £200,000. A decision in regard to the Imperial Government’s offer is urgent, because unless the offer is accepted the air-ships that are available for the experiment will be scrapped after the 31st of this month. These vessels cost to produce £40,000,000. That, of course, is not the value of the air-ships themselves, butcovers the whole organization, for which there are only these air-ships, to be seen. Workshops, hangars, the provision of spares, and the making of arrangements of all sorts, has involved the British Government in the expenditure of that colossal sum of money. This is the only fleet of air-ships in the world. There is no means of speedier communication with Europe other than through the air. We might increase the rate of progress over the sea, but the increase will be slow, and, at most, the journey is not likely to be cut down by more than four or five days. As a matter of fact, it takes as long to travel to England now as it did thirty years ago, and the transport of the mails between Australia and England occupies a longer time than it did twenty-five years ago. Realizing that time does not permit of the discussion of this proposal that the circumstances warrant, I merely ask the House now to agree to this motion: -

That this House, recognising the vital importance to the British Empire of aerial communication, views with concern the prospect of abandonment of proposals for the establishment of an Imperial air-ship service, and expresses the earnest hope that the period during which the air-ships and other existing material will be available will be extended, in order that branch of the Legislature, but that desire cannot be carried to the point of sacrificing the legitimate interests of others. To arrive at a fair basis of adjustment regarding such matters, the President and I arranged that a conference of heads of Departments should be held in order to make recommendations in regard to the salaries of the junior officers and employees of this establishment. But it was never intended by me that any arrangement that was arrived at should apply to the chief administrative heads of Departments. The heads of Departments would scarcely have been asked to make recommendations as to their own salaries. I would not dream of attempting to dictate to the President as to what should be the salary of the Clerk of the Senate, and I do not think that I was bound to consult him in regard to the recommendation I made for an increase in the salary of the head of the House of Representatives Department. I adopted the course which is prescribed by the Commonwealth Public Service Act, section 14 of which reads -

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act-

all appointments or promotions of officers of the Senate, and all regulations affecting such officers after their appointment, shall be made by the Governor-General on the nomination or recommendation of the President of the Senate;

all appointments or promotions of officers of the House of Representatives, and all regulations affecting such officers after their appointment, shall be so made on the nomination or recommendation of the Speaker; and

all appointments or promotions of officers of both Houses of Parliament, and all regulations affecting such officers after their appointment, shall be so made on the joint nomination or recommendation of the said President and the Speaker.

Honorable members will see that, in relation to officers of the joint Houses, the Presiding Officers have the right to jointly make appointments and regulations, but that is not always observed by the President of another branch of the Legislature. That gentleman did not consult me when he proposed to increase the salary of an officer of the Senate, nor would I dream of insisting that I had a right to be consulted in regard to any such recommendation. This House did not cavil, although there was no such increase set down in the Estimates, and not only assented to that increase, but passed a special Appropriation Bill to provide for it.

I have no desire to undulyoccupy the time of honorable members, but the issue at stake is one of no little importance, and I desire, therefore, to give a brief resume of Mr. Gale’s service. Prior to Federation he was the head of a Department, namely, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, for ten years. In 1901 he was appointed second Clerk Assistant of the House of Representatives at a salary of £600 per annum, and, two months later, Clerk Assistant at a salary of £750, which was later raised to £775. In February, 1917, he was appointed Clerk of the House at a salary of £1,000 per annum. In Victoria for many years, before the purchasing power of the sovereign was depreciated as it has been lately, the salary of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly was, I believe, £1,200. The salary of the Clerk in the South African House of Assembly is £1,500. In Canada, as far as I have been able to learn, no departmental head receives a higher salary than the Clerk of the Parliaments. But I invite honorable members to compare Mr. Gale’s salary with that of the heads of other Departments. In 1901 Mr. Gale began at a salary of £600, while Mr. Shepherd, now acting as High Commissioner, began at a salary of £310. Mr. Castles was appointed at £500 per annum, and was later made Crown Solicitor at £1,000 per annum, and he is now receiving £1,250 per annum. Mr. Collins was first appointed at £310 per annum, and he was subsequently made Secretary to the Treasurer at £1,000 per annum, and is now in receipt of a salary of £1,400. Mr. Gale has had thirty years’ experience as a Chamber officer. For half of that period he has acted as second officer, and for the remainder of the period he has been head of the Department. This House did not attempt to interfere with the salaries of officers of the other Chamber, although it might have done so with more reason for its action than can be advanced in justification of the present interference with the salary of the chief officer of this that road we all desire to travel, I move -

