Senate
26 July 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- THE TARIFF
QUESTION
- VANILLA
JUDICIARY BILL
KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY BILL
COMMONWEALTH SALARIES BILL
PAPER
ADJOURNMENT

The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1023

QUESTION

THE TARIFF

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether, in view of the fact that the month of August is a very favorable time for the senators for Queensland to visit their constituents, he can give the Senate an assurance that the Tariff Bill will not.be brought down before the 31st August?

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

– I can give no such assurance.

page 1023

QUESTION

VANILLA

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Vice-

President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What were the weights and value of vanilla imported into Australia for the year ending 31st December, 1906 : (1) In the form of dried or cured beans; (2) in the form of essences of other products of the bean?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows -

It is regretted that the information desired cannot be given as Vanilla beans are included under the general headings of Drugs and Chemicals, and essences extracted from the beans are classed as Spirits - Essences, Extracts, &c.

page 1023

JUDICIARY BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 1023

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY BILL

Senator BEST:
Vice- President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

.- I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time. “The object of the Bill is - to authorize the survey of route for a railway to connect Kalgoorlie, in the State of Western Australia, with Port Augusta, in the State of South Australia.

Senator Dobson:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the Bill cannot be proceeded with until the condition precedent laid down in the Constitution has been carried out. Section 51 of the Constitution enumerates thirty-nine subjects in respect of which the Parliament has power to legislate, and in respect of one subject alone - the subject-matter with which the Bill deals - it is prescribed that certain consent must be given. The section says -

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to -

Railway construction and extension in any State, with the consent of that State.

– We are by the Constitution authorized to make laws with respect to -

Railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State.

This Bill is not a Bill for the construction of the particular railway referred to. It is not a Bill for the extension of any railway, but to enable Parliament to secure certain information by means of a survey. As expressed on the face of it, it is. a Bill for an Act -

To authorize the survey of route for a railway to connect Kalgoorlie, in the State of Western Australia, willi Port Augusta, in the State of South Australia.

It therefore can in no way be described as a Bill for the construction of that railwaySenator Dobson must know that it would not be impossible to construct a railway without a survey, but at the same time the making of a survey as a condition precedent is the almost universal practice. The next answer to the pointof order the honorable senator has raised is that a practice has been laid down in the Senate, which I think it is rather late in the day for Senator Dobson, who is a temporary Chairman of Committees, to attempt to gainsay.

Senator Givens:

– Are we governed by precedents ?

Senator Best:

– We are to a large extent guided by precedents. Honorable senators must be aware that the principle to which I allude is that where questions involve the interpretation of the Constitution, as is suggested by Senator Dobson in this case, it is not for the President or the Chairman of Committees of the Senate to interpret the Constitution. That is the function of a judicial tribunal appointed for the purpose.

Senator Dobson:

– Surely the President can deal with a question of fact.

Senator Best:

– Fortunately this matter Has been discussed and determined on the principle I have referred to, the following ruling having been given by the late President of the Senate -

Except where the conduct of the business of the Senate is concerned the Chair ought not to be called upon to decide a question involving the interpretation of the Constitution.

In another ruling the late President defined the position at some length, and said-

As a general rule it is not proper for the President or the Chairman of Committees to give a ruling on the interpretation of the Constitution, but where a ruling is absolutely necessary in order to carry on the business it ought to be given. “The point of order now raised obviously “involves a question of the interpretation of the Constitution.

Senator St Ledger:

– There is a great deal of force in Senator McGregor’s statement that railway surveys very often are not followed by railway construction. It is a question, therefore, whether the word “ construction “ as mentioned in the Constitution would embrace a survey such as that provided for in the Bill now before the Senate. On the other hand, it will be admitted that whenever a railway has been constructed the cost of the survey has

– Surely the honorable senator does not accuse me of “ stonewalling “ ?

Senator Findley:

– I do not, but the honorable senator evidently desires to. “ stonewall “ this morning, because he invited all his legal friends and supporters to back him up in the point he raised.. On previous occasions, a similar point of order was submitted to the President, who ruled that he was not there to interpret the Constitution, but to carry on the business of the Chamber in accordance with the Standing Orders. The point raised by Senator Dobson has been already settled to the satisfaction of the Senate. If a different ruling were given now, there on all questions affecting the Commonwealth the same point could be raised, and there would be never-ending discussions, not on matters of. national importance, but on points of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to make a few remarks first with regard to the position that I feel I occupy as President of the Senate. It is perfectly true, as has been pointed out, that on two or three occasions, points of order have been taken in connexion with various Bills that have been referred to the President, and the President has declined to give an opinion which he said would involve the interpretation of the Constitution. If it is a question of the interpretation of the Constitution, I am with my predecessor that it is not part of the duty of the President, but if it is a question of the application of the Constitution, then I dissent from, the position taken up, apparently by certain honorable senators, that it is not part of the duty of the President to deal with that aspect of the matter. In this instance, it is not a question so much of interpreting as of applying the Constitution. There is a distinct difference between the two. It has been urged that my predecessor took the proper course when he1 declined to interpret the Constitution on a previous occasion, and held that there was another place appointed to deal with the question of -interpretation wholly. We must, however, bear in mind that there are a great many matters which involve to a certain extent, questions arising under the Constitu tion, if I may put it in that broad way’, but which at the same time can never be dealt with by the High Court once legislation has been passed, as the presumption is that all steps right and necessary and proper in accordance with the Constitution have been taken before Parliament al-“ lows a Bill to become law. That is where the advantage of having a Speaker or President to deal with very many of those questions lies. There may be an overwhelming majority of members in favour of legislation in a particular direction), and yet it may be that that legislation is entirely beyond the powers of the Parliament. It is well that there should be an opportunity for the presiding officer to give an expression of his views as to how far the matter comes within the purview of the Constitution. In section 51 of the Constitution the second paragraph provides that this Parliament may make laws with respect to - taxation ; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that a matter is brought before the Senate, or before the House of Representatives, in which it is proposed to deal with taxation, but discriminating between States or parts of Stales. It is obvious that to pass such a measure would be beyond our powers. Suppose that such a Bill has been introduced and a point of order is submitted to the President for his ruling. Would it not be for the President to say, ‘ ‘ This Bill provides for partial taxation. The Constitution provides that we cannot dis? criminate between States. Therefore this Bill is not within the power of Parliament.” Could it be said that that was an interpretation of the Constitution ? Would not honorable senators say that it was an application of the Constitution? I wish the Senate to realize the distinction that I, at any rate, draw between interpreting and applying the Constitution. I should consider myself unfit to discharge the duties that the Senate has been pleased to place in my hands if I attempted to evade the responsibility, of discriminating between an application and an interpretation of the Constitution. I am glad in one way that the question has been raised thus early in the session so that I may have an opportunity of pointing out ‘the view that I take with regard to this matter of interpretation and application. I was not aware that the point was going to be raised. I do not complain of .that, however. Honorable senators have a right to take a point of order whenever they see fit. In order to make the point still clearer I will take another portion of the Constitution. In section 56 it is provided that -

