View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
25 November 1908

3^rd Parliament · 3^rd Session

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
- Order of Business
PAPERS
QUESTION
- STATES AND COMMONWEALTH
QUESTION
- DEFENCE FORCE: SOUTH AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- VALUE-PAYABLE PARCEL POST
QUESTION
- COMMERCE ACT REGULATIONS
QUESTION
- MILITARY FORCES RE-ORGANIZATION
QUESTION
- EXPENDITURE ON IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
MILITARY FORCES
LAND VALUES AND LAND TAXATION
COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON
- Purchase of Site and Buildings
ADJOURNMENT

The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2152

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Order of Business

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

.-By leave, I move -

That during the remainder of the present session, unless otherwise ordered, Government business take precedence of all other business on Thursdays, except questions and formal motions.

Senator PEARCE laid upon the table the following papers : -

Public Service Act 1902. - Repeal of Regulations 97 and 147; Repeal of Regulations 5, 24,. 27.29> 30.38, 43. 46. 50. 51> 52. 57»61>62»- 73. 77. 78, 79.86> 89, 89A, 98,111, 116, 118, 119, 121, 134, 148, 159, 160, 161, 163, 163A, 164, 165, 166, 264, 267A, 276a, and268,and substitution of new Regulations in lieu thereof ; and new Regulation 90. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 116.

Customs Act 1901. - Amendment of Regulation 101. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 115.

Post and Telegraph Act 1901. - Repeal ancll Amendment of Postal, Telegraphic, Telephone,, and General Postal Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 107. Amendment and Repeal of Postal and Telephone Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. in.

Defence Acts 1903- 1904 -

Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth - Amendment of Regulation 134. - StatutoryRules 1908, No. 113.

Regulations (Provisional) for the MilitaryForces of the Commonwealth - Amendment of Regulation 225. - StatutoryRules 1908, No. 114.

page 2154

QUESTION

STATES AND COMMONWEALTH

Interpretation of Constitution

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What was the total number of cases between the States and the Commonwealth, involving an interpretation of the Constitution, brought before and decided by the High Court?
How many of such cases were decided in favour of the States, and how many in favour of the Commonwealth ?
What was the total amount of costs in such’ cases given against the States and Commonwealth respectively ?
Have all such costs been paid?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– The document which I hold in my hand contains three pages of figures, and gives complete information regarding the decisions of the High Court in respect of matters involving an interpretation of the Constitution. I therefore propose to lay it upon the table of the Senate.

Senator Givens:

– Will that document be printed in Hansard?

The PRESIDENT:

– It will not appear in Hansard.

Senator McGREGOR:

– If it be the desire of the Senate, I will ask that the Clerk be directed to read the document.

Senator Givens:

– It ought to be printed in Hansard.

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– The VicePresident of the Executive Council has intimated that he proposes to lay the paper in question upon the table of the Senate. Are we to understand that a summary of its contents will appear in Hansard as an answer to the question put by Senator Givens ?

The PRESIDENT:

– No. If the Minister sees fit to do so, he may lay it upon the table in the Senate in the form of a return, and it may then be printed as a parliamentary paper. If, however, the Senate desires that its contents shall appear in Hansard the Clerk will read it.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– To overcome the difficulty, I move -

That the document be read by the Clerk.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The Clerk proceeded to read the paper as follows : -

Cases decided in the High Court involving the interpretation of the Constitution in which both Commonwealth and State (or a person suing or being sued on behalf thereof, or a public authority thereof) were either parties or intervenants.

Cases decided in favour of the Commonwealth.

Date of Judgment. - 24th February, 1904.

Plaintiff.- Pedder, F., Superintendent of Police, Tasmania.

Defendant.- D’Emden, H. L., D.P.M.G., Hobart.

Question in Issue. - Liability of Commonwealth to pay State Stamp Duty on receipts given by Commonwealth officers for salary.

Costs awarded to Commonwealth-

Senator Millen:

– I rise to a point of order. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has been asked a question relating to the number of cases involving an interpretation of the Constitution which have been brought, by the States before the High Court. I submit that the information which is now being supplied goes far beyond that, inasmuch as it sets out particulars of the suits brought before the Court, and of the parties to them.

Senator Givens:

– Does the honorable senator object to that information being given ?

Senator Millen:

– I do not. But if the practice be tolerated, it is manifest that in the future information which is not sought may be supplied. I desire to Know whether the information which is now being supplied comes within the category of a proper answer to Senator Givens’ question?

Senator McGregor:

– May I suggest that Senator Givens should ask for the information which he seeks in the form of a return? It will , then be laid upon the table of the Senate, and may be printed as a, public document.

The PRESIDENT:

– The object of putting a question to a Minister is to elicit a reply upon specific points, and the intention is that the reply shall not go beyond that. Of course, if further information be desired by any honorable senator it can easily be obtained in the form of a return. It has been customary, however, to permit Ministers to reply to questions in a fuller way than is strictly warranted. The information which is embodied in the document presented by the Vice-President of the Executive Council is supposed to have been given by the Minister himself, but with the concurrence of the Senate it is possible for it to be read by the Clerk. I think that perhaps it would be better if that information were laid upon the ‘table in the form of a return, and it will then be competent for- the Senate to determine whether or not it shall be printed.

Senator Clemons:

– As this question appears upon the business paper it can be answered either now or at some future date. But from your remarks, sir, I gather that you suggest that the answer should be given in the form of a return. May I draw your attention to the nature of the question ? Paragraph 1 reads -

What was the total number of cases between the States and the Commonwealth, involving an interpretation of the Constitution, brought before and decided by the High Court?

That portion of the question can be replied to by a simple numeral. The second part of the question can be answered in a similar way, and paragraph 3 merely demands the statement of a specific sum. The last paragraph of the question can be answered either by a simple affirmative or a simple negative. But the statement which the Clerk was proceeding to read contains an unnecessary amount of explanatory matter, which is quite extraneous. Is there not some procedure by which we can obtain from a. Minister a definite statement when if is asked for?

The PRESIDENT:

– I have already pointed out what I consider ought to be embodied in a reply by a Minister to a question. But when a return is laid upon the table of the Senate, I have no power to ascertain the nature of its contents beforehand. It is really for the Minister concerned to determine in the first place what information a return shall contain.

Senator McGREGOR:

– May I suggest that the question should be postponed ? It is customary for answers to questions to be obtained from the different Departments to which they refer, and Ministers have very little time to investigate them. But if the question asked by Senator Givens be postponed, I undertake that only proper answers to it shall be given. Any other information which may be attached to the Departmental reply will be laid upon the table in the form of a return.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– May I point out that the Senate has already directed the reading of the document by the Clerk.’ I wish to say, however, that I moved that motion in the belief that the paper merely dealt with the number of cases involving an interpretation of the Constitution which had been brought before the High Court. I did not think that it would take two minutes to read the document. Certainly I did not intend that all these unnecessary details should be read.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I suggest that the Vice-President of the Executive Council should withdraw his answer, otherwise it will appear upon the records, as the answer to Senator Givens’ question. It should be withdrawn, and the question itself should then be postponed.

Senator McGREGOR:

– I ask leave to withdraw the answer to the question.

Answer, by leave, withdrawn.

page 2156

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE: SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is it necessary, and in the best interests of the Defence Force in South Australia, that one officer should occupy the dual positions of
Is the establishment of officers for the1st Battalion,10th A.I.R., complete, and, if not, what vacancies exist ?
Is the fact that the CO., South Australian Brigade, is also in command of the Infantry Battalion, which forms part of his Brigade, an indication that no other officer in the battalion is fitted for the command?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

It was considered necessary and in the interests of the Forces in South Australia that, for a time, one officer should occupy two positions. This arrangement will, however, only continue in force until 31st December.
No. Vacancies exist for three Majors and two Lieutenants. A recommendation has recently been received from the Commandant, South Australia, for the promotion of two Captains to rank of Major; this will be dealt with by the Promotion Board at its next meeting to beheld shortly.
No.

page 2156

QUESTION

VALUE-PAYABLE PARCEL POST

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Referring to the reply given on Thursday last (5th November) to question No. 4, is the Minister aware that the (London) Daily News of September 26th contains the following, which is said to be based on a paragraph in the Imperial Postmaster-General’s Annual Report : - “The Postmaster-General says that he has invited the Governments of the several British Colonies to enter into an arrangement under which the Postoffice will collect from the addressee, and remit to the sender, the value of articles sent by post in fulfilment of an order?”