That the requested amendment bc not made. My suggestion is made in the most friendly spirit. I confess that, in this matter, I cannot lash myself up to an extent that-would cause me to regard this matter as a great constitutional question. I am putting forward the fervent, but subdued, hope that, during the luncheon hour, a modus vivendi will be arrived at. I shall say no more. Perhaps I have said too much. I could say a good deal more, but I shall say it later, should the necessity arise.

Sir ELLIOT JOHNSON:
Lang

– This is a matter which I think I should not let pass without making some reference to it, because it revives a subject that has been the source of a great deal of trouble and worry to me in my capacity as presiding officer of this House. I am intrusted, by the Public Service Act, with the sole task of determining the appointments, promotions, and other conditions of employment of the officers of the Department of the House of Representatives, and making recommendations regarding the same. Honorable members in this Chamber passed the proposed increase of salary set down in the Estimates for Mr. Gale, the Clerk of the House, without question, but when the Appropriation Bill was sent to another place a motion was adopted to request this House to reduce the amount by £250. This I regard as an abrogation of the functions vested in me by the Public Service Act and also an encroachment on the rights of this House in regard to the control of its own officers. The Senate has taken up a position which is virtually an assumption of authority over the officers of this House, and it is for the House to say whether it is prepared to submit to what amounts to dictation on the part of the Senate in further pressing this matter. It is true that in the beginning of Federation difficulties arose on account of claims set up in another place that whatever, salaries were paid to officers of the House of Representatives should also be paid to officers of the Senate. There was, however, a conflict of opinion between the presiding officers of both Houses as to the relative merits of the officers of each House in respect to the hours they worked, the relative importance of the duties with which they were intrusted, and the general conditions of their work. As a consequence, an arrangement was made by which the Presiding Officers, with a view to avoiding further conflict of opinion between them, were to consult one another in respect to these matters and arrive at an amicable arrangement in respect to them. That course has been followed1 as far as practicable, but I am in this unfortunate position - as a result of that arrangement - that, although it seemed to me that when certain requests made to me in regard to promotions and increases of salary were reasonable and should have been agreed to, there have been occasions when I found the President of another place not in agreement with the views I held, and action which I desired was not taken. There is no arbitrator to decide a point in case of differences of opinion between the two Presiding Officers; and, if I were to give effect to my opinions and do something which was not concurred in by the President of the Senate, whatever was done in respect of this House would be made a pretext for similar action in another place, regardless of the fact that the circumstances there are entirely different. ! can foresee that, in the desire to avoid collision with the President, the withholding of increments and promotions may involve grave injustice to the employees of this House. That is one of the reasons why I suggested that matters affecting the salaries and appointments of officers of Parliament should be dealt with by another tribunal. In actual practice, the present system gives the President of another Chamber the right to control, not only salaries in his branch of the Legislature, but also the salaries in the Department of the House of Representatives; because, unless the Speaker is agreeable to accept his views, he must act independently and do something in conflict with those views, and, similarly, if the Speaker withheld consent to a proposal by the President for an increment to or promotion of a Senate officer, the Speaker would virtually control the situation as far as the Senate was concerned. In those circumstances a very undesirable condition of things would be set up. I have every desire to live in amity with the. President of another

