View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
25 March 1930

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
QUESTION
- COAL-MINING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- CANBERRA
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE RATES
QUESTION
- EXCISE TARIFF
QUESTION
- EMPIRE DEFENCE
COMMONWEALTH COMPULSORY WHEAT POOL
- Formal Motion for Adjournment
QUESTION
- TOBACCO INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- MATCH PRODUCTION
QUESTION
- COMMERCIALREPRESENTATION IN CANADA
QUESTION
- MAIZE
QUESTION
- RADIO BOARD
QUESTION
- CENTRAL AUSTRALIAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WIRELESS BROADCASTING
- Listeners’ Licences
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- ASSISTANCE TO PRIMARY PRODUCERS
QUESTION
- EXPORTATION OF FINCHES
QUESTION
- MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- WIRELESS TELEPHONE SERVICE
QUESTION
- CASEIN
PAPERS
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
SOLAR OBSERVATORY FUND BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Eden-Monaro Election

Mr. Speaker (Hon. NormanMakin) took the chair at 3 p.m. and offered prayers.

page 408

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Assent reported.

page 408

QUESTION

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY

Mr B GREEN:

– According to newspaper reports, a conference of representatives of the coal-mining industry was held in Sydney yesterday, and at it the Government was officially represented by the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) and the Assistant Minister (Mr. Beasley). Has the Prime Minister any statement to make to the House in regard to that conference?

Mr SCULLIN:
Minister for External Affairs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– No.

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Does the offer of the Commonwealth Government to subsidize the hewing rate to the extent of 9d. per ton still hold good? .

Mr.SCULLIN.- Prior to last Christmas the Government offered to make up the amount of wages in dispute, namely 9d. per ton, if the mines were re-opened immediately, and pending the hearing of the dispute by the Arbitration Court. In its interim award) the court had intimated that the general award would be made in February. To cover the intervening period and enable the mines to be worked during that period and also to create the right atmosphere for arbitration, the Government’s offer was made. The circumstances existing at that time do not exist to-day, but if an opportunity to reach an agreement or award that will be acceptable to the parties is presented, the Government will be willing to make any suitable arrangements that will facilitate the re-opening of the mines.

Mr.R. GREEN- I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government was officially represented at yesterday’s conference, and if so, what advice its representatives gave to the parties?

Mr SCULLIN:

– A Minister, like any member of this Parliament, is free to attend any conference to which he is invited. Two Ministers of the Government attended yesterday’s coal conference with my approval. What they said at that conference is their business.

Mr.R. GREEN.- Is the Government doing anything at all to bring about a resumption of work on the northern coalfields of New South Wales ; if so, in what direction ?

Mr SCULLIN:

– The Government has made many efforts to put into operation the only machinery at its disposal enabling it to settle disputes, namely, the Arbitration Act, and every effort that we have made has been frustrated by the coal-owners appealing to the High Court on legal technicalities.

page 409

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Transfer of Departments

Mr E RILEY:

– Will the Minister for Home Affairs explain the policy of the Government in regard to the further transfer of government departments from Melbourne and Sydney to Canberra?

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The office of Patents and Copyrights will be transferred to Canberra as early as possible, and office space has been allocated to it in the Hotel Acton. About 100 officers will be involved. The Government hopes to be able to transfer other departments to Canberra slowly but surely.

page 409

QUESTION

TELEPHONE RATES

Mr THOMPSON:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the PostmasterGeneral say whether the recentlyannounced alteration in the scale of telephone charges applies to all country towns and districts? If so, will the notices sent out to country subscribers some months ago, requiring them to pay a heavily increased charge, be cancelled?

Mr LYONS:
Minister for Works and Railways · WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP

– The reduced charges will apply generally, and the notifications issued some months ago will be superseded by others based on the new scale.

page 409

QUESTION

EXCISE TARIFF

Dutyon Fortifying Spirit

Mr GABB:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware that in consequence of representations made to the Attorney-General and myself last week in South Australia, hope is entertained in that State that the Government may withdraw from the position it has taken up in regard to the increase of the excise duty on spirit used for the fortification of wine? As it is essential that all concerned should know exactly the policy of the Government at this moment, will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government’s policy has altered since he made a statement in the House on Friday last?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– My statement on Friday was a clear and definite declaration of the policy of the Government, which remains unchanged.

Mr JONES:
INDI, VICTORIA

– As an alternative to increasing the excise duty on fortifying spirit, will the Government consider the imposition of a stamp duty on all wines, including dry, consumed in Australia?

Mr SCULLIN:

– The only purpose of imposing an excise duty on fortifying spirit was to obtain sufficient revenue for the payment of a bounty on fortified wines for export. In regard to the alternative suggested by the honorable member, it is not usual to make announcements on matters of policy in answer to questions.

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the protest against the increased duties on fortifying spirits, will the Assistant Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde) give to the House a comparative statement of the excise duties on whisky, beer, and wine?

Mr FORDE:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Customs · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The alcoholic content is the important factor which governs the sale of alcoholic beverages. The excise duties payable, inclusive of recent tariff increases, are as follows : - Whisky and brandy, containing 76 per cent. proof spirit, 21s. 3d. per gallon; beer, containing 7 per cent. proof spirit,1s.10d. per gallon; fortified wine, containing 32 per cent. proof spirit, 2s. 3d. per gallon. On the basis of the duty on whisky and brandy, the equivalent duty on fortified wine calculated according to the comparative alcoholic content would be 8s.11d. per gallon. On the basis of the duty on beer, the equivalent duty on fortified wine, calculated according to the comparative alcoholic content, would be 8s. 4d. per gallon. Dry, unfortified wines pay no excise duty.

Mr GABB:

– In view of the increase in the duty on spirits used in the fortification of wine, will the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs state whether he proposes to pay the increased drawback when wine fortified by spirit to which the higher rate of duties has applied, is exported ?

Mr.FORDE.- The full amount of duty paid will be returned to the exporter, who, in turn, in order to qualify for bounty, has to pay the grape-grower prices for grapes which the Minister considers reasonable and which were increased recently. Consideration is being given to drawback being paid in the future only on fortified wines which have been produced under the conditions of the Wine Export Bounty Act. The necessary calculations to arrive at the new rate of drawback have not yet been completed, but it is thought that the drawback will be increased from1s. 3d. per gallon to 2s. 4d. per gallon on fortified wine exported.

Mr GABB:

– Has the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs any comment to make regarding the statement in the Evening News of the 24th March, 1930, by Mr. Warrington Garnett, Director of Penf old’s Wines Limited, in which, inter alia, he stated -

Why penalize the Australian consumer and cause him to pay from 4d. to6d. extra for his bottle of wine?
That the Government would pay less than £300,000 out of £800,000 on the new rate and the difference would go into Consolidated Revenue.
That the big wine-makers are in the third generation, and they built up their trade from nothing without Government help?

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member was good enough to let me know that he intended to ask this question. The reply is as follows: -

The increase in excise is equivalent to 1s. a gallon on wine, or 2d. a bottle or¼d. a glass.
) The Prime Minister has already definitely stated that the increased excise was to cover the increase in bounty on fortified wine exported for a five-year period at the rate of1s. 9d. per gallon, and that any amount collected in excise over and above what is necessary to pay this bounty will be put into a trust fund to use to assist the industry in any way it is thought desirable.
The Government cannot subscribe to the contention that no one has any right to be in the wine industry unless his grandfather was in it, nor is comment advisable on what are or what are not the amounts paid in dividends by any particular firm of wine-maker.

page 410

QUESTION

EMPIRE DEFENCE

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the opinion that is fairly generally held that the defence of. the Empire is not being adequately safeguarded at the Naval Conference now taking place, and that America’s requests are receiving too much consideration, will the Prime Minister make a reassuring statement on the subject?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– I have no knowledge that the opinion expressed by the honorable member is generally held. I believe that the whole of the delegates at that conference representing Great Britain and the Dominions, are looking after the interests of all parts of the Empire.

page 410

COMMONWEALTH COMPULSORY WHEAT POOL

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House this afternoon for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely “ The arrangements for financing the proposed Commonwealth compulsory wheat pool.”

Five honorable membershaving risen in their places,

Question proposed.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- Efforts are being made at the present time to increase the acreage under wheat, and the Commonwealth Government is joining with the Governments of the wheat-growing States in an endeavour to bring about a larger crop next season, and in consequence, a larger exportation of wheat from Australia. In this effort the Opposition cordially supports the Governments of the Commonwealth and the States. But associated with the endeavour to secure an increased acreage under wheat is a proposal for a Commonwealth compulsory wheat pool. The details of this proposal have not yet been submitted to the House, or placed before the public, and I recognize that we must wait until a bill has been introduced in this House before the method of giving effect to it can be examined and discussed. I do not intend to say anything at all this afternoon on the subject of the proposed wheat pool ; I shall confine my remarks to the precise subject of the financing of any Commonwealth pool. One of the elements of the proposed pool, however, has been announced in the form of a guarantee of 4s. a bushel at railway sidings, that price to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth and the States. It remains to be seen whether the State Parliaments will approve of that proposal, and whether the farmers, by ballot, will agree to it. No doubt the announcement means that the farmer is to receive for his wheat a payment at the rate of 4s. a bushel at the railway siding. It is important, however, to know when the money is to be paid. That does not appear to be clear. In addition it is by no means clear whether any arrangements have been made for finding the large sums involved. Because of that I raise this discussion this afternoon.

The first statement on the subject was made by the Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr. Parker Moloney) on the 18th February. It was an official statement in these terms -

The Commonwealth Government invites the States to join it in guaranteeing to the wheatgrower 4s. a bushel net, payable on delivery at country stations for the crop of the 1030-31 season.

That statement is perfectly clear and explicit. The farmer is to receive 4s. a bushel net, which everybody understands to mean 4s. a bushel for f .a.q. wheat subject to deductions and adjustments for defects of quality or condition. That amount is to be paid on delivery at country stations. In the ministerial statement by the Prime Minister at the opening of the present sittings of Parliament, it was stated that the Commonwealth Government had invited the State Governments to join with it in guaranteeing the growers for the first year, “ 4s. a bushel payable at country sidings, which would mean the equivalent of approximately 4s. 8d. a bushel f.o.b.” Those words “payable at country sidings” are entirely consistent with the words of the Minister for Markets and Transport; that is to say, the money is to be paid on delivery at country sidings. It can hardly be suggested that it is meant that instalments are to be paid from time to time at country sidings. The absolutely clear meaning of the statement of the Minister for Markets (Mr. Parker Moloney) was that, subject to the usual adjustments in respect of quality and condition, the money was to be paid in a lump sum on delivery at country railway sidings.

The matter was discussed in this House on the 13th March last. I then called attention to the necessity for providing a considerable sum to finance the proposed pool. I pointed out that a payment of 4s. a bushel on 150,000,000 bushels would represent £30,000,000, and on 200,000,000 bushels £40,000,000. I said that a quantity of wheat would be reserved for seed, the whole crop would not come forward at once, and there would be sales of wheat from time to time. I did not suggest that the full sum mentioned, would be required at the one time, but I did urge that a very substantial sum undoubtedly would be required if the proposal was carried out. The whole of the wheat comes forward within a period of from ten to twelve weeks, and I make a very generous reduction when I say that a minimum of one-half of the sums I have mentioned will be required immediately to finance the pool. No farmer will store his wheat if he is able to obtain 4s. a bushel on delivery at a railway siding. .It is a moderate estimate to say that a minimum of from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 will be required for the immediate financing of the scheme. That amount will, of course, be reduced as sales are made from time to time; but I suggest that it makes ample allowance for seed wheat and delayed deliveries. I spoke on these lines daring the debate on the ministerial statement, and asked what arrangements were being made to finance the pool. I was astonished when the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) interjected, “ Does the honorable member suggest that the 4s. a bushel must be paid in one lump sum at the siding ?” I replied that I certainly understood that that was to be the case, and that that was the only fair construction which could be placed on the statement of the Minister for Markets that, subject to the ordinary deductions, the amount of 4s. a bushel was to be paid on delivery at the railway siding.

Mr Theodore:

– The honorable gentleman did not mention anything about the payment being made subject to ordinary deductions.

Mr LATHAM:

– Everybody knows that whenever a price is guaranteed for wheat, it is for fair average quality. Is a wheat-grower who delivers f.a.q. wheat to receive 4s. a bushel? And is a farmer whose deduction is Id. to receive 3s. lid. a bushel? That is the question that we ure discussing. My reply to the Treasurer was that I certainly understood that 4s. a bushel was to be paid when the wheat was delivered at the railway siding. I .also stated that that was the general impression throughout Australia. The Prime Minister’s reply to me was “ No.” The right honorable gentleman went on to say that the Government was guaranteeing the farmers 4s. a bushel for their wheat at the railway siding, and that that “was equal to 4s. 8d. a bushel f.o.b. The question that I was discussing was the time when payment was to be made; whether 4s. a bushel was to be paid in a lump sum for f.a.q. wheat and a. different price for other’ wheat, or whether the payment was to be made in instalments. Obviously, that has a most important bearing on the financing of the scheme.