A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has, in the same session, been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that a Bill has been passed through all its stages in both Houses, although such a message as is provided for by that section has hot been sent to Parliament. I fail to see that the Court would have any power to go behind that Bill and inquire whether Parliament had or had not received a message from the GovernorGeneral. The Bill having been passed by both Houses, and having been assented to by the Governor-General, the law presumes, and rightly presumes, that all things were done that were necessary to be done before the Bill became an Act of Parliament. If the Bill now before us were out of order - upon the face of it I do not know that it is - I am not sure that the Court would be able to deal with it as a Bill that had been improperly passed. If it were shown that the consent of the State of South Australia had not been obtained, I do know that it could be held that the Bill had been improperly passed, though it might be nugatory. With regard to the question of rulings given by “the former President and submitted to the Senate, though they certainly were accepted in the sense that no objection was raised to them, I have to say that any question dealt with in those rulings can always be raised again upon another matter, or when a fitting occasion’ presents itself. A new President, or even the President who gave the former ruling, has a perfect right at a later stage, to review the decision previously given. We must not look upon any decision given by a President as being, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable. If upon any question my ruling was required and I felt constrained to dissent from a ruling of my predecessor I should have no hesitation in doing so. At the same time, however, I should have the utmost respect for the decision that had been previously given, and should be inclined, if the ruling in question had laid down the practice of the Senate, and had been followed, to adhere to it as far as I possibly could. In other words, I would not, because I did not quite agree with a previous ruling, depart from it if it had established the practice of the Senate. I should be inclined to say, “ The Senate has created its own law, and I am willing to adhere to it.” In this case w,e have only had a decision from my predecessor to the effect that it was not his duty to interpret the Constitution. From what I have said, honorable senators will be aware that I do not regard the question now raised as one of the interpretation, but df the application of the Constitution to the question under consideration. I have examined this Bill. I find that it purports to authorize the survey of a route for a railway connecting Kalgoorlie, in Western Australia, with Port Augusta, in South Australia. I have referred to the section of the Constitution to which mv attention has been drawn. It gives this Parliament power with regard to -

Railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State.

I am asked, to say whether this Bill infringes or does not infringe that provision. It has been urged that what is proposed is the preliminary stage of the construction of a railway. I have considered the point, but I am not going to give a decision that will hamper the freedom, of Parliament where that can by any possibility be avoided. In this case I perceive that Parliament is now being asked simply to authorize the survey of a route which may or may not be accepted. The survey could not be followed by the construction of a railway without the authority of an Act of Parliament, and, therefore, a Bill would have to be introduced. Holding that view, I do not see that I can maintain the point of order submitted by Senator Dobson. I take the ground that we are at present only concerned with authorizing a survey to be made. As to whether South Australia will allow our surveyors to go upon her territory or not, is a question that, does not now arise. It is a matter which the Government will have to look after and deal with. If South Australia gives her consent the survey may be made, but no railway can be constructed until another Bill is brought before Parliament; and in regard to that Bill there will have to be evidence that the consent of the States of South Australia and Western Australia to the construction of the railway has been obtained. Holding these views, I do not consider that the Bill is out of order. It is a Bill that can be proceeded with in its present form. The difficulties that may arise hereafter are not matters for the consideration of the Chair, but are matters for the consideration of honorable senators in determining whether they willor will not give their consent to the Bill.

Senator BEST:

– The whirligig of politics has cast upon me the duty of moving the second reading of this Bill ; and I do so-

Senator Col Neild:

– I rise to order. I beg to draw your attention, sir, to standing order 118, with reference tq anticipating notices of motion. On the day when the Senate first met this session, I gave notice of a motion for the nth July. It stands upon business-paper No. 1. Therefore the notice was clearly given at the earliest possible moment. Of course, I am not discussing the motion, but I must refer to its terms. They are as follows -

That no proposed public work or undertaking involving an estimated expenditure of£20,000 sterling or upwards shall be approved by Parliament or entered upon without being first submitted to a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives for inquiry and report.

That motion now stands on the paper for the 15th August. It had to be postponed in consequence of the debate on the AddressinReply extending over the day for which the notice was first given. Now the Minister in charge of this Bill has moved a motion-

Senator Best:

– I have not had an opportunity of moving it yet.

Senator Col Neild:

– The honorable senator has risen, and has addressed himself to the motion, even if he has not actually moved it. It has not been submitted from the Chair, but that does not make any difference. The motion is for the second reading of a Bill, which stands on the business-paper as an order of the day. Now, what is an order of the day? It is a piece of business that requires to be moved. As long as a piece of business stands on the paper simply as a notice of motion it is the property of the senator who has given notice of it, but when it is made an order of the day motion, if I may use that phrase, it is the property of the Senate, and cannot be dealt with in as light and airy a fashion as a motion standing in the name of an individual senator can be. In the one case, according to all parliamentary practice, the motion is the property of the senator who has given notice. In the other case, the motion is the property of the Senate itself. I submit with a great deal of deference, that the motion which” the Vice-President of the Executive Council has submitted for the second reading of this Bill involves a proposition identical with the notice to which I have referred. Clause 3 of the Bill proposes to expend a sum of £20,000 without inquiry in absolute anticipation of the discussion on the motion which stands in my name, and for which notice was given on the very first day we met. I point out that in . another place there are certain matters connected with the conduct of this Bill indicative of most extraordinary haste, possibly with the intention of achieving that which is now sought to be achieved, namely, to anticipate the discussion on a motion on the notice-paper. An interjection suggests that if my point of order be sustained, it will be possible by notice of motion to prevent legislation. That, sir, is a proposition which I am sure will not trouble you in giving a decision, because it is not the duty of a presiding officer to suggest, or endeavour to anticipate contingencies that might arise, but only to deal with contingencies which have arisen. If it is possible to anticipate a motion in the manner sought, it would be useless to give notices of motion, because they could always be anticipated. That is an answer to the proposition that a notice of motion might block legislation. I do not think, sir, that you will conceive it to be vour duty to attempt to settle this question on mere possibilities, but rather on the question which has arisen. I admit that there may not be on the records of this Parliament, or even the British Parliament, an exactly analogous case. Possibly a similar case has never arisen, but, nevertheless, I do with great respect submit for your consideration whether the present juncture does not disclose an anticipatory motion - a motion for the voting of a work or an undertaking, and I particularly draw your attention to the term “ undertaking “ in my notice of motion. It may be alleged that a survey is not a public work, but certainly it is a public undertaking, and it so happens that the summentioned is the same in each case, namely, £20,000.It cannot possibly be allegedthat in giving the notice of motion, there was any attempt on my part to interfere with proposed legislation, for the simple reason that when it was given, there was no motion made or proceeding indicated anywhere, which would be anticipated by it. I shall not occupy any more time in discussing the question, because it seems to me that it is one which lies in so small a compass that lengthy observations are unnecessary.