House, for, without any desire to disparage the importance of the work of the officers in another place, it cannot be denied that the work of the officers of this House is far more onerous, more exacting, and more strenuous than theirs. As evidence of that, I may mention that of the Bills passed into law during the last two Parliaments, at the time of the proposed increase of salary to. Mr. Gale, only thirty-five originated in the Senate as against 210 in the House of Representatives. All the special work of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, including the immense amount of labour inseparable from dealing with the Estimates and examining the Appropriation Billprior to presentation for assent, is performed in the House of Representatives. A fair criterion of the relative amounts of work in the two Houses is afforded by the number and times of the respective sittings. In the present session, for instance, up to the 25th November, 1920, the Senate sat on only seventyfive days as compared with the 113 days on which the House of Representatives sat, whilst the Senate’s hours of sitting totalled approximately only 298 as against 812 hours sat by the House of Representatives. To the 6th December last the Senate sat this session on 151 days, a total of 735 hours. The House of Representatives sat on 204 days, a total of 1,472 hours. The Clerk of the Senate (Mr. Monahan) has served at the table for six and a half years, as against the thirty years’ service of Mr. Gale. Of course, Mr. Gale is eligible for appointment to other positions carrying a higher salary, but if he secured such a position all his valuable parliamentary experience gained during thirty years would be lost to this House. In view of the facts I have stated, I think I was fully justified in recommending the increase of salary, and I feel sure that my action meets with the approval of honorable members. One other point I may mention in conclusion. The President is wrong in saying that the Senate alone promoted an officer from a lower position in this House to a higher one in the Senate. Mr. Duffy, the officer referred to, was first promoted from a secondary position at the Senate table to Clerk of the House in this Chamber.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- I support the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister, and I am also pleased with the statement which has been made by Mr. Speaker. It is quite clear that the Speaker has a right to make recommendations in regard to the salaries of officers of tins House, and the President in regard to salaries of the officers of the Senate. Mr. Speaker made a certain recommendation in regard to the salary of Mr. Gale, whom I consider a very able and obliging officer. This House approved of the recommendation. The Senate has refused to sanction the increase of the salary of one of our officers. I feel certain that if honorable senators were aware of the whole of the facts they would not hesitate to do the right thing.

Mr McWilliams:

– How would it do to hear President Givens at the Bar of the House ?

Mr CHARLTON:

– That is a very fair and reasonable proposal. It appears thai a lot of trouble occurs owing to the present system of dual control. I have never known dual control to be successful in any sphere, and the sooner some new principle is laid down for our guidance in these matters the better. In view of the fact that Mr. Gale has served for thirty years at the table and has given good service, he is entitled to consideration. The fact of his salary having been increased is no justification for members of another place acting like little children, and saying, “If we cannot get what we want for our Clerk we will not let you give what you propose to give to an admittedly deserving official on your side.”

Sir Robert Best:

– There is more in all this than meets the eye.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I know. But I do not want to introduce other matters now. The Prime Minister has taken a proper stand; I unhesitatingly support the proposal. I trust that honorable senators will review the position in a just and reasonable spirit.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
Wakefield

– I agree with a good deal that Mr. Speaker has said, especially in regard to the enormously greater amount of work required to be performed by the staff in this House. In the South Australian

Legislature the practice has been to make joint recommendations regarding officers of Parliament. Not only have the President and Speaker concurred in such recommendations, but the approval of the Government has always been first secured. I want to know whether, in connexion with the emoluments of the two officers concerned, that other question, of status - having to do with the title of “The Clerk of the Parliaments “-is involved.

Mr Charlton:

– That title has been done away with for years. There is no such official in the Commonwealth sphere as “ The Clerk of the Parliaments.”

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– I thank the honorable member for confirming my view. The title has been abolished, I understand, since 1908. Peculiar conditions arose at that time which justified its abolition. But it has been rumoured - I have certainly been given plainly to understand - that the title has been restored. At any rate, efforts are being made to resuscitate it. While I agree entirely with the observations of Mr. Speaker, both as regards the far greater length of service of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the incomparably heavier burden of work entailed by the sittings of this House; yet, so far as I know anything at all about parliamentary procedure, covering a period of thirty years’ experience, wherever there has been a Clerk of the Parliaments that office has been attached to the Upper Chamber.

Motion (by Mr. Hay) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Sitting suspended, from 1.6 to4.30 (Saturday) p.m.

page 14260

CONSTITUTION CONVENTION BILL

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

.- (By leave.) - I move -

That Order of the Day No. 4 - Constitution Convention Bill–be discharged from the notice-paper.

The present position is well known to honorable members. There is no prospect of the Bill being passed into law. As it would be impossible for a Convention to be summoned, by virtue of any legislation passed next year, in time for its recommendations to be thrown into the form of a Bill for consideration by the Legislature, and subsequent submission to the people, as required by the Constitution, it would serve no useful purpose to retain this measure on the business-paper.

I desire further to announce that the Government, at the earliest possible moment next session, will bring down such proposed amendments of the Constitution as it thinks desirable, and afford the House the freest opportunity to suggest others. The Government will exercise its own right to determine which, if any, of such further amendments so suggested shall receive its support when they are submitted to the people. That is to say, without committing ourselves to support them’ when they are put to the people, we will consider favorably any amendment that is supported by a reasonable number of honorable members, and pass the necessary legislation, so that the people themselves may have an opportunity to record their votes in regard to them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Order of the Day discharged.

page 14260

PAYMENT FOR DUAL FURLOUGH

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

(By leave.) - By virtue of a decision of the Cabinet, payment for double furlough has been made in a number of cases in anticipation of the passing of the Public Service Bill now before the Senate. As there are a number of cases which must be dealt with before the Parliament again meets, I desire to announce that the Government, in anticipation of the passing of that measure, intends to continue the payment on the basis for which it provides.

page 14260

HOME RULE FOR IRELAND

Message from Mr. Lloyd George.

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

(By leave.) - I have just received the following cablegram from Mr. Lloyd

I can only add to what has already been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and. the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) an acknowledgment of my own personal indebtedness to the officers of the House, and the attendants, for the manner in which they have carried out their duties during an usually arduous session. 1 should like to refer particularly to the work of the Hansard staff, which has been carried out with remarkable efficiency under very trying circumstances. I am sure honorable members must often have wondered, ‘ with myself, at the accuracy with which the members of the staff have been able to report the proceedings, in view of the disturbing influences which frequently occur and centre round the corner of the table where they sit. I have the greatest difficulty myself at times in following what is being said, and I am sure that to those whose duty it is to record the utterances of honorable members, the thanks of members will be heartily accorded for the excellent manner in which that duty is performed. I wish the Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, honorable members, and the officers a prosperous new year and a very happy and enjoyable Christmas. Before sitting down, I should like to express the hope that, on our re-assembling, we shall find the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) attending to his duties here fully restored to health and vigour.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– I desire to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) for their remarks with regard to myself, and to take this opportunity to indorse all that has been said in regard to the manner in which the officers of the House and the Hansard staff have performed their arduous duties. It has been my lot, as Chairman, to come very closely into contact with the officers of the House, and I can say, without hesitation, that no better or more loyal set of officers could be found. I desire also to especially thank the Temporary Chairmen of Committees for their assistance. They have always responded willingly to my call, sometimes at the sacrifice of their own time; and this I appreciate very much. I now wish honorable members, the officers of the House, the Temporary Chairmen, the Hansard staff, and others, the best of times during the coming Christmas and a happy New Year.I trust that their brief rest before we re-assemble will prove of benefit, and that they will come here in full strength and rigour to carry out their duties in the interests of the people of Australia.

Mr Stewart:

– So say the members of the Country party.

Mr SPE AKER:
Hon. Sir Elliot Johnson

– I wish to express my thanks to the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Chanter) for the efficient manner in which he carried out his duties as Deputy Speaker during my protracted illness. I am sure that he did’ so in a manner which commended itself to honorable members generally.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.51 p.m. until a data and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, and notified by him to each member.