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

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

The Postmaster-General is aware that a statement to the effect referred to appears in the Fifty-fourth Report of the Postmaster-General of the United Kingdom.

page 2156

QUESTION

COMMERCE ACT REGULATIONS

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Have the Government decided to amend the Commerce Act Regulations as to marking cases of fruit for export as promised to be considered to a deputation of fruit-growers recently? If so, to what extent?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The matter is under consideration.

page 2156

QUESTION

MILITARY FORCES RE-ORGANIZATION

Senator McCOLL:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

If the Government will take into consideration the advisability of obtaining the advice and’ assistance of Lord Kitchener in connexion with the re-organization of the Military Forces of the Commonwealth, seeing that his work in India has been so successful, both as regards efficiency and economy ?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– It is not the intention of the Government to adopt the suggestion.

page 2157

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE ON IMMIGRATION

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What are the total amounts spent by the respective States (a) out of loan funds; [6) out of revenue, on immigration from the year 1875 to 1890, and from 1890 to 1900?
What is the total amount (a) voted ; (i) spent, on immigration, or for immigration purposes, since the1st January, 1901 ?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– This question must be considered as very similar to that asked by Senator Givens. I have two pages of figures supplied in connexion with the answer to it, and, in the circumstances, I ask Senator St. Ledger to postpone the question, and I shall lay the information upon the table in the form of a return.

Senator MILLEN:

– Arising out of the answer just given, may I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council if he will see that instructions are given to departmental officers, when furnishing replies to questions asked in the Senate, to give merely the information that is asked for?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I think that I ought to be able to obtain specific information in figures in answer to the question I have submitted.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I point out that honorable senators cannot debate this matter. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has asked that the question be postponed.

page 2157

QUESTION

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Motion (by Senator McGregor) agreed to-

That the Senate do now proceed to elect a Chairman of Committees.

The PRESIDENT:

– I now call for nominations for the office of Chairman of Committees.

Nomination (by Senator Givens) proposed -

That Senator Turley be appointed Chairman of Committees.

Nomination (by Senator Gray) proposed -

That Senator Dobson be appointed Chairman of Committees.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Standing Orders provide that when two senators have been proposed for the office, each senator shall deliver to the Clerk a ballot-paper in writing containing the name of the candidate for whom he votes, and the candidate who has the greater number of votes shall be Chairman of Committees. The Clerk will now distribute ballot-papers to honorable senators. As the ballot is not an open one, it will not be necessary for them to sign the ballot-papers.

A ballot having been taken,

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to announce to honorable senators that the result of the ballot is -

Under the Standing Orders, it will be necessary to take another ballot. Standing order 22 provides that -

In the event of there being an equality of votes, the Clerk shall declare such to be the case, and the votes shall be again taken, when, if again there shall be an equality of votes, the Clerk shall determine, by lot, which of the candidates, having the same number of votes, shall be withdrawn as if he had obtained the lesser number of votes.

That is the rule to be observed in the election of the President, and it is provided in standing order 27 that the Chairman of Committees shall be appointed in a similar manner.

Senator Findley:

– Am I to understand, sir, that the names are again to be submitted to the intelligent senators who probably will record the same vote, and that in the event of another tie, we shall be asked to vote again and again ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Another ballot will be taken immediately, and if there should be an equality of votes the matter will then be determined by lot.

A ballot having been taken,

The PRESIDENT:

Questions arising in the Senate shall be determined by a majority of votes, and each senator -.lull have one vote. The President shall in all cases be entitled to a vote; and when the votes are equal the question shall pass in the negative.

That relates to ordinary questions submitted to the Senate. But we are now dealing with a case in which certain names have been submitted to a ballot, and one of our standing orders lays down how we shall deal with an equality of votes. I have nothing to do but to carry out the standing order. It is not my duty to interpret the constitutionality of it.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The point of order which’ Senator Neild has raised introduces a very much larger question, and one of greater importance than at first sight appears. The Senate is indebted to Senator Neild for drawing attention to it. Section 17 of the Constitution lays it down that-

The Senate shall before proceeding to the despatch of any other business choose a senator to be the President of the Senate.

Our Standing Orders prescribe the method of choosing the President, but the standing order under which we are working lays it down that in the event of an equality of votes the actual choice shall be taken away from the Senate and that the matter shall be submitted to chance. The same procedure applies to the election of a Chairman of Committees. The question is whether it is regular for the choice to be taken away from the Senate and handed over to the chance of the tossing of a coin ?

Senator Millen:

– Can we avoid it?

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– It seems to me that this is not a “choosing” of a Chairman of Committees by the Senate. The Senate should devise means of choosing, or of giving effect to its choice, in some other way - by a conference amongst senators or something of that kind. The method now adopted does not secure a choice by the Senate. It is an acknowledgment by the Senate that it has been unable up to a certain stage to make a choice; and then it says, “ We will hand the matter over to the chance of the tossing of a coin.” That raises a very grave question, and perhaps you will consider, sir, whether it gives effect to section 17 of the Constitution, which provides that the President shall be chosen. This method practically conduces to our abandoning our choice. It is a fortuitous thing. It is not a choice. It is no more ,a choice than it would be if the Clerk were to spin a coin in the air.

The PRESIDENT:

– The standing order dealing with the election of a Chairman of Committees provides that the Chairman shall be elected in a similar manner to the President. The method laid down with regard to the election of a President is that in the event of there being an equality of votes the decision shall be arrived at fortuitously, as Senator Symon has expressed it. There can be no question that standing order 27 -

The Chairman of Committees shall be appointed in a similar manner to the President - makes the procedure prescribed in regard to the election of President applicable to the election of Chairman. I do not see that it is my duty as President to take upon myself the responsibility of ruling that the standing order is ultra vires. It has been within the competency of the Senate to deal with this matter at any time since the present Standing Orders have been in operation. But the Senate has not seen fit to do so. Let us assume, for the sa.ke of argument, that the standing order in question is ultra vires. The question then arises whether it is the duty of the President to decide whether the standing order is constitutional. But as the standing order is in existence, and! is applicable, I do not propose to take upon myself the responsibility of expressing the opinion that it is ultra vires of the Constitution.

Later -

The PRESIDENT:

– The Clerk has handed me a paper with the name of Senator Turley upon it. That being the case. Senator Turley’s name is withdrawn and Senator Dobson is elected Chairman of Committees.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I hope that I may be permitted to thank honorable senators’ for having elected me to the position of Chairman of Committees. The office is an exceedingly important one, and I hope, with the assistance of honorable senators, and by the exercise of due care and attention, to carry out the duties with impartiality and satisfaction to all sides. I should also like to congratulate my honorable friend the ex-Chairmam of Committees, now Minister of Defence, on the very efficient, courteous, and impartial way in which he performed his duties while he occupied the office. I think that the whole Senate is under a debt of gratitude to him, and if I can discharge my duties as well, I shall be more than satisfied,and hope that honorable senators will be satisfied also.

page 2159

MILITARY FORCES

Motion (by Senator W. Russell) agreed to-

That there be laid upon the table of the Senate a return showing -

The total number of men under arms (exelusive of Rifle Clubs) in each separate State of the Commonwealth in 1900-1 and 1907-8.

The cost of administration in each State in 1900-1 and 1907-8.

) The total cost of the Defence . Force in each State in 1900-1 and 1907-8.

page 2159

LAND VALUES AND LAND TAXATION

Motion (by Senator St. Ledger) agreed to-

That there be laid on the table of the Senate a return showing -

The estimated number of persons in each State holding agricultural areas, and the number of such areas of over £5,000 (i.) in improved and (ii.) in unimproved value, and the total aggregate value of the same. The return to show the number of persons in classes of £500 above the value of , £5,000.

The number of persons and areas as in (1) holding areas of£5,000 and less as in (i.) and (ii.) of (1), and the aggregate values. The return to show the number of persons, in classes of£250, in the£5.000 and lower values.

The number of persons in the respective States holding lands in cities and towns of over £5,000 (i.) in improved and (ii.) in unimproved value. The return to show the classification as in (1) above.

The number of persons as in (3) where the values (i.) improved and (ii.) unimproved are £5,000 and less. The return to show the classification as in (2) above.

The total amount paid in 1907-8 (i.) into the Consolidated Revenues of the respective States, and (ii.) into State Trust or Local Board funds by way of(a) rent, (i) taxation on lands, and (c) other assessments leviable on land or live stock.