On the following clay, the 14th March, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Gullett) asked whether the Prime Minister would explain the actual intentions of the Government in respect of the pool. After stating that the mattei would have to be determined by the State governments, and that there would be a ballot of the wheat-growers, the Prime Minister said that the financing of the pool would be arranged by the Commonwealth Bank,’ and added, “I have no doubt that substantial advances will be made to the farmers, practically to the full amount of the guarantee, subject only to the necessary reservation for adjustments.” That meant the payment of the full amount which the farmer was to receive, subject only to the necessary reservation for adjustments. Therefore the farmer who supplied f.a.q. wheat was to receive the whole of the 4s. a bushel on delivery at the railway siding. The Prime Minister concluded by saying, “The fanners can rest assured that the first advance they will receive after the delivery of their wheat at the railway siding will be considerably more than the average advance they receive from private buyers under existing conditions.” The meaning of that statement is, not that a definite sum on the basis of 4s. a bushel for f.a.q. wheat was to be paid, but that something more than the farmers received under existing conditions, from private buyers, would be paid. Therefore, the matter again became uncertain and clouded. A “ substantial advance “ is one thing ;. a payment of 4s. a bushel subject to necessary adjustments is another; and a payment, “considerably more than the average advance “ of private buyers, is something else. The Prime Minister did not make the clear and unambiguous statement that 4s. a bushel, subject only to what are known as dockages, was to be paid.

On the afternoon of the 14th March, when moving- the adjournment of the House, the Prime Minister returned to the subject, his object doubtless being to remove any misunderstanding that might exist. He said that in the course of the day he had had a telephone conversation with , the Minister for Markets (Mr. Parker Moloney), who had informed him that, anticipating the formation of a wheat pool, he had consulted with the authorities of the Commonwealth Bank, “ who have assured him that the bank can make advances immediately the wheat is delivered at the railway sidings up to the full amount of the guarantee, subject only to whatever re-adjustment is necessary to ensure that the grain is up to f.a.q. standard. The amount of the first advance is a matter for arrangement between the Pool Board and the Commonwealth Bank; but the Minister for Markets is assured by. the bank that it will be able to make a first payment equal to the full amount of the guarantee”. The first statement was plain - that the Commonwealth Bank could find all the money for the payment of the full amount of the guarantee of 4s. a bushel, subject only to dockages. The next statement was that the amount of the first advance was to be a matter of arrangement ; and the third, that the bank would be able to advance the whole amount. It is astonishing, that in the existing state of public and private finance, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were not aware either on the preceding day or that morning of an arrangement involving several millions of pounds that had been made by the Minister for Markets with the Commonwealth Bank. The matter might have remained at that stage but for the fact that the Government of South Australia, which in respect of South Australian wheat will have to shoulder half the liability of the guarantee for that State, made a direct inquiry from the Chairman of Directors of the Commonwealth Bank. In yesterday’s newspapers there appears a statement made by the Premier of South Australia, Mr. Butler, in reply to a deputation.

Mr Scullin:

– That probably explains the action of the Leader of the Opposition in moving the adjournment of the House to discuss this subject-

Mr LATHAM:

– I have already said that the statement in the press makes it necessary to ascertain the actual position. It appears from this announcement that no definite proposal for the financing of a Commonwealth Wheat Pool has yet been submitted to the Commonwealth Bank Board. Mr. Butler said that in view of the variance of the statements which have been published, to which I have directed the attention of honorable members, he despatched a telegram to Sir

Robert Gibson, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board, ‘ in the following terms: -

My Government has been requested by the Commonwealth to facilitate the formation of a compulsory wheat pool and to agree to accept half of the liability of the guaranteed price to farmers. Our bankers would be glad if you would advise whether the -Commonwealth Bank cun make available the money to pay 4s. a bushel cash at railway stations” for a crop of from 150,000,000 to 250,000,000 bushels, and in view of the huge State deficits, would your bank agree to make available up to £500,000 to meet loss on the guaranteed price ?

Mr. Butler went on to say that the reply he had received was extraordinary, in view of the statements made by politicians, and that Sir Robert Gibson had replied that -

Although the Bank Board had expressed its willingness to the Commonwealth Government to give consideration to the financing of a compulsory pool, no definite proposition has yet been submitted to it. lt must bo obvious to you that until a concrete proposition is submitted by the authority referred to, it is futile to speculate as to what can or cannot be done as regards the bank’s assistance to your Government. Any potential loss incurred must be governed by the total assistance your Government may require from time to time.

That is a plain statement by the Chairman of Directors of the Commonwealth Bank to the effect that the bank has done no more than express its willingness to give .consideration to the financing of a compulsory pool, but can only consider what it can do - to use the words of the chairman - when a definite scheme has been placed before it. The statement of the Prime Minister was that the Commonwealth Bank had assured the Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr. Parker Moloney) that it will be. able to make a first payment equal to the full amount of the guarantee. That was the precise question asked of the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board by the Premier of South Australia, and the answer given by the chairman of the board is quite inconsistent with the statements which have been made in this House. Realizing the difficulty confronting the Government, the Prime Minister made a further statement yesterday, apparently before seeing Sir Robert Gibson’s reply, which once again makes the position most uncertain. His statement, according to a report in the Sydney

Morning Herald, which is substantially identical with the other reports I . have seen, is in these terms -

Sir Robert Gibson gave an assurance that the Board of the Commonwealth Bank would co-operate with the Government in a practical scheme of financing the proposed wheat pool.

The Prime Minister then explained that there will be a continuous liquidation in consequence of the disposal of the wheat, which, of course, will relieve the financial strain from time to time. He went on to say that -

As a result of the discussion to-day the Board of the Commonwealth Bank will be summoned this week to give the whole question its careful consideration. The board will immediately report to the Government the practical details setting forth how such a scheme can be made effective and can operate without undue embarrassment to the financial position.

– I told the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the bank that the harvest might realize 200,000,000 bushels of wheat, valued at from £35,000,000 to £50,000,000. I also explained that payment for that wheat would be spread over a period of about three months - something which the Leader of the Opposition forgot at the time.

Mr Latham:

– I did not; I mentioned the matter in my speech.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

– After the scheme had been explained to them, the managerial heads of the bank said that as wheat delivered at the siding was equivalent to gold, there would be no great difficulty in financing the pool. Does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) suggest that, instead of consulting with the managerial heads of the bank, I should have gone around buttonholing the members of the Bank Board ? I did what any business man would do ; I approached the managers of the bank and explained the whole position to them, mentioning, amongst other things, that there was already a compulsory pool in Queensland extending over a term of five years. They assured me that they did not anticipate any difficulty in .financing the pool. Their assurance was placed, first, before Cabinet, and later before the conference of wheat-growers at Canberra. The Leader of the Opposition complains that the Commonwealth Bank was not in possession of all the details of. the scheme ; that it proposes to meet next Thursday to discuss them. Obviously, I was not able to place before the managerial heads of the bank the minute details of the scheme. It should be evident to honorable members that until the various State boards, as well as the Commonwealth Board, have been established, -certain matters of detail cannot be determined. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has seen fit, merely on the statement of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Commonwealth Bank that the board would have to meet to discuss the details of the scheme, to move the adjournment of the House. The board may have to meet many times before all the details of the scheme can be settled. I wish to emphasize that ten days before the conference at Canberra I had an assurance from the managers of the bank that the scheme could be financed. The Leader of the Opposition will understand that when I saw the managerial heads of the bank I could not say definitely whether the conference of wheat-growers would agree to the Government’s proposals. Obviously, the first thing to be done was to get the conference to agree to the proposals, and, after that, to get the several boards appointed. When I saw the bank officers, I could deal only with the broad question of finance. In placing before them the Government’s proposals, I mentioned a larger sum than that stated by the Leader of the Opposition to-day. The Leader of the Opposition admits that at peak periods the greatest amount required will be from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000.

Mr Latham:

– That is only an estimate.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

– And yet when I quoted a larger sum I was advised that no difficulty was anticipated in guaranteeing it. This was the opinion of the bank authorities after the general scheme had been placed before them. Since then details for the establishment of the Commonwealth and the State Wheat Boards have been attended to and agreements have been drawn up to define their respective functions. Every other detail is being attended to. We are now awaiting advices from the State Governments as to whether they propose to come into the pool. Mr. Thorby, of New South Wales, has declared himself to be a “hundred per cent, pooler “ to use his own words, and does not anticipate having any difficulty with the State Government. Queensland and Victoria, similarly, are apparently in favour of the scheme. South Australia is the only State from which, up to date, we have had no definite reply. Apparently, the Premier of that State is opposed to the proposal, but declines to tell the people of South Australia where he stands in the matter.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) launched this motion for the specific purpose of ascertaining from the Government whether, under the proposed compulsory wheat pool, farmers would receive 4s. a bushel in cash for wheat delivered at railway sidings. His question was a perfectly plain one: Was the money available for this purpose, or was it not ? Although the Minister for Markets (Mr. Parker Moloney) indulged freely in personalities, he left the question unanswered. The Minister for Markets suggested that the motion had been submitted for electioneering purposes. Actually, the Government’s project smacks of electioneering tactics. The Minister has just returned from a visit to South Australia, where he was electioneering on, this scheme, and this scheme only.

Mr Parker Moloney:

– :Why should not I go to any State to explain the details of the pool?

Other honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I intimate to honorable members supporting the Government, that I shall expect from them the same consideration for members of the Opposition as I do from Opposition members for Government supporters. If they transgress my ruling, I shall deal with them with equal severity.

Mr GULLETT:

– The reply of the Minister for Markets has left this matter entirely in the air. Before the motion was launched the farmers did not know whether or not this alleged guarantee was of any value; they were not informed whether they would receive cash up to 4s. a bushel for their wheat at railway sidings. Even now the House is not in a position to say what will happen. There are some extraordinary features about the whole business. I doubt if ever we have had such a series of contradictory statements by members of the same Cabinet as we have had from Ministers on this issue. The Minister for Markets has just told us the amazing story that when he proposed to raise £20,000,000 for the wheat guarantee, he did not approach the Commonwealth Bank Board, but saw the Governor, who is in much the same position as the general manager of a private financial institution. If any person wished at the present time to raise even £500,000 from any financial institution, he could not expect to get a promise of it from the manager; the board of directors would have to be consulted. In the circumstances, it is ludicrous for the Minister to tell the House that he and the Government accepted an assurance from the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank that there would be no difficulty about financing the guarantee. I go so far as to deny absolutely that the Governor of the bank over ventured to give the Minister such an assurance as that. It would not be in his power to give it. The whole scheme savours very strongly of a deliberate attempt to fool the farmers of this country.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is not in order in saying that the scheme is a deliberate attempt to fool the farmers. I ask him to withdraw the word “ deliberate “.

Mr GULLETT:

– I do so, Mr. Speaker, quite willingly. But the effect of the project will be to fool the f armors, whether or not there was the intent to do so, and honorable members, as well as wheat-growers, might be well excused if, in view of the contradictory statements from Ministers concerning this proposal, they believed that they wei ( being fooled about this proposed wheat pool. The Minister told us* also that after he had received this extraordinary assurance from the Governor of the bank, he took it to the Cabinet where, we may presume, it was considered, and then he submitted it to the conference of primary producers in Canberra. It is significant, that during the absence of the Minister on his electioneering flutter in South Australia, the Prime Minister, who was questioned about the proposed Commonwealth pool, informed honorable members that he knew nothing about the details. He said definitely by way of interjection, and in reply to my questions, that it was not the intention of the Government to pay 4s. a bushel in full, upon the delivery of wheat at country railway sidings. The Treasurer also appeared to bc in some doubt, because when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, he asked in an interjection: “Does the honorable member suggest that 4s. a bushel must be paid in one lump sum at the sidings “? This clearly showed that the Minister for Markets (Mr. Parker Moloney) received his assurance from the Governor of the bank and then submitted it to the conference of primary producers. Obviously the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were not informed of the details. The Minister sat down without clarifying the situation, and the farmers do not yet know whether the bank will find the money. It is perfectly clear from Sir Robert Gibson’s statement that he is not behind the assurance referred to, and this supports my belief that the Governor never ventured to give the assurance at all. In his reply to the Premier of South Australia, Sir Robert Gibson said: -

Although the Bank Board has expressed its willingness to the Federal Government to give consideration to the financing of a compulsory pool, no definite proposition has yet been submitted to it. lt must be obvious to you that until a concrete proposition is submitted by the authority referred to it is futile to speculate as to what can or cannot be done as regards the bunk’s assistance to your Government.