George in reply to a message of congratulation which I sent to him on the settlement of the Irish question: -

My colleagues and I value greatly the congratulations which you telegraph on behalf of Parliament and Commonwealth Government. We have felt throughout the long negotiations that the welfare of the whole of Empire was deeply involved in our success or failure, and we therefore appreciate in a very special degree the satisfaction of the representatives of Australia with the settlement which we have made. We arc also very glad to have your words of welcome to Ireland as a member of Imperial Conference. Please convey our most cordial thanks to your colleagues and your Parliament.

page 14261

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICERS: SALARIES

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

– This morning, Mr. Speaker, you addressed honorable members in regard to the difference between the two branches of the Legislature respecting an increase in the salary of an officer of this House. By an arrangement, which was accepted by you, sir, and the President of the Senate, as well as members of both Houses, a Committee, consisting of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell), the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory), the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton), Senator John D. Millen, Senator Drake-Brockman, and Senator Lynch, was appointed to consider the position, and it was agreed that the recommendation of that Committee should be accepted. The Committee’s recommendation is as follows : -

The Committee consider that it is advisable that there should be uniformity in the salaries of the chief officers in the Senate and in the House of (Representatives.

That in the future preparation of the Estimates this uniformity should be observed.

The effect of that recommendation is that matters are left as they are just now, but that the procedure agreed upon by the Committee should in future be followed. In order that this arrangement may be placed on record, I move -

That the House indorses the recommendation, and’ gives tlie necessary authority to Mr. Speaker to carry it into effect.

I do not suggest that you, sir, need such authority. I submit the motion merely to have it recorded that the House en,tirely approves of the proposal.

Mr Charlton:

– -This means that the salary of the Clerk of the House of Representatives is to remain at £1,250 per annum ?

Mr Gregory:

– Yes. There is to be no alteration this year.

Mr HUGHES:

– That is to say, tho Senate’s request is refused, and the proposed vote stands.

Mr Charlton:

– That is so.

Mr HUGHES:

– The matter is subject to adjustment later on.

Mr Maxwell:

– That is so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 14261

BILLS FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request : -

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 1).

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3).

Supplementary Appropriation ‘Bill 1921-22.

page 14261

APPROPRIATION BILL 1921-22

Bill returned from the Senate with the following message: -

Message No. 133.

Ms. SPEAKER

The Senate returns to the House of Representatives the Bill for “ An Act to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum for the service of the year ending tlie thirtieth day .of June, One .thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, and to appropriate the Supplies granted by the Parliament for such year,” and acquaints the House of Representatives thait the Senate has considered Message No. 129 of that House in reference to such Bill.

The Senate informs the House that representatives of the Senate, in conference with representatives of the House of Representatives, having recommended that it is advisable that there should be uniformity in the salaries of the chief officers in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, and that in the future preparation of the Estimates this uniformity should be observed, the Senate does not further :press its requested amendment not made by the House of Representatives, and has agreed to the Bill.

Thos. (Givens, (President.

The Senate,

Melbourne, 10th December, 1921.

page 14261

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory Speeches - Case of R

Denholm

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

– I move -

That this House do now adjourn.