The aggregate amount of revenue raised in the respective States by municipalities, shire councils, divisional or local or other public boards or bodies having statutory powers to levy taxation on. land or landed property during the year 1907-8.

The total amount of income tax paid into the Consolidated Revenues of the respective States in the year 1907-8 from incomes derived from land.

page 2159

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON

Purchase of Site and Buildings

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– By leave, I move -

That this Senate approves the purchase of a site on the corner of Northumberland Avenue and Charing Cross, London, for the sum of £198,000, for the purposes of the Commonwealth.

Senator MILLEN:

– I take it so. First of all, if the present buildings are retained, repairs will be necessary, which are estimated to cost £16,000.

Senator Turley:

– That is not in addition to the £46,000.

Senator MILLEN:

– I take the repairs referred to to be necessary for the upkeep and maintenance of the building. Then the document goes on -

In event of Commonwealth occupying present building as Government offices - estimated cost o f alterations, ^46,000.

Senator Clemons:

– Not so long as he can hold the oDtion.

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Guthrie:

– Lord Jersey approves of the site.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The honorable senator may have been in private communication with1 Lord Jersey, but the Senate has only access to the information which is contained in this printed document, and in which Lord Jersey is referred to twice. In a letter, Captain Collins says -

A new road is in process of construction extending in a direct line from the Mall to Trafalgar Square. In the opinion of Lord Jersey and others this will add greatly to the value of the site.

No doubt the construction of a road would add to the value of the site, but that is no reason why the Commonwealth should pay this price for it. The only other reference made to Lord Jersey is the following -

Further correspondence took place, and Captain Collins had frequent conference with’ Lord Jersey, whose valued assistance has been highly appreciated, and who considers the site eminently suitable for the purposes of the Commonwealth.

Sena)tor Sir JOSIAH SYMON.- But it is quite good enough for office purposes.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Our own offices are there.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am aware of that. I admit that those offices ought to be much better tRan they are. But for the central office in London we require something more modest and more in keeping with the object that we have in view than would be an expenditure of £200,000 upon the acquisition of a property in Trafalgar Square which one public ‘man has described as “the finest site in Europe.” This enormous expenditure is entirely premature. I have no objection to the acquisition of a freehold for our offices, but I contend that the Commonwealth does not require a site of such magnitude as that proposed or one the purchase of which would prove so expensive. In the third place, I say that no man who desired to act prudently in regard to his own affairs would make such a purchase upon the material which is before us. I have read the document presented for our consideration very closely, I listened attentively to the excellent analysis to which it was subjected by Senator Millen, and I say that nobody could do that without concluding -that for some reason or other the valuator upon whose valuation action was taken by Captain Collins is not to be trusted. I do not say that upon moral grounds he is not to be trusted-

Senator Pearce:

– What about the second valuation?

– Where is that stated?

SenatorPearce. - In the files at the office.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Mr. Martin says that he has valued the property in two ways -

As a site for the erection of a public building.
As a site and existing building for the purpose of investment.

He has valued it both from the stand-poinl of a willing buyer and a willing seller. The last paragraph of his report reads -

I ought, perhaps, to add that I know of no uncovered site in London with advantages of position equal to those of this building, and that, whenever there is occasion for such a site to be acquired, it is almost invariably the case that it is necessary to pay for it a sum far above its market value, in buying up existing interests.

That, I take it, refers to the buying out either of the leaseholders or of the man who holds the option - the middleman. When Mr. Martin’s attention was drawn to that paragraph in his report, he stated - as will be seen by reference to his next letter -

In my opinion, the present market value of this site, if in the market, cleared and free from the existing lease, would be£163, 750 to builders, speculators, or others willing to buy it in the ordinary way of business.

What is it proposed that the Commonwealth should do? Ought it not to buy the site in the ordinary way of business? This is the kind of recommendation on which we are asked to sanction the expenditure of this money. Mr. Martin says -

But as the site (like, I think, every other site of equal area and advantage of position in London) is at present covered with occupied buildings, I think no one for whose purpose this position is specially suitable, and who requires the whole site for the purpose of immediately erecting a building for his own occupation could expect to buy the property and get vacant possession for less than from£200,000 to£220,000.

This valuator enters into these subtle distinctions in order to make it appear that it is worth our while to pay this amount. In the same paragraph he says that to a person buying the property in the ordinary way of business it is worth , £163,750. But for the Commonwealth, apparently, it is worth £200,000 or £220,000. Will any one say that as a speculator he would be justified in giving £163,750 for this property? People speculate for the purpose of making big profits, and why should we be called upon to sanction an expenditure of £200,000 or £220,000 for the purchase of this property ? In a letter received from Captain Collins, Mr. Martin is quoted as saying -

He thought, also, that if the property could be obtained for£200,000 subject to these existing tenancies, the Commonwealth might be able to deal successfully with them at a moderate cost.

– That plan prevails everywhere.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I have never regarded that as being an entirely satisfactory plan, because there are certain sites for which a man, if he wants a particular position, is prepared to pay a bit more.

We all know that many a man ‘will pay a good deal more than a percentage value in order to get that which he considers valuable to him for his purpose.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

Senator TRENWITH:

– My own opinion is that the vendors of property can only hope to dispose of their property by parting with it at a rate which will insure to the purchaser some return for his outlay. Of course, every vendor is naturally anxious to obtain the highest possible price, but business considerations compel him to accept such, a price as will allow the purchaser to make a reasonable profit.

But I rose chiefly to say that the Commonwealth ought to be represented in London, and that the proposed site is far and away the best which can be obtained at -any price. Upon the question of whether the price asked for it is a fair one, I am not competent to express an opinion. But in answer to the question put by Senator Neild, I say that if the Commonwealth- requires this site, it is absurd to argue that it cannot afford to purchase it. The Commonwealth can afford to purchase any service that it may require. A community as wealthy as we are cannot be without a home-

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Are we not homeless in Melbourne?

Senator TRENWITH:

– I do not wish to discuss that question. Personally, I think thatthis Parliament has an excellent home in Melbourne.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– On the nod.

Senator TRENWITH:

– I have no doubt that if the VictorianGovernment asked for rental for the building which we occupy the Commonwealth would be quite prepared to pay it. But I do not see that there is any analogy between the two cases. As a matter of fact, we are paying rental for the Government offices that we occupy in various parts of this city. If the proposed site be purchased, I am of opinion that we shall have concluded a business transaction which will not prove unprofitable to us. But whether we pay a high price or a low price for it, we ought to have offices in London, and we ought to have adequate representation there at all times. For that reason I shall support the proposal of the Vice-President of the Executive Council.

Senator GRAY:
New South’ Wales

– For the same reason that I objected to the proposed purchase of a site in the Strand for Commonwealth offices. I protest against, the purchase of a site in Trafalgar Square. If the site in the Strand was too far removed from the heart of London to warrant us in establishing offices there, the site under consideration is also too remote, seeing that it is half a mile further distant. There is no doubt that it is one of the finest sites in London, and I make that statement as one who has lived in that city for a good many years, and who knows it fairly well. Nevertheless, I do not think that the site is one which we require for Commonwealth purposes, in view of the price which is demanded for it. Should Parliament decide to acquire it, I take it that the ultimate cost to the Commonwealth will be nearly £350,000, and under present circumstances, and with a knowledge of the financial responsibilities which lie before us, I claim that that money could be expended to far better advantage in other directions. It will, I think, be generally admitted that Canada has taken a very leading part in securing representation in the . heart of the Empire. But I need scarcely point out that she has not incurred the vast expenditure to which it is proposed to commit the Commonwealth in this connexion, although she is in a far better position to withstand it. As Senator Pulsford stated this afternoon, the Dominion has established in the rural districts of England a number of small depots - pivot-stations, if I may so term them - for the dissemination of knowledge concerning her resources, with the result that Australia gets only ten immigrants where Canada gets 1,000.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Of what quality ?

Senator GRAY:

– Of the quality best suited to Canadian needs in every sense of the word. I assume that those charged with the conduct of Canadian affairs are equal in every respect to those charged with the conduct of Commonwealth affairs. We all recognise that of late years Canada has developed very rapidly. It is not very long since it was regarded as a country which immigrants should avoid. As a matter of fact, although the Dominion, a few years ago, was expending thousands of pounds in encouraging immigration, a great proportion of her immigrants were accustomed to cross the border into the United States.

Senator Trenwith:

– Look at the money Canada has expended in London.

Senator GRAY:

– There is no necessity for the Commonwealth to acquire this site and to erect elaborate buildings upon it. Why cannot we rent suitable premises in Victoria-street, and wait until we can “better afford to be represented in the manner that is now proposed ? By so doing we shall be studying the best interests of the Commonwealth more than we shall “lie by embarking upon a large expenditure on insufficient data. I am quite sure that there is no urgency whatever in connexion with the proposal which is now under consideration. Under no circumstances can we obtain possession of the site until after the lapse of four years. In the meantime we might very well rent suitable buildings in London, just as the Argentine and other equally wealthy countries are doing. I attach very little importance to the question of whether the money for the acquisition of a site in London is borrowed, or whether, up to a certain point, it is taken out of revenue. As a matter of fact, we cannot take the whole of it out of revenue. I have no objection whatever to borrowing, assuming that the money be wisely expended. That is the crux of the whole position, and I cannot help thinking that my honorable friends opposite made a great mistake when they made it a plank in their platform that all public works should be constructed out of revenue.

Senator Pearce:

– That is not a plank in our platform.

Senator GRAY:

– Some of the members of the Labour Party have affirmed that principle very strongly in connexion with the policy of the Labour Party. In legislating upon this subject I hope we shall recollect that Australia is a young country, that its resources require development, and that if we spent the money which it is proposed to expend in acquiring a site for Commonwealth Offices in London in the dissemination of literature which would advertise our products, we should obtain a better return for our outlay.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I regard this as a matter of so much importance that I should not record a vote upon it without giving some reasons for. the vote which I intend to give. I intend to oppose the motion, and I wish to give one or two reasons why I take up this attitude. In the first place, having looked very carefully through the meagre information submitted, I urn not satisfied that even the valuator employed has justified his recommendation. I have not by any means lost sight of the consideration which Senator Trenwith answered for himself so easily. The honorable senator asked whether it is necessary that we should be represented in London. He answers that question very easily to his own satisfaction. The honorable senator mayfeel that it is desirable that we should do away with the representation we have already in London of the various States of Australia.

Senator Needham:

– We have not yet a representative of Australia in London’ .

Senator HENDERSON:

– We have in London a representative of every State in the Commonwealth. We have six AgentsGeneral in London, and each has a separate office. Looking at statements of the finances of the various States from time to time, it does not appear to me that any of the offices of these Agents-General is carried on at a very low cost, and we may assume that, in the aggregate, the people of Australia are already spending at least a sufficient sum of money upon their representation in London.

Senator Needham:

– Would it not be better to have one representative of the Commonwealth, and abolish the six representatives of the States?

Senator HENDERSON:

– -That- is not the question we are considering at the present moment. If, after an agreement had been come to between the Commonwealth and the States Governments, we were considering a proposal that the whole of the representatives of the States, with their staffs, should go back to the States, and Australia should be represented in London by a single representative, the position would be very different.

Senator Trenwith:

– We shall be paving the way for that by providing an opportunity for it.

Senator HENDERSON:

– 1 do not know that we shall be paving the way by agreeing to this motion. If it is suggested that we shall pave the way for a reduction of expenditure upon our representation in London by spending about £300,000 on the purchase of the proposed site, and that we shall reduce the number of official representatives in London by increasing the existing staff by, say, a half-a-dozen additional officers, I must say that I am unable to regard the matter in that light. I regard the purchase of this building as a first step. The appointment of a High Commissioner would be the second step. I do not know that that would add to our influence in London, or would be of any greater benefit to the Commonwealth, than the representation we have already there. The financial question is involved in this matter. So far as I can see at present, the Government propose to secure this site by the adoption of a borrowing policy. As I understand the matter, the Bank of England is to pay cash to the vendor, and the Commonwealth Government is to borrow the money, or so much as may be necessary, from the Bank of England at 4 per cent.

Senator St Ledger:

– They would1 borrow the money all the same.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I take this, proposition to be founded on a borrowing, policy. It may be necessary in the futurefor the Commonwealth to adopt some kind of a borrowing policy. I do not say that it will be necessary, but if I ever record a vote in favour of a borrowing policy, it will be in favour of one, the benefits from* which will be enjoyed in Australia, and not in London.

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senatordoes not approve of going into a speculation ?

Senator HENDERSON:

– I do not approve of entering into a speculation, particularly at such a distance from the Commonwealth.

Senator Needham:

– An overdraft ishandy now and again.

Senator HENDERSON:

– That is so,, but if the Commonwealth must have an overdraft, we should be assured that it willbe of advantage to the people of Australia. Senator Neild has reminded us that wehave to make provision for the payment of old-age pensions. Side by side with that, the Government propose the payment of a bounty for the production of iron,, which will not be a small item. If, in addition to providing for old-age pensions,, and the payment of a bounty for the production of iron, we are to find £350,000’ for the purchase of a site and the erection of a building in London, for which at thepresent time I see no necessity, we must ask ourselves where we are to find themoney to cover all this expenditure. I donot say that I am in favour of borrowing, money, but I would prefer to borrow money for the payment of a bounty for the production of iron in Australia, and-‘ the employment of our Australian people, to borrowing it merely for decorative purposes, and to show how grandly an Australian representative can live away fromhis own country. I see no necessity at the present time for the purchase of the proposed site, even for purposes of immigration. Surely one representative of theCommonwealth in London should be sufficient ? My own opinion is that if the number of existing representatives of Australia, in London were reduced to two, they would do better work in this respect than is being-, done at the present time. We know that there is not likely to be an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States- that there should be only one representative of the Commonwealth in London,, and we are not at present seeking for that. The fact is that the States are as anxious about their special representation in Lon- don as any member of the Commonwealth Parliament can be about the representation of the Commonwealth as a whole.

Senator Gray:

– The States Governments will not give up their representation in London.

Senator HENDERSON:

– They are not likely to do so. If we had been in agreement’ with them to abolish their representation, and to have one Commonwealth representative in London, with a probable reduction of two-thirds of the present cost, I might have been prepared to take a different view of this question, but under existing circumstances I feel compelled to vote against the motion.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

.- I was in London a few weeks ago, and one of the first things Captain Collins asked me to do was to inspect the site in the Strand. I did so, and I considered it an excellent site. I was aware that the -Government had not come to terms about it, and before 1 left England Captain Collins asked me to look at the site we are now discussing. I knew the locality, but I carefully inspected the site, and found it also to be an admirable one. I agree with Senator Neild that it is, perhaps, the better site of the two. It is at the entrance to the Strand, close to a number of the shipping offices, and to the offices of the Canadian-Pacific Railway, where Canadian immigrants book their passages. Altogether, the site proposed is an admirable one; but, before I can make up my mind to the purchase of any site, 1 ask myself what we propose to do with it. What is our policy ? How do we propose to conduct the affairs of the Commonwealth in London? Are we going to unite with the States, or to drift further apart from them? Are we to have six AgentsGeneral established in separate offices ana representing the various States, and at the same time erect a building at a cost of £^00,000 for Commonwealth. Offices in London? If there is one economy which more than another candidates for the Federal Convention told the electors that Federation would secure, it was the doing away of the six States Agents- General and their staffs, and the substitution of a High Commissioner for the Commonwealth in London. We seem to have forgotten all that, and to be unmindful of the fact that the economy we then preached is more that ever necessary. The financial obligations to which we are committed, if we are to pursue a progressive policy, are almost more than we can stagger under and it behoves us not to spend this money on the purchase of a site for Commonwealth Offices in London unless very good reasons are advanced to justify it. I have been opposed to the appointment of a High Commissioner and to the purchase of expensive offices in London, but I cannot help remembering with Senator Neild that there seems to be a consensus of opinion that we are not properly _ represented in London, and that if we are to carry out an immigration scheme, the appointment of a High Commissioner is -a necessity. I cannot avoid being influenced to some extent by the opinion of public men here and in England, and by the press, but I cannot yet see .the necessity for a High Commissioner or for expensive Commonwealth Offices in London. When I hear the argument used that the Commonwealth requires to be represented in London, and is not represented there now, and that the Commonwealth should be able to speak with one voice, I ask myself what are the States Agents-General doing. My own common-sense tells me that if any State is slandered, any State law is misunderstood, or any statement detrimental to the interests of a State is published in London, . the Agent-General for the State is on the spot to put the matter right. If the Commonwealth is slandered, as it was in connexion with the six hatters, and as it was to some extent in connexion with our schemes to prevent alien immigration, we have six representatives of the States in London to answer the slanders. We have six brains to confer together as to the right position to be put before the world. My .honorable -friend opposite may reply that the six Agents-General may not agree, and’ that we may have six different views expressed, but I do not assent to that. On a vital matter, affecting the policy of Australia, affecting our chance of getting a great scheme of immigration in the near future, the Agents-General would agree. They would know better than their critics, and would be able to state clearly and quite as forcibly as one man could do, although he was High Commissioner, the policy and the law of the Commonwealth. Have we any sign that the States are willing, or that the Commonwealth is willing, to make good the statements which scores of us addressed to the electors?

Senator Trenwith:

– This proposal is a sign of it.

Senator DOBSON:

– I am told by men who have been Agents-General, and by financial experts, that financially there is really nothing for a man to do for the Commonwealth except to buy material until we take over the State debts, and so far there is no sign of that being done. Now, what is the policy of the Ministry with regard to immigration, and keeping our empty, lands filled with people, both for settlement and for defence? So far from the States drawing closer to the Commonwealth and vice versa, they seem to be drifting farther apart. I was getting reconciled to the idea of appointing a High Commissioner and securing, not purchasing, offices in London. When the matter was first mentioned, twelve or eighteen months ago, it was understood that the offices we were to purchase would house the AgentsGeneral. So, whether the States chose to have Agents-General, or commercial agents, or both, they could all find room for themselves, their staff, and their products, in one great building, which, of course, would have cost a. considerable sum. That scheme has to some extent been knocked on the head by the fact that Sir Thomas Bent, on behalf of Victoria, has bought in the Strand an excellent site which adjoins the site fi ret proposed to be purchased for the Commonwealth, and is now erecting offices entirely for his State. Only the other day the Government of Queensland purchased Gatley’s Restaurant, in the Strand - a most excellent site- on which they propose to establish offices for their own purposes. So, while we have been talking and negotiating with a man 12,000 miles away, which is a very difficult thing to do, two States have broken away from the policy which was beginning to appeal to me. Have I am assurance or hope that they will be brought into one general scheme and common building? If they are, they will have to get rid of the sites which have been acquired. Having dealt with the question of offices. I come down to the question of immigration, and of the means whereby we are to get immigrants. Here we are worse off than ever with regard to a united scheme. At their last Conference, the Premiers decided that the Commonwealth should have nothing to do with their immigration schemes, except to pay for advertisements to flood the Empire with. If that is the case, where is a sign that our building would be made the fullest use of? Where is any evidence that the States are cordially with us, will occupy our building, and make use of our offices and sample rooms for the display of their products, if we incur this enormous expenditure? I see no evidence of that, nor have I any assurance that it will be done. In these circumstances, I am not in favour of the motion. I cannot place the slightest reliance upon the two valuations by the one man mentioned in this summary. I do not quite understand what he means. It seems to me that he is wobbling, and does not know his own mind- If we purchase the site, pull down the building, and erect offices suitable for our requirements, the cost will be over £300,000, and we do not know whether any or all of the Stateswill join us.

Senator Pearce:

– Does not the honorable senator think that as a preliminary to. inviting the States to come in we must be able to tell them where we want them tocome to?

Senator DOBSON:

– I do not think so, because the States, by negotiation, could” say, “ Certainly we will join if you secure central offices.”

Senator Pearce:

– But they want to know where the building is to be located’.

Senator DOBSON:

– Let us agree that it shall be situated somewhere between Trafalgar Square and up towards the city. The difficulty which my honorable friend’ indicates can be got over very easily if he will only try to arrange that all the Statesshall come in with us. We shall not be so’ foolish, I hope, as to purchase a building which will not meet with the approval of the States. At the present time each Stateis paddling its own canoe. One of our able financiers in another place has stated that the financial affairs of the Commonwealth and the States must be separated’. To my mind that is absolute nonsense. Of course, we must keep the accounts separately, but in financial matterscan we talk about separating the States from the Commonwealth? It cannot be done. I shall consent to no financial scheme unless the States are to benefit by an increase in the revenue, and to take theresponsibility of a decline in the revenue. Being one people, we must rise or fall together.. We must progress or retrogress^ together. Therefore, with regard to a High Commissioner and London offices, we ought to act as one people, and to bear in mind that union is strength. I believe that Canada is deriving a great benefit from the fact that people have not to bother about half-a-dozen different States.

Senator Keating:

– But the finances of every Province are separated from those of the Dominion.

Senator DOBSON:

– They are separated in a kind of way, but my honorable friend knows that certain Provinces receive subsidies.

Senator Keating:

– They all do; but the finances are separated absolutely.

Senator DOBSON:

– Of course, as a matter of accounts, the finances have to be separated. But, speaking practically, is it possible to separate States from Commonwealth. I want to see united action taken in these matters. How are we to determine what we are to build until we know what States will come in with us. It appears to me that the Senate is asked to nut the cart before the horse. I feel that I have not half enough evidence to enable me to give a vote. Unless I get a satisfactory assurance on the points I have mentioned, I see no necessity for agreeing to this proposal. As a solicitor, if I had to advise a client, I should advise him that I had not nearly sufficient evidence to enable me to tell him whether he ought to buy the site or not. We are practically asked to buy “ a pig in a poke,” because most important information has not been put before us. The statement that Mr. Lyons is going to allow 90 per cent, of the purchase money to remain at 4^ per cent, is simply idle. If he offered to allow the money to remain at 3 *</inline> per cent., there might be something in that. Again, we do not quite know what the Commonwealth will have to pay for rates and taxes. I was not present when Senator McGregor* made a statement on that matter, but I understand that rates and taxes in London are something like what they are here. I understand that, in connexion with this property, they come to 6s. 8d. in the £1. Suppose that we paid £1,000 for rates, taxes, and outgoings, that sum at 4 per cent, means a capital value of £25,000. Therefore, as a business man, I could not advise a client to buy the property until I had obtained more information. I do not profess to know London as well as this valuator does, but I should think that between the Nelson Column and a mile and a half up the Strand road there must be halfadozen sites which could be obtained in the near future. There must be scores of buildings which are over 100 years old which the landlords must find it rather difficult to keep in repair, and which they would be very glad to part with for a reasonable figure. I do not think that it is good policy to allow ourselves to be bustled or hustled into a big purchase of this kind. I certainly prefer a freehold to a leasehold, but as a great portion of the property in London is held on leasehold, I would rather buy a vacant site, or one with an inexpensive building which we could pull down and replace with one suitable to our requirements, but we certainly cannot come to any wise decision until we know what our requirements are. We should begin to negotiate anew with the States, and ascertain their intentions and requirements. When we have elicited that information, we shall be able to choose more intelligently a site, and pay a fair price for it.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I desire to say a few words in support of this proposal, because, in my opinion, the time came a good while ago for the Commonwealth to have adequate representation in London. One has only to look through the magazines, even the cabled reports of the utterances made in the Old Country, to come very quickly to the conclusion that in London an authoritative voice is required to speak on behalf of the Commonwealth. We want a High Commissioner there, and it would ill become the Commonwealth to house him in an outoftheway place. Senator Dobson has committed himself to a policy of wait-a-while, a policy of procrastination. If action had been taken on the previous proposal, at least one of the States would, not have drifted in the manner about which he has just complained. We should have secured a site in the Strand, and destroyed at least one reason for Queensland setting up a building on its own account. The necessity for securing this site in London cannot be ignored by this Parliament, because it will not be offered again, or perhaps it may not be offered for a very long time. It is quite plain that every city, even London, has but one important centre through which all the traffic runs. It appears to me that Trafalgar Square is the only place in London where it will suit the Commonwealth to have a building.

Senator St Ledger:

– Perhaps the honorable member has not been in London.

Senator LYNCH:

– I was in London twenty-two years ago, and my recollections al’ Trafalgar Square, assisted by a reference to the plans, are quite sufficient to enable me to come to the conclusion that it is the most important centre in that great city. Here is an opportunity to purchase a site for housing our High Commissioner when he is appointed. I believe that the Commonwealth Parliament has been inexcusably slow in respect to making arrangements for the appointment of a High Commissioner and establishing a place for him to carry out his duties. We have been negligent in performing our simple, duty to the country in that respect. Australia in the past has suffered immeasurably at the hands, not of its enemies, but of its own citizens, who, when they have got to London, Rave reflected discredit on the country that feeds them. Now that we have an opportunity of placing our High Commissioner in an honorable position we should not allow it to pass. Turning to the financial side of the proposition, although the information supplied to us is not quite so full as I should like it to be, nevertheless there is sufficient to warrant us in coming to the conclusion that we can make a very fair bargain by coming to terms with the present vendor. The property at present produces something like £9,740 per annum in rent. Out of that sum about £2,000 will be absorbed in rates, reducing the net income to about £7,700 per annum. Assuming that the High Commissioner, when appointed, will require a suite of rooms similar in extent to those occupied by the New York Fire Insurance Company - fourteen rooms, returning a rent of £1,300 - the net income would thereby be reduced to something like £6,400 per annum. On the purchase price of £200,000 that shows a. return of a trifle over 3 per cent.

Senator Gray:

– That is a pretty way of reckoning.

Senator LYNCH:

– So that in addition to housing the High Commissioner we should have a reasonable percentage on our investment. In view of these facts, and of the necessity of placing the High Commissioner in a central situation, I think we ought not to be chary of embracing the present chance of securing a site, which appears likely to be the only one of the kind that will present itself for a long time to come. Another reason in support of the proposition is that many honorable senators have been clamouring for the advertising of the resources of Australia.

Senator Gray:

– This is not advertising our resources.

Senator LYNCH:

– By purchasing this site I submit that we shall be adopting a direct means of giving a much-needed advertisement to Australia.

Senator Gray:

– The purchase of the site would not give us fifty immigrants a year.

Senator LYNCH:

– We should not look at the proposition entirely from an £ s. d. stand-point, because the indirect benefits to Australia by making the country better known not only to Britishers, but to foreigners passing through England, cannot very well be calculated. In supporting the motion, I feel that we are taking the right course for dispelling the ignorance that seems to rest in the minds of Britishers as to our importance and resources, and the opportunities that the Commonwealth affords for the employment of capital as well as of labour. For these reasons I shall vote for the motion with pleasure, though at the same time recording my disappointment at the attitude of those honorable senators who have always cried out for the advertising of Australia, but who have refused to lend their aid to clinching this bargain, which will be the means of advertising the Commonwealth in an effective way.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I oppose the motion. A good deal has been said as to the value of the Trafalgar Square site. As a site it might be advisable for the Commonwealth to possess it. But the same was said with regard to the Strand- site. I notice in the correspondence that the vendors originally asked for about £230,000. When the bargain was not snapped up at that price they were quite willing to take a lesser amount. That seems to me to be huckstering. Viewing the matter on business grounds, therefore, it would be advisable to wait a little longer to see whether the vendors would not come down a little further.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– To carry that argument to a logical conclusion, can the honorable senator tell us how long we should have to wait before we got the site for nothing?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– There is an old Irish saying that any fool can ask a question.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– But some fools cannot answer one.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I shall not attempt to answer the honorable senator’s question. It was remarked by Senator Clemons that he viewed the transaction with some suspicion, and when I asked him why he suspected it he replied that his suspicion was not on the affirmative side, but that what he did not suspect about the matter was what troubled him. I agree that from a business point of view most unsatisfactory reasons have been given for the purchase. I see no reason at present for hurrying on the acquisition of a site. What would be the main purpose of such a building? It would be to house the High Commissioner. More important than the site itself is the question who is to be the Commonwealth High Commissioner in London. From many points of view the sooner the High Commissioner is appointed the better it will be for Australia. His main work when appointed will be, by his ability and reputation and force of character, to keep Australia to the front and combine the interests of the States and the Commonwealth in London. His work will be to advertise, throughout the United Kingdom in the first place, and throughout Europe, possibly, in the second place, what sort of a country Australia is, and to point out to the people of the United Kingdom that this is one of the most desirable countries on earth for hard-working decent men and women to come to, and for capital to be invested in. This proposition comes before us at the instance of a Government which has succeeded the Deakin Administration. It is supported by a party that has opposed the policy of the ex-Prime Minister in regard to immigration. I take this opportunity of saying that if there is one thing I admired in Mr. Deakin’s policy it was his consistent advocacy of immigration for Australia. At the Colonial Conference he did and said many things with which I disagreed. But I could not but admire him because he never hesitated to point out the resources of Australia and to emphasize its progressive character. No site that we could have in London would be of any use to us unless we were assured of having a man as High Commissioner who would carry on such a line of policy. But the Deakin Ministry has been succeeded by one, the members of which have never been friendly to that policy. Indirectly, if not directly, they have been absolutely hostile to immigration.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Some of the States Premiers have acknowledged that they have not land enough for their own people, to say nothing of strangers.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I believe that in some of the States it has been said that there is not room for immigrants.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The South AustralianPremier has said so.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I believe the South Australian Premier said so, and, of course, he is responsible for his own utterances.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the honorable senator to confine himself to the question.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Unless we have the assurance that such a policy will be vigorously pursued, I am not inclined to vote any money for the purpose indicated, and shall continue to resist any grant by this Parliament until the Ministry which brings down- the proposition shows that it is sincere in giving practical effect to what can be the only purpose of a suite of offices for the Commonwealth in London, and that is the promotion of immigration to Australia and the advocacy throughout the United Kingdom of the advantages . offered by the Commonwealth to people of our own kith and kin. Like the proverbial Yankee, I am open to conviction, and if in his reply the VicePresident of the Executive Council can assure me that the Government intend to use the offices which it is proposed to erect in London for the purpose of advertising Australia

Senator Walker:

– And to make them the head-quarters of the Agents-General of the States.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Exactly. If the Vice-President of the Executive Council, on behalf of the Government, can assure me that that is a principle which they cherish, and to which they will give effect, it is quite possible that I may be found voting for the proposal. At present, however, I intend to oppose it. It has been frequently remarked - and I quite agree with the statement - that unless the States Governments unite with the Commonwealth Government, the expenditure incurred in establishing offices in London will practically be wasted. If the Government could induce the States to see eye to eye with them in this matter, possibly we might be justified in investing a considerable sum of money in providing the Commonwealth and States with suitable accommodation in the heart of the Empire. But, unfortunately, in this matter the States have drifted entirely apart” from the Commonwealth. I do not for a moment suggest who is responsible for this condition of affairs. But it cannot be denied that one of the strongest reasons advanced in favour of Federation was that it would enable some officer appointed by the Commonwealth to unite the energies of the States in the matter of advertising the resources of this country.

Senator Needham:

– The experiment has not had a fair trial.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Nevertheless, what I have stated is a fact. In Queensland, a halt was called iri the policy of immigration–

The PRESIDENT:

– I hope that the honorable senator will connect his remarks with the motion under consideration.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Yes. We have no assurance that the Commonwealth and the States are agreed as to this important project. We cannot count upon the co-operation of the States in the acquisition of the proposed site, and that is why I intend to vote against the motion. I think that the States have done well to look to their own interests in this connexion, and the action of “Queensland and New South Wales in endeavouring to attract immigrants to their shores is especially to ‘be commended.

Senator Lynch:

– Can the honorable senator disprove my statement that, if the proposed site were acquired, the Commonwealth would receive 3 per cent, upon its investment after accommodating the High Commissioner ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I did intend to deal with that aspect of the matter.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator laughed very cynically when I made the statement.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I smiled, but [ did not intend that my smile should be accompanied with any cynicism.

Senator Needham:

– The honorable senator is advocating the States-frights policy.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Under the circumstances, I do not believe that the Government entertain a genuine desire to achieve the chief purpose underlying this proposal, without which it would be useless to appoint a High Commissioner, or to establish central offices. Until ‘ that belief can be dispelled. I intend to vote against the motion.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– A great many side issues appear to have been dragged into the discussion of this question. But, to my mind, there is only one aspect from which it ought to be viewed, and that is the business aspect. We ought to look at it entirely from that point of view. Personally, I think that the Commonwealth ought to be represented in the heart of the Empire. It ought to loom much larger in the eye of the general public in London than it does. The time must inevitably come when the Commonwealth will occupy a much more prominent position than it does, and when the status of the States must be diminished. We shall then have a High Commissioner in London, and the States will possibly be satisfied with’ the appointment of business agents for the general conduct of their affairs there. When that time arrives, the High Commissioner and those business agents may very well be located in one building, so that people may know where they can procure information in regard to any of the States. I have a personal knowledge of the proposed site, and I admit thai it is one of the most prominent in the city of London. I should hardly like to say how many persons pass that particular spot in a day, and from the point of giving prominence to the Commonwealth, I do not think that a better site could be chosen. As I have already remarked, the only point which we have to consider is whether the price asked for it is a reasonable one. I confess that the information which has been supplied to us is not sufficient to enable us to determine whether or not we ought to acquire the site in question. I have endeavoured to read between the lines of the different reports submitted for our consideration, and I have come to the conclusion that twenty-two or twenty-three years ago some man leased this particular land at a ground rental of £4,000 per annum, that he erected the present buildings upon it, and that he is now deriving from it a gross income of £9,74° per annum. Senator Lynch has said that he thinks the proposal a good business one, and that its adoption would insure to the Commonwealth the return of a very fair interest upon its outlay. May I point out that the present building upon the proposed site returns to the lessee £9,740 per annum, out of which he has to pay £4,000 by way of ground rent. In addition, he has to pay a considerable sum in rates and taxes - about £2,000 per annum - so that his net income is thereby reduced to about £3,000 per annum. Consequently, he is not obtaining 2 per cent, interest upon his outlay. The site has been let for twenty-five years at the ground rental of £4,000 per annum, and the report of Mr. Martin says that, assuming that the property were free from disadvantageous restrictions, and from outgoings other than those of ordinary rates and taxes, it would lie worth about £163,000.

Senator Walker:

– We must take into consideration what the buildings cost, and what they return.

Senator VARDON:

– I am speaking of the building as it stands to-day.

Senator Walker:

– The honorable senator was speaking of the man who procured a lease at a ground rental of £4,090 per annum.

Senator VARDON:

– During the twentyfive years of his tenure, the lessee also had to pay the value of the building which he erected upon the site because that building passes to the ground landlord immediately his lease expires. It will be seen, therefore, that the return from the present buildings must be exceedingly small.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator is taking two sets of figures which have no relation to each other.

Senator VARDON:

– We are asked to purchase this site. If we decide to do so, and if we resolve to erect suitable offices upon it, and to furnish them as they ought to be furnished, I am. satisfied that we shall have to face an expenditure of £300,000.

Senator Walker:

– No.

Senator VARDON:

– I have had some experience of what the expenditure of Government money means, and I know the way in which the bill almost invariably mounts up. I am quite satisfied that the adoption of this proposal will involve an expenditure of £300,000. Now, 4 per cent, upon that amount would mean £12.000 annually. Of course, I admit that we might obtain a small rent from offices in the building which we erected.

Senator Fraser:

– But the municipal taxes are very heavy.

Senator VARDON:

– I have already dealt with that aspect of the matter. I do not think that we are justified in expending £300,000 simply for the purpose of providing the Commonwealth with, office accommodation in London. If we refuse this offer, I am inclined to think that before very long the property will be offered at a very considerably reduced price. Even if that were not so, and honorable senators are determined that the Commonwealth shall have land of its own in London, I think it is possible to buy on more advantageous terms than are here proposed. I do not know that it is necessary that we should acquire a freehold in London. People talk a good deal about the prospective values of London property, but everything depends on the rate of taxation that will be levied in the Old Country, and it will be admitted that such taxation might very considerably reduce values. However, as a business proposition, we are being asked to spend something like £300,000 to house the representative of the Commonwealth in the city of London, and I do not think it is good enough to spend that amount of money for the purpose.

Senator Stewart:

– It would be enough to spend on Houses of Parliament in Australia.

Senator VARDON:

– I hope that we shall not spend as much as that to house this Parliament itself. We desire to avoid extravagance in every way that we can. We should do better if for the next ten or twenty years we leased premises in London. At the end of that time we should know very much better how we stand. I am altogether in favour of having the Commonwealth represented in London, and well represented there. I am in favour of the Commonwealth taking a more prominent and bolder position in London than we have hitherto done ; but in order that we may do so, I am not prepared to spend what seems to me to be an extravagant sum to secure Commonwealth Offices in London. I do not see my way clear in the circumstances to vote for the motion. My advice is that we should bide a wee, and it will be time enough ten or twenty years hence for us to consider whether it is worth our while to acquire a freehold in London. In the meantime we could rent such offices as we require.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I agree with Senator Vardon that it would he much more business-like and more satisfactory to the citizens of the Commonwealth if for a limited period we leased a building suitable for Commonwealth purposes in London, instead of purchasing, as proposed, a site which will cost anything from £250,000 to £350,000. The gentleman who is conducting these negotiations with the Commonwealth Government evinces a very great anxiety that the Commonwealth should close with him as speedily as possible. There is no doubt that he is an exceedingly willing seller. But that is no reason why we should come to a hasty decision in this matter. Senator Lynch has said that at the present time a sum of £9,740 is received by Mr. Lyons from tenants of the building in question, and that if the Commonwealth purchased the property the Commonwealth Government would receive that income. As a matter of fact, that statement is not correct. The Commonwealth Government would receive . that income, less £2,000, which would have to be paid for rates and taxes. Then it is assumed that a rental of £9,740 is being received, although there are three or four rooms in the building at present unoccupied. It is therefore on an estimate that is, to some extent, problematical, that we are told that the rental is £9,740. Senator Lynch has also said that if we purchased this property the offices now occupied by the New York Life Insurance Company, consisting of fourteen rooms, could be utilized for the High Commissioner’s Offices. If that be so, what need is there to purchase a building at all? Surely it is possible in London to secure fourteen rooms equal to those at present occupied bv the New York Insurance Company? On Senator Lynch’s reasoning there is no necessity for the Commonwealth to embark on such a huge undertaking as that involved in the motion now before the Senate. I think the time is altogether inopportune for the Commonwealth to embark on such a big undertaking abroad. If is said that if we purchase this land, we might, in the course of a few years, erect upon it a building which would extensively advertise the resources of Australia. -If that be the desire of the Government and of honorable senators, who support them, they should remember that we shall be unable to obtain complete possession of this property until the year 191 2, unless we compensate the present tenants of the building for the termination of their leases. At a time like the present, when we have complaints from, nearly every State in the Union that our postal and telephonic services are starved-

Senator Needham:

– Is the honorablesenator developing the States right’sdisease ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– No) I am not ; but I know that vigorous complaints are made about the inconvenience to which citizens in many parts of the Commonwealth aresubjected because the Post and Telegraph Department is not in a position to incur the heavy expenditure required for necessary services. At such a time, and when, in addition, we are on the eve of a large expenditure for the payment of old-age pensions, and it is proposed to set apart additional funds for the defence of the Commonwealth, it is unwise, in my judgment,, to commit ourselves to the expenditure of such a large sum as is involved in thismotion. It is said that the Commonwealth suffers from the absence of a High Commissioner, and Commonwealth offices inLondon. That mav be in some measure correct, but I venture to say that if we had a High Commissioner in London at thepresent time, he would not be able to do very much more than has been done by thevarious Agents- General of the States in effectively replying to misstatements regarding Australia made from time to time by interested persons. In common with otherhonorable senators, I know that prominencehas been given to the publication of incorrect statements concerning laws passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, and tO’ vigorous adverse criticism of various Acts,, and particularly of the Immigration Restriction Act, and I am also aware that Mr.. Coghlan, as Agent-General for New SouthWales, has done an immense amount of good in replying through the columns of the leading London journals to writers whohave unfavorably criticised the Common wealth. If the motion is carried, the sitepurchased, and the erection of Commonwealth buildings proceeded with, we know that there will be considerable difficulty ininducing the States Governments to consent to their representatives establishing themselves in London under the roof of the Commonwealth building. That must be clear from the fact that the construction of edifices to be occupied by the AgentsGeneral of some of the States is already fairly well advanced. For this reason, and’ for the other reasons which I have stated, I repeat that it would be more businesslike and more satisfactory to the citizens of the Commonwealth that we should lease offices for the Commonwealth in London for the next ten or fifteen years, and after that lapse of time, we should better understand the possibilities of our various Departments, and shall have a better knowledge of our financial position. It is in my opinion wrong to suggest this huge expenditure abroad when we are unable to provide the money required for necessary works in the Commonwealth itself. We have been told by past Ministers that necessary works in the Commonwealth have not been proceeded with, because they have not had the wherewithal to carry them out. In the face of this, we are asked to commit ourselves to expend in London a sum of money which, U expended in the Commonwealth, would confer lasting conveniences on many citizens of the different States. ‘Requests have been made to me, and I suppose to every other senator representing Victoria, for telephonic facilities for people settled in remote portions of this State. Thev are far removed from railway lines, the post-offices available to them are far apart, and they naturally desire that they should be given some of the facilities of communication enjoyed by people in the more closely settled districts of the State. In submitting these requests to the Post and Telegraph Department, we are invariably told that whilst the officers of the Department are anxious to assist people so placed in this and in the other States, they have not enough money at their disposal. When that is the answer we are given, is it reasonable to expect that we shall commit ourselves to the expenditure of a huge sum of money for a building and land in London that are not required at the present juncture? Those are. the reasons which prompt me to vote against the motion, and I hope that the suggestion which has been thrown out by more than one honorable senator that instead of a proposal to buy land in London and erect a costly edifice for Commonwealth requirements, negotiations will be opened up with a view to leasing a building in a suitable site.

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– - I am not altogether surprised at the expressions of opinion which have fallen from some honorable senators. I know that there are some honorable senators who have always cried out against the establishment of offices in London which would be to the credit and for the benefit of Australia. I am, however, surprised at the attitude of certain honorable senators who on a previous occasion were prepared to support another Government in a proposal which, to my mind, was not so much to the advantage of the people of Australia as is this proposal.

Senator Findley:

– Oh, no; that was only a proposal to set apart £1,000 for the* purpose of opening up negotiations.

Senator McGREGOR:

– The annual expenditure they could not get over. When the present Government proposes something similar, but under better conditions, those honorable senators fall away and oppose it.

Senator Millen:

– There is a difference of opinion as to whether the conditions are better.

Senator McGREGOR:

– I do not intend to say very much on that matter. The present Government took over this responsibility from the late Government because they honestly believed that the acquisition of this site would be to the advantage of the Commonwealth. Some honorable senators are prepared to change their views even on this question if I, on behalf ot the Government, am prepared to give them a guarantee that we shall do something, which I cannot gather from their statements. If I could thoroughly understand what Senator St. Ledger meant by asking me to give an assurance that the Government were going to incur this expenditure for the purpose of advertising Australia, I could reply to him. Of course the Government have no other idea in view than to do all they possibly can in a legitimate 0 way to advertise the Commonwealth. The honorable senator said that it was a huckstering kind of business to bring down the price of the site from £230,000 to £198,000. But what does he propose to do? He desires to defeat our proposal, and says that if it is defeated the probability is that the site will be offered to the Commonwealth for much less. He blames the representative of the Commonwealth in London for huckstering, and proposes to defeat this motion for the purpose of huckstering to a greater and more discreditable extent. I am surprised at the representative of any State rising here and giving such reasons for opposing an honest motion. But I do not intend to occupy the time of the Senate in endeavouring to convince honorable senators. Every one of them acknowledges that a good site is offered, and that it is nearly time that we were represented in London as the Australian Commonwealth, and not as separate States. Every one admits the desirability of securing that representation, but then they want the States to give a guarantee that they will make use of the Commonwealth building. How can the States possibly give such a guarantee until they see whether the building is a suitable one or not ? I have spoken to at least one State Premier, and he has not the least doubt that when the Commonwealth does take the responsibility of providing accommodation in London the States will be bound to go where it isrepresented, as their financial relations are so closely interwoven. No matter whether they are isolating themselves from the Commonwealth interests in London, the time will come when (hey will have to draw closer to the Commonwealth for their own protection. It was with that object in view that the Government were anxious that this particular site should be purchased, not intending to pull down the building and erect a palatial edifice right away. This was considered to be a fair offer. It has been placed before the Senate, and the responsibility of rejecting or accepting it is left with honorable senators themselves. Every one here must recognise that this is no party question. I dare say that when a division is taken we shall find many supporters, or those who ought to be supporters of the Government, voting in one direction, and some of those who should be opposing the Government voting in another direction, so that in no sense can it be called a party question. The Parliament alone will be responsible for accepting or rejecting an offer of a site which the Government believe to be in the best interests of the Commonwealth.

Question. - That this Senate approves the purchase of a site on the corner of Northumberland-avenue and Charing Cross, London, for the sum of £198,000, for the purposes of the Commonwealth - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 19

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2196

ADJOURNMENT

Public Service : Boards of Inquiry - Military Forces : Trial of OffencesOrder of Business.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the Seriate do now adjourn.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Rather than move the adjournment of the Senate at the beginning of a sitting, I take advantage of this opportunity to bring under the notice of the Ministry a matter of some importance. Under the Public Service Regulations, a civil servant who is charged with an offence is brought before a tribunal composed of civil servants. I wish to give a few particulars of a special’ case which happened lately. I do not want to discuss the merits or demerits of the case, but merely to point out what the tribunal was to which it was referred. In other words, I do not wish to say that the man who was brought before the tribunal did or did not deserve the punishment’ which he received, nor do I wish to impugn in any way the bona fides of its three members. The postmaster at Launceston was charged with an offence of which he was either guilty or innocent. The tribunal appointed to try his case consisted’of a civil servant who is at the present- time Collector of Customs at Launceston, and two officers of the local post-office. The chief fact with regard to the tribunal was that these two postal officials were candidates for the position which the postmaster would have to vacate if he were, as he was disrated. It seems to me that it is a most extraordinary state of things to happen in any Federal jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, those two men were then practically the only two applicants in the State of Tasmania or in the Commonwealth for that particular position.

Senator Mulcahy:

– The only two eligible for the position.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Possibly they were the only two eligible for the position. The claims of no other man in the Public Service were considered in any respect, and as a matter of fact one of the two men was subsequently appointed in place of the postmaster. That is a state of things which reflects no credit upon us, and which undoubtedly ought to be altered. I do not impugn in the least degree the bona fides of the men who tried the case. But they never ought to be put in that position. While on the one hand it is obviously unfair to the postmaster in question that he should be so tried, it is equally unfair that these two judges should have to try him. I do not know whom to pity most, the postmaster who was tried or the two who had to try him, and who were applicants for his position if he lost it. I hope that none of my remarks will be taken in a wrong spirit as imputing either a miscarriage of justice or unfairness on the part of the officers concerned. I know nothing of the facts, except what I have stated, nor do I in any way reflect upon the bona fides of the two men who acted as judges.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– The instance mentioned by “Senator Clemons reminds me of another case which, now that we have a fresh Minister at the head of the Post and Telegraph Department, should receive attention. It is a case inwhich an inquiry was held as to the behaviour of a postmaster in Queensland. The board appointed reported that the postmaster was not guilty of the various charges made against him. But there are minutes in the possession of the Department showing that the Public Service Commissioner said that he did not approve of the finding of the Board, and consequently he refused to the postmaster the statutory leave of absence to which he was entitled before He retired from theservice. There is a case where a Board made an inquiry, and came to a certain determination, and where the Public Service Commissioner overrode the decision of the

Board and inflicted an additional penalty, which in this case amounted to a loss of six months’ salary.

Senator Stewart:

– Who was the postmaster ?

Senator CHATAWAY:

Senator MCGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– After the termination of the debate on the motion which I moved at the commencement of the proceedings to-day, it is intended that the Minister of Defence shall move the second reading of the Manufactures Encouragement Bill. With regard to the statement made by Senator Clemons. - judiciously made by him, I may add, inasmuch as no names were mentioned - I sympathize with the view that he put, and agree that something should be done to make it impossible, not only for injustice, but for the appearance of injustice, to occur under the Public Service Act. Honorable senators are aware that the Public Service Act is a piece of legislation that is really on its trial. Many provisions in it, that at the time it was passed were considered beneficent, have been found not to work out as it was thought that they would do. The late Government had the Act under consideration, and the present Government have also given some attention to it. . I can assure Senator Clemons that his representations will be laid before the Minister of Home Affairs and the Government, and something will be done if an opportunity is afforded to remove defects which have been found to exist in the Act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 November 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19081125_senate_3_48/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate25 November 1908

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Order of Business

Senator McGREGOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator Millen:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Walker:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Stewart:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Clemons:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Millen:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Gray:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Millen:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Millen:

Senator McGREGOR:

PAPERS

QUESTION

STATES AND COMMONWEALTH

Senator GIVENS:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

Senator Givens:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Givens:

Senator FINDLEY:VICTORIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator Millen:

Senator Givens:

Senator Millen:

Senator McGregor:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Clemons:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator McGREGOR:

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE: SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

VALUE-PAYABLE PARCEL POST

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

COMMERCE ACT REGULATIONS

Senator MACFARLANE:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

MILITARY FORCES RE-ORGANIZATION

Senator McCOLL:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE ON IMMIGRATION

Senator ST LEDGER:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

Senator MILLEN:

Senator ST LEDGER:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Senate
25 November 1908

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator McCOLL:
VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales