Senate
29 May 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- REMISSION OF FODDER DUTIES
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE SYSTEM
SUPPLY BILL (No. 9)
COMMONWEALTH FRANCHISE BILL
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S ESTABLISHMENT BILL
- Second Reading

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 12994

QUESTION

REMISSION OF FODDER DUTIES

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether the Government have come to any decision as to the suggestion which was made last night that the duties on food suitable for stock should be remitted during the prevalence of the drought?

page 12995

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SYSTEM

Senator STEWART:
for Senator Pearce

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the postal authorities of Western .Australia have refused applications from persons desirous of being connected with the telephone system on the grounds of want of funds until the Loan Bill is passed?
Was such an application, made by Mr. D. 33. Darbyshire, of Cottesloe, refused on these grounds?

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– The answers to the. honorable senator’s questions are as follow -

lt is not a fact that such applications have been refused. In some instances persons have been informed that there would be some delay in complying with their application in consequence of loan money not being immediately available.
In the case referred to there was no refusal, and connexion with the telephone system was completed within four days of the receipt of the application.

page 12995

SUPPLY BILL (No. 9)

Bill received from the House -of Representatives., and, on motion by Senator Shake, read a first time.

Motion (by Senator Drake) proposed -

That so much of the standing ordei-3 be suspended as would prevent the Supply Bill from passing through all its stages during the same sitting of the Senate

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I do not think the Government treat the Senate as they should do when they ask for a suspension of the standing orders to deal with important Money Bills in such haste. This is not the first occasion, on which we have had reason to complain of their conduct. Sufficient time- is not allowed to. us to discuss the proposed expenditure of large sums. It may facilitate the- speedy passage of the Bills, but later on I am sure that it will not lead to progress in the conduct of business, if the practice is continued. Considering that the Bill appropriates a sum of £493,944 for the expenditure of the various departments, the Government might very well have given the Senate longer notice of their intention to ask for a suspension of the standing orders.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).I object to the motion Some time ago when Supply Bills were brought forward on a Friday a protest was made from this side of the Chamber, and, so far as I know, from other quarters, on account of our inability to reasonably consider the measure in the time left at our disposal. On this occasion the Government bring forward the Bill on a Thursday, but under exactly the same circumstances. The objection on previous occasions was nob to the Bill being brought in on a Friday, but to its- being brought in under such circumstances that no one had time to consider its provisions. If a Supply Bill is brought in on a Thursday, or any other day, and we are asked immediately to proceed to its consideration, no opportunity is given to us to look into the various items. I can see no reason why we should proceed to the second reading stage to-day. If that stage is delayed until to-morrow, we shall have 24 . hours in which to look into the. Bill, and shall then be in a position to intelligently discuss its proposals.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

– I understand that the Bill is merely on the lines of previous interim Supply Bills. In the other House it was passed absolutely without discussion. There was a discussion, I understand, on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, but no discussion on the Bill itself.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think that the honorable and learned senator ought to allude to the debates in the other House.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– I apologize. I understand that the object of this Bill is to continue the line of expenditure which we agreed upon in the previous Supply Bills. It matters not to me whether it is dealt with to-day, or to-morrow, or next Tuesday. We have no right to consider that we are being ill-used because we are asked to pass at one sitting an interim Supply Bill on precisely the same lines as previous Bills, which we passed on the understanding that the same rate of expenditure was to be continued until we got the Appropriation Bill. The latter measure will include all the items contained in the Supply Bills, and on it the great discussion will take place. Probably the Government do not care very much whether the Bill is passed to-day or to-morrow. In every constitutionallygoverned State the practice has been to pass Supply Bills practically as a matter of course. This is not the first, but the ninth Supply Bill. It is framed on exactly the same lines as previous Bills.

Senator Millen:

– We never had the chance of knowing what was in the eight other Bills.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– Honorable senators had- at their disposal the means of information, though they may, not have been assiduous enough to apply themselves to its consideration. The practice which we are asked to adopt is really that which the other House, has adopted. I hope the Senate will agree to the motion.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– One of our standing orders says that in cases of urgent necessity this motion may be carried, provided that it has the concurrence of an absolute majority of the whole of the members of the Senate. I naturally ask who is to be the judge of whether this is a case of urgent necessity ?

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate.

Senator CLEMONS:

– We have heard from Senator Downer that Tuesday will be equally as suitable as to-day for the proper consideration of the Supply Bill, and that the Government does not care whether it is discussed to-day or not. If neither the Government nor Senator Downer cares whether it is discussed to-day or not, then for many reasons it is desirable that the discussion should be delayed until to-morrow. I understand that the Bill is being introduced to-day because we, on this side of the House, objected to a Supply Bill being brought in on a Friday. Our objection to the introduction of a Supply Bill on a Friday was made on the ground that we had to finish the discussion by four o’clock in the afternoon. I admit that if we chose to delay the discussion of this Bill we might be able to master all its details by a quarter past ten o’clock to-night, but we do not wish to do that. We think that the Government might very well postpone its consideration until to-morrow. If they agree to my suggestion this unusual method of suspending the standing orders will be quite unnecessary, and the Senate will not be called upon to say whether this is a case of urgent necessity, which it seems to me it must first do before the presence of an absolute majority is ascertained.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

– Senator Clemons does not seem to realize the position in which public servants, Government contractors, and others will be placed by the adoption of his suggestion. What is the urgent necessity for passing the Bill on the 29th day of the month ? Payments have to be made under the Bill, not only in Victoria, but all over the Commonwealth, and it has been found by experience impossible to pay moneys on the first of the month unless abundant time is given to the Treasury to make the necessary arrangements. This is the very latest day on which the Bill can be passed in order that all those persons who depend for their daily living on Government pay shall not be put to very great inconvenience. I could understand the honorable and learned senator taking up this position if the convenience of only Members of Parliament and Ministers were concerned ; but the very serious interests of hundreds of persons who depend on the Government to get their pay on the first of the month are involved. Honorable senators may ask - Why was not the Bill introduced before ? I suppose that even Senator Clemons will admit that it had first to be introduced in the other House, which adjourned for three weeks and only met on Tuesday last. The Bill could not be introduced there on that day, but it -was introduced and passed through all its stages on the following day by the House which has the right to amend such Bills if it thinks proper. Although I am not entitled to allude to its proceedings, I assume that every honorable senator will recognise that the standing orders must have been suspended yesterday to enable the Bill to be passed through all its stages. What delay has there been ? How could the Bill have been introduced in the other House or how could it have arrived here any earlier 1 I am quite in sympathy with those who wish to have time to discuss the Bill. It does not make any difference personally to the Government whether the Bill is taken to-day or at any other time, but it makes a great deal of difference to those who are looking to Parliament to have their pay ready on the first of the month. To punish these people because of some supposed negligence on the part of the Government, would be a most extraordinary proceeding. But there was no negligence on the part of the Government. The Government have brought in this measure at the earliest moment. Reference has been made to the desire to discuss the items of the Bill. We have had eight previous Supply Bills before the Senate, and any honorable senator who wished to raise any question in the course of the discussion need only have taken one of those measures, when he would have found in it the same class of items. Therefore honorable senators knew perfectly well what was to be discussed.

Senator Dobson:

– The schedule was sent to us 48 hours ago.

Senator Millen:

– There must be some favoured senators then.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– This schedule was circulated as a matter of course by the House of Representatives, as all papers laid upon the table of that House are circulated amongst honorable senators. I assume that my honorable friends opposite received it. That makes the argument I am putting stronger - that not only was the ordinary scheme and arrangement of the Bill well known to honorable senators from their previous experience, but that the very details were furnished to them quite long enough in advance to enable any honorable senator to know all that was to be discussed. Under these circumstances, is it unreasonable for the Government to ask, on this occasion, that what has been done with eight previous Supply Bills should be done now t If there was a justification for it previously, surely there is a justification for it now, as it is quite evident that the Government could not have brought in the Bill earlier than they have done. Under these circumstances I hope that the Senate will not place any obstruction in the way of proceeding with this business, so that the public servants and other people who are dependent upon the Government may not suffer.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– Of course there is a very much larger question connected with this matter than the mere arrangement of business, and that is that the Senate should be particularly solicitous to see that it has every opportunity of exercising its powers in relation to financial matters, whether in regard to the expenditure of money, or the provision to be made for raising money. From that point of view alone, I think that Senators Higgs and Millen, who have raised this question, are entitled to very great credit. Our attention ought never to be dulled in relation to these financial Bills, and we ought never to lose an opportunity to magnify and strengthen the position of the Senate in relation to the duty that rests upon it. I also agree with what Senator O’Connor said, that, of course, as far as the Government were concerned, it was perfectly impossible that they could have introduced this Bill earlier, because it was only passed at a late hour last evening in the other branch of the Legislature. Therefore, I am quite sure that the observations that have been made have not been in the way of complaint against my honorable and learned friend or against the Government, but have been made from the point of view that it is necessary - at least it is very desirable - that we should have an opportunity of ascertaining what the items in a Supply Bill are, and of going carefully through them. Although we may have passed eight previous Supply Bills, we should compare the items in those Bills with the items in the schedule before us in order to see whether there is anything to which exception can be taken. It must be remembered that we are in a very extraordinary position at this stage. We are in the position, which, T believe, no other Parliament was ever in before, of having passed through the whole of the financial year without the Estimates having been adopted by Parliament and the Appropriation Bill passed . The position is absolutely unparalleled, and it is necessary, as was said by a previous speaker, that the items in this Bill should be compared with the items in previous Bills which are said to be identical. So far as I am concerned I do not know that the)7 are, but even if they are, we are practically giving up all control over the Estimates of expenditure. I suppose this Bill takes us up to the end of May - which is practically the end of the financial year - and if the money has not all been spent certainly the greater portion of it has.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– The honorable and learned senator will admit that it would be impossible to pass the Appropriation Bill except as the last business of the session.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I admit that usually the Appropriation Bill is not passed until the end of the session, but the Estimates are considered long before that period, and instead of its being customary for Supply Bills to be carried, as they have been carried here, eight times in the course of the session, Supply Bills are usually introduced while the Estimates are going through Parliament, and members have an opportunity of seeing what the Estimates contain. The position in which we are placed justifies and demands very careful consideration before we absolutely swallow a Bill of this character, which is practically winding up the expenditure of the year. Personally I do not desire to throw the slightest difficulty in the way of the Government, but I think they might very fairly have been content with the first reading to-day, and have taken the second reading to-morrow. I am sure no one wishes- to interpose any difficulty in the way of payments being made to the civil service; But if the Bill were considered early tomorrow morning there would be an opportunity of dealing with it, and passing it through without delay. No difficulty could possibly arise.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I have no wish to prolong the discussion unnecessarily, because I can see that the Government have got us in a corner this time as on previous occasions. But we have warned the Government on other occasions ; and we have all heard about the bucket that goes once too often to the well. Senator Downer made one or two remarks which I think if he would only consider them seriously would compel him to come-to the conclusion that we in this Federal Senate ought not to follow the evil example set in the various States. The honorable and learned senator knows just as well as I do - .and perhaps a great deal better - that the control of the finances of the State has passed - I was going to say is passing, but that is not strong enough - out of the control of every State Parliament in Australia. A great deal of the extravagance and waste that goes on in the States is attributable to that fact. We here ought to make a new departure, ‘ and insist on Money Bills being introduced in the ordinary way. Here is a Bill voting half-a-million sterling, and we are asked without any reason being given - except that if we do not pass it, the Public Service .will have to “wait a few days for their salaries - to take up the discussion forthwith. If it were an ordinary unimportant measure it would be introduced in the usual fashion, the second reading would be put off for a future day, and the committee stage till a further date. If that is the procedure which is admittedly necessary in connexion with matters of very slight importance, of how much more consequence is it that a Bill involving the expenditure of half a million sterling of the Commonwealth finances should be dealt with according to the usual procedure ? If the Government had only erred on this occasion, I should have been willing to forgive them, but it appears to me that they are becoming almost incorrigible offenders. The offence has been dismissed with a mere condemnation so often that they come up smiling over and over again, offending in a fresh way. I have to complain of this hurried manner of dealing with our business. The VicePresident of the Executive Council attempts to throw the blame upon those who object to this Bill passing, if through delay the public servants are kept out of their salaries for a few days. But the blame that is attachable to the delay must rest with the Government themselves. We are not here to see that civil servants are paid on the first of every month. That is the duty of the Government. We are here charged to see that the finances of the Commonwealth are administered in a proper fashion; and if we are to attend to this business, we ought to have- proper opportunities for doing, our duty. This Bill includes an item “of £20,000 for the administration of New Guinea. Have honorable senators had the opportunity of looking lip the facts in connexion with New Guinea, so as to be in a position to discuss the administration of the new addition to the Commonwealth ? The VicePresident of the Executive Council says we have passed a number of other Supply Bills, of a similar character to this, after suspending the standing orders. But the fact that we have done wrong previously is no reason why we should continue to do wrong. It is the duty of the Senate to maintain a continual supervision over the expenditure of public money. As the leader of the Opposition says, we are placed hi a most peculiar position. There is not the slightest doubt that one of the chief functions of the Senate is to supervise, the expenditure of money. If we permit the lower House to usurp the entire power in that respect we shall, in a very short time, find ourselves in the position that the two big States will aggrandise everything, to themselves, and the outlying portions of the continent will be left to struggle on as best they may. I have warned the Government once or twice before. This is now the1 third time they have offended, but it will be the last time. I hope that next month, when they bring in their Supply Bill, they will introduce it in the. ordinary fashion ; and that they will not ask for the suspension of the standing, orders, but will allow the measure to go through the usual routine.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– It must be obvious to honorable senators that the opportunity for effective criticism on the Estimates is gradually slipping, in fact, practically has slipped, from us. I take it that the Bill now before us represents the expenditure for the eleventh month of the financial year, and that there only remains another month - June. So that when the Estimates come to us we shall be told that every penny of the money has already been spent, and that criticism is of no avail. It must be recognised that this is really a grave position. It is more grave because it has occurred in connexion with the first complete year of the existence of the Commonwealth. I am obliged to admit, with other honorable senators, that we are in a corner, and cannot very well refuse the request of the Government. But I would point out that there are three items in this Bill which are for the full amount mentioned on the Estimates - that is, £20,000 for New Guinea, £25,000 for rifles, and a. third smaller amount of a few hundred pounds for electric lighting. We are asked to vote those three amounts straight away. The whole position is very discouraging to all those who desire to see the finances of Australia conducted on a thoroughly business-like and careful footing. It is the more regrettable when every one of us is aware that this is a time in which the closest scrutiny should be given to accounts and the severest economy be practised.I am not asserting that the Government are not practising economy, but I do assert that the Government are depriving us of that complete and reasonable opportunity for the examination of the accounts and for criticism to which we are entitled.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– On referring to one of the Supply Bills which we have previously passed - that dated the 26th April, 1902,. “To grant a supply out of the consolidated revenue of £282, 834 for the service of the year ending the 30th day of June, 1902” - I notice that that measure contains certain votes for the full sum of money to be voted, although those amounts are again repeated in the Bill now before us. I do not know whether the Postmaster-General can explain this, but it is a matter about which we should have information. It seems to me that we have already made certain provision, and that the items to which I refer are recurring. For instance, under Division 1, for the Senate, there is a sum of £432, which is identical with an amount which we voted in April, also for the service of the year ending. 30th June, 1902. I think it will be found in many cases that the same sum recurs, and that we are asked to vote again sums which we voted in April last for the same services. It may be that some explanation can be given with reference to this matter. Speaking generally upon the question, and upon these monthly Supply Bills, there cannot be the slightest doubt of the fact that we are entirely giving up the control of our finances, and leaving them in the hands of Ministers to be dealt with during the current year. We are favoured with a look at the Estimates to find out the way in which the money hasbeen expended, but if honorable senators want to cut down expenditure, whether by way of reducing salaries or decreasing the number of public servants they are absolutely precluded from doing so for the time being. All they can do is to sound a note of warning. These monthly Supply Bills practically give little or no information whatever. For instance, with regard to the salaries for the Senate, we have no opportunity of considering what the amounts mean unless we turn back to some previous schedules.

Senator Drake:

– The Estimates for the year have been circulated, and the honorable and learned senator has been supplied with a copy.

Senator Major GOULD:

– But I protest against this constant habit of sending up Supply Bills and asking us to rush them through at the very moment that they are submitted. It does not give us a sufficient opportunity of making ourselves acquainted with the Estimates, and of ascertaining where there is any absolutely new departure as compared with previous expenditure. I could understand a monthly Supply Bill providing for the payment of salaries according to the rates in existence during the preceding year, and subject to alterations which Parliament might make later. But we are at present only building up our public service. We have some departments which I believe have not an officer, and others which I have reason to believe have too many. We should have the fullest opportunity of discussing matters, and it is improbable that we shall have it until honorable senators make up their minds once and for all to make a stand. We are always met with the same argument that it is the last day of the month, and if we do not pass the Bill the public servants will not get their salaries. If the public servants do get blocked at any time in getting their salaries they will have no one but Ministers to blame, because the Government have been several times warned of the necessity of making provision, for the passing of these Bills in ample time. The Senate must make a stand if we are to have a better system, and now that we are beginning the Commonwealth we have an opportunity to lay down good and sound rules for our guidance, which have not perhaps been observed as they ought to have been in the State Parliaments. I hope Ministers will avail themselves of the opportunity they have to initiate a sound system. It will be for the benefit of the country, and to the advantage of Ministers, and of Parliament, because it will save much time in the discussion of these matters, which could be devoted to the consideration of more urgent legislation for the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– The plan adopted by Ministers on the present occasion is undoubtedly strictly in accordance with past practice of this session, and with the practice of the various State Governments. But I was under the impression that under our Commonwealth Constitution we were going to chance all that, and that this Senate would be able to exercise an efficient check on the expenditure of the country. I entirely agree with Senator Stewart as to the position into which modern Parliaments have drifted in connexion with finance matters. The power of the purse has undoubtedly passed out of the hands of the Parliament into the hands of the Ministry of the day. I had hoped that the Senate would have an opportunity, as we all expected would be the case under the Constitution, of dealing with the finances of the country. However, we have Supply Bills brought up time after time, and we are asked to vote money when it has been spent, or is on the eve of being spent, and when it is impossible for us to stop it.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– Under the extraordinary circumstances of this session, how could anything else have been done 1

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I shall not go into that matter, but I think it would not have been very difficult for the Government to have devised some system by which the Senate would have had an opportunity of dealing effectively with the expenditure of the country. If we are to go on in this fashion, passing Supply Bill after Supply Bill up to the end of the session, we shall, perhaps on the last day of the session, have the Appropriation Bill placed upon the table when all the money will have been spent, and our position will be a perfect farce. When I was a Minister in the State Parliament, on more than one occasion I took care to have the Appropriation Bill submitted to the Legislative Council two or three days in advance of the usual practice, in order that members of the Council might have fin opportunity of at least looking through it. I think we have a right to expect that under the altered circumstances in the Commonwealth, the Ministry of the day will take some measures to enable the Senate to exercise, in an intelligent manner, the part control which this Chamber ought to have.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:

– There are a great number of large items included which I propose to explain when we come to them. There is the vote for New Guinea, and the vote covering back pay in connexion with the defence force. Apart from those matters, we are simply asking for a vote representing one month’s supply on the basis of the Estimates which have been furnished to honorable senators. It has been said that one day’s delay will make no difference. But I would point out that it will make a very great deal of difference. If the Bill is passed to-day payments can be made throughout the Commonwealth to-morrow.

Thelast day of the present month falling upon Saturday, which is a half-day, is not a convenient day for the mating of payments, and in all the States I believe there is a desire that the payments shall be made to-morrow (Friday). Otherwise it would be comparatively immaterial whether the second reading and the committee stages of the Bill were taken to-day or tomorrow. I hope honorable senators will have no objection to allowing the motion to pass.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 12

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 13002

COMMONWEALTH FRANCHISE BILL

In Committee. - (Consideration ofthe message of the House of Representatives.)

Clause 3 (Persons entitled to vote).

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of theExecutive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

– The object of the amendments in this clause is to carry out its intention in a clearer way. In its original form it read as follows : -

Subject to the disqualifications hereafter set out, all adult persons - (a) Who are inhabitants of Australia and have resided therein for six months continuously, and (b Who are natural born or naturalized subjects of the King, and

Whose names are on the electoral roll for any electoral division, shall be entitled to vote at the election of Mem bers of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

There was some doubt expressed as to the meaning of the word “ adult,” and it has been removed by the omission of the word and the insertion after the next word, “person,” of the words “not under 21 years of age whether male or female, married or unmarried.” There is also an amendment in paragraph (a) to leave out the words “have resided therein,” and to insert the words “have lived in Australia continuously,” for the purpose of getting rid of questions of residence. I move -

That the committee agree to the amendments of the House of Representatives in clause 3.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

-I cannot see any difference between the phrase “ who have lived in “ and the phrase “ who have resided therein.”

Amendments agreed to.

Clause4 (Rights of electors of States).

Senator O’CONNOR:

– The amendments made by the other House in this clause embrace two points. In the first place, it has restored the word “Australia,” before the word “Asia.” It will be remembered that there was a long discussion here on thequestion of whether aboriginals should be deprived of the franchise. I took a very strong view that an aboriginal ought to be allowed to have his vote, and the committee agreed to that view. But the other House has taken the opposite view, and inserted the word “ Australia “ for the reason that, while in New South Wales, Victoria, and other States there are a large number of aboriginals who may be very well intrusted with the franchise which they possess, in Western Australiathere are a large number who, living in a state of semi-civilization in the neighbourhood of towns, might become registered, and that the clause applies not only to the blackfellows, but also to their gins. The prospect of our giving the franchise to the half-wild gins living with their tribe seems to have startled some of our friends in the other House. Under these circumstances I must admit that Western Australia stands in a position rather different from that of the other States.

Senator Ewing:

– That was all put to the Minister here.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– It was not put in such a way as to commend itself to my judgment as it now does. I hope that I am appealing to honorable senators who are wishful to have this legislation carried. The question for honorable senators is the same as it is “for me. Although I admit that some strong reasons were given for differentiating the case of Western Australia, I would very much prefer the Bill to be carried in the form in which it left the Senate. But, like honorable senators, the Government have to consider whether it is worth while to throw over the Bill because we cannot get what we want in this clause. It appears to me that, inasmuch as legislation cannot take place unless we come to an agreement, it is not worth while, for the sake of this particular provision, to stand out for our own way, and so run the risk of losing the Bill. I move -

That the committee agree .to the amendment of the House of Representatives in clause 4, inserting the word “Australia” before the word “Asia.”

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I take it that we cannot agree to this amendment, because it is in direct contravention of section 41 of .the Constitution Act.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– If the honorable senator will read the latter part of the clause, he will find that that question is specially dealt with.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- -The Bill has been sprung upon us so suddenly that I had overlooked that part. . It is a rather remarkable thing that the ‘Commonwealth, with its great power, should foe less liberal than the States to the aborigines. I do not see that any harm can accrue to the Commonwealth by reason of a few blacks having the right to vote - a right which they very seldom exercise in the States, mid which I have no doubt they exercise with as much intelligence as is in the possession of some “white persons on polling day. While the law stands as it is, and there is “‘no bar to any one in the community, unless -he is in an ‘asylum or a gaol, exercising his vote, whether he is ‘drunk or whether he is sober, it is only reasonable that the franchise should be granted by the Commonwealth to men who vote but seldom, and who certainly, as the original landlords of Australia, are entitled, in my humble view, to vote in the Commonwealth as well as in the individual States. I shall vote against the amendment of the other House.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– The point taken by Senator Neild is disposed of by the fact that, as I understand, there are two, if not three States in which the aboriginals have votes, and will retain them. But the object of another place is to exclude the natives of Western Australia, who are in a different position. Taking a practical view of the matter, -what would be the outcome of giving the aboriginals votes ? I suppose that 98 per Gent, of them can neither read nor write, nor can they have the slighest idea of the problems affecting Australia. If we were to enfranchise the adult native, and also the gin, we should have a ‘state of things at election times which would be simply a disgrace to the Federal Parliament. Senator Neild has some ‘knowledge of the calibre of election agents ; and in the fierce excitement of -electoral contests in districts in which probably the ‘aboriginals could absolutely turn an election, we can imagine how these black men -and women would be treated. They would regard their votes as playthings. Probatory they would be bought for a copper or two, or a pipe .of tobacco. I shall vote in favour of accepting the amendment of another place.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– I .am glad that the Government intend to agree with the amendment made by the House of Representatives. It would be a travesty on our legislation to give the aboriginals votes, and put them on the same plane of citizenship as ourselves. It is admitted that the aboriginals of Australia are amongst the most degraded people in the world. Yet it was at first proposed to ‘give them the franchise, a concession carrying with it the possibility of their sending to the Senate or the House of Representatives a black gin ! These people should not have .a vote, because they do not possess the genius of self-goverement, are not fit to exercise the franchise, and do not want it. The Bill, as it stood, would be all right for Tasmania, .where *here ,are no blacks, ana proba’bly all right for suchStates as New South Wales or Victoria ; but to give -the vote to most of the aboriginals in Western Australia would be a very serious matter indeed. In some of the electorates of Western Australia the blacks are more numerous than the whites. If they had votes they would be manipulated by skilful electioneering agents. Let me give an illustration : There was a Western Australian in Melbourne at the time this Bill was dealt with previously. He said - “ When the next election comes I shall have 70 votes. I have 35 aboriginal men on my station, where there are practically no whites, and they all have gins. I shall see that they all vote.” To give people a vote who do not understand constitutional Government, and who would sell the franchise for beer or a stick of tobacco, would be to do a great wrong. Although the Bill as it originally stood might do no harm in Victoria or New South Wales, where the blacks have died off on account of the civilization to which they have been subjected, the position is entirely different in Western Australia. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has said that this amendment is entirely new, and that it was explained far more fully in the House of Representatives than in the Senate what the effect of enfranchising the blacks would be. He appeared to give us to understand that it was on that account » that he had altered his opinion. I interjected that he had altered his mind because of the decision of the other House, and he then said that that was a foolish remark. But the honorable and learned senator himself said immediately afterwards, “Of course, that is why I have altered my mind,” and that he would accept the amendment rather than risk the loss of the Bill. Therefore, he admits that what I said as to his reason for altering his opinion is true. I trust that the amendment will bd agreed to, and that the Bill will be put upon the statute-book as soon as possible.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I am pleased that the Bill has come back to us in the form it now assumes. There can be no two opinions as to the unfitness of the aboriginal race to exercise the franchise. The Western Australian aboriginal is altogether a different person from the aboriginal who is known upon the eastern coasts. In the west he is almost in his primitive state, and the short acquaintance he has had with civilization has not improved him mentally or bodily. As foi: his morals, they are an unknown quantity. As one who has lived amongst the blacks of the west for a considerable time,

I can assure the committee that it would be as sensible to give votes to the lunatics in an asylum as to the aboriginals. I say that more out of grief than anything else, because certainly it is not a pleasant thing that the aboriginals of Australia should be in such a degraded condition. If they had votes those aboriginals who live in the neighbourhood of stations would vote as the squatters directed them. In fact, it would not be the aboriginals who would vote, but the squatters ; and that in itself is a danger that we have to guard against.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I should strongly oppose the amendment were it not that the Constitution has preserved to the aboriginals of South Australia their right to vote. I am glad to know that even the Commonwealth Parliament cannot deprive them of that right.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Neild. - Only those now alive will have the franchise.

Senator CHARLESTON:

– No ; if I read aright section 41 of the Constitution, it preserves the right to vote of the aboriginals of South Australia. The section reads -

No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State, shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Seeing that that is the case I shall not oppose the amendment.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

– It is incumbent upon me to say a word or two, because originally I voted for the clause as it stood when the Bill left the Senate. On this occasion I am going to reverse’ my vote, because the position is altogether different from what I understood it to be previously. I did not know that in some of the constituencies of W’estern Australia the blacks outnumber the whites. In that respect, the representatives of Western Australia in another place, as well as here, have made out a good case. In addition to that, I do not wish to imperil the passage of the Bill. Under these circumstances, I shall vote for the motion.

Senator STEWART (Queensland). - I was rather amused at the arguments advanced by Senator Neild in his opposition to the amendment sent to us from another place. He is usually so original that it was surprising to hear him utter so trite a remark as that the aboriginals of Australia were entitled to the franchise because they were the original owners of the country. I do not admit the honorable senator’s premises. By what authority does he advance the statement that the present aboriginals -were the original owners of Australia 1 I submit that Senator Neild does not know anything more on the subject than Ido myself, and I confess that 1 know nothing at all.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator has written a poem about it.

Senator STEWART:

– Poetry is supposed to be the fruit of the imagination. I have no imagination in that sense. But if I were to give a range to my fancy, I might conceive of a time -when Australia was peopled by a highly-civilized race of beings, and that they were overcome by some such foes as Huns or Goths, who cleared them out and took possession of the country, the present aboriginals of Australia being the degenerate descendants of those conquerors. But even if the aboriginals were the former owners of Australia, what possible use is there in giving them the franchise ? When we admit any person to citizenship along with us, we presume that he is fit to come into our company. What are the qualifications for citizenship of the aboriginals? We expect that every citizen shall be educated, and an opportunity is given to nearly everybody to become educated. But the blacks do not conform to that condition. The aboriginals do not trouble themselves about the British Constitution or about tree-trade or protection, or any of the other problems with which we have to deal. They are a totally uncivilized and barbarous race. I am very glad that common-sense for once has gone one better than sentiment. Sentiment is a very good thing in its place, but it requires to be kept very severely in its place. While I believe in the widest franchise possible for people of our own colour, race, and civilization, I draw the line very strictly at uncivilized barbarians like the aboriginals of Australia.. I am glad the amendment has been made, and I shall support it.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed by persons who desire to concede to the original inhabitants of this island all the rights we claim for ourselves, but I recognise that, in a matter of this kind, we have to look to what may be the result of enfranchising a large number of aboriginals, more especially in Western Australia. It is not desirable that the Commonwealth Parliament should take upon itself the responsibility of enfranchising the aboriginals in a State in which the State Parliament has not seen fit to do so. In Western Australia, it appears that it would be possible to organize a body of men at election times who would carry an election in any way in which wire pullers saw lit to direct, by means of the aboriginal vote. Under the Constitution, the rights of aboriginals who have the franchise at the present time are preserved to them. There is, also, a further power under the Constitution for the enfranchisement of aboriginal inhabitants in the future, if the State in which they reside thinks fit to enfranchise them. Section 41 of the Constitution provides that- -

No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of Parliament of a State, shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

So that it appears that under the Constitution Act there is an opportunity for the enfranchisement of the aboriginal inhabitants of any State where they are not enfranchised atthepresenttime. Thatenfranchisement might take the form of enabling certain aboriginals, who, for instance, may be employed in a settled occupation, to exercise a vote. We could not well deal with the matter in that way, but certainly where aboriginals, whether in Western Australia or any other State, give evidence of a determination to form homes for themselves and become citizens of the Commonwealth, it would be a reasonable thing that they should exercise a full right of franchise in the same way as our own white citizens. As to. their ability and intelligence there can be no doubt that there are many aboriginals who are as well fitted to exercise the vote as many white men who have the right. For the reasons I have mentioned, while sympathizing with the aborigines, I recognise that it is undesirable that we should enfranchise a large number of persons whom the State in which they reside will not enfranchise, and whose votes might be used for purposes which may not be bona fide.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

– Comparing this clause with the

Constitution, what strikes me most is the impression throughout Australia that we have the right to legislate absolutely so as to control the States as to what their electoral franchise shall be. I wish distinctly to state that we have no such power. The persons entitled to vote in each State are those so entitled under the present State laws, or those who may become so entitled under any future State laws, though the laws governing the matter in each State may be as different as possible. The central idea of the Constitution was to obtain the representation of each State according to the way in which that State thought its representation could be best secured.

Senator Fraser:

– At that time.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– Not at that time only, but at any future time as well. The idea was that federation could be best carried out by preserving the entity of the several States, and by leaving it to them to decide the method in which their representation should be determined. Subject to that, the Commonwealth may pass laws of general authority, but its laws are always to be subject to the laws of the States.

Senator Fraser:

– No; the franchise is to-be uniform.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– I know that my honorable friend would like to make a new Constitution, but, thank God, he has not got the power just now. We have a Constitution, and we are going to work under it. That Constitution provides that -

No adult person who has, or acquires, a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while that right continues - “ Who has, or acquires, a right.” There is present and future. - be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

The intention there is put in the clearest possible words. The laws, as they exist now in the States, defining the right to vote shall continue, though in each State they may be divergent, and laws in future passed by each State deciding who shall vote shall also prevail, notwithstanding any law we may pass to the contrary. So that any law we pass now upon this matter will be subject to the existing or future law of any State. That I wish to put on record as the understanding on which I shall support the amendment of the House of Representatives.

I have not the least objection to the Commonwealth laying down a general principle so long as it does not invade the Constitution. I can very well understand, however, that aboriginal natives who are absolutely unfit to vote now may, or their children may - if the race does not die out altogether - reach a condition of attainment and improvement which will entitle them to vote.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– And be empowered by State laws to do so.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– They can be empowered to do so, and it would be monstrously unkind, unreasonable, and tyrannical for us to lay down as a fixed law an expression of opinion that these people are absolutely incapable of improvement,,and that neither they nor their children can ever by any force of education or other cause reach a condition in which they would be capable of exercising the franchise. Senator Charleston has mentioned what the law is with us in South Australia upon the subject. This matter is left to the States. They will decide who are the persons competent to exercise the franchise. I should think that at present it would be absurd to give the aboriginals of Western Australia any vote, and probably that would apply to nearly all the natives of Australia ; but I wish it to be clearly understood that the Constitution leaves this question to be determined by the States, and that no law we can pass will derogate from the authority given to them by the Constitution.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion (by Senator 0’Counor) proposed -

That the committee agree to the amendment, of the House of Representatives in clause 4, omitting the words “or person of the halfblood,” and inserting the words “except the islands of New Zealand situated in the Pacific: Ocean beyond the Commonwealth.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Am I to understand that the effect of this amendment will be to allow Maories to vote if they become inhabitants of the Commonwealth?

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– It appearstome that under this amendment there will be no restriction upon the exercise of the franchise by aboriginal natives of New Zealand. I presume that the Maori race are the aboriginal natives of New Zealand, and they will be expressly exempted by this amendment.

Senator Millen:

-i have no objection to that. I desire only that it should be made clear that that is covered by the amendment.

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

– I have a strong objection to this amendment. I do not so much mind the proposal to strike out the reference to persons of the half-blood, that can be dealt with separately. I strongly object to giving aboriginal natives of the islands of New Zealand any larger franchise rights in Australia than we propose to give to the aboriginal natives of the Commonwealth, Asia and Africa.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator put them on the same mental level ?

Senator MATHESON:

– I certainly put them on the same mental level with the aboriginal natives of Asia. No one can deny that the mental attainments of the natives of Asia are very great, and they are, if anything, higher than the mental attainments of the natives of New Zealand. If we exclude natives of Asia from the franchise, I see no reason why we should give it to the natives of New Zealand. An additional reason is that in New Zealand itself the natives are not given an unlimited right to vote. They have not the power of exercising the franchise out of the district reserved for natives, and in that district they can only record a vote for native representatives. There is provision in the New Zealand Constitution allowing the natives to be represented by four members of their own race, and if an aboriginal native of New Zealand goes to some place which is not a native district he loses the right to vote, and cannot vote for a man of another colour. We have made no provision for anything of that kind in our Constitution, and I fail to see why, if an aboriginal native of New Zealand comes to the Commonwealth,’ he should be placed in any better position than he is placed in in his own country. There is an additional amendment proposed.

Except the islands of New Zealand situated in the Pacific Ocean beyond the Commonwealth.

The effect of the insertion of those words would be to give the franchise to the inhabitants of New Guinea, which is certainly an island situated in the Pacific Ocean. New Guinea is included in the Commonwealth, because we have absorbed it, and section 122 of the Constitution provides that -

The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory placed by the section under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth or otherwise ‘ acquired by the 37 b 2

Commonwealth, and may allow representation of such territory in every House of Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks n’t.

Under that section the territory of New Guinea has been accepted by the Commonwealth, and we are entitled to give it such representation as a territory as we think fit. Later on we will be in a position to make it a State if we choose. I take it that we took over New Guinea on the date the proclamation was gazetted. Under the circumstances, I shall oppose the insertion of these latter words, though I do not oppose the amendment, in so far as it deals with persons of the half-blood.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).It seems to me that Senator Matheson has quite misread the effect of the amendment. If the honorable senator’s contention, that we have absorbed New Guinea, and that it has become a part of Australia is correct, he will see that the clause distinctly debars aboriginal natives of Australia from voting. If we have not absorbed New Guinea there is nothing in this amendment which will give the natives of that territory any rights beyond those given to the natives of Asia, Africa, or the islands of the Pacific. . Having lived for some little time where I had an ample opportunity of judging of the Maories, and having had experience of the natives of the mainland in three of the States, I must say that I am surprised that any one should attempt to debar Maories from voting for anything like the same reason as they would debar aboriginal natives of Australia. One has only to pay a visit to the Maori settlements, or better still, to the New Zealand House of Representatives to discover that the Maories are entitled to any electoral privileges they may succeed in obtaining. We are not likely to have any great influx of Maories, and if we are prepared to extend the franchise to any persons from New Zealand of our own race, it is hardly worth our while to differentiate between them adversely to the Maories.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - I think that Senator Matheson did not give sufficient attention to the provisions of the Constitution Act before he raised this question. If he will refer to section 3 of the Act he will find that the Commonwealth embraces New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania,, and Western Australia. In section 121 provision is made for the admission and establishment of new States, while section 122 relates to the government of territories. We have not accepted New Guinea as a territory or admitted it as a new State, nor, of course, has it been granted any rights of representation in this Parliament. Therefore the amendment in this clause could not, by any process of reasoning, be held to include the inhabitants of New Guinea. The honorable senator may rest perfectly certain that no damage in that direction can occur. I quite agree with what Senator Millen has said of the Maori race. Any one who has followed their history cannot fail to recognise that the Maories are suitable persons to have the franchise, and that they would take as keen an interest in any proposed legislation as would any white men. When we find that the Maories have representation in the New Zealand Parliament, and that a Maori has held the responsible position of a Minister of the Crown, I have no doubt that it will be recognised at once that the Maories are on the same equality as are the white people, and therefore there can be no reason for denying them the right to vote in Australia. Again, New Zealand is situated so close to the Commonwealth - that it is well for us to cultivate cordial relations with its people - both white and coloured. I think it is too late for us to debate the question of whether we should admit to the franchise the inhabitants of other islands. In view of the legislation we have passed, it would be quite impossible to throw open the door in the wide way that has been suggested. I thoroughly agree with this amendment.

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- We do nob know what islands may belong to New Zealand within the next few years.

Senator Clemons:

– ;This amendment relates to the islands known as New Zealand, and not to the islands belonging to New Zealand.

Senator STEWART:

– If Mr. Seddon continues in power for a very long time, he will have snapped up every island in the Pacific Ocean. If people from those islands come to the Commonwealth and claim to be citizens of New Zealand, of course we shall have some people ready enough to say that it refers only to the islands permanently known as New Zealand ; but the opponents of that reading of the provision will contend that it was evidently meant to apply to all the islands of

New Zealand situated in the Pacific Ocean, beyond the Commonwealth. If it is intended to give the franchise to the. aboriginal natives of the territory which we know as New Zealand, why not make it clearer than it is ? I have no particular objection to extend the franchise to the Maories. Senator Matheson has explained that they are not allowed to vote amongst the whites, and that the Maories in the Parliament do not represent any persons except their own race. I do not know why these limitations have been made. But if they exist, I do not see that a very good claim might not be established for refusing them the suffrage when they come to the Commonwealth. The particular point which troubles me is whether we are going to embrace in this definition all the islands and all the territory which the present or a future Premier of New Zealand may choose to annex. I trust that Senator O’Connor will let us know what he thinks of that point.

Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - Senator Stewart is perfectly correct when he says that a large number of islands are included in the New Zealand Group. In addition to the three islands which are generally called New Zealand - the North Island, the South Island, and Stewart Island - there are the Chatham Islands, comprising 240,000 acres ; the Auckland Islands, comprising 210,000 acres ; the Campbell Islands, comprising 45,000 acres ; the Antipodes Islands, com prising 12, 000 acres ; the Boun tj’ Islands, comprising 3,000 acres ; the Kermeded Group, comprising 8,000 acres, or in all 528,000 acres. There are also’ the Cook Islands, which have been recently annexed, and which have a very large native population ; the Solomon Islands, and the Penguin Group. It seems likely that Fiji will become part of New Zealand, and it contains no less than 118,000 aborigines. Even if the committee considers that the aboriginal natives of New Zealand should be given the franchise, it might omit the superfluous words “situated in the Pacific Ocean, beyond the Commonwealth,” and so leave the question absolutely free of any doubt. I think everyone will admit that the words are unnecessary, and it seems to me still that they were put in with the view of doing what I suggested at first.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I do not think that honorable senators should be so factious over a question of such little importance to the Commonwealth. I should think that the amendment has been inserted by the other House out of consideration for our friendly relations with New Zealand, and not because any importance is attached to it. I am sure that Senator Matheson does not imagine that the Commonwealth will be invaded by a horde of Maories, and that any election will be swayed’ either one way or another by their influence. If the amendment can have no prejudicial effect, and does not disfigure the Bill, I do not see why it should not be agreed to.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH (Western Australia). - I think it would be inconsistent for us to enfranchise the Maories. In New Zealand the Maories are not giiven equal rights with the whites, but a certain representation is allowed to the Maori race. In India there are very high-caste Hindoos, who are well educated, and who belong to the same human family as we do. If we agree to this amendment, we say that these Hindoos shall not have the franchise, because we are determined that the only people who shall vote in Australia are those of the white or Caucasian race, or such people as the States may enfranchise. Why should we say that the Maories, who I admit are very intelligent, should have this right of citizenship in Australia, and that the highest class Hindoos, who are also members of the British Empire, should be denied the privilege? That seems to me to be an inconsistency. It would be better to say in the Bill that no coloured person shall have the franchise, than to indicate the portions of the world whose aboriginal inhabitants shall not be allowed to vote in the Commonwealth.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– There is no fear of Maories coming to Australia in any number, but if the Asiatics should get a foothold here they would soon swamp us. If I had my way, I should give no coloured man a vote, no matter where he came from. There is not the slightest fear of the Maories, who are a very intelligent race, invading Australia, but there is a fear that Asiatic hordes would come if they got the opportunity.

Motion (by Senator Matheson) proposed -

That the amendment of the Mouse of Representatives lie amended by the omission of the wonts “situated in the Pacific Ocean beyond the Commonwealth.”

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I think that Senator Stewart’s criticism of the phraseology of the amendment is perfectly right. I suggest to Senator O’Connor, that if the clause, were altered to read - “ No aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or island of the Pacific, except New Zealand,” it would carry out the design of Senator Stewart, and the full intention of the amendment, and it would I think conduce to better drafting. I ask him if he cannot allow us to accept the amendment in that form t

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I admit at once that it would be very much neater drafting to leave out the latter words ; but the difference between taking that course and accepting the Bill as it is, is that if we adopt the amendment in its present form, which is substantially the same as that which is suggested, it will become law directly. But if we, for the sake of securing a little better drafting, which cannot affect the meaning of the clause in any way, send the Bill back to the other House it will have to be considered there as well as here before it can. become law. I have asked honorable senators to agree to the amendment as it is, because it is desirable that the necessary basis of our electoral system should be settled as early as possible. There is a machinery Bill which will carry out the principle laid down here ; but until this Bill is passed, finality cannot be attained with regard to the other measure. That is a reason for accepting the Bill as it is, and making it law as soon as possible, so that the House of Representatives, in dealing with the Electoral Bill, will know where they are. I cannot understand the view of those who see a danger to the principle of a white Australia in the adoption of this amendment.

Senator Staniforth SMITH:

– It is a question of consistency.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– We have to be careful of creating difficulties and doing a real injury, in order to attain ideal consistency. We cannot have ideal consistency in this world, but we should get as near to it as we can. The practical difficulty in the way is this : We hope that the day will come when New Zealand will be a member of the Federation. At present she does not see eye to eye with us on the subject, and does not think that the time has arrived [ when her interests will justify her in joining. Now, any one who knows New Zealand is aware that the Maories occupy an entirely different position from the aboriginals of any other part of Australia. The Maories are a highly civilized people, and the white New Zealander, who is as democratic as any man in Australia, has long ago come to the conclusion that these people should be allowed political rights. They have certain political rights in New Zealand, and I happen to know, from discussing the question of federation, as I had the honour to do, with some representatives of New Zealand who came here to inquire into the subject some time ago, that the New Zealanders make it a strong point that the Maories shall not have any differential treatment extended to them, or be placed in a lower position in the Commonwealth than other persons connected with New Zealand. It would be a bad beginning for the sake of some ideal consistency to flout the public opinion of New Zealand in regard to a matter of that kind. I will undertake to say that if New Zealand becomes a member of the Commonwealth, it will be only on the terms of giving the aboriginal natives of that country at least as much political power in the Commonwealth as they have at present in their own country. What does the immigration from New Zealand amount to ‘( To a few natives and nothing more. There is no comparison between the danger of immigration from New Zealand and the danger of Asiatic immigration. The whole difference is that in the one case there is an inexhaustible supply and a strong inducement to emigrate, and in the other there is a comparatively limited supply of people who do not wish to emigrate. I hope, looking at the matter from the point of view of substance and as a matter of practical legislation, that the committee will see that it would be much better to take the Bill in this form, even though as a matter of drafting it is possible to make improvements.

Senator STEWART (Queensland).- The Vice-President of the Executive Council has not attempted to touch the question I alluded to. He has looked forward to the time when New Zealand may join the Federation. We all agree with him in that wish. If New Zealand joins the Federation she will bring her possessions with her, and so far as I can discover they will all come under the heading of New Zealanders. In that event the aboriginal inhabitants of the islands possessed by New Zealand may be placed in exactly the same position as the Macries. What I want to have made clear, and what 1 think is not clearly expressed in the present wording of the clause, is that the measure shall not apply to any person who is an aboriginal native other than an aboriginal native of the islands at present known as New Zealand. The amendment suggested by Senator Clemons would meet the difficulty, but if the Bill is left in its present indefinite state, no one can tell what trouble may arise in the future. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has asked us to pass the measure so that it may become law as soon as possible. I am as anxious as anybody can be for the measure to become law. But I do not see any occasion for accepting what he himself admits to be slip-shod drafting, because we are in a hurry to pass the Bill. Parliament will be sitting ‘ for some months to come, and there is any amount of time between now and the recess to deal with the matter, and make the wording of the Bill clear and distinct so that no one can mistake its meaning. New Zealand wants to become a sort of suzerain over all the islands in the Pacific. If she succeeds, and if she subsequently joins the Federation she will bring her satellites with her, and then the question will arise whether the aboriginals of her island possessions have the same right to the franchise in Australia as the New Zealand aboriginals have. I am not prepared to admit that proposition. We are quite willing to admit New Zealand, into partnership with us, together with the Maories, but we should object to the inhabitants of the Pacific Islands being admitted to the franchise.

Senator Sir J ohn Downer:

– Would it not be better to wait until the time comes for making terms with New Zealand 1

Senator STEWART:

– I think it would be better to settle the matter now. The argument as to delay does not warrant us in passing the Bill in its present form. It is of some consequence to have the matter so clearly expressed as to be beyond doubt or question.

Senator EWING (Western Australia).There is no necessity to use doubtful language where we can amply express our meaning. If we simply say “ except New Zealand,” we shall know exactly what the expression means, and there will be.no doubt about it. But if we say “ except the islands of New Zealand,” that might mean any islands that have been acquired by New Zealand.

Senator Sir John Downer:

– No.

Senator EWING:

– It is of no use being dogmatic. The honorable and learned senator knows perfectly well that many a time he has gone into court saying “ No,” when the court has decided against him. We want to make it clear than when we’ speak of New Zealand, we do not mean to include any islands that New Zealand may acquire in the future. What is the use of putting into an Act of Parliament a lot of language which makes the meaning obscure, when by altering a couple of words we can clearly demonstrate our meaning? I trust that Senator Matheson will amend his amendment by proposing to omit the words “ the islands of.”

Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - I am quite willing to amend my motion so as to provide also for the omission of the words “ the islands of.”

Motion amended accordingly.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I cannot say that the drafting is as clear as it might be, but I have no doubt whatever about the meaning, nor do I ‘think there would be any doubt about its interpretation. But still, as apparently the committee does not seem to be in a hurry about passing the measure, it might be better to amend the drafting when we are about it, and let the Bill come back to us again. I am, therefore, willing to accept the motion.

Amendment of amendment agreed to.

Amendment as amended agreed to.

Clause 6 -

No person shall be entitled -

To have his name on the electoral roll for any electoral division except the division in which he resides. (b) To vote at any election except in the electoral division for which he is enrolled.

To vote more than once at the same election.

Provided always that any senator or member of the House of Representatives shall, if he so desires, be entitled to have his name placed on and retained on the electoral roll for the electoral division in which he resided at the time of his election, instead of the electoral roll for the electoral division in which he resides.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The House of Representatives has omitted paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause, and also the proviso. When the matter was under discussion in the Senate, it was pointed out by several honorable senators that the clause more properly belonged tothe Electoral Bill, which is a machinery measure, than to the Franchise Bill. The clause was left in, however, in order that it might be an indication to the House of Representatives as to what was desired. The other place has struck out the two paragraphs and the proviso, with the view of putting them in the Electoral Bill, to which they properly belong. I move -

That the amendments of the House of Repre sentatives omitting paragraphs (a) and (b) and the proviso be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolutions reported ; report adopted.

Resolved (on motion by Senator O’Connor) -

That a committeeconsistingof Senators Mathe son, Stewart, and the Vice-President of the Executive Council be appointed to prepare and bring up reasons for disagreeing to part of amendment No. 6 of the House of Representatives.

page 13011

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S ESTABLISHMENT BILL

Second Reading

Senator Dobson:

– On the point of order, I think Senator Gould has shown clearly that he is out of order. I take it that this Bill does not in any way bring before us the question of salary or allowances. The reference which the honorable and learned senator has made to what took place in another Chamber is absolutely against him.

We all know from the records that a Bill dealing with allowances which opened up the whole question was introduced in another place and met with no reception, and this Bill is the outcome of the decision, of the House of Representatives. The Bill before us does not deal with allowances to the Governor-General, and therefore any reference to the questions which Senator Gould was opening up is precluded. A grant of an extraordinary character which can never come up again is the sole purpose of the measure now before us.

The PRESIDENT:

– In the first place, I have always held, and I think correctly that an honorable senator is in order in referring to the records of another place. Our standing order says that no member shall allude to any debate in the other House of Parliament or refer to any measure pending therein. The latter words of the standing order appear to me to be confined to a measure which is under discussion there, and which has not reached us. Therefore, as far as reference to the records is concerned, I think Senator Gould is perfectly in order. Then as to the second question, the rule is that the debate must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill, and I am not prepared to say that a reference to the Constitution and a reference to the salary of the Governor-General, or to any matter of that sort, are not relevant to the subject matter of this Bill.

Senator Major GOULD:

– I was pointing out that we had clearly and distinctly fixed by the Constitution the salary we were to allow the Governor-General during the time of his tenure of office, and’ whether that salary was sufficient or not we were precluded from considering by the terms of the Constitution, except as applying to the salary of a gentleman who might be appointed to fill the office at a future date. Notwithstanding that we find from the papers laid upon the table of this House, that as far back as the 30th of November, 1900, a despatch was addressed by Mr. Chamberlain to the Governor-General with regard to this question of allowances, and that upon that despatch a communication was made to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth by His Excellency. A second communication was written by Mr Chamberlain, in which he alluded to the fact that a Bill had been introduced into the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, providing for an annual contribution towards the expenses upon the basis of population if the whole of the States, contributed a sum of £10,000, and to the fact that that Bill had been accepted by the State Parliament of New South Wales, and had been rejected by the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. Then he goes on to say-

I had occasion towards the end of 1890 to address a despatch to the Governors of the Australian colonies pointing out that it was highly desirable to provide salaries adequate for the proper discharge of the duties of a Governor, and that in future the Governor of a State should not be expected to supplement his salary from private resources. I understand that this view was adopted at the Premiers’ Conference held early in 1900, and that a resolution was passed to the effect that Governors should not be expected to supplement their salaries from’ their private means.
I consider that this principle, in which the Premiers expressed their concurrence, and which I have no doubt they would agree applies to the Governor-General as well as to State Governors, is of the greatest importance, since it makes it possible for the Crown to select a suitable person for the high office of Her Majesty’s representative without requiring of him a heavy pecuniary sacrifice in the discharge of his duties.
From the point of view of public interest, I consider it important that you should limit your hospitality in capitals other than Sydney strictly to such official entertainment us you may consider to be necessarily demanded, unless and until some fair and suitable provision be made by the States or b3’ the Commonwealth for the expenses involved.

I am perfectly aware that some honorable senators may consider that the latter portion of this despatch is open to a good deal of comment. But so far as my purpose is concerned, it does not matter what the opinion of Mr. Chamberlain may have been in a matter of this kind, or whether it was right for him to communicate in this way or not. It is necessary, however, that I should allude to this despatch, and to the recognition of the principle laid down in it by the Government of the day, for I find that there is this minute, dated 21st February, 1901-

Mr. Barton presents his humble duty to Your Excellency, and requests to bo allowed to acknowledge the receipt through Your Excellency of copy of a despatch, dated 11th January last, from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the subject of making suitable provision for the expenses of Your Excellency’s establishment and for the charges of entertainment.

Mr. Barton begs to intimate that the Ministers for the Commonwealth have agreed to submit a measure to the Parliament which, in his view, will meet the situation to which Mr. Secretary Chamberlain’s despatch refers.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honorable senator think these references to the State Parliament are relevant to this Bill 1

Senator- HIGGS. - I shall not pursue the subject upon those lines any further. I think Lord Hopetoun has mistaken the wishes of the, public of Australia, and he has been led by that mistake into a very large expenditure which was quite unnecessary, and was never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. The people of Victoria have led the GovernorGeneral to think that he should expend large sums of money in entertaining the persons invited to all these big functions. Indeed, the people of Victoria are responsible for the state of mind into which His Excellency has got. I will not say that he has been spoiled, but he has been misled by his admirers in this State. Both the public and the press have lauded the Governor-General to such an extent that he asks himself the question, as he did at one public gathering -

I commence to wonder whether I was created for the position of Governor-General, or if the position of .Governor-General was created for me.

He seems to have come to the conclusion that, in order to keep up the dignity of his office, he must indulge in very large and, to my mind, quite unnecessary expenditure. It is all very well for some Members of Parliament to indulge in calculations as to the expenditure of money which takes place in connexion with receptions, to which 4,000 people are invited - 3,000’ ladies’ dresses and what they cost, 3,000 bonnets, and all that kind of thing. It is all very well for them to show how this expenditure of money is advantageous to till classes, and gives work to dressmakers, jewellers, cabmen, and so forth. That is a peculiar economic fallacy. If it is a good thing for the people of the Commonwealth to spend £30,000 or £40,000 a year in allowances in this way, and if that expenditure has a beneficial effect, we might as well make it £100,000, and then, of course, the general public would get very much more work to do. I regard it as an erroneous impression that the Governor-General must come to these States and keep up an extensive vice-regal court, costing a lot of money, on the understanding set forth in Mr. Chamberlain’s despatch that he will be expected to entertain a large and wealthy community, much given to hospitality. Probably the Governor-General has been influenced by what takes place in other parts of the British dominions. The Sydney Bulletin puts the case very nicely, and I shall give honorable senators the benefit of the quotation of the following paragraph, which appeared in the issue of 24th May, 1902 :-

Lord Hopetoun seems to have thought that the mental condition of Australians was akin to that of Hindus, and that respect could only be won for the office he held by a. display of gorgeousness on his part. Hence his great teams of horses, his State coaches, his out-riders and postillions, his armies of flunkeys in padded calves and plush pants. B.ut let us hope that Australia’s ultimate pattern will be that of Andrew Jackson, who was his own postillion and his own out-rider, and who, when installed President of the United States, rode up to the White House on his old white horse, hitched it to a fence, was inaugurated, and then untied his moke and rode away.

Of course the language is not very cultured, but I venture to say it expresses the opinions of a large number of people throughout the Commonwealth.

Senator Dobson:

– What about Mr. Reid’s criticism ? That caused the resignation in my opinion. 37 c

Senator HIGGS:

– No doubt the honorable senator is right to some extent. It is perhaps unnecessary for me to say that I regard Lord Hopetoun as a very intellectual man. I believe that he works very hard in his position as Governor-General. I have had an opportunity of listening to him on several occasions, and I must say that the speeches he makes are of a very high order, and are not made without the expenditure of a very great deal of mental energy. I wish to say that ; but at the same time he was so complimented upon all hands, that when he was led into accepting the responsibility of the act of the Government in delaying the contingents, and was subsequently criticised for that, the criticism may perhaps have hurt his feelings a great deal. I think the criticism was right, and we should not consider feelings in such a matter. I believe there is no doubt that certain things not altogether connected with the refusal to grant an allowance of £8,000 a year have operated to bring about Lord Hopetoun’s resignation. At the same time Australia, while desirous of economy in its administration, is quite willing that Lord Hopetoun should be recouped. If through the influence of Mr. Chamberlain, of Mr. Barton, or of any one else, he has been led into expending money under a misunderstanding, I believe that the people of the Commonwealth, if the question were put to them, would be willing that he should receive the money which he is out of pocket. But the people of the Commonwealth do not want any more of that kind of thing. If anybody deceived Lord Hopetoun, to my mind, it was the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In the despatch dated 4th January, 1901, paragraph 7, Mr. Chamberlain states -

During the period preceding the establishment of the federal capital, it is intended that the Governor-General should occupy the Government Houses at both Sydney and Melbourne, and it ma)’ be found desirable that he should continue the same arrangement after the new capital is established. I need scarcely point out that maintaining two, and ultimately three, separate houses will involve very heavy expenditure, and I have already suggested to the Governor of New South Wales that, until some provision has been made for entertainment allowance, the Governor-General should, not be expected to entertain largely at Sydney, and I have received an assurance that a Bill will be introduced in the New South Wales Parliament to provide an allowance.

Senator Dobson:

– Where is the deception there 1

Senator Major Gould:

– The Bill was passed by the New South Wales Parliament, and the. Commonwealth Government would not allow the Governor-General to accept the allowance.

Senator O’Connor:

– Certainly not; why should he?

Senator HIGGS:

– We can only deal with the despatches before us. Lord Hopetoun received this despatch from Mr. Chamberlain, in which certain opinions are expressed.

Senator Matheson:

– Which he got from whom - the Government of New South Wales 1

Senator HIGGS:

– I am asked from whom he got these opinions. They are evidently his own, as expressed in paragraph 6 -

The Governor-General of Canada is not in receipt of an entertainment allowance ; but there can be little doubt that the expenses of entertainment in Australia will be far heavier than in the case of Canada. Until the new federal capital is built the Governor-General will, of necessity, have to reside in the great centres of population, in the midst of a large and wealthy society much given to hospitality, and, even if the GovernorGeneral’s chief residence is removed to a capital corresponding more nearly to Ottawa, it will be desired’ that he should spend part of his time in the different State capitals, and great expenses will naturally be entailed on him by these visits.

Senator HIGGS:

– In Victoria there are wealthy people, butthey are so few that they do not constitute the large class that Mr. Chamberlain speaks of. The successors of Lord Hopetoun must understand, from what is taking place, that the Commonwealth does not expect them to spend large sums of money in so-called entertainments. Ten thousand pounds per annum was fixed as the salary of the Governor-General to enable him to carry out the duties of his office according to the Constitution, but it was never contemplated that there should be a Court at which a certain few in the community should bask in the sunshine of vice-regality.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– It seems to me that this debate could hardly have taken place had it not been for the somewhat heated, not to say violent, eloquence of my honorable and learned friend Senator Downer. We were just coming calmly to some kind of conclusion, probably to a division, when Senator Downer stuck in the poker, twisted up the coals, and started a nice little conflagration. It is in consequence of his speech that I am disposed to utter a few words. He threw all the blame for this trouble upon the free-trade party. He pointed out that if the original Bill had been passed into law we should not have heard about these troubles in any way. I venture to think that my honorable and learned friend quite forgot that the Government themselves in the other Chamber played the part of the Russian parents who threw their child to the wolves. They took Mr. Higgins’ child instead, and.it is Mr. Higgins’ child, or the remnants of it, that is before us, and not a Government measure at all. The complaint I have to make is a very brief one. It may be put in this way : that the Prime Minister was guilty of two breaches of faith. One was that he did not attempt for fourteen or fifteen months to keep a promise which, if it were of any value, should have applied from the moment it was made, and not have been attempted to be fulfilled upwards of a year afterwards. The second breach of faith was that he undertook to bring in a Bill and then told his supporters that they need not vote for it, but could vote for the proposition that was going to be made by a private member. That is the statement that every one has read in a newspaper this morning. Those were two distinct breaches of faith ; and I submit that the word of a Prime Minister ought to be taken, not only as being as valid as that of a private person, but ,as having attached to it a greater importance, due to the high official and public position of such a dignitary. I do not see how any process of verbal twisting can provide an escape from those two statements, or can relieve the Prime Minister and the Government from the dilemma of having first of all made a distinct pledge to the Governor-General, and then made no attempt whatever, even by an indication to the followers of the Government, or by ascertaining their views, to give effect to that promise. It was a serious official promise. There was a good deal of presenting “ humble duty,” and all the rest of it, but there was no effort to give effect to the promise and to keep the Prime Minister’s word for considerably over twelve months. Even then, when some attempt was apparently made to give effect to the promise, it was thrown to the wolves, and somebody else was allowed to have a try, by proposing something which it was said would please everybody. It is not possible to excuse the Prime Minister of - I think the term “duplicity” was used in the course of the debate, but I will not employ that term, but will say a breach of faith. Suras have been read out to us as to the salaries of different high functionaries, but what about the allowances that are also made on their account ? I think even the Governor-General must have been surprised to find when he came here that, though provided with a house to live iu, he was not provided with electric light foi* it. The people of the Commonwealth never expected the GovernorGeneral to have a bill sent in to him by the Federal Treasurer demanding payment for the electric lighting of certain rooms in the house he occupied. In the same way in reference to the gardens, who ever expected that the Governor-General would be expected out of his stated salary to maintain the grounds attaching to Government House ? It is a most incredible proposition, and I do not understand why these charges were ever made ‘against the GovernorGeneral. We know perfectly well that the colony of Victoria paid its Governor a salary of £10,000 a year and allowances, which I understand on the best authority - that of an ex-Minister of Victoria - amounted to £6,000 or £7,000 a year in one form or another. But I decline to admit, that they were allowances. A sum to maintain the gardens surrounding Government House is not an allowance to the Governor-General ; the gardens are only part of the residence. We do not expect the Governor-General to live in a house with no garden surroundingit ; some place with goats camped on his door-step, with all the rest of the cheerful “ simplicity “ that we have heard of in connexion with vice-regal establishments duringthe course of the debate. New South Wales paid her Governor £7,000 a year and expenses of one kind and another, including the salaries of part of the vice-regal retinue, which brought the expenditure up to ‘ £12,000 a year - every penny of it. I do not sa)’ those were proper sums. That is not the question.^” We have to decide what is a proper thing to do now. The Billbefore us is not the Bill of the Ministry, but the Bill of a private member who has jockeyed the Government out of their true position as leaders of Parliament, and dictated terms to the first Ministry of the Commonwealth of Australia. I havealways understood that there was such a- . thing in parliamentary institutions asMinisterial responsibility. Where is the Ministerial responsibility in connexion with this Bill ? There is no Ministerial responsibility at all. There is only Ministerial subterfuge and cowardice.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I do not.” think the honorable senator should use such language.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator MILLEN:

– Last night, in the House of Representatives. There is one other matter, to which I refer with some hesitancy. I said a little while ago that the Government had either bungled or had been guilty of some deceit, and that I was very loath to believe that they had wilfully sought to mislead anybody. But there is the peculiar circumstance that, when a question was addressed to the Prime Minister some time ago as to whether allowances were to be paid in addition to a salary, he gave a reply which was interpreted as meaning that no allowances were being paid. The reply was given when the Government were under an obligation, and had accepted the responsibility for the payment of allowances. Technically speaking, it is true that no allowances were being paid, but the Government had undertaken to introduce a Bill to pay them. There can be hardly any doubt that the Governor-General, resting on the assurance of his confidential advisers, was incurring expenditure in the full anticipation that it would be recouped to him later on. Yet, whilst this was going on, the Prime Minister gave the public assurance that no allowances were being paid. I cannot myself reconcile that with my idea of fair and open dealing. I have said I hesitate to think for a moment that the Government were attempting any deceit in the matter ; but I do think that on this point the Senate is entitled to some explanation. I am entirely with those who state that all the Commonwealth requires in its Governor-General is that he should be a paid official, and as such discharge the duties of his position. The people of Australia, instinct as they are with democratic ideas, have no desire that there shall be kept up, even in the name of the Governor-General, a species of pomp with which they have no sympathy, and in which they have little participation. My principal regret is that the Government did not deal with this matter earlier. Had they dealt with it months ago, I venture to think that some other alternative would have presented itself to that which the GovernorGeneral felt called upon to adopt. It may be said that the hands of the Government were too full with other business. But if there was time to bring in an Inter-State Commission Bill, and a Defence Bill,, both of which caused some debate, and were then discarded, there was ample time to introduce the Bill which has been the cause of all this trouble. As to the alternative, I would say that if the Government had appreciated the matter as they should have done, shortly after Parliament met, or had taken the course usually adopted in these cases, of ascertaining the feeling of the various sections of the House, the GovernorGeneral might have understood that Parliament was not willing to grant the allowances on the enlarged scale, and that all that was required was the discharge of his official duties. Had that been done, the GovernorGeneral could very well have said, as I think he would have said, metaphorically, at any rate - “ Well, gentlemen, if the Commonwealth is not prepared to give the increased allowances, which I take to be necessary for the maintenance of the position, you cannot at all complain if I reduce my expenditure to the income you have provided for me.” That, I believe, is the position Australia wants and would approve. Judging from the debate in this and the other House, I am bound to assume and anticipate that will be the position which will prevail from this time onward.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I do not think it is to be regretted that this debate has taken place, seeing that it will clear the way for the future. It is, however, to be regretted that the debate did not take place earlier, and all I blame the Government for is not giving Parliament an opportunity of dealing with this matter before the present unpleasant situation arose. It seems to me that both the Governor-General and Mr. Chamberlain entirely overlooked the wishes of the people as expressed in our Constitution. In section 3 of the Constitution dealing with the salary of the Governor-General, we find the words -

There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds. The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office.

With these words in the Constitution, it is idle to say that Lord Hopetoun entered into office, or that Mr. Chamberlain made the appointment without any knowledge of what the circumstances would be. The Constitution clearly declares that £10,000 is to be the salary, and that it is not to be altered during the term of office. If we look over the records of the Adelaide Convention we find not only that £10,000 was the sum fixed, but that the onlyother proposal was that of the Hon. J. H. Howe, of South Australia, to make the salary £7,000. In the light of that section of the Constitution and of the discussion in the Convention, surely Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Hopetoun must have known that all the people of Australia were willing to pay was £10,000 per annum.

Senator Glassey:

– And a very good salary.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator DOBSON:

– To me the words of that compromise are absolutely plain. Melbourne is entitled to have the seat of Government and everything pertaining to it, until the new capital is established in New South Wales.

Senator Millen:

– The Vice-President of the Executive Council as a lawyer said differently.

Senator DOBSON:

– The honorable senatorsays “hear,hear” in the tonewhich he usually adopts when Senator Neild is speaking, but he cannot deny the fact that when the Premier of New South Wales communicates with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, his statements are considered to be authentic,and he is believed to express the views of the people he is supposed to represent. Mr. Chamberlain further says -

I need scarcely point out that maintaining two, and ultimately three separate houses, will involve very heavy expenditure, and I have already suggested to the Government of New South Wales–

He had “ already suggested to the Government of New South Wales.” There Senator McGregor will find justification for my statement that there had already been communications between the Government of New South Wales and Mr. Chamberlain, which raised the question of two Government houses.

I have already suggested to the Government of New South Wales that until some provision had been made for entertainment allowance the Governor-General should not be expected to entertain largely–

Where? at Sydney.

– That has been an erroneous impression, I admit, but still it is a fact. What did the Governor-General do when he received this despatch? He handed it, on the 4th January, to his Prime Minister. Are we asked to suppose that this despatch was received by the Prime Minister, never acknowledged, put into a pigeon-hole, and left without comment ? If any honorable senator asks me to believe that, he asks me to consider myself a fool. There can be no doubt that this despatch formed the subject of discussion between Lord Hopetoun and his Prime Minister. There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister, influenced by previous conversations with Sir William Lyne, led Lord Hopetoun to believe that there would be no difficulty in getting this extra allowance. Common sense tells one that that would be the course adopted. What happens next? In the meantime Mr. Chamberlain learns that New South Wales had made a grant of £3,000 for the purpose of entertaining, following the suggestion he had himself made in the previous despatch ; and on the 1 1th January, 1901, he wrote to Lord Hopetoun, pointing out very properly that it was undesirable that the GovernorGeneral should receive grants from any one State, and suggesting that the grant should be made by the Commonwealth, and again suggesting that the matter should be brought before his Ministers. Lord Hopetoun appears to have handed that despatch to his Prime Minister immediately after he received it on the 15th February, which would be about the date upon which it was received. The matter then received official recognition, and what does Mr. Barton say ? Mr. Barton was in possession of both of these documents ; he had, no doubt, carefully read what was said about the two Government Houses ; he was perfectly aware that this was repugnant to the people of Australia, and was contrary to the Constitution, and he must have been aware that it was extremely unlikely that he would be able to obtain the extra allowances from the Commonwealth Parliament, because the matter had come up in the Victorian Parliament, and a proposed grant had been refused. I remember reading the comments which appeared in almost every newspaper on the subject of the refusal by the Victorian Parliament to grant this extra allowance. Mr. Barton should have been fully aware that he had very little chance of getting these allowances for the Governor-General, and he should have pointed that out to His Excellency. Instead of that, what does he say? -

Mr. Barton begs to intimate that the Minister for the Commonwealth have agreed to submit a measure to the Parliament which, in his view, will meet the situation to which Mr. Secretary Chamberlain’s:despatch refers.

Senator Higgs:

– Then the honorable senator thinks that Ministers should go round and buttonhole members ?

Senator MATHESON:

– That is not the duty of the Minister, but every Ministry employs a gentleman, who is called the “whip,” and whose duty if is to do that very business. At that time there was no Parliament, and so no “ whip “ could have been employed. Fromthe refusal of the Victorian Parliament to grant an allowance, and the press comments made upon the subject, any one could have told that the Commonwealth Parliament would refuse to grant extra allowances on any substantial scale. That brings the matter down to the date of Mr. Barton’s minute of the 21st February. Parliament was not yet constituted, the federal elections had not been held, and Mr. Barton should, without a doubt, have expressed to the GovernorGeneral his view that two residences were unnecessary, and that Australia did not look to His Excellency to spend large sums of money in entertaining. He should have recommended him to curtail his expenses to the amount likely to be secured from Parliament. But it is perfectly clear that Mr. Barton led the Governor-General to suppose that there would be no difficulty whatever about obtaining these allowances. Now I come to the point, and I say that that is why honorable senators on this side blame Mr. Barton and his Government. We say emphatically that these gentlemen were led into the position in which they are now by Sir William Lyne. Having taken that gentleman into the Ministry, Mr. Barton felt bound to support the views which he must have been well aware Sir William Lyne had expressed in communicating with Mr. Chamberlain. That is why we blame the Government, and not because of any factious desire to attack them. I do not intend to speak any longer upon the subject. I desired to make it clear that Mr. Chamberlain was not to blame in this matter in the way certain honorable senators endeavoured to make out. The blame is not Mr. Chamberlain’s, but Sir William Lyne’s, as that gentleman obviously advised him in this matter.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I intend to support the Bill before the Senate. As a matter of fact, I do not see that any honorable senator could very well do otherwise. I think the initial cost of starting the Commonwealth ought to be borne by the Commonwealth. It is altogether an unreasonable thing to expect that the great expense incurred at that time should fall upon any individual, no matter how large his purse. It is the duty of the Commonwealth to meet this expense, and consequently I intend to support the measure. It was not for the purpose of saying that that I rose. Had it not been for a remark made by Senator Dobson, in reference to a matter which I think should not have been dragged into the debate, I do not think I should have risen to speak upon this Bill. The honorable and learned senator referred to the conveniences and luxuries which honorable senators enjoy in this chamber. He referred to our club-room and refresh; ment-rooms, and the inference to be drawn from his references by those who know no better is that honorable senators are under no expense in connexion with these matters. We know very well that everything we get in the refreshment-rooms has to be paid for at the same rate as, and sometimes at a higher rate than, it can be got down the street. Such remarks as Senator Dobson made are quite uncalled for, and if they were not contradicted here a false impression might be created that honorable senators are enjoying something at the expense of the taxpayers. I rose for the purpose of making this contradiction, and I hope that honorable senators in debating the subject will treat it fairly, and will not drag in matters which have nothing whatever to do with it. Very nasty things might be said of Senator Dobson for his action in connexion with matters which have come before the Senate. When the minimum wage question, for instance, was being discussed here, the honorable and learned senator was not so generous as he is prepared to be to-night; but nobody has’ thought it worth while to refer to that. I hope the honorable and learned senator will see his way in future not to make these bald statements without any explanation.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I think that good will come out of this discussion, and that the public of Australia will understand, or begin to understand, the position of both the Governor-General and the Commonwealth. I dare say that before it is finished we shall have a better idea of what was the cause of that position. Some honorable senators seem to have got into their heads the idea that in another place the members of the labour party were responsible in a certain direction for the complications which have arisen. The members of the labour party, either here or in another place, are not ashamed to say what their position was. They did oppose the Bill as it was introduced into the other House. ‘ Some honorable senators have friendsin that very place, and although theirf riends strenuously opposed the original Bill, they wished to shirk the responsibilities of that opposition, and endeavoured to make all Australia believe that the Government were entirely to blame. It is beyond the power of the Senate toamend this Bill, because it is an Appropriation Bill ; but it is within its power to request the other House to amend it. If honorable senators, who have said so much about the action of the Government, are not prepared to share the responsibility of their friends in another place, why do they not propose that the other House be requested to restore the original provisions of the

Bill? They will not do that. ‘ They know that if the Bill could be originated in the Senate, and it were introduced, they would take the very same course of action that their friends took in another place. They would endeavour to land the Government in a somewhat difficult position. I am sure that everybody in Australia has the very kindliest feeling towards the GovernorGeneral. They all recognise his ability. Like the press, and some citizens, I am not going to say that .he has transcendent abilities. I am not going to say that in the great British Empire there is no other man who is as fit as Lord Hopetoun to occupy the position of representative of His Majesty in Australia. I do not think that he would claim that for himself. I deprecate the conduct of shire councils, and corporations, and all that class of people getting on their hind legs and declaring that the Commonwealth is in a very difficult position, and that we shall never be able to raise our heads in the world again.

Senator Dobson:

– They have never said anything of the sort.

Senator MCGREGOR:

– The honorable and learned senator does not carefully read the morning newspapers, or he would know that every word I am saying is absolutely correct. I also agree to a certain extent with what Senator Matheson has said about the influences that have been exercised by the representative men of New South Wales - probably not . the people, but those .who pretended to represent the people. These very representatives went so far as to pass a resolution to increase the GovernorGeneral’s salary out of the funds of their State. I believe that the Government of New South Wales to some extent misled Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, but I do not think it was a wise act on his part to be misled in that way. I do not believe that if he had considered the matter for a few moments he would have been misled in the way he was. Is it since the GovernorGeneral came to Australia that the expense has been incurred? Has he engaged any additional officers for his staff? Has he increased the number of his horses, or his carriages, or his servants ? Has he done anything which would cause any extra expense in the manner of his housekeeping? If he has, I have never heard much about it. I believe that he brought out his horses, and his carriages, and the greater portion of his servants and his staff. If he took that step before he had any direct communication with the Commonwealth Government, then the responsibility, to a far greater extent than the people imagine, was on his own shoulders. He deliberately incurred this expense, or he laid the foundation for it. Neither I nor any other member of the labour party ever expected His Excellency, or any other Governor-General, to spend his own money in Australia, but there are people who did. Even the press expressed their gratification that a man of the immense wealth of Lord Hopetoun was selected as Governor-General of Australia, because no man with limited means could occupy the position in a way befitting the representative of His Majesty. That is something like the tone of the paragraphs which used to appear ‘in the press. That is something like the statements which have been made at public meetings convened to prepare addresses to the GovernorGeneral. Those who made these statements, whether in public, or in the press, must have had an idea that His , Excellency was going to spend some part of his immense fortune, or if they did not, why did they sa,y so ? If they did not think that he was going to spend some part of his immense fortune, would not their opinion have been that any other man - whether he had ‘an immense fortune or not - who had the necessary ability, would be a suitable representative of His Majesty. Why could they not take a poor man with brains ? It did not matter to them what the ability of the man was, the great recommendation to them was the possession of immense wealth. That is what they talked about. I thin’k they must have meant a generous disposition to accompany the wealth. Lord Hopetoun knew when he came here that there was going to be an inauguration of the Commonwealth, but I cannot find out that His Excellency, generous as he may be, was put to any extraordinary expense on that account. If he was, where did the £150,000 that New South Wales spent go ? On the occasion of the visit of the Duke of York Victoria spent over £100,000, and the Commonwealth spent a very creditable cheque, if liberality is to be taken as creditable. The Governor - General was entertained by the Commonwealth, and His Excellency entertained a few dignitaries in high places, and gentry from Toorak, and other suburbs of that description.

– When His Excellency found that the Commonwealth was not prepared to go to this lavish expenditure, it was not his duty to the people who respect him so much to ask tobe recalled from his official position. If he was not willing to spend any of his immense fortune, he should have been satisfied to receive during his term of office the amount allotted to him by the Constitution. I know hundreds of men in this world who have occupied official positions and have been’ paid fairly good salaries, in connexion with which they have had little perquisites, or what the press, in referring to Members of Parliament, would call “pickings.” As soon as these pickings were taken away from them, on the representatives of the people becoming awake to the position and realising that the country was being bled, these people took the huff and resigned, apparently considering that they were the only people who could fill their positions. Apparently they imagined for a moment or two that their employer’s, the Government, could not find any one to fill their places. That was exactly the position that Lord Hopetoun . took up with respect to the Commonwealth. What position has he put the Commonwealth in? I am not going to say that he has gone on strike, although that term has been applied concerning a good many other people who have done no more than he is doing at present. But the Governor-General wishes to be recalled because the Commonwealth will not submit to greater extravagance than has been set down in the Constitution. He will go home to England. Look at the difficulty Mr. Chamberlain will find in selecting somebody else to take Lord Hopetoun’s place ! The nobility in England will go on strike. They will say - “Lord Hopetoun has not been treated liberally enough by the Commonwealth of Australia, and we are not going to blackleg on him.” They will not take the position, because the Commonwealth, according to Lord Hopetoun’s idea, has not treated the present GovernorGeneral liberally enough. If Lord Jersey or Lord Carrington had been selected instead of Lord Hopetoun, the people would have had exactly the same opinion of him as they lately had of the present Governor-General. If either of those noblemen had been here at the inauguration of the Commonwealth and the opening of the Federal Parliament, he would have been just as popular as Lord Hopetoun has been. It was canvassed in the public press, before Lord Hopetoun’s appointment, that LordKintore was to be the first Governor-General, and the people were beginning to feel happy that such a fine gentleman was coming out to fill the position. But owing to the action of the present Governor-General, it will be almost im possible to get any of these gentlemen to occupy his position here. They would feel that they were going back upon a member of the same society as they belong to. But the Commonwealth will be able toget out of the difficulty easily enough. I hope that Mr. Chamberlain will not be able to find any one in England to take the place. I trust that every member of the aristocracy will refuse. I should not have the slightest hesitation in supporting a recommendation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to appoint Senator Dobson or Senator Sargood, or Senator Zeal, or Senator Eraser, or even Senator Stewart. Any one of thosegentlemen would, I believe, carry out the duties of the Governor-General effectively and efficiently. They might not have the immense fortune that some gentlemen have who are not willing to spend it. It sticks in my mind - this immense fortune that was one of the great qualifications of the present GovernorGeneral. Yet the Governor-General himself has stated that he did not feel justified in spending any of his fortune. So that it is all the same to me whoever is appointed to represent His Majesty. If he has honesty and intelligence, I do not care whether he possesses a penny in the world. It amounts to the same thing whether he has money or whether he has not, because if a man with an immense fortune is not prepared to spend anything out of his private income, a man with no fortune at all can do noless. Indeed, I think any one of the gentlemen I have mentioned would do well for the position, and owing to the novelty of it probably would spend a larger proportion of the £10,000 than would an English Governor-General for the purpose of showing his new-born generosity and zeal. No matter what difficulties may arise in the old country, I hope that the people of the Commonwealth will realize that they have to depend on themselves and not upon any Governor-General ; and if they do depend on that and have less toadyism in their natures we shall get along very well.

Senator CHARLESTON (South Aus tralia). - The honorable senator who has just resumed his seat has charged theOpposition in the Senate and in another place with something like cowardice because we have not framed an amendment to the Bill. I believe that the Senate has power to amend the measure, but none of us desires to amend it in any shape or form. We thoroughly believe that the £10,000 provided for in the measure has been spent by the GovernorGeneral in entertaining the guests of the Commonwealth, and therefore, that it is only fair and reasonable, that we should vote His Excellency that sum of money.

Senator McGregor:

– Where was it spent?

Senator CHARLESTON:

– We believe it has been spent, but I cannot tell the honorable senator where. I have no desire to go into the details. We have been asked why we have not urged the Government to re-introduce the original Bill, which provided for granting the Governor-General £8,000 per annum, in addition to the salary provided for by the Constitution. But none of us has said that we would support a Bill to provide an annual grant of £,8000 to the Governor-General. We do not believe there is any justification for keeping up two vice-regal establishments. What we have complained about is the action of the Government in not treating the Governor - General as he should have been treated. That has been disclosed by the correspondence laid upon the table, and which has passed between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the GovernorGeneral. What we contend is, that the Government ought at a very early date to have laid the whole matter before Parliament, when they would have been able to ascertain the opinions of the representatives of the people. If then they were unable to get as much money voted as would meet His Excellency’s wishes in the matter, of course they could have informed him of the fact, and he could have reduced his expenditure accordingly. That is our complaint. I merely make this statement to explain our position. I thoroughly agree that the Governor-General should be paid to recoup him for the expenditure he has been compelled to incur. It is most lamentable that during the first year of the Commonwealth we should have had such trouble over money matters with the representative of His Majesty. I earnestly hope that the Government will take this as a severe rebuke to themselves, and never again do as they have done in the past.

Senator O’CONNOR (In reply).-I occupied only a very few minutes in moving the second reading of this measure, because the issue involved is a very simple one, and also because it appeared to me that, whether the Opposition were right or not in the accusations they have made against the Government, it could not butbe painful for His Excellency himself to have this debate going on in Parliament, in which there seemed to be no finality, and in which not only the conduct of his Ministers was discussed - and they can very well answer for themselves - but also, however kindly it was done, references were made to him personally and to his office, that could not be otherwise than distasteful. I admit at once that if there isany public ground for speaking of any person in his relations to the State, there is a justification for the discussion of the matter in Parliament. But there should be no unnecessary discussion upon such questions as this ; and it seems to me that the whole of the debate this evening has shown that the course I took was a wise one, and that it would have been much better if it had been followed by other honorable senators. The attack that has been made on the Government this evening has been simply the most pitiful, feeble echo of mendacities that have been invented elsewhere. We have had it, first of all, in that section of the press which finds in everything that the Government does something to jibe at, something to sneer at, something to find fault with. It was taken up in Parliament by the party to which my honorable friends opposite belong, and almost to a man they voted against the measure. They were responsible for the position in consequence of which the Governor-General deemed it necessary to ask to be recalled. Senators now attack the Government for bringing about a condition of things which was entirely due to their own political act. If they believe that the course they adopt is a right one, no one can blame them, but, on the other hand, they ought not to attempt to escape responsibility by making charges of a most ridiculous character against the Government. Before I deal with the question of the action of the Government, I should like to make some reference to what Senator McGregor said this evening. I venture to say that Senator McGregor’s opinion, that the Governor-General has not acted in the way he ought to have acted, would receive but small concurrence throughout Australia. TheGovernor-General found thathe had been maintaining his position on a scale which was impossible without the sacrifice of his own means to a much larger extent than he could afford. His Excellency then did’ what any other man would have been entitled to do. He said - “ I find that Parliament is averse to making my position a tolerable one, and therefore it is impossible for me to retain it any longer.” That was the straightforward course which the GovernorGeneral immediately took, and no doubt he thought it the rightand advisable course under all the circumstances. Whatever may be said of the conduct of the Ministry by the most hostile critic, no one can blame the Governor-General. What is the charge against the Government? There has been no want of epithets, both parliamentary and unparliamentary. We have been accused of duplicity, and one honorable senator went so far as to describe the’ action of the Government as cowardly. I did not appeal to you, Mr. President, for protection, because, under such circumstances, I think I am well able to protect myself. I was rather surprised to find that this charge came from an honorable senator who should be the last in the world to lightly use a word of that kind.

Senator Pearce:

– “ Honorable and gallant member.”

Senator O’CONNOR:

– Well, “ honorable and gallant member.” We have several soldiers in this Chamber, and the honorable senator to whom I refer will be recognised as perhaps one of the finest illustrations of Shakspeare’s description of a soldier - “full of strange oaths,” “ sudden and quick in quarrel,” -

Seeking the bubble reputation

Even in the cannon’s mouth -

– It covers all the items which will be settled on a scale about which there can be no dispute. I feel quite certain that it will be much better for Australia, and much better for the Colonial-office, to understand once and for all that what Australia requires is an official who will be lodged and paid in accordance with his very high position, and a not too lavish expenditure on what is called society. I believe I am speaking the sentiments of every Australian when Isay that we regard it as something in the nature of a degradation that a gentleman should be sent out from the mother country to take this great position because he has a large amount of money tospend in entertainments. We pay him to uphold his official position. I have no doubt that amongst the public men of England there are many who would esteem it a high honour to occupy the position of the King’s representative in this Commonwealth. So far as the Governor-General is concerned, he has expressed himself over and over again as being thoroughly satisfied with everything which has been done by his Ministers, and thoroughly in accord with every action which they have taken from beginning to end in this matter. I repeat that, although the result may be to clear the air, and to establish better definite relations between Ourselves and the Colonial-office in regard to the position of Governor-General, nobody can fail to feel the most profound regret that in the process of bringing about those relations, we should be deprived of the services of our present Governor-General.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clause 3 (Allowance to Governor-General).

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– A statement has appeared in the press, and I believe it was made by the AttorneyGeneral, that the Governor-General had intimated that, as the result of a statement which he had seen somewhere - that this vote of £10,000 had been passed under a misapprehension by the other House - he was willing to receive only 8,000. Senator O’Connor is, I believe, in a position to say whether that statement was mode by his honorable and learned colleague, and, if so, I wish to know, as the committee has a right to know, whether it is really required to vote £8,000 or £10,000?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I cannot answer the honorable and learned senator’s question as he puts it, because it seems to me that he is under a misapprehension. All I know about the matter is, that when the vote was given, the Governor-General saw the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, and His Excellency was under a misapprehension then as to what the vote of £10,000 included, and expressed his willingness to return a portion of it if he should have made any mistake. I do not know the details, but I know that that took place at the time. But really it does not affect the question, because there is no doubt that his Excellency has spent very many more thousands than ten in the carrying out of these entertainments.

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Report adopted.

Senate adjourned at 10.53 p.m..

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 May 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020529_senate_1_10/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate29 May 1902

QUESTION

REMISSION OF FODDER DUTIES

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SYSTEM

Senator STEWART:for Senator Pearce

Senator DRAKE:Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

SUPPLY BILL (No. 9)

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:South Australia

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator Millen:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

The PRESIDENT:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

Senator Dobson:

Senator Millen:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:South Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator Major GOULD:New South Wales

Senator Drake:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:Victoria

Senator O’CONNOR:NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:Protectionist

Senator Clemons:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Clemons:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Clemons:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator DRAKE:

COMMONWEALTH FRANCHISE BILL

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of theExecutive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Ewing:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:Western Australia

Senator DE LARGIE:Western Australia

Senator CHARLESTON:South Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator CHARLESTON:

Senator BARRETT:Victoria

Senator McGregor:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Major GOULD:New South Wales

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:South Australia

Senator Fraser:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator Fraser:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:Protectionist

Senator Millen:

Senator MATHESON:Western Australia

Senator Millen:

Senator MATHESON:

Senator Clemons:

Senator STEWART:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senate
29 May 1902

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator STEWART:
for Senator Pearce

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of theExecutive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

Senator FRASER:
VICTORIA · PROT; ANTI-SOC from 1906