In view of that specific statement by the Chairman pf the Commonwealth Bank Board, it is a most serious thing for the Minister to tell honorable members that the Governor of the bank did give the undertaking. It is clear that the Governor did not advise Sir Robert Gibson or, if he did, that -Sir Robert Gibson has repudiated the undertaking given to the Minister for Markets. The whole episode represents an amazing piece of electioneering. It is a flagrant appeal to the rural vote, and is particularly timed to play a part in the South Australian elections. I appeal to the Prime Minister to endeavour to get his Minister for Markets out of the most unfortunate mess in which he has placed himself. I ask him also to clear up the confusion which has been made infinitely worse by the speech of his colleague.

Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP

– I respond to the pathetic appeal of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Gullett), and I shall seek to dissipate the concern which he feels over the “mess which my Minister for Markets has got himself into”. There is really no confusion over this matter, except in the minds of honorable members of the Opposition, and such confusion as they have sought to create in the minds of the farmers. A series of statements has been read by speakers on the other side, all more or less irrelevant, with the exception of an interjection quoted from Hansard, when in reply to a question I gave the answer “ No.” When I made that reply I misunderstood the question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham). I believed he was asking me whether we proposed to pay the full amount of this guarantee. I said “ No. We are not going to pay that money. It is a guarantee of 4s. to be made in conjunction with the State Governments. Arrangements for financing the pool will be made by the Wheat Pool Board, when such a board has been appointed by the growers.” I followed that statement up the next day, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition cross-examined me on the point. He said that no arrangements had been made with the Commonwealth Bank for financing the pool, and in answer to that I replied as follows: -

The financing of the pool will be arranged by the Commonwealth Bank, and I have no doubt that a substantial advance will be made to the fanners practically to the full amount of tile guarantee, subject only to the necessary reservation for adjustments.

I subsequently explained that to mean f.a.q. standard.

Mr Gullett:

– Will the Prime Minister read the rest of his reply, which appears over the page in Hansard?

Mr SCULLIN:

– Very well, let the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read it.

Mr Gullett:

– It is as follows: -

The farmers can rest assured that the first advance they will receive after the delivery of their wheat at the railway siding will be considerably more than the average advance they receive from private buyers under existing conditions.

Mr SCULLIN:

Mr STEWART:

– I have no doubt that my remarks are somewhat, distasteful to the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Mackay), but I can assure him that the members of the Ministry have the interests of the primary producers so much at heart that they deem it their duty to rise in this chamber to explain fully the details and advantages of the scheme. They are not blinded by prejudice as are honorable members opposite, who have at heart the interests, not of the wheat-growers, but of the exploiters of the wheat-growers. For that reason the Ministry need offer no apology for rising to refute some of the foolish statements of honorable members opposite who, under the pretext that they are friends of the farmers, are using every means to defeat the object of the scheme. I hope that this pool will be the forerunner of many other Australianwide pools for the marketing of Australian primary products, so that the friends of honorable members opposite, the wheat merchants of Sussex and Yorkstreets, will no longer be able to farm the farmers, and the wheat-growers will be able to reap the full reward of their labours.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah

– It would have been better for the cause of the Government had the last speaker not spoken at all. With the Treasurer, I deprecate the fact that party politics should have been introduced into this debate. But we must admit that the speech of the . Acting Minister was, without question, one of the most partisan statements ever delivered in this House. In view of the invitation of the Treasurer to debate this subject in a non-party spirit, such a speech came with very bad grace. How can we expect to encourage a spirit of co-operation when even members of the Cabinet state that the Opposition attitude to the proposed wheat pool is influenced by political considerations. It was only after the Acting Minister had repeated on four or five occasions his statement that the members of the Opposition were associated with the profiteers in wheat, that steps were taken to compel him to withdraw it. The Acting Minister has done incalculable harm, and particularly so, if his speech is reported in the newspapers, to the cause which he has allegedly espoused.

I wish to raise one point, which has not yet been made clear. I challenge any wheat farmer, when he reads Hansard, to discern in it a definite and clear statement from the Ministerial side that the Commonwealth Bank has agreed to finance this project. The Minister may think that they have deluded the members of their own side, in fact they may have deluded themselves in view of the admiring cheers and silly remarks of some of their supporters; but their indefinite statements will cut no ice with the farmer. He wishes to know definitely, quite apart from political aspirations, whether the Commonwealth Bank is prepared to finance the proposed wheat pool. We know very well the mismanagement that has been associated with almost every pool with which the Government has been connected, and judging by the speech of the Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr. Parker Moloney) this afternoon the indications are that mismanagement will take place in respect of this project. What else can we expect in view of the fact that the

Minister, before he even knows how the pool is to be financed, proceeds to establish Federal and State Boards? What is the use of creating these boards and the machinery connected with them when it may be found that the Commonwealth Bank or Australia as a whole is unable to finance the pool? The Treasurer, reading from a paper that apparently was supplied to him, said that the Commonwealth Bank had financed pools in previous years as a matter of business routine. That is perfectly true. When pools were financed previously people could obtain from the banks overdrafts for thousands and thousands of pounds, whereas to-day those overdrafts would not amount to as many hundreds of pounds. Surely it must be apparent to honorable members behind the Government that what could be done two or three years ago as a routine matter by the financial institutions of this country, could not be done to-day. They must know that perfectly well. The farmer knows it, and therefore he will not be misled by the statements that have been made this afternoon from the Ministerial side.

Mr Stewart:

– The honorable member’s friends, the wheat merchants, were prepared to finance the scheme three times over.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– The persons to whom the honorable member refers are no more friends of mine than they are of any other citizen carrying on legitimate trade. I do not know any of the wheat merchants; but at the same time I say that the statement in their letter respecting British and foreign associations and capital, is undoubtedly true in view of the large resources in British and foreign capital which they command.

Debate interrupted under Standing Order 119.

page 426

QUESTION

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Cigarette and Cigar Production

Mr GREGORY:

asked the Acting Min- .ister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What was the number of employees engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes in Australia during the year 1929-30?
What was the output during the same period?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The information is being obtained.

Mr GREGORY:

asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What was the number of employees engaged in the manufacture of cigars in Australia during the year 1929-30?
What was the output in pounds weight during the same period?

Mr FORDE:

– The information is being obtained.

page 427

QUESTION

MATCH PRODUCTION

Mr GREGORY:

asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What was the number of employees engaged in the manufacture of matches in Australia during the year 1929-30?
What was the output during the same period?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The information is being obtained.

page 427

QUESTION

COMMERCIALREPRESENTATION IN CANADA

Mr PATERSON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Markets and Transport upon notice -

Whether, in view of the resignation of Mr. Haynes from the position of Australian Commercial Representative in Canada, and the appointment of Mr. McGregor in his place, the Dried Fruits Export Control Board is still prepared to carry out its former intention of paying £2,500 per annum towards the cost of Australian commercial representation in Canada, or will the Government now require to bear the whole of the cost?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

– I am endeavouring to secure the information for the honorable member and shall be pleased to furnish him with it when available.

page 427

QUESTION

MAIZE

Production and Importation

Mr.RIORDAN asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has he noticed a report in the Sydney press of the 19th instant stating that the Peshawur discharged a large cargo of South African maize at Pyrmont, Sydney?
Is it a fact that the Atherton Tableland Maize Pool has great difficulty in finding a market for maize grown in that district?
What is the total production of maize in Australia?
What are the total imports and exports of maize?
What is the present rate of duty on maize ?
Will he give consideration to the question of protecting the Australian market for the Australian maize-growers ?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

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

Yes.
I have been informed to this effect. 3.The latest information available is for the year 1927-28, and the production was 11,393,050 bushels, value £2,799,297.
Imports during the year 1928-29 - 433 centals, value £539

Exports during the year 1928-29 -

British preferential tariff, 2s.6d. per cental. General tariff, 3s.6d. per cental. New Zealand preferential tariff,1s.6d. per cental.

Regarding the importation of maize from South Africa, this item is gazetted under section 4 of the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-22. Under this sectiondumping duty, in the sum representing the difference between the fair market value of the goods at the time of shipment and the export selling price, is payable on South African maize, which is sold for export to Australia at a price lower than the fair market value of the goods at the time of shipment. This dumping duty is imposed, however, only in instances where such maize is landed in Australia at a duty paid cost detrimental to the local industry.

The Australian grower already has a protective duty. Any request made by interested parties for an alteration of the duties would be referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report.

page 427

QUESTION

RADIO BOARD

Mr ELDRIDGE:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What is the official relationship between Mr. H. P. Brown; Secretary of the Postal Department, and the Radio Board of the Commonwealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research?
Have any persons been brought to Australia by that board in connexion with radio work of any kind?
If so, who are these persons, what are their qualifications, and what work have they been brought here to do?
The decrease is probably accounted for by the financial depression.
What salaries, fees or allowances are they being paid?
What other expenses have been incurred in this connexion?
Why was this work not entrusted to practical wireless engineers already in Australia?
Was the Government radio organization,

Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, consulted before these gentlemen were imported ?

Docs the Minister contemplate the importation of any further officers in connexion with the Radio Board?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– With regard to questions 1 to 7 I am advised by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research as follows : -

Mr. H. P. Brown is a member of the board.
Yes. 3. (i) Mr. A. L. Green,Dr. L. G. H. Huxley, Mr. G. H. Munro and Dr. D. F. Martyn. (ii) Of these Mr. Green, B.Sc, is a graduate in physics of the University of London, and an associate member of the Institute of Radio Engineers. Hehas had several years experience with the British Radio Research Board. Dr. Huxley, M.A., Ph.D., is a Tasmanian Rhodes Scholar, and for the last three years has been lecturer and demonstrator in the Electrical Laboratory, Oxford. Mr. Munro, M.Sc, is a graduate of the Auckland University,N ew Zealand, and hashad several years experience with the British Radio Research Board. Dr. Martyn is a B.Sc. and Ph.D. of London University, and an Associate of the Royal College of Science. For the last year or so he has been currying out research work at the University of Glasgow, (iii) All the foregoing have been brought out to carry out research work connected with radio.The problems to which immediate attention will be given are those of atmospherics and fading.
The salaries being paid are: - Mr. Green £550, Dr. Huxley £500, Mr. Munro £550, Dr. Martyn £450. In addition, when travelling is undertaken the usual Public Service allowances will be applicable.
The expense of their passages out to Australia.
The vacancies were advertised in Australia, and those Australians who were offered a position refused it. The qualifications required were not merely those of “ practical wireless engineer,” but those of physicists having the necessary knowledge and experience lifting them to investigate the fundamentals involved in radio and thus to advance the realm of knowledge on which the “ Practical wireless engineer “ bases his practice.
No.
No.

page 428

QUESTION

CENTRAL AUSTRALIAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

Proposed Railway from Peak Hill to Longreach.

Mr D CAMERON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has he seen the press report of an interview in London between the Minister for Trade and Customs and Miss F. M. Studholme, of Now Zealand, who, it is stated, is forming a Central Australian Development Company which plans to build a trans-Australian railway from Peak Hill, Western Australia, to Longreach, Queensland, via Alice Springs?
Is he in a position to make available to the House any information regarding the reported interview?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

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

Yes. 2.I am not in possession of any information regarding the reported proposals.

page 428

WIRELESS BROADCASTING

Listeners’ Licences

Mr ELDRIDGE:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, uponnotice -

What was the number of broadcast listeners’ licences in Victoria at the end of each month from and including April last?
What was the reason for the remarkable increase of about 4,000 licences in Victoria during October, when each other month before that time showed a decrease?
Was any of this increase in Victoria due to normal increase; if so, what was the extent of normal increase?
Why did the Secretary to the Postal

Department, a few days before this Parliament assembled, boast of an increase in licences in Victoria with reference to the October figures, in view of the previous and subsequent figures disclosed ?

How does the department account for the decrease by nearly 2,000 licences in Victoria for February, 1930?

Mr LYONS:
ALP

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

April, 143,393; May, 143,344; June, 142,750; July, 142,293; August, 140,529; September, 140,309; October, 144,295; November, 143,466; December, 144,141; January, 144,165; February, 142,196.
The increase of 3,986 licences was due to (a) normal increase, and (b) special increase resulting from an alteration in the statistical and accounting methods.
The normal increase was 1,574.
Mr. Brown referred to the fact that there hud been a check in the steady decline which had been going on for months, and that the latest figures indicated a definite increase in Victoria.

page 429

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Petrol and Oil Used

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

What were the amounts of petrol and oils consumed by the Postal Department during each of the past three years?
What was the expenditure on oils and petrol for each of the same years? 3. (a) Does the Postal Department deal exclusively with the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited; lb) if not, with what other oil companies, and what is the extent of the department’s trading interest, and the number nf shares therein held by the Government, if any?
How many shares has the Government in the Commonwealth Oil Refinery Limited? 5. (a) How many members constitute the board of directors of that company ; (ft) what representation has the Government on the board of directors?