Before -we disperse I should like to express my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, the Chairmen of Committees, the Hansard staff, and the officers of the House, including the messengers, for the way they have assisted us to carry on the business of the country. If I may, I should like in one general sweeping sentence to include my friends and critics of the press. To all I wish the compliments of the season, and tender my best thanks. Without Hansard our words would be but empty air, and without the press our names would be written in . water. I hope that the officers of the House, who have laboured long and zealously, will derive what satisfaction is possible from a sense of work having been well and faithfully done. To my fellow members 1 offer the compliments of the season, and my very best wishes. We have had, indeed, a most strenuous time during the last few days ; and if any men sigh, and sigh in vain, for an ‘eight-hour day, it is the members of this Parliament. However, it is for us not to complain, but to do our duty faithfully in that state of life to which it has pleased God and the people to call us. I trust that honorable members will come back from their well-deserved recess like giants refreshed ; and then, I trust that, as they are strong, they will be merciful. During the recess we .shall have opportunity to consider those measures that it is still necessary to press on the attention of the House, and, at this time next year, when we have to go before the people, we shall be able to do so no matter what differences of opinion there may be amongst us, conscious that we have done our best in the country’s interests.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- In wishing Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Chanter) the compliments of the season, I thank them for the courtesy they have extended to me during the time I have occupied my present position. The officers of the House, too, have my gratitude for the assistance they have ever been willing to give me; and I have also to thank the Hansard staff and the attendants. During the last few weeks honorable members and all the officers have done a vast amount of hard work; in fact, this has been a most strenuous session since we met in April last. There was much to do in connexion with the Tariff, and, as Dr. Maloney would say, I give my “‘meed of praise” to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene) for the able manner in which he conducted that measure through the House. I hope all will enjoy the vacation, and spend a happy Christmas and New Year.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I wish to say a few words, and they will not be about the press. At the beginning of the year an episode occurred which should be regretted by the honorable members of this and another place, and I cannot let this occasion pass without commenting on what I regard as a huge conspiracy to ruin a young man. I refer to the case of the lift attendant, Robert Denholm. It is very hard for an honorable member to say anything against men with whom he is associated, but I do say that the conspiracy which caused his dismissal was unworthy of any body of men associated with Parliament. We have endeavoured to right this injustice, but have failed. This young man was dismissed after having served this Parliament for ten years. He had been subjected to a certain inoculation, the results of which prevented him from earning his livelihood outside, though there were many positions which he could have obtained had the state of his hands permitted. Although we are told we have no control over the officers who dismissed him, his case should have consideration, and, in my opinion, the year has been spoiled by one of the greatest conspiracies I ever knew.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:

– I should like to say that the young man to whom the honorable member (Mr. Mathews) refers was not an employee of this House, and was not dismissed by those in control of the staff of this House* Action was taken in another place with regard to a joint House employee during the period of my illness, and, as I have stated before, I have no personal knowledge of the matter. At the same time, I note what the honorable member has said, and, if he desires, I shall bring his remarks before the President of the Senate, who is tho Chairman of the Joint House Committee that, I understand, dealt with the case.

I can only add to what has already been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and. the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) an acknowledgment of my own personal indebtedness to the officers of the House, and the attendants, for the manner in which they have carried out their duties during an usually arduous session. I should like to refer particularly to the work of the Hansard staff, which has been carried out with remarkable efficiency under very trying circumstances. I am sure honorable members must often have wondered, with myself, at the accuracy with which the members of the staff have been able to report the proceedings, in view of the disturbing influences which frequently occur and centre round the corner of the table where they sit. I have the greatest difficulty myself at times in following what is being said, and I am sure that to those whose duty it is to record the utterances of honorable members, the thanks of members will be heartily accorded for the excellent manner in which that duty is performed. I wish the Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, honorable members, and the officers a prosperous new year and a very happy and enjoyable Christmas. Before sitting down, I should like to express the hope that, on our re-assembling, we shall find the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) attending to his duties here fully restored to health and vigour.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– I desire to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) for their remarks with regard to myself, and to take this opportunity to indorse all that has been said in regard to the manner in which the officers of the House and the Hansard staff have performed their arduous duties. It has been my lot, as Chairman, to come very closely into contact with the officers of the House, and I can say, without hesitation, that no better or more loyal set of officers could be found. I desire also to especially thank the Temporary Chairmen of Committees for their assistance. They have always responded willingly to my call, sometimes at the sacrifice of their own time; and this I appreciate very much. I now wish honorable members, the officers of the House, the Temporary Chairmen, the Hansard staff, and others, the best of times during the coming Christmas and a happy New Year.I trust that their brief rest before we re-assemble will prove of benefit, and that they will come here in full strength and rigour to carry out their duties in the interests of the people of Australia.

Mr Stewart:

– So say the members of the Country party.

Mr SPE AKER:
Hon. Sir Elliot Johnson

– I wish to express my thanks to the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Chanter) for the efficient manner in which he carried out his duties as Deputy Speaker during my protracted illness. I am sure that he did’ so in a manner which commended itself to honorable members generally.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.51 p.m. until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, and notified by him to each member.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 December 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1921/19211209_reps_8_98/>.