Senator Best:

– If, sir, it were possible that the standing order in question could bear the construction which Senator Neild wishes you to put upon it, it would .most seriously block the business of the Senate. In fact, it would absolutely .paralyze our business because it would be quite possible for a very astute senator - and I believe that we have a few astute men here- to anticipate what was likely to come on, and thereby block all business which was obnoxious to him, from time to time, by postponing the motion sO as to make quite sure that his object would be achieved. Let us read the standing order as we are obliged to do - strictly -

No motion or amendment shall anticipate an order of the day or another motion of which notice has been given.

Can it be seriously suggested that a Bill which has for its object the authorizing of the survey of a route for a railway to connect Kalgoorlie with Port Augusta is designed to anticipate the discussion of a general motion referring to public works? I want honorable senators to realize that the object of the standing order is to prevent the anticipation of the discussion on a measure, or a motion, or an order of the day, as the case may be, which is to come on at a later period. On the present occasion, the Senate is simply invited to’ discuss a Bill . authorizing a survey and not to discuss a general proposition in the terms of the notice given, by Senator Neild. The Senate is not asked to anticipate the discussion of the policy which is embodied in that motion, but simply to discuss the question whether .or not the survey of a route should be authorized. There have been innumerable rulings given by. the late President. For instance, he has ruled on many occasions that - lt is irregular to anticipate the discussion of an order of the day.

Again he has ruled -

A senator in a speech on a Bill may refer to another Bill which is connected with the Bill under discussion when both Bills would be contained in one measure except for the provisions of the Constitution Act.

He has ako ruled that -

Even on the first reading of the Appropriation Bill a senator is debarred from discussing any matters on the notice-paper.

With reference to that ruling he has made this comment -

This ruling is strictly in accordance with standing order 405, but a rigid adherence to this standing order might lead to ‘ undesirable results. A senator, in order to prevent discussion of a subject, might give notice of motion concerning such subject, and after all never move the motion. Discretion must be exercised in the enforcement of the rule.

My honorable friend must see that the motion before the Senate and the motion of which he has given notice have no possible relation one to the other. 1 feel quite certain, sir, that even if there were a remote connexion, you would see that the business of the Senate was not interfered with and paralyzed, as would be the case were my honorable friend’s contention entertained.

Senator Walker:

– If Senator Neild’s point of order is in order, it seems to me that if he fixed his notice of motion for the 15th November, no public work or undertaking estimated to cost ^20,000 or more could in the meantime be considered by the Senate. . Such an idea is simply preposterous.

The PRESIDENT:

– With reference to Senator Neild’s point of order that the Senate cannot proceed with the Bill, in consequence of standing order 118, it appears to me that the standing order is not intended to meet a case such as the present one. The Standing Orders are designed for the purpose of facilitating and providing for the proper consideration of the business of the Senate. If standing order 118 did apply to a case like the present one, it would then be possible for an honorable senator to prevent any legislation from taking place, unless, of course, the Senate saw fit to suspend the Standing Orders, as it could do. With regard to two similar, motions dealing with exactly the same subject, there can be no question that the effect which Senator Neild now desires should follow would have to be given to the standing order. The other House has passed through all its stages a Bill which it has sent to the Senate for consideration. If I were to sustain Senator Neild’s point of order, it would affect not only the proceedings of the Senate, but also the proceedings of the other House. We should be placing ourselves in such a position that we could prevent the consideration of subjects which the other

House desired to have considered. This Bill will, if passed by the Senate, become a Bill of both Houses. The standing order is intended to deal with matters which peculiarly affect the Senate. I do not say that that contention is an absolute answer, but I wish to point out one of the inconveniences of construing the standing order as Senator Neild suggests. If we. examine the Bill and his notice of motion, we shall find that the object of the former is to authorize a specific undertaking which, it appears to me, can be debated without reference to the honorable senator’s motion. I agree with the contention of the honorable senator that the term “ undertaking” is embodied in his motion. It reads as follows -

That no proposed public work or undertaking involving an estimated expenditure of ^20,000 sterling or upwards shall be approved by Parliament or entered upon without being first submitted to a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives for inquiry and report.

Progress was reported on that, motion, but before the matter was further proceeded with, a new Government came in, namely, the Watson Government, on the 27th April, 1904, and then on the 9th June, 1904, Mr. Batchelor, as Minister of Home Affairs, moved, a motion in the same terms as that which I have quoted. Strange to say, the matter then only reached the stage of reporting progress on that motion. The ReidMcLean Administration took office on the 1 8th .August, 1904, and on the 13th September, in Committee, in another place, a motion in the same terms as the motion I have already quoted, and in charge of Mr. Dugald Thomson, was discussed, and progress reported. The discussion was resumed later, and the resolution was reported and adopted after a division, in which there were 39 ayes and 12 noes, or a majority of 27. I may point out that in another place it has been the practice when the GovernorGeneral’s message recommending the necessary appropriation has been under consideration to discuss the matter very fully. I say that on this occasion the preliminary motion was passed by a majority of 27, the second reading took place on 14th October, 1904, and was carried on a division in which there were 34 ayes and 12 noes, or a majority of 22. It will be noticed that all the Administrations up to that date had favoured the introduction of this Bill. And, as is. well within the recollection of honorable senators, our colleague in this Chamber,. Senator Symon, on the 14th December,. 1904, moved the second reading of the Bill in the Senate, but the further consideration ‘ of the measure was interrupted by the prorogation of Parliament. On the 27th July, 1905, Senator Playford moved the following motion : -

That, in accordance with standing order No. 234, the proceedings on the Bill intituled “A Bill for an Act to authorize the survey of a route . for a railway to connect Kalgoorlie, inr the State of Western Australia, with Port Augusta, in the State of South Australia.” which were interrupted by the prorogation of Parliament on Thursday, the 15th day of December, 1904, be resumed at the stage then reached; in connexion with the said Bill; and that the adjourned debate on the second reading be resumed on Wednesday next.

Senator BEST:

– The honorable senator will have the fullest opportunity to refute any statement of fact I submit to the’ Senate. He has expressed much anxiety concerning the consent of South Australia to the proposal, as though it would deprive that State of a large portion of its territory. On the 7th May, 1906, the present Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of South Australia and invited his attention to the fact that, at the instance of Senator Givens, the resolution to which I have already referred was carried in the ‘ Senate. He invited the South Australian Premier to say - what action should be taken in the direction of redeeming the undertaking given by Mr. Holder, then Premier of your State, on 1st February, 1900, in a letter to the Premier of Western Australia, copy of which I enclose.

Mr. Deakin, in his letter, went on to say -

I shall be glad to learn whether you have considered the advisableness of making any proposals to your Parliament, and, if so, to learn the nature of the recommendations you intend to submit.