Mr LYONS:
ALP

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

(a) The Commonwealth Oil Refineries. Limited, does not handle lubricating oils. The department obtains motor spirit from the Commonwealth Oil Refineries exclusively at all centres where that company makes supplies available; (6) In parts of Queensland and in the States of Western Australia and Tasmania where the company does not supply motor spirit, the department obtains its supplies from the Vacuum Oil Company Limited, and the Shell Company Limited, in approximately equal proportions. When supplies of benzol, a product of the Broken Hill Company’s Newcastle Works, have been available this department has procured small quantities for use in New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. Lubricating oils have been purchased from several companies trading in Australia, the suppliers during the past year being J. B. Harmsworth, the Vacuum Oil Company, the Atlantic Union Oil Company, and C. C. Wakefield, Limited. The Government does not hold shares in the other companies mentioned.

The paid up capital of the company is £750,000, of which the Commonwealth holds 375,001 one pound shares.
The full board of directors is seven, but there are only six members on the existing board. The three directors appointed by the Commonwealth are: -

Sir Robert Gibson, K.B.E., chairman ; Sir Robert Garran, K.C.M.G.; and Sir Nicholas Lockyer.

page 429

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO PRIMARY PRODUCERS

Declaration of Moratorium

Mr ELDRIDGE:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

In view of the serious position now facing primary producers through the existing financial stringency, is the Government prepared to cause a moratorium to be declared in order that no mortgagee shall have the right to depose any primary producer who is unable to pay his full interest or other fixed charge* on account of a fall in the price of primary products, but that the mortgagee may recover one-half his interest and capitalize the remainder, and that the period of such moratorium shall be in force for not less than eighteen months or until Parliament considers that the economic situation has returned to normal ?

Mr THEODORE:
ALP

– The Government does not consider it desirable that a moratorium should be declared in the present circumstances. Action in this direction, though helpful in some cases, would have harmful effects in others.

page 429

QUESTION

EXPORTATION OF FINCHES

Mr YATES:

asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has Mr. G. C. Riddell, of Western Australia, taken a consignment of Northern Australian mixed finches out of Australia every year from 1923 to 1929?
Wore any permits granted to Mr. Riddell or any other person to export finches from Northern Australia; if so, for what purpose and to what destination?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The information is being obtained.

page 429

QUESTION

MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY

Conditions of £10,000 Prize

Mr ELDRIDGE:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will the Government, with regard to their _ offer of prize of £10,000 for a moving picture produced in Australia, make it a condition that the picture shall not be accompanied by mechanical music, in view of the fact that over 4,000 Australian musicians have been thrown out of employment through the use of such music?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– The conditions were published in August last year, and the time for receiving entries will expire on the 31st March, 1930. It is, therefore, too late to consider any question of altering the conditions. drawbackonimportedpine

Mr FROST:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Will he make a statement indicating the general position respecting the drawback on imported pine case material, as to whether the drawback applies only to pine case material imported or ordered prior to the recent increased duty being announced, or whether it is general in its application and applies to material brought into Australia subsequent to the increased tariff?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– Drawback is payable on the following classes of imported timber used in the manufacture of boxes exported containing Australian primary and secondary products viz. : -

Timber, undressed, n.e.i., for the manufacture of boxes.
1. Timber, undressed, cut to size for making boxes.
Timber, for making boxes, being cut to size and dressed or partly dressed.

The rates of duty chargeable on these timbers under the 1921-28 tariff are as follow : - (a)1s. per 100 super. feet, Item 291(i) (1)

5s. per 100 super. feet, Item 291(i) (2) (c)6s. per 100 super. feet, Item 291 (j).

Under the November tariff proposals the rates are1s., 12s. and 14s. respectively. Drawback is payable on the actual quantity of timber exported in the form of boxes. The rate of drawback payable is the actual rate of duty paid on the timber on importation.

page 430

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEPHONE SERVICE

Terminal Equipment

Mr ELDRIDGE:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Was the terminal equipment used to connect the signals of the Australia-to-England wireless telephone service with the ordinary telephone network at the Sydney General Post Office imported from abroad?
Is the visit to Australia of Mr. H. G. Beer in any way connected with that terminal equipment?
Did the price of that terminal equipment include supervision of the fitting or installing in Sydney?
What was the total cost of that equipment?
How much of the total cost was on account of the visit to Australia of Mr. Beer?
Is it a fact that the imported equipment under notice is substantially the same as that already manufactured in Australia and used by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited in connexion with the overseas telephone service pioneered by that organization.
Did Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited use its own Australian engineer to install its terminal equipment, or did it find it necessary to import an engineer?

Mr LYONS:
ALP

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

The equipment to be used for this purpose has been imported from abroad.
When the equipment was ordered there was no thought of Mr. Beer or any other officer being sent from overseas, but, as the British Post Office sent out Mr. Beer for other purposes and as he has had exceptional experience of this class of equipment, it was arranged that he should co-operate with the department’s staff in its installation.
No.
£2,250.
No cost is incurred on account of Mr. Beer’s visit.
The imported equipment is a replica of that used successfully on the trans-Atlantic service by the British Post Office. It is much more comprehensive than the apparatus used experimentally by the Amalgamated Wireless Company. The company’s equipment conforms in its main design to the imported apparatus and appears to have been assembled on the information made available by the British Post Office.
The department has no definite information on the point.

page 430

QUESTION

CASEIN

Production - Importation

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether there is any, and, if so, what quantity of casein being manufactured from skimmed milk in Australia?
If so, where are the factories handling it situated ?
What is the price of casein per lb. at each of such factories?
What is the approximate cost of establishing a casein manufacturing factory?
What is the value of casein manufactured in Australia?
What was the quantity and value of -
1. casein, and (b) articles manufactured from casein, imported into Australia during 1928 and 1929?

Mr FORDE:

– The information will be obtained as far as possible.

page 431

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Tariff Board - Reports and Recommendations -

Antimony.

Dates.

Gum and Wading Boots.

Paper Cake Containers and Paper Chocolate Containers.

Pasteurizers, Pasteurizing Vats and

Jacketed Vats.

Peanut Butter.

Roller-type Hand Mowers, Electricallydriven Lawn Mowers.

Sheep.

Thymol and Menthol.

Women’s and Girls’ Headwear, &c.

Woven wire gauze of from 30 to 120 mesh per lineal inch.

Ordered to be printed.

Maternal and Child Welfare in Australia - Report by Dame Janet M. Campbell, D.B.E., M.D., M.S., Senior Medical Officer for Maternity and Child Welfare, Ministry of Health, London.

Bankruptcy Act -

Rules and Amendments - Statutory Rules 1928, Nos. 8,63, 82.

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1928, No. 64.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at Blyth, South Australia - For Postal purposes.

page 431

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from 21st March (vide page 402) on motion by Mr. Blakeley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

– I rise with a considerable amount of pleasure to discuss the proposals of the Government with respect to the future control of the Federal Capital Territory, and I hope that I shall be able to give reasons why the opposition, which at present is shown in certain quarters towards Canberra should cease. The discussion of any matter that affects the National Capital should be devoid of party political considerations, and it should be the aim of all to do whatever lies in their power to build up a city that will be worthy of the Australian people. In the course of his speech last Friday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) referred to different boards and commissions, many of which he claimed had been of great value, that had been set up by

State and Federal Governments. I cannot recall any instance of opposition having been offered by any honorable member who sits on this side of the’ House to boards that have shown themselves capable of assisting Parliament to conduct the business of the country. Our complaint has been that during the last six or seven years the control of many matters that should have been handled by the Parliament has been delegated to various boards, with the result that it has not been possible for honorable members to guard adequately the interests of the people of Australia.

The object of this measure is principally to place the government of the Capital of Australia under the control of a number of departments. When the late Government departed from that principle and handed over control to an irresponsible commission, it violated one of the principles of constitutional government. Honorable members who have endeavoured to make this a capital worthy of the people of Australia have frequently been made a target for unjust criticism. It was the Labour party which laid the foundations of services that are of great value to the Capital City, such as a water supply, electricity, sewerage and afforestation. No complaint regarding any of these services has been voiced by those who have so far spoken on the bill. The intention of those who, in the earlier days, set out to establish a capital city was that it should be the home of culture. So far as I have had in my power to do so, I have fostered that spirit, but have met with opposition from quarters from which one would hardly expect it to come, perhaps because of the fear on the part of those concerned that the removal of their branches to Canberra would interfere too greatly with their existing associations. There have been attempts to discourage our public servants from taking part in movements designed to develop the Capital. The Auditor-General has told the Government that he does not intend to come here. It is not within the power of the Government to interfere with that gentleman when discharging the duty of auditing our public accounts. Virtually, no control can be exercised over him, and it is his prerogative to make statements regarding ministerial heads of departments that no other public servant is permitted to make. Consequently, bc has always been in a position to adopt a lofty attitude. Derogatory statements concerning the Federal Capital are frequently published, the latest of which appeared in a trade journal published in Melbourne to the effect that further expenditure on Canberra should be suspended, and that the Parliament should meet once a year in Canberra to comply with the Constitution ; that other sittings should be held in Sydney and that the administrative work should be carried on from Melbourne. I cannot understand why such a ridiculous proposal should be published, particularly when there is, I believe, a general desire on the part of an overwhelming majority of the Australian people to develop the National Capital at Canberra. Although reference is made from time to time to certain unsatisfactory features supposed to be associated with our National Capital, the opinions of influential overseas visitors, such as the members of the British Economic Mission and others, are all strongly in favour of Canberra which is regarded by them as an ideal city in the making, and also a most desirable place for a restful holiday. If any unnecessary expenditure has been incurred at Canberra it is due largely to the fact that the activities here have been under the control of a commission instead of governmental departments responsible to Parliament. I believe that this measure will meet with the approval of honorable members as it provides a means of developing the Federal Capital in the manner originally intended. I recall the days when a number of barristers and others first met in an office in Phillipstreet, Sydney, to discuss a proposal to establish a Federal Capital worthy of the Australian people. It is appalling to mc to realize that there are still some who call themselves good Australians who do their utmost to belittle the National Capital; but I am always able to convince such persons that the great work which is now being undertaken will be of inestimable value to the Australian people. The proposal of the Government in this instance is to appoint an advisory council, three members of which are to represent the people. It is hoped that at least one member of the council will be a mechanic or some one qualified in constructional work.

Mr E Riley:

– Sir John Harrison who was once a member of the Federal Capital Commission was a master builder.

Mr WEST:

– That may be so, but there are some builders who do not know more about their work than an elephant does about a typewriter. Some time ago a gentleman bequeathed £20,000 towards the erection of an animal laboratory which the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has established in a congested area close to a Sydney hospital instead of at Canberra.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member for East Sydney to connect his remarks with the bill before the House.

Mr WEST:

– I was suggesting that the laboratory to which I have referred should be established in Canberra instead of in Sydney. When I visited Melbourne over 40 years ago the late “ Jimmy “ Service said to me that he believed that federation would be the salvation of Australia, and I am sure it will. The Government is doing its best to submit a scheme for the effective control of Canberra and the Federal Capital Territory, and if it cannot get on with its job I am sure it will make way for those who can.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. West) said that if the Government could not get on with its job it would make room for those who can; but, unfortunately, the present Government has not acted in the way the honorable member suggests. This measure has been introduced with the object of dispensing with commission control in the Federal Capital Territory, which, we have been informed, was an obsession of the previous administration. The best form of control for the Federal Capital has been discussed from time to time, and, notwithstanding the attitude adopted in the past by honorable members opposite, this Government which they are supporting has introduced an ill-considered temporary measure which is to operate for only twelve months. The bill is only a makeshift, and must result in considerable dissatisfaction to those who are interested in the development of the Territory.

The Federal Capital and the territory surrounding it have been subject to many forms of control, all of which, for various reasons, have proved ineffective. We are now asked to consider another makeshift proposal which cannot he regarded as in the interests of the Federal Capital Territory. When introducing a bill to amend thcScat of Government Administration Act last year the then Minister for Home Affairs indicated that it was to provide for the appointment of a second and third commissioner for one year only, so that Parliament would be able to review the whole matter, and later to devise some amended permanent plan for the development and administration of the Territory. It is now 21 years since this Parliament began the work of establishing a national capital at Canberra, and I am sure honorable members will agree with me that it is time some definite scheme was submitted for the control of the Territory. Canberra has had a most chequered career, owing to the various forms of administration which have been employed in connexion with its development. From 1909 to 1912 the department of Home Affairs endeavoured to develop Canberra from Melbourne, but found that impracticable. In August, 1912, the Government appointed a resident administrator, subject to the control of the Minister in Melbourne, to supervise the development of the Federal Capital Territory. In 1916 the control was divided between the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Public Works, operating in Melbourne, which made the work even more difficult. From 1916 to 1924, owing to financial stringency occasioned by th-2 war, practically nothing was done. But from 1924 a special effort was made by the Government of the day to facilitate its development, including the appointment of a commission consisting of three members. A vigorous developmental policy was inaugurated; Parliament House, several hostels, administrative offices, as well as hundreds of houses, were erected. There was a great speeding up of the work in preparation for the opening of Parliament by the Duke of York in May, 1927. Seeing that the developmental work of the city has now practically been completed - it has its complete sewerage system; its roads, parks, and gardens have been formed - one would think that the Government would have brought forward definite proposals for the permanent control of the Territory. With our own experience of the last 21 years and that of other countries centuries old to guide us, it is time that a permanent scheme was set before us. Instead, we have another measure of a temporary nature.

The announcement of the Government’s proposals in regard to the Federal Capital Territory has caused great anxiety to the officers of the Federal Capital Cornmission. The uncertainty as to their future is disquieting aud assuredly not conducive to the best work. Nor is it in the best interests of the administration of the Territory. Unfortunately, the Government’s proposals have opened the way to an undesirable element in the control of this Territory. Party issues are being raised ; sectional interests rather than the interests of the whole community are likely to predominate I hope that we shall not have in Canberra any repetition of the bribery and corruption that followed the introduction of party politics into the civic administration of Sydney. Had it been proposed to give the residents of Canberra representation in Parliament there would, perhaps, be some justification for a display of party spirit; but it will indeed be unfortunate if party politics determine the personnel of the advisory council. I also protest against the insignificant remuneration proposed to bc paid to the members of the advisory board. According to the Minister’s own statement, its members will be required to attend weekly or fortnightly board meetings and to devote a great deal of their time to the interests of the Territory; yet they are to receive only £100 per annum for their services. The small remuneration must necessarily limit the choice of candidates. Moreover, the temporary nature of the Government’s proposals will not tend to the proper development of the

Territory. Indeed, one is inclined to doubt whether there is any serious intention on the part of the Government to have elected to the advisory council persons capable of offering sound advice.

A further objection to the Government’s proposals is that the Under Secretaries of the Home Affairs, Works and Railways, and Health Departments, will be expected to act on the advisory council without any remuneration at all. It would appear either that they are not now fully employed or that, if overtime is to be avoided, an increase in the staffs of their departments will be necessary. I am satisfied that they will not have the time to give to the work of the Advisory Board. They are fully occupied now. The question of remuneration for these officers should be reviewed by the Minister. I heartily concur in the Minister’s tribute to the men who have done so much to develop this Territory; but I regret that the Secretary to the Commission (Mr. Daley), the Chief Engineer (Mr. Potts), the Chief Architect (Mr. Casboulte), and the Chief Accountant (Mr. Rouse) were not mentioned. The officers and those associated with them have borne the heat and burden of the day in connexion with the construction and development of the Capital, and their work entitles them to the fullest recognition and consideration. When the re-organization of the department is undertaken, I trust that the claims of these officers for recognition will not be overlooked.

The advisory council, when constituted, should take steps to deal with the unfavorable propaganda concerning Canberra which is disseminated throughout Australia. One has not to travel far to hear remarks derogatory to the Federal Capital. Such statements are generally based on false information, and it is hoped that a vigorous campaign will be launched against them. It is also a matter for regret that in the various intelligence and tourist bureaux of Australia so little authoritative information regarding the Federal Capital Territory is available. Even in Canberra itself the only literature available respecting the Federal Capital is an unattractive slip, setting out the hotel tariffs and certain information regarding tours. It is true that a booklet containing data about Canberra - its history and national importance - can be obtained at the Tourist Bureau for a small payment, but similar information respecting other cities can be got for nothing. It would almost appear that attempts are made to prevent the people of Australia from obtaining information about the capital of their country. I trust that the bill will also be amended to provide for the presentation to Parliament of an annual report on the administration of the Territory.

In committee, I propose to move for the amendment of clause 5. The proposed amendment, which has been printed and. circulated among honorable members, provides that any alteration of the Griffin plan shall be approved, not by the Minister, but by Parliament after investigation by the Public Works Committee.

Mr Blakeley:

– Why did not the honorable member make his suggestion when the party he supports was in office? Evidently he is not prepared to trust the present Government.

Mr FRANCIS:

– The Public Works Committee comprises members of all parties and of both Houses of this Parliament. Its function is to inquire into proposals involving an expenditure in excess of £25,000. Any proposals affecting Canberra which are submitted to the committee are considered by it in the light of their agreement with or departure from the Griffin plan. The committee has aleady investigated a number of works in the Federal Capital, among them being these -

Main sewer.

Upper Queanbeyan reservoir.

Small arms factory.

Arsenal site.

Cement works.

City railway.

Dam for ornamental waters.

Main intercepting sewer.

Water supply works.

Hostel (No. 1).

Provisional administrative offices.

Provisional Parliament House.

Officers’ hostel.

Canberra to Yass railway.

Southern interception sewer.

Sewerage treatment works.

Hostel No. 4.

Northern main sewer.

National library.

Secretariat building.

Dam for Molonglo River.

Permanent administrative building.

Canberra cottages, 1926.

National Museum of Australian Zoology (Institute of Anatomy).

North-western intercepting sewer.

– I do not agree with all the provisions of the bill but I give the Government credit for attempting to achieve better results. I believe in the affairs of this city being in the hands of one elected body, subject to the control of one Minister. Many of the important undertakings, such as sewerage, water supply, road construction, afforestation, the erection of Hotel Canberra and a considerable portion of the road construction, were carried out by the Works Department under the Minister for Home Affairs. A strong effort should be made to advertise the attractions of the city. The provision of a greater number of seats along the many fine avenues would hell) to make the place more attractive to visitors. A few hundred pounds spent in this way would be much appreciated. As to the bill, 1 suggest that the new system be given a trial for twelve months and that eventually arrangements be made for the election of a municipal council. Such a body might well be entrusted with the expenditure of the present revenue from rents and rates, which I understand is in the vicinity of £225,000- a year, for the continued development of the Capital. At present the amount received in rents and rates is paid into the Consolidated Revenue aud the’ tendency on the part of every Treasurer during a time of financial stringency would be to withhold money and prevent the expansion of the city. I firmly believe that Canberra will one day be one of the show cities of the world, and there is no doubt that, as time goes on, the increasing revenues from rents and rates will be a great asset to the Government. The financial position of the Capital is not always correctly stated. The governing authorities should be credited with rent and rates, chargeable in respect of Parliament House and all government offices, because a considerable portion of the £10,000,000 already expended was incurred for the purpose of providing accommodation for Parliament and public offices. We should not forget also that the sewerage and water supply schemes were planned to meet the needs of the next 30 or 40 years, when the population will be very much larger than at present. I hope the Government will be able to make available further funds to provide accommodation for departments yet to be transferred. One important department employing 750 people, the Note Printing Office, occupies a big building in Melbourne. If this were sold the proceeds would be more than sufficient to pay for the transfer of the department as well as the erection of the necessary buildings to house it at Canberra. The members of the High Court of Australia should not arrogate to themselves the right to say that they will sit only in Melbourne. This is the capital of Australia, and the High Court should be compelled to hold its sittings here. Furthermore, all the heads of departments should be brought to Canberra. If the country is to obtain any return for all the money spent on this place, every possible step should be taken to increase the population of the city. What would be the position if all departmental head3 said, like tha Auditor-General, that they would not come to Canberra? It is not right that he should defy the Government which is paying his salary. After all, he is only a public servant. The Government should see that he comes to Canberra or gets out of his job.

Mr BAYLEY:
Oxley

.- This proposal of the Government will please no one. It goes either too far or not far enough, according to the way it is viewed. Personally, I think that no improvement could be made on the commission form of government for a city such as this. I do not claim that the Federal Capital Commission, as we knew it, was perfect, but I do say, and in this I am in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition, that had the Commission been composed of archangels, they could not have satisfied the people of Australia in carrying out the difficult work with which the Commission was confronted. The honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) said that we, as a Parliament, could’ not excuse ourselves for the dissatisfaction which has arisen over the Commission’s work. This Parliament was largely responsible for the mistakes that occurred, because we forced the hands of the Commission at the time. Had things been allowed to take their course, Parliament would have been constituted in Canberra all in good time, and the money spent would have gone a great deal further. However, Parliament told the Commission that Parliament House must be completed by a certain date, and that office and hotel accommodation were to be provided. At that time it was enormously difficult to obtain even the labour that was required. For instance, the large cities of Australia were scoured for plasterers to get the job done. That the work was completed within the time specified does great credit to Sir John Butters and those associated with him.

The commission form of government has been tried in many places. It has been tried in America and, in some cases, found wanting. It is now being tried in Sydney, not because it is regarded as an ideal form of government, but because, at the time it was established, it was felt that bribery and corruption in municipal government had reached such a depth that it was necessary to abolish the existing form of government altogether until civic affairs had been cleaned up. Here in Canberra we have a city for which there is no parallel, with the exception, perhaps, of Washington, in the district of Columbia. The money with which this city has been built was found by the people of Australia, and for many years to come they will be called upon to foot further bills for its maintenance. The Advisory Council which the Government proposes to set up is neither fish nor fowl. It will satisfy no one. It. will have no power; it can advise, but it cannot execute. Sir John Butters, in his final report to Parliament, suggested that a municipal form of government should be established in Canberra, and that certain definite powers should be transferred to it, thereby making it feel that it was actually doing something. The honorable member for South Sydney (Mr. E. Riley) mentioned certain functions, such as the provision of water and lighting services, which could be handed over to the Advisory Council. Were the people of this city to feel that they had an actual interest in the control of civic affairs, we should have fewer complaints from them. At present they feel that they are no one’s children. They are orphans whom no one has claimed, and they have no say in the building and development of their city.

This proposal of the Government is not the first mistake of the kind. A good many years ago, when the War Service Homes Commission was formed, it was faced with a task very similar in magnitude to that which faced the Federal Capital Commission. Naturally, it made mistakes. It had to buy in enormous quantities, and in trying to secure the material necessary to carry on its huge building programme at prices which would permit cheap homes to be provided, it did things which eventually proved unwise. The members of that commission learned from their mistakes, however, and just when it was in a position to do good work, the late Government saw fit to wipe it out of existence, and substituted for it a War Service Homes Commissioner, working in co-operation with departmental officers. That was a mistake. The War Service Homes Commission, as a result of its experience, could have done the work far more satisfactory than any Government department. In itself it was a department. It had perfected itself just at the time when, with a stroke of the pen, it was abolished. The present Government is doing, or has done, the same thing with the Federal Capital Commission. The Government says it is actuated by considerations of economy. It would have been possible to secure good men to continue the work of the Commission at lower salaries than were paid to the original Commissioners. That has been proved by the satisfactory work done by Mr. A. J. Christie since he has been Chief Commissioner. I am afraid it is of no. use at this stage to oppose the Government’s proposals, but I offer certain suggestions in the hope that some or all of them may be accepted. If the Government is determined to go ahead and wipe out the Commission, and hand the construction of the city over to the departments concerned, we must accept the situation. This city, however, if allowed to remain purely the seat of government, can never have a population greater than 15,000 or 16,000 people. At the present time we have a population of 8,000, and there are certain other departments, including the whole of the Defence Department, which have yet to be transferred. Even with these the population cannot be greater than 15,000 or 16,000.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– That is plenty.

Mr BAYLEY:

– It is not plenty. This city has been so designed that the overhead expenses of government are too great for a population of that number. For practically the same overhead expenses a population of 75,000 or 100,000 people could be served, and if we had that number here the present heavy expenditure on park lands, boulevards, &c, would be justified. It is not fair, however, to expect the people of Australia to keep dipping into their pockets for the beautification of a city in which they have no interest, apart from its being the seat of government. How can the population of Canberra be built up? First of all there is the social aspect, which should not escape attention. This is . the National Capital of Australia. Why not make it the official residence of the Governor-General? At the present time we have quarters for the GovernorGeneral at Admiralty House, in Sydney, and have a Federal Government House in Melbourne. I know that the people of those large and important cities feel that it is necessary that the GovernorGeneral should have residences in them, but is it any more necessary for him to live in Sydney or Melbourne for certain periods of the year than that he should live in Brisbane or Perth or Adelaide or Hobart? We have grown up under the present system, and have come to think that it is necessary. But if the Government is in earnest in its desire to foster the development of Canberra, it should see that adequate provision is made for the housing of the Governor-General in Canberra, and that Canberra alone should be his official place of residence. The other establishments should eventually be closed down. Then Canberra will become the social capital of Australia, and I am confident that that will tend to develop Canberra and increase its population more than any other single factor. In this district we have one of the finest climates in Australia, and there is no reason why those persons who are fortunate enough to be able to choose their place of residence should not come here in their thousands, build for themselves beautiful homes, and make the city even more beautiful than it is at the present time. They will not come here, however, unless satisfactory educational facilities are provided. Splendid educational facilities have been ^provided here for the children of residents, up to a point. Most of the actual work has been done by the State Government of New South Wales, which has provided the teachers under arrangement with the Commonwealth Government. There are also some denominational schools; but over and above all these there should be established here some of the finest secondary schools in Australia. Then, in the fulness of time, there should be founded here a national university, which I should like to see devote itself to postgraduate work. When those things have been done we can hope and confidently expect that we shall build up here on the political, social and educational sides, a city of 75,000 or 100,000 people that will be free from all the disadvantages of a manufacturing town, and that we shall have in reality what we have hoped for many years to establish - a garden city for the Federal Capital of Australia.

Silting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m. [Quorum formed.]

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

– No, but to give them the control of those matters which might well be placed in their hands, reserving to the Commonwealth Government the administration of water services electricity, sewerage, and other services that are very costly. Even under a scheme which handed over to the local residents complete power to carry out certain specific functions, the Government would have to control the purse. There is no half-way house between Government control and complete local control by the citizens. No matter what method is devised, it will not meet with the approbation of everybody. This bill, frankly, is a half-way house, and as such cannot meet with the complete approval of the people of Canberra.

– The late Government proposed an alteration, for the very’ good reason that the Federal Capital Commission system was inefficient. In reply to the contention of the Lender of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) that, under this proposal, no one would be able to ascertain the cost of Canberra, let me inform him that the estimates of the Home Affairs Department and the Health Department, will be placed each year before Parliament. The whole of the expenditure on the Federal Capital will be placed before this House, and that was never done during the régime of the Federal Capital Commission. “We propose to keep in operation practically all the existing ordinances and regulations, with the exception of the ordinance dealing with the election of the Advisory Council. The council will take part in the drafting of ordinances, and all ordinances will be laid upon the table of both Houses in the ordinary way. Honorable members will have an opportunity of perusing them and, if they think it desirable, of objecting to them.

Some honorable members believe that the payment of £100, proposed to be made to the elected members of the Advisory Council, is quite inadequate as compensation, for time lost to those who are elected to the council. The Government does not pretend that that sum represents an adequate compensation, but considers that it will be some remuneration for loss of salary or wages, as the case may be, occasioned by absence from ordinary duties for half a day a week or half a day a fortnight. The elected representatives will be required to take a certain part in the public life of Canberra and that, of course, will mean additional expense. The payment of £100, therefore, will be a slight recompense to those members of the Advisory Council who are engaged in the arduous task of representing the people of Canberra. The system of advisory councils is common in (he British Commonwealth of Nations. There is a large number of these councils throughout the Empire. I have with me a list showing the various advisory councils in the colonies and territories controlled by the Colonial office, and among them are the following: - Falkland Islands, Fiji, Gambia, Gold Coast, Grenada, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Mauritius, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, St. Vincent, Straits Settlements, TrinidadTobago, and Zanzibar.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– Are they comparable with Canberra. In their case you have native populations?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Not in the case of the Falkland Islands.

Mr Latham:

– That is the only exception.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– The representation on the advisory councils in those territories is not of natives, but of white people. In some instances, it is provided that the native races shall have certain representation, but that representation is overwhelmed by the nominees of the Colonial Office. All those councils are purely advisory in character. There is nothing new in the system of advisory councils. I am perfectly sure that under the Government’s proposal, there will be co-operation between the Government nominees and the elected representatives on the Federal Capital Advisory Council, and a happier and more prosperous future for the people of Canberra. This Parliament will have a greater responsibility and, in addition, will have an effective check upon the expenditure in the Federal Territory. Under Commission control there was no such check in the hands of Parliament. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definitions) -

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I move -

That the following definition be added: “’ The Minister ‘ shall mean the Minister for the time being administering the act or enactment in which or in respect of which the expression is used.”

– It is not easy to see how the Department of Home Affairs could set up within itself a health department. Matters relating to health must have some supervision. I do not apprehend any serious friction in regard to health because there is not much to be done in that direction ; but in view of the fact that a good deal of constructional work will proceed steadily for many years, in spite of the existing state of depression, there is some possibility of overlapping and friction between the Works Department and the Department of Home Affairs. The only way to remove that difficulty absolutely would be to constitute a works department for the Territory under the supervision of the Minister for Home Affairs. Only in that way, I think, could there be complete ministerial control under one head. That is desirable, but the only way in which it could be done would be by establishing another department within a department which would make the cure worse than the disease. The Minister will have to guard against the danger of overlapping and friction between the various departments which will creep in in a thousand and one ways. Nevertheless I contend that in the circumstances the Government’s proposals are the best that can be brought forward, and I trust that the honorable member for Swan will not press his amendment.’

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Repeal) -

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- The object of this clause is to substitute departmental administration for the system of commission control. This, it will be observed, is to be done by the simple process of repealing the Seat of Government Administration Act 1924-29. The system of administration which in the past has been approved by this Parliament is set aside by this clause. That, of course, is in accordance with the will of Parliament as it is now constituted, but no other system of administration is to be established. There has been outlined to us a scheme for establishing an advisory council by ordinance, but, as I- stated during my second-reading speech, provision for the administration of the Federal Capital Territory ought to be embodied in a Seat of Government Administration Act and not in any ordinance. The administration of the Federal Capital Territory is an important matter not only to the residents of Canberra but also to the whole of the inhabitants of Australia. In the past it has been regarded as of sufficient importance to justify the attention of Parliament to the detailed terms of the statute, but it is now proposed that everything shall be done by ordinance. The present act provides for the framing of ordinances and by-laws, but the form of government itself is prescribed by statute. The Minister has outlined the proposed constitution of the Advisory

Council, and I am sure that honorable members on both sides of the, House desire an opportunity to address themselves to the particular proposals which have been foreshadowed. These proposals have at least the merit of originality, but whether they will subsequently acquire the merit of success is an entirely different matter. The proposal of the Government in this instance is to establish an advisory council consisting of three departmental heads, who must carry out their duties as their Ministers direct, and three members elected by the people, presided over by an officer of one of the departments, whose departmental head is a member of the council. This is a highly original form of control even for an advisory council. It may be that it is a bright and new idea which will illumine the whole landscape from horizon to horizon and get rid of a lot of trouble, but surely the members of this House, and the other branch of the legislature should be allowed to express their views upon the proposal. There are, as the Minister stated, many ordinances under which the Federal Capital Territory is governed; but up to the present the Constitution of Canberra has been in a statute. The opportunity to move for the allowance or disallowance of any ordinance, some of which consist of a number of clauses dealing with very important matters, does not enable honorable members to deal with ordinances clause by clause. I urge the Government to take the responsibility of framing a measure providing for the effective control of the Federal Capital Territory, and submitting it to Parliament for criticism in the ordinary way. There is no reason why every honorable member should not have the fullest opportunity of examining all the details of such a measure. The proposed system of administration is likely to lead to a good deal of trouble, apart altogether from the ordinance which, after all, . is only to set up an advisory council. I also wish to refer to the point mentioned by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory). In the past the annual report by the Federal Capital Commission has been submitted to Parliament from which it has been possible to ascertain particulars of receipts and expenditure as well as the amounts spent from loan account and from revenue. Under this measure there is no guarantee that any such report will be submitted in the future. Instead of adopting that system we are to have the administration divided between four Ministers and the expenditure incurred in the Federal Capital Territory will be included in the ordinary expenditure of the Department of Works and Railways, Department of Home Affairs, Department of Health, and Attorney-General’s Department.

Mr Blakeley:

– The activities of the Attorney-General’s Department will be small and will have as much relation to the work of the Territory as would those of the Defence Department to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department.

Mr LATHAM:

– According to the Minister’s statement, no less than 53 activities are to be controlled by the four departments mentioned. In addition, there is the Police Department, which will incur a considerable amount of expenditure. The activities under the Department of Health number seven, under the Works Department seventeen, under the Home Affairs Department 27, and under the Attorney-General’s Department, as the Minister said, the number will be small. The expenditure incurred by these departments in Canberra will not be revealed by, but rather concealed in the Estimates of those departments, and it will be practically impossible for honorable members to ascertain the cost of work being undertaken in the Federal Capital Territory. The Estimates will be presented in the ordinary form, showing the number of officers employed, the salaries paid, and the work performed, as well as a certain amount for contingencies, but in analysing the Estimates no one will be able to determine the amount that is being expended in any one year in Canberra. In these circumstances, Parliament will not have an opportunity to criticize the Government’s activities in this direction. Let us consider what is going to happen in practice - I am not venturing a prophecy because I may be wrong-

Mr Blakeley:

– We all are inclined to prophesy in regard to the Federal Capital.

Mr LATHAM:

– I presume the members of the Commission staff are to continue to function so long as they arc required. Sonic honest persons, who have taken the electioneering statements made by honorable members opposite at their face value, think that what has boon described as the abolition of the Federal Capital Commission will save all the expenditure which that Commission has been incurring. Of course it will not. The work has to be done. It has decreased in recent months, hut certain developmental works are still being undertaken.’ The only difference in l he future will bc that the work will be done by the same staff as temporary or exempt officers, under the control of the departments .1. have mentioned. The officers of the Commission who ave at present doing the work, are accommodated in a building at Acton under one control. In the future - this is where I venture a prophecy - some of these temporary or exempt officers will bc employed in the Department of Home Affairs, Department of Works, or Department of Health. I know from my experience as a Minister that the office accommodation in the No. 2 Secretariat, where the Department of Home Affairs is accommodated, is already fully taxed. The Government’s proposal really means that these subdepartments will still do their work in the Acton building, unless there is going to bc a re-arrangement of their work. Apart altogether from what will happen in relation to the Acton building, where the staff is at present’ engaged on work appertaining to the Federal Capital Territory - and where, I think, it would be wise to keep them - additional officers will be employed in the departments and. there will not be anything in the Estimates to show which of these officers are actually engaged on Federal Capital Territory work. I therefore ask if the Minister will give the committee an undertaking that an annual report upon the development of the Federal Capital Territory will be presented to Parliament, particularly in relation to the city plan, and containing the receipts and expenditure on loan and revenue account. This Parliament and the people of Australia are entitled to that information. The mere repeal of the existing statute removes a means whereby this .information has been made available in the past, and unless some-

[IR]

thing on the lines 1 have indicated is done in the future we shall, unless special sub-departments are set up, merely have departmental estimates from which it will be impossible to ascertain the costs incurred in connexion with the development of the Territory.

Mr BLAKELEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · Darling

.- Each of the departments mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) will have its Federal Capital Territory section, showing the number of officers employed, and the expenditure incurred. When the Estimates are brought down, honorable members will see that they contain a clear and concise statement of the. work being undertaken by the sub-departments dealing with the Federal Capital Territory.

Mr Francis:

– How will the officers bt accommodated and engaged in connexion with the re-organization? Will they remain where they are?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– There is a good deal of space still available at the present Commission offices, and it is quite possible that the Department of Works, which is now accommodated in its own building at Civic Centre, will occupy those premises in connexion with the Canberra section of the Home Affairs Department, thus making available for other purposes the present works and buildings offices at Civic Centre.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I express my disappointment at the fact that the Seat of Government Administration Act is being repealed, and that in future a good deal of work is to be done my means of ordinances under which the Government of the day may be able to alter the “conditions obtaining at Canberra; with the sole exception that the provision in the act of 1910, under which the freehold of the land cannot be sold is not to be interfered with. While this legislation remains in force the whole control of the Territory will be -by ordinance. The powers and authority of the Minister should be set out clearly in an act of Parliament. I propose later to move that a financial statement shall be presented io Parliament annually, so that the country may know what expenditure has been incurred in the development of this city. Although Canberra has already cost £12,000,000, it would be better to cut that loss than to waste further public money here. It should not be possible for any Minister to make the radical alterations which this bill will empower him to make. We should know his powers and how the administration of the Territory will be regulated.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Modification or variation of plan of city and environs) -

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- I move -

That the proposed sub-sections, (1), (2), and (3), proposed new section 12(a) be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following: - “(1.) The Minister may at any time, by writing under his hand, refer to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works any proposal to modify or vary the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Gazette of the nineteenth day of November One thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, as modified or varied prior to the date of the commencement of this section, but no such proposal shall be so referred until after the expiration of thirty days after notice of that proposal has been published in the Gazette. (2.) The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works shall consider any proposal referred to it under this section and shall report to the House of Representatives thereon. (3.) After receipt of the report under the last preceding sub-section the House of Representatives may by resolution approve or disapprove of the proposal. (3a.) Where a proposal to which this section applies has been approved by the House of Representatives, it shall be published forthwith in the Gazette and thereupon the plan of the layout of the City of Canberra and its environs shall bo deemed to be modified or varied in accordance with that proposal.