It may not be out of place to mention that Mr. Holder’s undertaking, to which the Prime Minister referred, was given in a letter by Sir Frederick Holder, then Mr. Holder, dated 1st February, 1900, wherein, addressing my right honorable colleague, Sir John Forrest, he wrote -

Following our conversation as to the possible blocking of the construction of a railway line from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta by the Federal authority, by South Australia refusing consent rendered necessary by sub-section 34 of clause 51 of the Commonwealth Bill, to the construction of the line through her territory, I regard the withholding of consent as a most improbable thing, in fact, quite out of the question.

To assure you of our attitude in the matter, I will undertake, as soon as the Federation is established (West and South Australia both being States of the Commonwealth), to introduce a Bill formally giving the assent of this province to the construction of the line by the Federal authority, and to pass it stage by stage simultaneously with the passage of a similar Bill in your Parliament.

It will be noticed that the Prime Minister, in his letter of the 7th May, enclosing the letter which I have just read, asks the Premier of South Australia for the consent of his Parliament.

Senator Dobson:

– Because it is rendered necessary by the Constitution, as the letter shows.

Senator BEST:

– Senator Dobson is most rebellious to-day. The President has ruled against him. Then there was the reply to Mr. Deakin’s letter by the Premier of South Australia, which was as follows: -

In reply to your letter of the 7th May respecting the proposed railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie, I have the honour to refer you to my telegram of rst March last -

That, I find, is a clericalerror, as the date should be 1st August. and to say that this Government has no objection to the survey as therein notified,

May I put that last sentence iri italics? “ This Government has no objection to the survey, as therein notified.” but cannot undertake to consider a Bill for submission to Parliament in the absence of information as to the route and terminal points of the railway.

The very object of the survey is to determine what the route and terminal points of the railway, should be. The telegram referred to by the Premier of South Australia was the one sent by him on ist August, 1905, as follows : -

We have no objection to survey Western Australian Railway, but desire to be consulted as to route; it must be understood that this in no way binds us to ultimate approval of policy.

– The honorable senator is evading the question. It is an unqualified approval of the survey, with the simple stipulation that subsequently, when the question arises as to the determination of the route, they must be consulted. Honorable senators have a right to say, “ You must give us some idea of what the contemplated survey really means.” The Right Honorable the Treasurer has been in consultation with Mr. M. E. Kernot, a skilled and capable officer, occupying the position of Engineer-in-Chief of the Victorian Railways, regarding arrangements for the survey, and, according to Mr. Kernot, the scope of the survey is to be as follows: -

The survey would be a sufficient one to ascertain the cost of construction, the cost of water supply by conservation, the .prospects of water being obtained by boring, the character of the land on each side of the route, and its suitability for agricultural and pastoral purposes, and there would be a geological survey to ascertain the mineral resources of the country.

There are” two routes through South Australia to be examined - one from Port Augusta vid Tarcoola, passing some forty miles north of Eucla, and thence to Kalgoorlie; the other from Port Augusta through the Gawler Ranges vid Fowlers Bay, and the head of the Great Australian Bight, passing about ten miles north of -Eucla to Kal- , goorlie. Both routes would practically traverse the same route through Western Australia. The Tarcoola route would probably cost about half a million sterling more than the more southern route.

The actual pegging out of the construction would not be included in the ^20,000, but the information would be sufficient to enable “Parliament to decide as to whether the work should be undertaken, and sufficient to enable Parliament to pass a Bill setting out the route to be followed and authorizing the work to be undertaken.

Is it not most desirable, in order that we should come to a. reasonable decision on a big undertaking like -this, which must inevitably come to pass, as my esteemed friend Senator Dobson knows, that all the . information to be obtained by this survey should be made available?

Senator Dobson:

– If the pegging-out is not included in the survey, what is to be included?

Senator BEST:

– I have most carefully explained in detail the scope of the survey, and the honorable senator will have an opportunity afterwards of reading my remarks. He is really not doing himself justice. From Fremantle to Adelaide the distance is 1,746 miles. Western Australia has already constructed a railway to Kalgoorlie, a distance of 387 miles, on a 3 ft. 6 in. gauge. The proposal regarding the railway, the survey of which this Bill proposes to authorize, is that the gauge shall be 4 ft. 8£ in., and Western Australia has undertaken to widen the existing line from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle, to make the gauge uniform. South Australia has already constructed a. line from Adelaide to Port Augusta, a distance of. 259 miles, so that, of the gross length of 1,746 miles from Fremantle to Adelaide, there have already been constructed 6*46 miles. If the existing lines are to be utilized, the balance remaining to be constructed to join them would be about i,roo miles, of which 475 are in Western Australia and 625 in South Australia. We have had many reports on this question, to which it is my duty to draw the attention of honorable senators. It will be impossible for me to quote copiously from them, but I will direct attention to certain features, and honorable senators will then be able to gather the full information contained in the reports for themselves. The first report is that of Mr. C. Y. O’Connor, who was formerly EngineerinChief of the Western Australian Railways - a man of very great skill, in whom a great amount of trust and confidence was reposed by the Government of Western Australia. His report was laid on the table and ordered by the House of Representatives to be printed on 16thJuly, 1901. Various questions which are set out in the report were submittedto Mr. O’Connor, and he was asked also to estimate the total cost. This he fixed at £4,400,000, and he gives details showing how he arrives at it. He points out that the charges and expenses of raising loans would probably bring this amount up to £4,600,000. He also gives details of the basis of his estimate of the probable revenue. Dealing with that and the estimate of working expenses, he points out -

My estimate of the immediately probable receipts and working expenses, as directly deduced from the data above given, is - Receipts, £240,000, and working expenses, £160,000, showing net profit towards payment of interest of £80,000 per annum.

This, however, is on a basis of things as they exist at present, and it is of course more than probable that the existence of the railway, and the development of the Commonwealth generally, would produce much better results in years to come.

It would not therefore, I think, be a too sanguine anticipation to assume that within a few years from date of completion ofrailway, the results would be as follows : -

As compared with the net profit of £110,000 per annum above indicated, there would be the interest on estimated cost (£4,600,000) amounting, at 3 per cent., to £138,000 per annum, thus indicating a loss to the Commonwealth in respect of this railway for some years of £28,000 per annum, but this result would no doubt improve in the course of time, such being the history of railways all over the world,

Senator Dobson:

– My honorable friend knows, of course, that 3 per cent, is too low.

Senator BEST:

– I do not know anything of the kind. I shall be grievously disappointed if at any time the Australian Commonwealth has to borrow money at above 3 per cent. -

It may be held by some experts that my estimate that the working expenses would amount to two-thirds of the gross receipts is excessive ;. but, in view of the probable exceptional cost of working expenses in this case, including the cost of providing water and fuel for the locomotives, I doubt if my estimate could be safely reduced. .

Mr. O’Connor then set out the benefits which would accrue from the construction of the railway, but those, no doubt, honorable senators will have “an opportunity of hearing from other sources.

Senator Dobson:

– Did he say how the locomotives were to be watered?

Senator BEST:

– I presume they will be watered in the usual way. Another report to which I wish to direct attention is that of Mr. John Muir, Inspector of Engineering Surveys, to the Engineer-in-Chief of Western Australia, on “ Preliminary examination of country between Kalgoorlie and Eucla.” It was laid on the table of the Senate by command, and ordered to be printed, on 5th March, 1902. On page 7, Mr. Muir, dealing with the country through which he passed”, says -

To the north, near the 31st parallel of latitude, the country is more open. In fact, from the South Australian border for 250 miles in a westerly direction, it is one large open plain of limestone formation, fairly well grassed throughout.

Taken as a whole, this stretch of country is one of the finest’ I have seen in Australia, and, with water - which doubtless could be obtained if properly prospected for - it is admirably adapted for grazing purposes, and will without doubt be taken up some day from end to end.

On page 8 he says -

Apartfrom the facilities that would be afforded to railway construction, and the maintenance of the railway service when completed, by artesian water being struck on this waterless tract of country, it would be of incalculable profit to the State in another direction. At present there are millions of acres of splendid pastoral land lying idle in this portion of the State, solely because water has not been conserved. Once let it be known that artesian water has been discovered, and what is now nothing better than a waste would be transformed, in a very short space of time, into one of the most important stock-raising centres of our State.

I would, therefore, strongly urge that steps be taken, as soon as possible, towards having an experimental bore put down in some part of this plain.

And then again -

Regarding the course that the railway will take,. I would point out that if the line is taken to Eucla and thence to Tarcoola, the length would be increased by some 10 miles, but it would then open up. in so far as this State is concerned, a better class of country.

Senator Dobson:

– What about the bores for water?

Senator BEST:

– I will deal with that matter. I hope my honorable friend will iind, when I have finished, that I have left out very little. He may urge that these are only reports from engineers connected with Western Australia, who might be unconsciously biased, but in March, 1903, the then Minister of Home Affairs, Sir William Lyne, took the wise step of asking for a report on the proposed transcontinental railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta from a Conference of Engineers-in-Chief representing the other States. They are H. Deane, New South Wales ; William Pagan, Queensland; A.. B. Moncrieff, South Australia; Maurice E. Kernot, Victoria; and C. S. R. Palmer, Western Australia. These engineers met in conference. The points submitted for their consideration are set out in detail. I will not trouble the Senate by referring to them, but it is important to observe that they state on the first page of their report that-

The information to hand is not sufficientto enable us to speak with certainty and accuracy on all points. For instance, the particulars as to possible sources of water supply, both for construction purposes and for locomotive use, are extremely meagre, and the best route canmot be determined without further data, the obtaining of which will affect both the length of the line and its cost.

It is that further data that I am now asking the Senate to enable us to procure. The engineers go on to say -

Alternative routes have been suggested, and we are at present not in a position to decide which is the better.

Senator Dobson:

– How much of the country did they see for themselves?

Senator BEST:

– My honorable friend may refer to their ‘reports, and anything v/hich he finds in them which will assist him in opposing the Bill he will no doubt take full advantage of. These experts had no difficulty in determining that a 4 ft. 8½ in. gauge should be adopted. They made an estimate which they subsequently reduced, but in this preliminary report they say -

From the information at our disposal, we form the opinion that the line can be constructed for the above amount. namely, £5,090,183.

The estimate may appear large, but, as already pointed out, many o’f the data are uncertain - no survey has been made, the waterways have not been fixed, and the cost of water supply is indeterminate. We are strongly of opinion that further and closer examination and partial survey will show that the line can be constructed for a less sum than that named.

So that, it will be seen, practically every report that we have before us shows that a survey is required. As this is such an important report, from experts whose advice was sought by the Commonwealth Government, I may be permitted to refer to it a little more fully. In regard to their estimate of revenue and expenditure, they set out details showing why they arrive at the conclusion that at the opening of the line there would be a deficiency of £86,696, but they estimate that ten years later there would be a profit over and above interest and working expenses of £23,564. In paragraph 11 of their report they say -

The probable effect of the construction of the proposed line would be - A saving of two days in the transmission of mails and passengers between Fremantle and the Eastern States, and, if in the future the line is linked up with the New South Wales system through Broken Hill, a further saving of one day would be effected in communication between Fremantle, Sydney, and Brisbane.’ The saving of time will be yet greater in the case of communication between the Western Australian gold-fields and the eastern States, and for this reason, and also because the cost of the journey will be cheapened, the intercourse between east and west will, it is anticipated, increase considerably. Movement of troops for defence purposes overland will be rendered possible. Telegraphic communication between the east and west could be improved_and rendered more secure at small capital cost By making use of railway telegraph posts. The effect on the food supplies of the Western Australian goldfields will be the reduction of prices and an improvement in quality. The effect in both South Australia and Western Australia will be the opening up new tracks of country for mineral and pastoral development, and the improvement of revenue on the existing lines in the former State. On the other hand, Western Australia would lose, owing to reduced traffic (passenger and stock) between Fremantle and Kalgoorlie; and Adelaide will suffer through ceasing to be terminus for the delivery of oversea mails, and still more so if the ultimate result should be the abandonment of Adelaide as a port of call.

On page 4 of their report they say -

As to the advisability of constructing the proposed line at the present time, we beg respectfully to suggest that, in view of the direct monetary loss involved, this is largely a question of policy and sentiment depending on many issues regarding which’ we have no intimation, and we hope we may be excused from expressing any other opinion than that,ifthe past progress of Western Australia is maintained, the line will ultimately be a necessity and a financial success.

In summing up categorically their recommendations they say -

The authority undertaking the proposed construction should be prepared, on present information, to expend £5,090,000.
The probable revenue, after construction of the transcontinental railway described in the preceding report, would, in view of the information submitted to us, be £205,860 per annum. If past progress inWestern Australia is maintained, this revenue would probably increase in ten years to £411,720.
The probable expenditure in working the line on the basis adopted would be £114,400. In ten years, under the conditions stated above, this cost of working would probably increase to £210,000 per annum.

They also say -

Feeling that additional information is required before the investigation can be properly completed, we beg to bring certain matters in connexion with the scheme under your notice, and would respectfully make the following recommendations.

Then they make various recommendations as regards the obtaining of further information. I have quoted fully from this document, because honorable senators mustrely largely on expert evidence in this connexion ; and these engineers have given us their opinions very fully in the form of answers to definite questions. There was a final report from the Engineers-in-Chief dated 27th July, 1903, and ordered to be printed on the 29th July of the same year. This document is signed by the same five gentlemen. In it they make some amendments in their former estimates of revenue and expenditure. They say that on the opening of the line there would be a deficiency of £68,106 per annum, but that ten vears later there would be a net profit over and above working expenses and interest of £18,219. They make a summary of their answers to the questions put to them’, and I will read it -

We estimate the probable expenditure in construction at £4,559,000.
The probable revenue which may be depended upon after construction is, in our opinion, £205,860. If the past progress in Western Australia is maintained, so that the present population becomes doubled in ten years after completion, the revenue may also be taken as double, namely, £411,720.
The probable annual expenditure in working and maintaining the line immediately after construction we estimate at £114,400, which, added to interest on the cost of construction at 3½ per cent., £159,566, gives £273,966 for the total expenditure. After ten years under the conditions stated, the working expenses may be taken as £210,000, and, in view of the necessary expenditure in improving works in the meantime, the interest on the enlarged capital will be £183,501, making a total of £393,501

The route selected, taking all the circumstances into consideration, is thatvia Tarcoola.
We have, after careful consideration of the whole question, no hesitation in stating that the standard gauge of 4 ft. 8½ in. should be adopted.

Senator de Largie:

– These engineers are all men of reputation.

Senator BEST:

– Undoubtedly.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Not one of them ever saw the country.

Senator BEST:

– My honorable friend! will forgive me for pointing out once more that certain questions were referred to these experts, and that they have given us advice that is equal to their reputation. The only other report which I desire to mention is one presented to Parliament on 28th July, 1904, by Mr. John Gwynneth,. entitled “Western Union Railway.” In it he says -

I have given the subject considerable study, and am positive that if a free hand is given the Federal Government as to route, as stipulated by you, it will be found that a route to the south of the Gawler Ranges, passing over the plains within a couple of miles of Fowler’s Bay, with a branch line to the port, thence skirting the coast line to within three miles of Eucla, thence direct to join Mr. Muir’s line at Cardinia, will be - 1 st. Sixty-fivemiles shorter than the northern one, via Tarcoola.

It can be constructed for £610,000 less than the estimate for the other.

Again he says -

Viewed from a financial stand-point, and assuming the revenue will be the same as that estimated by the Conference for the northern route, I shall hereafter show that as the result of ten years working a clear profit of £173,850 would result, as against a loss of £249,435on the northern route, and at the end of ten years the annual profit will be £72,515, as against £18,219 estimated by the Conference.

He estimates that on the opening of the line there will be an annual deficiency of £37,745, and that after ten years there will be a net profit over and above working expenses and interest of £72,515. I have also a report by Mr. H. C. Castilla, on boring operations for water along the proposed route. I do not propose to deal with the features of the report, because it is available to honorablesenators, having been printed to an order of the Senate, made on the 20th October, 1904. I shall content myself with saying that he writes in the most hopeful terms of the possibility of procuring a supply of water. I would next draw the attention of honorable senators to a paper which, if not already circulated, will shortly be circulated, and which will give information as to the character of the country adjacent to or through which the proposed railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta would pass, between latitude 30 degrees south and 32 degrees south, and between longitude 125 . degrees east and 131 degrees east, comprising an area of 20,000,000 acres of grassy country. It contains extracts from Sir John Forrest’s work, describing his examination of the country. Honorable senators have had an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the glowing terms in which he speaks of this belt of country - 20,000,000 acres - which will be made immediately available if the railway be constructed.

Senator Dobson:

– When shall we be supplied with a copy of the paper?

Senator BEST:

– The paper, which is already in print, should be circulated within a day or two, certainly before Wednesday next. I desire now to refer to the possible strategical importance of the proposed railway in connexion with the defence of Australia. According to a paper, which was ordered by the other House to be printed, on the 23rd July, 1903, Major-General Hutton was invited by the then Minister of Defence to report on this matter from a strategical standpoint. In his report he says-

The contemplated extension of railway communication between Kalgoorlie in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia is, from a strategical and military point of view, of unquestionable value. The isolation of Western Australia, without direct land communication with the other five States of Australia, will, in time of war, cause a general feeling of insecurity. Under the existing circumstances, Western Australia, for purposes of co-operative military assistance from the other States, is’ as far distant from direct means of reinforcement as New Zealand is from the Eastern States of Australia.

It is quite true that he makes a qualification, because later on he says -

It may be as well to state at once that a force of the requisite strength organized and capable of taking the field does not at present exist in Australia, and that there are at present no local means of equipping such a force. The organization is wanting ; the departments necessary for a mobile Army have yet to be created ; and there are neither sufficient guns, arms, equipment, nor ammunition available. It will, therefore, be seen that the construction of the railway as contemplated would, under existing circumstances, confer no advantage to Australia in its present condition of military disorganization and unpreparedness.

That, of course, is beside the question altogether. If such a state of affairs exists, it is only a matter of time when it will be remedied. Major-General Hutton concludes his report with the following statement : -

It will, therefore, be seen from the foregoing that, important as it would be for defence purposes to possess Inter-State communication as proposed, the establishment of railway communication would, in itself, be of small value without a military force being in existence which could be utilized by its means with any reasonable hope of success.

The same parliamentary paper contains an extract from a report by Major-General J. Bevan Edwards, C.B., commanding the troops in China and Hong Kong, to His Excellency Sir W. C. F. Robinson, G.C.M.G., Acting Governor and CommanderinChief of Victoria.It reads as follows : -

No general defence of Australia can be undertaken unless its distant parts are connected with the more populousColonies in the south and east of the continent. If an enemy was established in either Western Australia or at Port Darwin, you would be powerless to act against him. Their isolation is, therefore, a menace to the rest of Australia. … . The interests of the whole continent, therefore, demand that the railways to connect Port Darwin and Western Australia with the other Colonies should be made as soon as possible.

Senator Dobson:

– The Port Darwin line should be constructed first.

Senator BEST:

– I have endeavoured to draw the attention of honorable senators to these sources of information, so that they may act with the fullest knowledge. What I have read shows most conclusively that in the interests of the Parliament, as well as of the engineers who will be called upon to advise, it is very necessary that a further investigation should be made by means of a survey, in order that we may be able to come to a wise and definite decision. I desire, in fairness to Western Australia, which is crying out for a survey, to show its bona fides. It is already pledged to carry out the widening of the line from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle, concurrently with the construction of the railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie. My honorable friends opposite have asked for information first as to the consent of Western Australia to this project. I wish to draw their attention to an Act of Parliament of Western Australia, which was assented to on the 29th September, 1903. It is -

An Act to enable the Parliament of the Commonwealth to make laws for the construction and maintenance of a railway from Kalgoorlie to the eastern boundary of Western Australia, and of a railway from the port of Eucla to a point intersecting the route of the aforesaid railway.

The preamble recites the reasons for the enactment, and section 2 provides -

Subject to section 6 hereof, the Commonwealth Parliament may make laws for the construction and maintenance -

Of a railway from Kalgoorlie to the eastern boundary of Western Australia, commencing at the termination of the existing railway system of the State at Kalgoorlie and proceeding thence to the said boundary by such route as the Commonwealth Parliament may determine ; and

Of a railway from the port of Eucla running due north to a point intersecting the route of the railway aforesaid.

My honorable friends will see that there is direct consent and authority to enable the Commonwealth Parliament to at once proceed. I have stated that Western Australia has shown its bona fides by agreeing to incur a considerable expense in making uniform its own gauge.

Senator Dobson:

– I am obliged to the Minister for showing that South Australia has not proved its bona fides.

Senator BEST:

– That is not the point with which I am dealing at present. Section 4 of the Act provides -

Not later than the time when the Commonwealth Parliament commences the construction of the first mentioned railway, the State of Western Australia will commence the construction of a railway from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle on the same conditions as to gauge and rails as those laid down by the Commonwealths Parliament in connexion with the work undertaken by it, and shall complete the same by the time the Commonwealth has completed the railway aforesaid.

Section 6 reads as follows: -

This Act and the authority hereby given to the Commonwealth Parliament shall cease and be void unless the said Parliament shall have agreed’ to and shall have commenced the actual construction of the said railways within five years from the passing of this Act.

It must be evident to honorable senators that Western Australia has at least shown its earnestness in the matter by undertaking to incur certain expenditure. It has gone even further than that, because it has undertaken if necessary to contribute towards the cost of the railway. A paper which was laid on the table on the 20th May, 1904, contains the following telegram, dated 6th May, from the then Prime Minister, Mr. Watson, to the Premier of Western Australia-

Re Western Australian railway. Representations made to me, feeling of membersFederal Parliament towards proposal favours belief that opposition would be materially lessened if your Government indicate willingness contribute stated proportion of loss, if any, during the first ten years. As matter under consideration of Cabinet, early reply desired.

The reply from the Premier of Western Australia to Mr. Watson is dated 18th May, 1904, and reads as follows : -

On condition that Commonwealth is allowed a free hand as to route and gauge of railway, this State will be prepared, for ten years after line constructed, to bear a share of any loss in excess of our contribution on a population basis. It would be premature to fix exact proportion we are prepared to pay at this stage, but I am confident that it will be liberal, and satisfy the Federal Parliament of our sincerity in this connexion, and our belief that the work will soon be a directly paying one.

Sitting suspended from 12.55 to 2 p.m.

page 1043

COMMONWEALTH SALARIES BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed? from 25th July, vide page 959) :

Clause 2 -

The taxation by a State, in commonwith other salaries earned within the State, of -

the official salaries of officers of theCommonwealth earned in the Stateafter the commencement of this Act; and

the allowances, paid after the commencement of this Act, of Members of the Parliament elected in the State, shall not, if the taxation is not at a higher rateor to a greater extent than is imposed on othersalaries of the same amount ‘ earned in theState, be deemed -

to be an interference with the exercise of any power of the Commonwealth, or

to be inconsistent with any Act by or in pursuance of which the salary is fixed or made payable.

Upon which Senator McColl had moved by way of amendment -

That after the word “State,” line 4, the words “ before and “ be inserted.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided. .

AYES: 7

NOES: 21

Majority … …. 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

– Was the question of parliamentary allowances ever discussed before the Privy Council?

Senator BEST:

Senator Col. NEILD (New South Wales) [3.3]. - In all my parliamentary life, I have never listened to so admirable an example of the ad captandum valgus form of oratory as Senator Mulcahy’s speech. I cannot charge the honorable senator with being so deficient in intellect as to fail to recognise the difference between a salary for services and an allowance for expenses. I believe he has a knowledge of commercial transactions, and if I were hip worst enemy instead of a passingly good friend, as I hope I am, I would not accuse him of being so ignorant as not to know the difference. The honorable senator deliberately overlooked it. If I did not think he did so deliberately, I should have to accuse him of being a fool.

Senator Dobson:

– Is it not income within the meaning of the Income. Tax Acts? Whoever believes it is not must be a fool.

Senator Col NEILD:

– There seems to be a singular similarity of view on this subject on the part of the representatives of the small fly spot of the Commonwealth - Tasmania. It ismerely a tribute to the prejudiced, the vulgar, and the ignorant to appeal to class feeling in the way Senator Mulcahy, did just now, by saying that this was an attempt on the part of honor - able senators to treat themselves differently from the public servants. I have voted against this Bill all through. I have voted against taxing the public servants, and if this amendment is not carried, I shall most religiously vote to knock out the third clause, so as to bring the GovernorGeneral’s salary under taxation also. I most positively promise the Government that I shall take that step, and then we shall see whether they will go on with the Bill, because they know they cannot go on with it, seeing that then they would be taxing a statutory payment. That is a point regarding members’ allowances which has not been touched upon yet, and now I shall let myself go upon it. The £400 allowance to members of Parliament is a statutory obligation.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Until Parliament otherwise determines.

Senator Col NEILD:

Senator STEWART:

– I do not care a straw about pleasing the Tories, or the Liberals, or any one else. It was placed in the Constitution because there is a fundamental difference between the sum which is paid to the Governor-General and the sum which is paid to members of Parliament. When the sum of £12,000 which is set apart for ‘ Ministers is referred to, it is said that it is to pay their salaries. Ministers, in addition to ‘their salaries, get the parliamentary allowance of £400, and Senator Best, who is a member of the Government, told us this afternoon that Ministers treat that sum as an allowance for . expenses when they are travelling on Commonwealth business, and do not draw a special sum to cover such’ expenses. So far as I can discover, everything . points to the fact that the amount which we are paid is an allowance for expenses. In the latter part of his argument, Senator Trenwith said that this is not the place to deal with expenditure that might be set-off in furnishing a return to the Income Tax Commissioner, and that the State Court is the proper place in which to deal with the matter. He also went on to say that the sum °f j£4°° might be looked upon as our .gross income.

Senator Trenwith:

– Our gross income as members, of Parliament ; but I have a very large income independent of that !

Senator STEWART:

– I am very happy to hear it. I have none, I ana sorry to say. The honorable senator said that the sum might be looked upon as the gross income of a member of Parliament, and that he would have a verv good case in submitting certain deductions - expenditure incurred, I suppose, in attending to his duties in Melbourne, travelling around the country to give an account of his stewardship, and trying to persuade the electors to vote for him.- In making -that admission, the honorable senator, in my opinion, gave away the whole position. In ordinary businesslife we never hear of a gross salary.

Senator Trenwith:

– We hear of a gross income.

Senator STEWART:

– Take an ordinary postal official who is living in Melbourne, and receiving a salary of £300. According to Victorian law, he is liable to income tax on his full income, subject, of course, to certain exemptions. But if he is sent into another State on business, or to another portion of this State, he is allowed expenses at a certain rate. He may be travelling during the whole year, or during a- large portion of it, and his allowances for that purpose may! amount to £200. I do not think that any Income Tax Commissioner would dream of charging him income tax on the sum of £200. The officer would merely pay income tax on his income of £300. Again, take the case of a military officer, such as the ‘Commandant. He is continually travelling throughout the Commonwealth, and as a necessary consequence draws a very large sum every year, in expenses. I do not think that the Income Tax Commissioner for any State would consider himself justified in levying income tax on those allowances for travelling expenses. .Members of Parliament are, I contend, in exactly the same position as those officers. The whole trouble appears to have arisen because of the difficulty which lay in the way of payment of members being adopted bv the various Parliaments. The Convention fixed the sum of £400, not as a salary, but as an allowance for expenses. If it had meant the sum to be a salary it would have said so, just as it did in the case of the Governor-General and in the case of Ministers. I am in favour of omitting the word “ allowance,” because I do’ not think that the money which w.e receive as members of

Parliament ought to be looked upon as a salary. I have no desire to shield myself, or to render myself immune from burdens which are imposed on other members of the community, but, on the other hand, I am not going to submit to exactions from which every other section of the Commonwealth is made free.