The object of this amendment is to provide that the Public Works Committee shall report on any proposal to vary the Griffin plan. The bill provides that the lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs may be varied at any time by the Minister subject to notification of the proposal in the Gazette, and to no objectionbeing made by Parliament within fifteen days of the making thereof or within fifteen days of the next meeting of Parliament. My experience is that what is everybody’s business is nobody’s business. If the bill is passed in its present form, alterations to the Griffin plan, which may involve interference with the development of Canberra, will probably pass unnoticed. Even slight variations of the approved design may involve the country in heavy expense. Millions of pounds have been spent to remedy errors in the lay-out of London. In 1914, 1,300,000 dollars were expended in the alteration of streets and the removal of buildings in Boston in order to conform to the original plan for that city. The widening of streets in New York to the width originally proposed cost: £4,300,000. In Birmingham, nearly £1,000,000 was involved in the rectification of errors made when the original lay-out of that city was departed from. Bristol, Hull, Liverpool, and other British cities have had similar experiences. Australia is not without its examples of the waste of public money in this way. The original plan of Perth provided that Hay-street should be a broad highway, but, in the interests of economy, its width was reduced. To-day Hay-street is a mere lane which seriously handicaps the development of an otherwise beautiful city. Similar examples could be quoted concerning Brisbane and other cities. The Public Works Committee, which comprises members of all parties, from both Houses of this Parliament, and has been established since 1915 to investigate all proposals for works involving an expenditure of over £25,000, would be a suitable body to entrust with the duty of preserving the Griffin plan. Already it has undertaken a number of inquiries respecting public works in the Federal Capital Territory. Among the proposals on which it has reported are the main sewer scheme, the Queanbeyan reservoir, water supply works, hostels, administrative offices, provisional Parliament House, Canberra to Yass railway, City railway, National Library, the National Museum of Zoology, the Australian War Memorial and the Botanical Laboratory and many other works. All these proposals had to comply as to sites, with the Griffin plan. It is important that that plan be adhered to in its entirety, for even a slight departure from it might upset the design and lead to the expenditure of huge sums of money to correct the mistake. Already the beautiful layout for the University in the original plan has been spoiled almost beyond recovery by the erection of a hospital on the site. The hospital should be situated where the Commission offices are now. Those offices, instead of being at Acton, should be placed at Vernon Hill near the Civic Centre. A number of houses have been built at Acton on land set apart for special buildings in connexion with the University. These departures from the original plan show the necessity for some safeguards being provided. If further irregularities are permitted they will cost the taxpayers of this country many hundreds of thousands of pounds. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. Sub-section 1 of the proposed new section provides that any proposal to vary the layout of the city shall be referred, to the Public Works Committee. Subsections 2 and 3 have been inserted to comply with the Public Works Committee Act. The proposed new sub-section 4 provides that any variation of the plan recommended by the Public Works Committee and approved by Parliament shall be permanent. The amendment is in. the best interests of the Federal Capital because it will preserve the Griffin plan to which Parliament has already given its approval. I urge the Minister to accept it.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- I hope that the Minister will give this amend.ment favorable consideration. Indeed, 1” can hardly think that he will resist it. The Griffin plan, which was accepted, after a. world-wide competition, has stood the test of many criticisms: excepting for some slight variations, it has been adhered to so far. But the bill before us provides that arbitrary power to amend that plan shall be vested in the Minister. While I might be prepared to give that power to the present Minister, whose aesthetic taste and good sense I recognize, I doubt, if he would have been prepared to vest that power in some former occupants of his office. Personally, I would not give it to all Ministers who might be appointed to succeed him. As it now stands the bill means that any Minister of Home Affairs who holds extreme views may indulge his fancy or his fad at the expense of the Original design. We have had one very remarkable Minister in control of the Federal Capital. I do not fear that the present Minister would make any radical changes in the layout of the city; but it should not be possible for any man to do so. By accepting the amendment the Minister would run no risk as a member of the Government because on the Public Works Committee is a majority of Government members; if the Minister has a good case for departing from the plan he should be able to persuade the members of his own party on the committee of the wisdom of altering the design. I therefore appeal to the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the amendment. If he feels that he cannot accept it, will he inform the committee why he is asking for this unusual power? .Has the Minister in mind any design of his own for the development of Canberra? We all know that he has established his own home here and has a particular interest in the progress of the city; but I am. not prepared to give this power for all time to the occupant of his ministerial position.

Mr MACKAY:
Lilley

.- When supporters of the present Government were in opposition they had many suggestions to offer for the development of the Capital and its system of local government, but I am afraid that the people of Canberra are grievously disappointed with legislature which involves a large measure of political control spread over four departments. The Minister is asking for exceptional power. If it is given it will be possible for him by the mere publication of a notice in the Commonwealth Government Gazette to interfere with the Griffin plan. It is true that Parliament will have the opportunity of making objection within fifteen days, but the power asked for is too great. I heartily commend the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) for having moved his amendment, which I regard as a useful safeguard, not only for the people of Canberra, but the Commonwealth as a whole. If it is adopted, any proposed departure from the Griffin plan will be submitted to the Public Works Committee and it will be given due publicity. Speaking as a member of the committee for eight years,

– I suggest that the inviolability of the Griffin plan will be more jealously guarded than it. has been under the commission form of control.

There is more likely to be a sense of responsibility among men attached to the departments than among more or less irresponsible persons to whom authority would be delegated under the commission form of control.

Mr Mackay:

– What is the Minister’s objection to the Public Works Committee?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I have no objection to the committee, but I see no reason for bringing before the committee matters of this kind.

Mr Mackay:

– It would be an added safeguard.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I am sure that honorable members are not serious in pressing this amendment which would alter a system that has been in operation for the last five or six years. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah

– The Minister’s explanation is far from convincing. The fact that this provision was in the last act does not alter the merits of the case in any way. Conditions are different now from those under which the last Government operated, as the Minister was at considerable pains to point out. This is a tremendous power to give any one man, particularly when, under another section of the bill, the Minister is to be authorized to delegate his powers to any one lie likes. I think that it would be quite reasonable for the Government to accept the amendment of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis). It would be a safeguard, and a protection for the Minister as well. In any case, it could do no harm. I do not agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Gullett) in his view of the Public Works Committee. H.e said that in order to secure the agreement of the Public Works Committee it was necessary only to convince a partisan section. I do not think that there ought to be any partisanship on such a committee. It is not only the Minister who is concerned in the preservation of the Griffin plan. The general public are also interested in the faithful carrying out of that plan, and would feel far more confident if any alteration to that plan had to receive the consideration of the Public Works Committee. The provision that alterations shall be laid on the table of the House, and action taken within fif teen days, would be inoperative because of the forms of the House. The real effect of this proposed new sub-section will be to hand over to one person absolute control. The Minister may be competent or he may not, but he is to be given absolute control, not only to exercise extraordinarily full powers himself, but, if he sees fit, to hand over those powers to some other person.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- There was a provision to this effect in the 1924 act, and it was inserted at the time the Commission was established. The Commission was a skilled body charged with the duty of developing Canberra. In addition to the consent of the Minister having to be obtained to any alteration of the Griffin plan, there was this added safeguard that such alteration had to receive the consideration of the Commission. The Commission is now being abolished, and accordingly, this clause appears in an entirely different setting from that in which it was presented in 1924. According to this clause, the Minister will have practically uncontrolled power to deal with the plan of Canberra, and to authorize any alterations that he chooses. I am not ‘ purporting for one moment to bind myself to every detail of the Griffin plan ; I have not said anything about its merits or demerits. I only say that there is a plan, and that if any modification is to be made it should be done only after the very fullest consideration. Under the act as it stood in 1924 any such alteration had first of all fo receive the consideration of the Commission, and had then to be approved by the Minister. The proposal of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) is, in effect, that the Public Works Committee should do what, in substance, has been done by the Commission ever since this section has been in existence. I submit that it would be a reasonable provision.

Amendment, negatived.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- As regards proposed new section 12b I should be obliged if the Minister would inform honorable members what he has in view in asking for power to supply water and electricity from the Territory to any “person” outside the Territory. Has he any particular person in view?

Mr BLAKELEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · Darling

– It is really a repetition of what appeared in the original act, referring to the supply of water or electricity to Queanbeyan.

Mr Gullett:

– There is nothing definite in view?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– No.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- Proposed new section 12c is as follows : -

The Minister may, by writing under his hand, delegate to any person all or any of his powers or functions under any ordinance made under this act.

I could understand this if it, were a provision to delegate to another Minister any of the Minister’s powers or functions. I am not sure that the Acts Interpretation Act does not already cover that. The position is that this Parliament is being asked to departmentalize the administration of Canberra, and to introduce what is alleged to be a greater degree of ministerial responsibility. Yet, in the same breath, Parliament is asked to grant the Minister authority to delegate his powers and function to .any person at all. Why is it conceived to be necessary, and why is it thought desirable that the Minister should have authority to delegate, under all or any of the ordinances, all or any of the powers which they confer? [Quorum formed.’]

Mr BLAKELEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · Darling

– Many ordinances deal with essentially citymatters, and others, again, are concerned with rural affairs. It would be impossible for me or for the Minister for Health personally to administer all those ordinances. Therefore, without divesting himself of any power, the Minister may delegate certain powers of a minor character. Matters of major importance must of necessity be administered by the Minister. The Federal Capital Commission itself delegated certain functions of minor importance to officers.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 to S agreed to.

Clause 9 - (2.) Any moneys advanced by the Treasurer to the Commission in pursuance of sub-section (4.) of section twenty of the Seat of Govern- incut (Administration) Act 1924-1929 shall be repayable to the Commonwealth Public Account out of the proceeds of any loan raised or to be raised by the Treasurer under the authority or the Loan Act (No. 2) 1928 or the Loan Act 1929 empowering the borrowing of moneys for the purposes of a loan to the Federal Capital Commission. (3.) Any moneys borrowed by the Treasurer under the authority of the Loan Act (No. 2) 1928 or the Loan Act 1929 empowering the borrowing of moneys for the purposes ofa loan to the Federal Capital Commission may be expended in the construction and supply of all buildings, works and services required or undertaken by the Commonwealth in the Territory. (4.) There shall be payable by the Treasurer to theNational Debt Sinking Fund established under the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1 923-1 928, the payments which but for this Act would have been payable by the Federal Capital Commission in pursuance of subsection (1e) of section twenty of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1924-1929.

Amendment (by Mr.Blakeley) agreed to -

That sub-clauses 2 and 3 be omitted with a view to insert in. lieu thereof the following: - “ (2.) Any sums advanced by the Treasurer to the Commission in pursuance of sub-section (4.) of section twenty of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1924-1929 shallbe repayable to the Commonwealth Public Account from moneys appropriated as a loan to the Federal Capital Commission. (3.). Any moneys appropriated by the

Loan Act (No. 2) 1928 or the Loan Act 1929 for the purposes of loans to the Federal Capital Commission may be expended in the construction and supply of all buildings, works,and services required or undertaken by the Commonwealth in the Territory.”

Clause also verbally amended and, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13- (1.) TheRegulations and By-laws, made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1924-1929. and in force at the commencement of this Act, other than those specified in the first column of the Schedule to this Act, are repealed. (2.) The Regulations and By-Laws speci fied in the first column of the Schedule to this Act shall continue in force as regulations under this Act subject to the amendments respectively specified in the second column of that Schedule. (3.) Any regulations and by-laws so continued in force may be repealed or amended by regulations made under this Act.

Mr BLAKELEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · Darling

– I move -

That the clause be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following: - “ (1.) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1924-1929, the By-laws specified in the first column of the Schedule to this Act shall continue in force as regulations under thePrincipal Act subject to the amendments respectively specified in the second column of that Schedule. (2.) Any By-laws so continued in force may be repealed or amended by regulations made under the Principal Act.”

Mr Latham:

– What by-laws are not being repealed?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– The bill automatically repeals all regulations and by-laws made under the act, but it is considered advisable to continue in force by-laws relating to transportation, protection of land, accommodation and public bathing.

Mr Latham:

– It looks like an omnibus repeal of all by-laws except those four, but surely some are required to be continued in the ordinary way.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I am informed that those I have mentioned are the only by-laws required to continue in force.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I move -

That the following new clause be added: - “ 9a. The Minister shall as soon as possible after the close of each financial year cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the Parliament a statement of moneys received and expended during that year by the Commonwealth in the administration and development of the Territory.”

I hope the Minister will agree to this proposal which will make it necessary for the Minister in charge of the Federal Capital Territory to present to Parliament an annual financial statement in connexion with the Territory. Similar provision has been made in the past with regard to every important public undertaking, and I think in justice to the people of Australia it should be done in regard to the Territory so that the people will always be in a position to know what money is being spent on the Capital and what charges are being made on them in connexion with the expenditure.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Schedule and title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments, report by leave adopted.

Bill by leave read a third time.

page 456

SOLAR OBSERVATORY FUND BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th March (vide page 41) on motion by Mr.

Blakeley.

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- This is a bill to provide for the receipt and control of gifts made for the purpose of the working of the solar observatory in the Federal Capital Territory. Already some funds exist to which this measure when passed will.be applicable. The sole purpose of the bill, which I am sure will commend itself to the House as a whole, is limited to what I have stated. It is an entirely worthy object because it is desirable that the method of determining the application of these gifts should be properly defined. It is proposed that there shall be three trustees of the fund. These are the Director of the Solar Observatory, the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, and the Secretary to the Department of Home Affairs. Under the direction and control of Dr. Duffield, whose death was a great loss to science in Australia, and to the Federal Capital Territory in particular, very valuable work was being done, not only in certain specific directions in Australia, but as part of a general astral survey. I would use the opportunity afforded by this bill to inquire from the Minister what it is proposed to do in the matter of the appointment of a successor to Dr. Duffield. The late Government, in spite of the financial difficulties, regarded this work as of such importance, and the amount of money involved as relatively so small, that it advertised for a director, and was prepared to make an appointment if there had been suitable applicants. It would be most regrettable if this work were allowed to decline in quantity and quality by reason of the non-appointment of a director, and I should be glad to hear whether the Minister has anything to say on that subject. Unless there is a director, the trustees cannot be fully constituted.

There is one other matter to which I draw attention, and I hope that it will receive the Minister’s sympathetic consideration. There is already an amount of money that will be subject to this measure as soon as it becomes law. That consists of donations collected as the result of the joint efforts of Dr. Duffield and Mrs. Duffield. Mrs. Duffield has been almost as enthusiastic a worker in this cause as her husband himself was.I am glad to say that she is still living in Canberra, and I understand that she proposes to remain here. I suggest that as she had a share in collecting some of this money, and is devoted to the work and objects of the Solar Observatory, it would be a proper course to take to amend the bill to make it possible to appoint more than the three trustees mentioned. Clause 5 provides that the trustees shall be the Director, the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury and the Secretary to the Department of Home Affairs. I ask the Minister to consider inserting an amendment that would make it possible to utilize the enthusiasm and knowledge of Mrs. Duffield. I am not proposing to submit an amendment to that effect, unless the Minister intimates that he is prepared to accept it, because I would not make the position of Mrs. Duffield a matter of controversy on the floor of the House. If the Minister will give consideration to the matter, and perhaps adjourn consideration of the bill until he has had an opportunity of going into it, I think that I can promise him that there will be no delay in passing the bill on account of any such adjournment.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- I am fully in accord with the objects of the bill, and particularly the observations of ray leader, but I point out that the work of the observatory is little known to honorable members and the people generally because no reports concerning it are published. I realize that it is difficult to furnish reports on investigations of this nature. The act under which the observatory is constituted does not require the publication of reports, but the country contributes substantially to the funds which enable its work to be carried on. At the present time nobody outside the Ministry has an opportunity of learning of the nature of that work. I asked for information on this matter when the Estimates were under consideration, and the reply that I received from the Minister was, unlike those usually supplied by him, unworthy of him. I submit to him that it would be well to consider the advisability of providing that reports be presented to Parliament. Clause 11 of the bill provides that all books and accounts kept by the trustees shall be audited from time to time by the AuditorGeneral, who shall be required to make a report of each audit to the Minister; but, on the general work of the observatory, I think that some information should be furnished to Parliament from time to time.

Mr BLAKELEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · Darling

.- As to the need for the appointment of a director, in order that the trustees may be fully constituted, it will be seen in the definition clause that “ The Director “ means the director of the observatory, and, where there is a vacancy in the office of director, includes the officer for the time being in charge of’ the observatory. That provision is being specially made. Mr. Rimmer is at present the acting director. The matter of filling the vacancy has had, and is still, receiving my consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make an announcement in respect to it. I suggest that the subject of appointing an additional trustee might be left, and I shall go into the matter. If I find it possible to do it, I shall make arrangements for a provision on those lines to be inserted in the bill in another place.

Mr Francis:

– What about reports to Parliament?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I think that something could be done in that direction. Such reports would be valuable, but I do not think it is necessary to provide for them in the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Report adopted.

Bill, by leave, read a third time.

page 457

ADJOURNMENT

Eden-Monaro Election

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CUSACK:
Monaro · Eden

– Shortly after the election in EdenMonaro some serious allegations were made against the electoral officials in connexion with the ballot. Those allegations were heard before the Court of Disputed Returns, in Melbourne recently. I wish to make a complaint about the very garbled reports of that case that appeared in the press of this country. The public was not informed of the extent to which that case turned out to be a complete fiasco, nor was it informed that not one scintilla of evidence was produced before the court to support the charges made. On the contrary, onewould have thought from the press reports that the case might still have gone against the respondent. It might be thought that since the case has been decided and the petition rejected, I should be content to leave things at that. But let me give some idea, by illustration, of my feeling in this matter.Not long ago a woman was tried in the Warringah electorate for assaulting and murdering her husband. The charge against her was that she had killed her husband by a blow with a bottle. The jury made a recommendation of mercy, and the judge did not sentence her to be hanged, but she pleaded that she might be hung because she wanted to join her husband on the other side, not to expiate her crime or to seek forgiveness, but to have an opportunity to hit him with a bottle again. In this contest in the High Court I struck my opponent with a bottle - an ink bottle. The Guardian, of course, was knocked out, but the Sydney Morning Herald, after blazoning forth insinuations and allegations against the electoral officials, did not have the common decency to give a correct report of what transpired before the court in order that the officials concerned might be exonerated before the public. The Sydney Morning Herald came out with a big type that had not been used since Deeming committed his numerous murders, but from its columns no one could gather whether the action of the

Queanbeyan electoral officials or that of the Moss Vale officials had been vindicated. The charge was that certain electoral officers had been guilty of irregularities. The newspapers did not tell the public that these electoral officers had conferred together in respect of 800 votes, and that no scrutineer representing my interests had been present at that meeting. The officials at both Moss Vale and Queanbeyan were under a cloud. The High Court’s decision removed the cloud from the Queanbeyan officials, and cast a double cloud on the Moss Vale officials. Before the case was heard, fourteen points were elaborated in the press, in the same manner as President Wilson’s fourteen post-war points were published. Only two of those points came to an actual test. The first point was this: The Nationalist party thought that if it could get the judge to strike certain names off the roll, the election would be upset, despite the fact that section 112 of the Electoral Act lays it down that one of the things that a High Court judge cannot do is to doubt the correctness of the electoral roll. The Nationalists were desirous of getting as many as possible of the electors in the Eden-Monaro electorate enrolled before the election, because they thought that my opponent would win by such a majority that 80 votes would not be noticed. They did not want those votes cast in the Werriwa electorate. After the election they had the effrontery to ask the High Court to transfer to the Werriwa electorate some of the votes cast in the Eden-Monaro electorate, so that I might be deprived of them. The other point concerned 49 votes, and no one reading the newspapers would have gathered that the allegation that unused ballot papers had been allowed to lie on the table and on the floor had been disproved before the High Court. I object to the press of this country trying to poison and bias public opinion. The decision of the High Court completely exonerated the electoral officers in the Queanbeyan electorate. The Federal Government permits the postal department to be used for the purpose of assisting the newspapers to disseminate its news, and the time has arrived when we should deny that privilege to newspapers that distort the truth and refuse to publish fair ex- pressions of opinion. The High Court’s decision, instead of being a comedy as the press tried to make it, was a melodrama without music. The Nationalist party’s first witness, had he not stepped from the witness box to drink a glass of water, would have fainted on the spot. I wish also to complain- about the method of dealing with disputes. It is a very costly business, and on more than one occasion, particularly in the case of Labour candidates, the hat has had to be passed round for subscriptions. This is a serious matter, and we should have some method of deciding these disputesother than that of appealing in the High Court. On a previous occasion, I characterized this case as a mere fiasco. The members of the Nationalist party, unfortunately for themselves, did not at that time accept my advice. A motion was moved that I be no longer heard, and then an endeavour was made to draw the Fremantle “ Curtin “ over me. Had my advice then been accepted, the Nationalists would not have gone before the court and made an exhibition of themselves. It is a serious matter for a Labour candidate to fight a big organization like the Nationalist party. I wish now to refer to one of the gentlemen who compiled the allegations. I refer to Mr. Hugh Alexander Campbell, a Nationalist organizer. The criminal records pf Queensland show that he was convicted of embezzling money in connexion with a municipal body at Ipswich, was subsequently found guilty of a serious offence in acting as an auctioneer for both seller and buyer, and was also found guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation which caused no end of litigation and nearly ruined two persons. He is now an organizer of the Nationalist party. I have been told that one of the Queensland senators, speaking to the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Archdale Parkhill) said, “Do you know who Mr. Campbell is?” The honorable member for Warringah replied, “Yes.” The senator then asked, “ Why have an organizer like that ? “ The honorable member for Warringah replied, “I do not _ care what his reputation is so long as he carries out his work.” That is the man of whom I was afraid in the High Court. I did not know to what extent he might misrepresent the position.

Even since the petition was dismissed by the High Court he has made serious charges at Wee Jasper in regard to the conduct of the election. Men of that type are unscrupulous enough to make any sort of charge. [Quorum formed.’] The Nationalists promised that they would prove many things, including the charge that the. dead had voted. Their attempt to do so was miserable in the extreme, and their allegations were shown to be baseless. It is to be hoped that in the future they will refrain from making similar charges. Unfortunately they have behind them the press of this country, which will publish any miserable allegation that is made. The Sun is the only newspaper that had the decency to refrain from giving the charges publicity. The Goulburn Penny Post borrowed some big type from the Sydney Morning Herald because it did not have type sufficiently large for its purpose. T understand that that type is still being held in the office for use when some murder has been perpetrated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 March 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1930/19300325_reps_12_123/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives25 March 1930

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

QUESTION

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY

Mr B GREEN:

Mr SCULLIN:Minister for External Affairs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr GULLETT:HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLIN:

Mr SCULLIN:

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Mr E RILEY:

Mr BLAKELEY:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

QUESTION

TELEPHONE RATES

Mr THOMPSON:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:Minister for Works and Railways · WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP

QUESTION

EXCISE TARIFF

Mr GABB:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr SCULLIN:ALP

Mr JONES:INDI, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLIN:

Mr COLEMAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FORDE:Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Customs · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr GABB:

Mr GABB:

Mr FORDE:

QUESTION

EMPIRE DEFENCE

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLIN:ALP

COMMONWEALTH COMPULSORY WHEAT POOL

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr LATHAM:Kooyong

Mr Theodore:

Mr LATHAM:

Mr Scullin:

Mr LATHAM:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HumeMinister for Markets and Transport

Mr Mackay:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

Mr Latham:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

Mr Latham:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

Mr Gullett:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

Mr Latham:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

Mr Latham:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:

Mr GULLETT:Henty

Mr Parker Moloney:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr GULLETT:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr GULLETT:

Mr SCULLIN:Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP

Mr Gullett:

Mr SCULLIN:

Mr Gullett:

Mr SCULLIN:

Mr STEWART:Wimmera

Mr Prowse:

Mr STEWART:

Mr GuLLETT:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Prowse:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Parker Moloney:

Mr STEWART:

Mr THEODORE:Treasurer · Dalley · ALP

House of Representatives
25 March 1930

Mr SCULLIN:
Minister for External Affairs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr THOMPSON:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
Minister for Works and Railways · WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr GABB:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

Mr JONES:
INDI, VICTORIA

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FORDE:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Customs · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HumeMinister for Markets and Transport

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP

Mr STEWART:
Wimmera

Mr THEODORE:
Treasurer · Dalley · ALP

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

Mr FORDE:
Acting Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah

Mr FORDE:
ALP

Mr FORDE:
ALP

Mr PATERSON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Mr FORDE:
ALP

Mr ELDRIDGE:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

Mr LYONS:
ALP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
ALP

Mr THEODORE:
ALP