Motion (by Senator W. Russell) proposed -

That the Committee do now divide.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being no seconder, the motion cannot be put.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I desire to explain the reason for the vote I am about to give. I listened with considerable attention to the weighty argument of Senator Gould, pointing out very clearly a strong technical distinction between an allowance and a salary. I can quite understand that after that very powerful argument, honorable senators should seek to assert their right to have the payment to themselves, which is called an allowance, regarded as such. But, on the other hand, I have gone over to the other side of the Chamber to assist to impose taxation upon Federal officers. I recognise that, apart from the technical description which may be applied to what we receive, we, in common with Federal officers, are servants of the public. For that reason, especially after the voteI gave, I do not feel inclined to avail myself of a technical distinction, and so vote against an imposition upon my allowance as a member of Parliament. I hope that I shall not come under Senator McGregor’s lash when I put myself up as a person who is going to sacrifice himself. I do not. wish to accept either his praise or his censure for having taken up that position. I give due weight to the technical distinction between a salary and an allowance, but as I have voted to make Federal officers liable to income tax retrospectively, as well as prospectively, 1 cannot vote to exempt my own allowance.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- Before the amendment is put, I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council what’ is the legal distinction between an allowance and a salary ? A salary is a recompense for services rendered, and, according to the ordinary definition of the word, an allowance is synonymous with a salary. If there is no difference in a legal sense between a salary and an allowance, what object can be served by allowing the amendment to go to a vote? I may be wrong, but I hold the opinion that there is little if any difference between the words. Like otherspeakers, I feel that the sum of £400 is a salary, and I, as a member of Parliament, do not. want to be treated differently from any Federal officer.

Question - That the word “ allowances proposed to be left out be left out - put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 18

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported.

page 1054

PAPER

Senator BEST laid upon the table the following paper -

Precis of correspondence between the Commonwealth Government, the late Right Hon. R. J. Seddon, and the Government of the United: Kingdom, respecting the Navigation Laws of the Empire, and the question of coastal trade.

page 1054

ADJOURNMENT

Personal Explanation - Delay in. Deliveryof Letters.

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I believe under the Standing; Orders an opportunity is afforded honorable senators to make an explanation if they think that necessary. I happened to leave the chamber last night about a quarter to 10 o’clock, though I had seldom been out of my seat until that hour, and I have been told that, during my absence, Senator St. Ledger made an attack upon me because I happened to say that in connexion witha certain Bill the honorable senator spoke strongly on one side and voted on the other. I recognise the position in which the honorable senator was placed, because he was in the arms of two other senators who took a different view, and he seemed to be to some extent under their influence. To say that I took advantage of him, and to say that I knew he had made a mistake in yoting is not correct; I knew nothing about it. But I can say that by the honorable senator’s wobbling, I expected him to take up the position he did.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order. The honorable senator desired to make an explanation, and he is not in order in making an attack upon a member of the Senate.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was not aware that I was making an attack, and I would not do so unless I was forced. I certainly would not attack an honorable senator in his absence. I complain that Senator St. Ledger attacked me during my absence from the chamber. If the honorable senator had a genuine ‘excuse to give why did he not avail himself of the forms of the Senate, and, coming to the table, admit that he had made a mistake? The mistake was not on my part at all, because there can be no doubtthat it was a clear change of front, which I was ashamed to see in any member of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I think that I made my explanation at the proper time and in the proper way, and in making it I did not utter a syllable that could be regarded as an attack upon Senator Russell. I spoke only of what happened in the division. I did not refer in any disparaging way to what Senator Russell had said with regard to myself . The honorable senator drew attention to what was a more or less ludicrous mistake on my part, but -I did not impute to him any desire to make an attack upon me, because I knew that he also was making a mistake. I hope the honorable senator will not think that I intended to in any way attack him. I did not.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That does not trouble me.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I wish to bring under the notice of the Vice-President of the Executive Council a question that concerns the Post and Telegraph Department. It has somewhat of a personal bearing, but when I give the particulars it will be evident that it is of some public importance also. A letter addressed to me from Fremantle, bearing the date 18th March last, and the Fremantle post-mark, . dated 19th March, was received by me to-day. If it takes something like four months for a letter to reach a member of the Federal Parliament, addressed to the Senate from Fremantle, bow long will it take for a letter to reach an individual whose address may not be of so conspicuous a character?

Senator de Largie:

– Does the honorable senator think that he got it too soon ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not.

Senator Findley:

– Did it come by rail or by water?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The letter might have been of some considerable importance to the person to whom it was addressed. If, for instance, it had been addressed to a commercial man, and involved the loss of a few thousands of pounds in his business, what would have been the result ? I admit that during the interval between the posting and the delivery of the letter I was travelling in different parts of the Commonwealth, but I left particular instruction where correspondence was to be sent to me. Although I remained in Sydney ten days from the time when the letter in question is supposed to have left Orange, and I received whilst in Sydney several letters from Western Australia that had been forwarded to Orange from Melbourne’, strange to say, this letter, although returned to Sydney, went back to Western Australia unclaimed. I visited the Northern Territory, but I was three weeks in Melbourne before going north. Personally, the delivery of the letter has not affected me, but I think the Vice-President of the Executive Council should bring the matter under the notice of the responsible authorities, because it is possible that instances of similar delay may have occurred.

Senator Trenwith:

– I have a worse case. I have a letter dated the 16th, which I received on the 14th!

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– Before my honorable colleague replies, and so closes the debate; might I say to the honorable senator who has just resumed his seat that, as the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, I shall be very pleased if he will give me the envelope in which the letter to which he refers was enclosed; I shall have inquiries made, and furnish him with the result.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.57 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 July 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1907/19070726_senate_3_37/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate26 July 1907

QUESTION

THE TARIFF

Senator ST LEDGER:QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

VANILLA

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:Protectionist

JUDICIARY BILL

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY BILL

Senator BEST:Vice- President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator Dobson:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Dobson:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Dobson:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Dobson:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Dobson:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Dobson:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Best:

Senator Givens:

Senator Best:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Best:

Senator Givens:

Senator Best:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Best:

Senator Col Neild:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Best:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Givens:

Senator Pearce:

Senator McGregor:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McGregor:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Col Neild:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator St Ledger:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Best:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Dobson:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Pearce:

Senator de Largie:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sayers:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Findley:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Findley:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Findley:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator BEST:

Senator Col Neild:

Senate
26 July 1907

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · Protectionist

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Vice- President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist