Senate
13 August 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

BUDGET
HIGH COMMISSIONER
QUESTION
- LOAN POLICY
QUESTION
- DEFENCE
BUDGET
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL
AUDIT BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
- Premiers’ Conference
AUDIT BILL
ADJOURNMENT

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

page 2453

BUDGET

Senator Henderson:

-I shall get the matter in in some other way.

page 2454

HIGH COMMISSIONER

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I wish to know if it is the intention of the Government to ask the Treasurer to act as High Commissioner, in the event of’ the High Commissioner Bill being passed.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

– I am in a position to say that no name has been considered in connexion with that position.

page 2454

QUESTION

LOAN POLICY

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether we are to understand now that it is the settled policy of this Government to make a periodical visit to the pawn-shop to cover any deficit in their financial proposals?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– So far as I am concerned, my honorable friend is at liberty to understand anything he likes.

page 2454

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Case of Mr. MacDonnell - Military Officers, India.

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– Following up the intimation I made when my honorable friend asked the question, the papers were sent for. They are now being forwarded to the head office, and on their arrival they will be laid on the table of the Library.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– There is another matter connected with the Defence Department, in respect of which the Minister was kind enough to promise information to-day, namely, the matter of volunteer officers being allowed to apply for military training in India on equal terms with militia officers. Perhaps the honorable gentleman can fulfil his promise to-day ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have been furnished with the following reply from the Department: -

Instructions have been sent to the Military Commandants in the several States to submit the names of officers of the volunteer forces in their commands whom they recommend to proceed to India for instruction during the forthcoming drill season.

page 2454

BUDGET

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST (VictoriaMinister of Trade and Customs) [10.38]. - I beg to lay upon the table the following papers : -

Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1910.

The Budget 1909-10- Papers prepared by the Treasurer for the information of honorable members.

In formally moving -

That the papers be printed,

I desire to announce that my honorable col- league and myself have given full consideration to the request made from all parts of the Chamber that an opportunity should be afforded to discuss the main principles of the Budget proposals. On the next day of sitting that opportunity will be afforded. The Coinage Bill will take precedence, and afterwards the discussion of the Budget may be taken. In view of the fact that the speech of my right honorable colleague, the Treasurer, is reported at length in the morning papers, and that it will appear verbatim in Hansard, it is not my intention to speak at any length in submitting this motion, but it is possible that later in the debate I may find it necessary to deal more fully with questions which may be raised by honorable senators.

The PRESIDENT:

– That will be in reply.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Yes, sir. As shown by the papers which I have laid on the table the estimated revenue from Customs and Excise far 1909-10 is ^10,800,000, and from the Post Office, £3,550,000. The only other important item of revenue is an expected profit of ^100,000 from our proportion of coinage receipts. The total revenue for the year is estimated at £14,555,765, being an increase of .£205,930 on the revenue for last year. On page 6 of the Budget papers it is shown that the transferred- expenditure on Trade and Customs is estimated at £289,874; on Defence, at £1,198,861 ; on the Post Office, at .£3,265,531 ; and on Quarantine, which is a new item, at £28,976. Then comes “other expenditure,” £2,039,455, that is to say, ordinary, and the following two important items for New Works, Rifles, &c, for transferred Departments, viz., Defence, £328,485; Postmaster-General, £700,614. In all there is a contemplated expenditure of £7,867,621, being an increase of ^£1,448,257 on last year’s expenditure. Of course, if it is necessary, I shall be pleased to state the items on which increased expenditure is anticipated, but honorable senators will find them set out in the Budget papers. I will content myself by directing special attention to the increases in expenditure in two Departments only, viz., Post Office and Defence, which are as follows : -

We have, however, in addition a liability under the Constitution Act of £7,891,481. That represents the amount which is payable to the State Treasurers from the Customs and Excise revenue. Our total liability for the year is estimated at £15,759,102. That will leave a deficit of £1,200,000. The deficit will occur under what I may term accidental, or at least extraordinary, circumstances. It arises from the fact that the Braddon section will not expire until the 31st December, 1910. Consequently in our expenditure we are confined to one:fourth of the Customs and Excise revenue. We are placing before Parliament an expedient proposal under the special circumstances referred to for financing this sort of overdraft.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Axe the Government going to borrow ?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That sum has to be found, and it is proposed that by a system- of Treasury bonds extending over a period of three or four years, aid to the revenue should be secured for the present year. As regards any loan policy of the Government or what they may determine in that connexion, that is a matter which after full and careful consideration would ultimately be submitted to the country for its decision. Rightly or wrongly - and there is much to commend it - in the past all expenditure on new works, including many valuable and reproductive works, has been met out of current revenue. But it is recognised that that practice pievents the complete supply of those demands for new works which might reasonably be expected in progressive departments and in a prosperous community such as our own. Therefore, whatever may be determined upon, either in the way of loan proposals or otherwise, will ultimately be submitted by the Government to the people. I need scarcely point out that the necessity for obtaining this temporary aid to revenue is due to the fact, and to that fact alone, that Parliament, after full deliberation, and with much wisdom I submit, has determined upon the granting of old-age pensions. That scheme will involve for the present an annual expenditure of at least £1,500,000. But for this wise, humane, and proper expenditure, there would be no necessity to borrow ihe £1,200,000 to which I have alluded, and there would also be in hand a sum of, £300,000, which would be available for the carrying out of new works.

Senator Pearce:

– But that explanation does not account for the £1,200,000 which it is proposed to borrow, because the Government have over £600,000 in hand.

Senator Sir” ROBERT BEST:

– It is quite true that in 1907-8 the sum of £193,621 was placed by the second Deakin Government to the credit of a trust account for the payment of old-age pensions, and that in 1908-9 the sum of £462,179 was placed to the credit of the same account. This year it will be necessary for us to pay the sum of £850,000 into that account. But I would point out that if these sums had been available in those years for the construction of public works, the cost of works which are now necessary would have been reduced by that amount. They would have been paid for out of those amounts. Broadly speaking, therefore, we have to provide a sum of £1, 500,000. Of that amount there is to be procured as an aid to revenue the sum of £1, 200,000.

Senator St Ledger:

– The Minister of Trade and Customs is using the deficit for the purpose of strengthening the hands of the Treasurer at the Premiers’ Conference.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– This £1,200,000 will be obtained as a temporary overdraft pending the expiration of the Braddon section of the Constitution next year. Stating the figures as to oldage pensions more accurately, I would say that under the authority of the Surplus Revenue Act 1908, and the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act of the same year, the sum of £655,800 has been transferred to the credit of an old-age pension fund. During the year 1909-10, an additional amount of £850,000 will be transferred to that fund, making a total of . £1,505,800, with which to meet that particular liability. There is only one other matter to which I desire to refer. I regret that, at this stage, the Government are not in a position to make a full and complete announcement of their naval policy. In that connexion Colonel Foxton has gone home fully acquainted with the views of Ministers, and we are fortunate in being able to call to our counsels the greatest experts in the Empire for the purpose of enabling us to determine the particular form that our naval policy of coastal defence should take. So soon as we receive that advice a full announcement will be made upon the subject. We are determined that the best and strongest coastal policy which can be secured, within our means, shall be adopted. We contemplate that the extra annual expenditure involved in this connexion will be at least £1,000,000. I regret that, owing to the circumstances to which I have referred, we’ are not in a position to make a definite announcement of our naval policy at the present stage. But a full and complete announcement, both in regard to our naval and military policies, will be made in due course; and Bills will be introduced from time to time to give effect to the Budget proposals, when opportunities will be afforded for dealing with them on their merits.

Debate (on motion by Senator Pearce) adjourned.

page 2456

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

Rill read a third time.

page 2456

AUDIT BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 2456

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Premiers’ Conference

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

.-I move-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to Wednesday, the 25th inst.

Senator Dobson:

– Talk common sense.

Senator PEARCE:

I gather from reports in the press that it is proposed to ask the States to confer certain powers on the Inter-State Commission to regulate undue State competition in industrial matters. This would necessitate a further meeting of the State Premiers at an early date. If this occasion could also he made use of for further consideration of the financial position I would be prepared to ask the Premiers o”f the States to deal with this matter also.

How kind of Mr. Wade! The Federal Government has only to say the word, and Mr. Wade will deal with any matters that have been intrusted to this Parliament by the people.

Senator Millen:

– As the State Governments have been asked to surrender certain powers, does the honorable senator object to their giving an answer to that request?

Senator PEARCE:

– Certainly not, by way of negotiation. But I object to this Parliament being asked to sit back and do nothing until the State Premiers make up their minds. In his letter of 30th June, Mr. Deakin said -

I was not aware that a conference of Premiers would be thought necessary in respect to the proposedendowment of the Commonwealth Inter-State Commission -

It was a bit of an eye-opener, was that letter of Mr. Wade’s - with a judicial industrial authority, having anticipated that a general agreement could have been arrived at without delay.

How optimistic Mr. Deakin was ! Mr. Wade, in his letter of the 3rd July, wrote-

The proposal to endow the Inter-State Commission with judicial industrial authority is by no means free from difficulty from the States’ point of view, and I am sure the quickest and most satisfactory way of dealing with it will be found to be by personal discussion.

Mr. Deakin, on the9th July, dealing with the financial question, wrote to Mr. Wade-

Should the preliminary financial arrangement for a term of years, alluded toinmy last letter, fail from any reason to pass this session, that also would be submitted, and in a precise shape. As youare aware, neither one nor the other need be engrafted on the Constitution in order to come into full effect,

He meant that the question need not be submitted to the electors, I wish now to allude to the letter of Mr. Deakin of 15th July. He wrote to Mr. Wade -

So far as I know, the only other question to be submitted to the Conference is that relating to the proposalto endow the Inter-State Commission with judicial industrial authority, mentioned in your letters of 22nd June and 3rd July. The Age paragraph to which you refer me alludes to advertising Australia abroad in connexion with immigration.

Here comes a gem - a perfect literary gem ! -

ThoughI am not responsible for this suggestion, it would be of mutual advantage if on thisor other questions discussed at previous Conferences we could inform ourselves of the alterations there are, if any, in our former positions.

Senator GIVENS:

Bill this year, we should direct our attention to it without cessation from the present moment until the close of the session. lt is necessary that the Bill should pass the Senate in good time for it to be discussed by another place. Furthermore, if the Bill be not passed this session, it will be removed from the notice-paper, and have to be considered de novo in the new Parliament. Unless we are prepared to see the whole of our work upon the Bill wasted, we must proceed with it forthwith. The seafaring population of Australia require the measure. I believe that the shipping companies also want it. It is necessary for the proper management of our rapidly increasing maritime business. There is no reason whatever why the Senate should adjourn in order that Ministers may meet the State Premiers in conference. I deny altogether that the Conference is necessary. There is no need for it to sit at all. But still, that is none of our business. Apart from that consideration altogether, there is no need for either House of this Parliament to adjourn. The only Ministers who need be present at the Conference are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Neither Minister has a seat in the Senate. There being no Minister with a seat in the Senate who requires to be absent from the conduct of public affairs, I fail to see what need there is for us to adjourn. Indeed, there is no need for another place to adjourn either, because it is a notorious fact that several days ago the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Fisher, offered to provide pairs for those Ministers who had to attend the Conference. There is no need for any adjournment, and the action taken on this occasion is a distinct abrogation of the rights, powers, and dignity of this Parliament. I hope that the motion will not be carried.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The reason given for the proposed adjournment is that two members of the Federal Government have to attend a Premiers’ Conference. I strongly object to an adjournment for such a reason. I recognise the necessity for Conferences of the Premiers of the States to discuss public questions affecting their Governments. I also recognise the necessity of Federal Ministers negotiating with such Conferences, and discussing questions affecting the interests of the Commonwealth and of the States. But I fail to recognise the need for the national Parliament of Australia to adjourn for a week to allow Ministers to carry on such negotiations. Let me ask this pertinent question : The manager of a mine, or the principal partner in a big commercial concern or factory, may occasionally have to leave his place of business on a journey. Has any one ever heard of such a man shutting up his mine, factory, or warehouse for a week or a fortnight during such an absence? Would not that be a suicidal policy to adopt? But we in the national Parliament, because the Prime Minister, who is practically the manager of Parliament for the time being, intends to consult with the State Premiers, are asked to suspend the whole of our business. There might be some justification for this course if the Conference was meeting in Brisbane or in Perth. But the Conference is to meet within a stone’s throw of Parliament House. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer could always be within hail. Furthermore, the Vice-President of the Executive Council will not dare to say that Federal Ministers will be in attendance at the Conference all day. It will be simply necessary for them to attend and make a statement. Having done that, and having discussed a few matters with the Premiers, they could easily come back to Parliament House. When there is no Premiers’ Conference sitting, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are frequently outside their Chamber for longer periods than would be necessary during the sittings of the Conference. I say, unhesitatingly, that what is proposed is a degradation of this Parliament. It is an insult to the people of Australia to ask the Federal Parliament to suspend its business for a week because the Premiers of the States are about to sit in Melbourne. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has given some alleged reasons for an adjournment, but there are other reasons which he has- not mentioned. Despite the fact that we have had a Ministerial statement, indicating what the Government intend to do this session, under three! headings - defence, industrial, and finance - I venture to say that they have not yet any of their measures ready. They have yet to consult as to what line of action they shall take. Again, it is a well-known fact that in the present Ministry there are a few ardent State Rights men. The course adopted is a handy method of wasting time, so that the Government may get nearer to the end of the session without any portion of their real or imaginary policy having been placed before Parliament. In this way, the

According to his view the matter had nothing to do with the Commonwealth, although it was relegated to the Commonwealth by the Constitution. Then there was a resolution in regard to opium adopted on the motion of Sir Thomas Bent, in these terms -

That the following action be taken by the States : -

By confining the sale to chemists, under the Sale of Poisons Acts, or other persons specially licensed.

By prohibiting and penalizing opium dens and places used for promiscuous opium smoking.

That was all right, because we had nothing to do with those matters, and the State Premiers had a perfect right to come to that decision. But the resolution continued -

And by the Commonwealth -

By further precautions for the prevention of smuggling.

As the Commonwealth Parliament would then be in session I am of opinion that the appropriate place of meeting would be Melbourne.

What is the meaning of that sentence? Does it not mean that Mr. Wade desired to study the convenience of this Parliament? That fact demonstrates that the thought of the Government taking the extraordinary course which they now propose had not entered his mind. The Premier of New South Wales is evidently not anxious that this Parliament should hang up its business whilst the Conference is sitting. The action of the Government is tantamount to a wanton waste of time. I can only attribute this extraordinary change of front on their part to a desire to pander to State jealousies, and to nothing else. In order to curry favour with the State Premiers, they are willing to dance attendance upon them and to waste the time of the Commonwealth Legislature. Mr. Deakin is evidently governed by an element in politics which is prepared to set its sails to every popular gust. He wishes to ingratiate himself with those persons who are mistakenly jealous of State rights. It has been alleged that the Commonwealth has invaded State rights. When Mr. Deakin was possessed of a stiffer backbone than he possesses now, he used to talk to the State Rights party in a very stern fashion. In his earlier correspondence with

Mr. Wade he was accustomed to address that gentleman as “Sir,” and Mr. Wade was wont to reply in the same fashion. The tone of their correspondence clearly indicated that almost the next scene would be one of pistols and coffee. But that was before Mr. Deakin’s backbone had been extracted. What is taking place now? We find Mr. Wade addressing Mr. Deakin as “ Dear Mr. Deakin,” and Mr. Deakin, in reply, addressing the Premier of New South Wales as “ Dear Mr. Wade.”

Senator Keating:

– The honorable senator should remember that Mr.. Wade became Premier of New South Wales soon after he entered Parliament. He was not even known by sight to Mr. Deakin when the former correspondence took place.

Senator LYNCH:

– It is surely remarkable that there should be such a change in the form in which these gentlemen address each other, considering the nature of their former correspondence. It is clear that their relationship has greatly changed. I can only infer that the change has been brought about through Mr. Deakin allowing himself to be governed, by a section in politics that is endeavouring to curry favour with State rights advocates.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator will notice that in one of Mr. Deakin’s letters he proposes, to discuss with Mr. Wade the altered conditions.

Senator LYNCH:

– Mr. Deakin is an adept in the use of curioous language, and it is often difficult to follow him. With regard to the charge that has been levelled against the Opposition during this debate of belittling the States, I have to say that, while repudiating that accusation. I can say, by way of reply, that nothing has been said in this Chamber in regard to the States that is so derogatory as statements made concerning the Federation by the State Premiers at former ‘Conferences. Some of the State Ministers have even gone so far as to say that the Commonwealth should be wiped out. Let me show some of the opinions that have been placed on record by these State politicians. Mr. Barlow, of Queensland, said, at the Brisbane Conference, in 1907, concerning the Federation -

Go ‘to the people who are its real master; that is what we want ; . . . . let tis go on the abolition of Federation altogether.

Later on, Sir Joseph Carruthers said. in regard to Federation -

I can understand that the Commonwealth Government itself, when it is portraying its im portance to other people, does not like to have to compare its revenue and expenditure with the revenue and expenditure of a State like New South Wales, where our revenue is greater than the revenue of the Commonwealth, and where our expenditure on services which are under our control is four or five times as great as the expenditure by the Commonwealth on services which are under its control.

Senator Pearce:

– It is like a little boy saying, “ My house is bigger than yours.”

Senator LYNCH:

– That passage shows the feeling that was prevalent among some of the State Premiers in reference to Federation. But let me now quote the opinion of a Premier who is still in office, setting forth his opinion as to the sentiment that should be entertained concerning the Senate. I refer to Mr. Peake, the Premier of South Australia. Mr. Peake said -

There seems to be on the part of some members here the very greatest distrust of the Commonwealth as a legislative body, and with the rest to the Commonwealth Government as an administering bod]’. . . . It is not assuming any greater powers than we gave it. There seems to be great distrust on the part of some of the States to allowing the Commonwealth to do those things which we expressly gave it power to do ; we seem to be interfering with it, and dictating to it and telling it what it should do and should not do at every turn. I think that is one of the worst f eatures at the present time with regard to the relations between the States and the Commonwealth - that we, as Slates, are taking too much upon ourselves - the part of a watch-dog, and are not putting a sufficient sense of responsibility on the Senate, which is essentially the States House. We are allowing the Senate to be almost deprived of its responsibilities, because we are assuming the position which the Senate should take up. The Senate is distinctly appointed under the Constitution to represent the State interests. There is an equal number of members from each State so that each State may be regarded as co-equal. What are we doing? We are taking the part which the Senate should take in regard to State interests.

That is the opinion of one qf the Premiers who is to take part in the present Conference. I ask honorable senators to consider those weighty words. They should encourage us to maintain that dignity which should pertain to the Senate as the branch of the Legislature especially chosen to protect the interests of the States. But instead of respecting the position of the Senate we are abandoning our functions and our duties, and making ourselves parties to an act of abnegation of responsibility in order that Ministers may win favour with certain elements in State politics for the purposes of the next election. By way of contrast with Mr. Peake’s statement, let me quote an observation made by Sir Joseph Carruthers, as reported on page 192 of the record of the Brisbane Conference. He referred to a statement by Captain Evans, the Premier of Tasmania, and continued -

I could quite understand him using a celebrated phrase with regard to Victoria and saying - “ Now Barabbas was a robber.” (Laughter.) But to turn round on poor New South Wales - (laughter) - which has always been a good friend to Tasmania - as I am prepared to help Tasmania, I feel it keenly. So far as there has been any robbery going on, there is only one universal robber in Australia.

Does Senator Pulsford, after hearing that statement, feel any pleasure in supporting a proposal which means that we are to abandon our functions while Ministers confer with Premiers who hold concerning the Federation sentiments like those? I can find no justification for following slavishly in the path which the Vice-President of the Executive Council invites us to take. But in all seriousness we should not allow this historical occasion to pass without making a strenuous protest on behalf of this branch of the Legislature, at which a direct blow is aimed. In the words of Mr. Peake, the Senate is the custodian of State interests. The motion now under consideration is, I maintain, a blow aimed more directly at the Senate than at the other branch of the Legislature. There may be some justification for asking the other House to adjourn, but certainly there is not any in asking for an adjournment of the Senate, which, under the Constitution, is intrusted with the duty of jealously looking after State rights and interests. We ought not to consent to abandon those functions on this or any other occasion. I am opposing the motion, believing that a wrong course is being taken. I believe that the Ministry is making a mistake, and that Senator Millen himself is showing a weakness that is scarcely characteristic of him. I believe the Government have adopted this course merely for political reasons, and I again deplore the fact that they should so trifle with the constitutional status of the Senate.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– One of the dangers of a free country is that its deliberative assemblies are always more or less at the mercy of those who choose to interrupt and delay their proceedings. The freer the country the greater is that danger.

Senator Pearce:

– Is the honorable senator referring to the interruption proposed by the Government?

Senator PULSFORD:

– I am referring, as the honorable senator knows, to the proceedings which have marked this day’s sit ting. We were called together to transact public business, but the whole day has been wasted in talking of the proposed cessation of business next week.

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

– Why is the honorable senator wasting time?

Senator PULSFORD:

– I intend to make good use ofa few minutes in calling the attention of the country to what has taken place to-day. I would remind honorable senators of the remark made by Mr. Gladstone, that the whole machinery of public ‘life could be stopped by a few, and that it was presumed that those who entered the deliberative assemblies of a country under a Constitution such as is that of Great Britain, were animated by a desire to promote and not to delay business. The business of the Senate has been delayed to-day, and for no purpose of which I can conceive. I regret very much what has taken place, and have risen only to draw attention to it in the hope that what has occurred may not escape the notice of the people.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– Although I consider this debate justifiable, I did not intend to take part in it, and should not have done so but for the statement made by Senator Pulsford, that the Opposition to-day have been interrupting public business.

Senator Walker:

– Of course they have been doing so.

Senator STORY:

– On the contrary, the Opposition is simply endeavouring to prevent the interruption of public business. The statement has been repeatedly made by members of the Government, and by newspapers that support them, that the Opposition in both Houses of the Federal Parliament are preventing the transaction of public business ; that a number of measures await our consideration, but that they cannot be dealt with whilst the Opposition continue their obstructive tactics. Our contention to-day is that the Government deliberately propose a wholly unnecessary interruption of public business for more than a week, in order that Ministers may confer with the Premiers of the Slates concerning matters that should be dealt with only by the Federal Legislature. The State delegates at that Conference will be the representatives of a fusion which has been brought about in each of the State Parliaments, for the reason that has led to the fusion in the Federal Parliament. These combinations are due to the desire to isolate the Labour party, and to prevent the passing of legislation which, although originating with that party, would, undoubtedly be beneficial to the whole of the people of Australia. Members of the Government intend to confer with representatives of the State Governments, and, if possible, to arrive at a decision which, despite the protests of a strong minority, they will be able to force this Parliament to accept, as the result of a combination of members of diametrically opposite views. The Opposition, we contend, are entitled to endeavour to prevent the perpetration of such a blunder. Since a supporter of the Government accuses us of interrupting public business when our only desire is to prevent them from doing that which we believe to be absolutely wrong, we are justified in making an emphatic protest. I rose simply to protest against, not only the interruption of public business, but the method now being adopted of referring to a Conference of State Premiers the settlement of questions which should be debated and determined by this Parliament.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I, with other members of the Opposition, wish to enter my sincere protest against the unwarrantable action of the Government in attempting to compel, by sheer bludgeon force, the whole of the members of this Parliament to remain idle, in order that the Prime Minister, and one or two of his colleagues, may have some leisure to spend with their friends from other parts of Australia during the next ten days or a fortnight. It would have been better had the representative of the Government in this House expressed his true intention, and told us that the real reason for the adjournment is that the Government, during the whole of the present session, propose to take every opportunity to prevent any public business from being accomplished. It is quite evident that the discussion with the Premiers is the least of the reasons for the proposed adjournment. The Government, having used every method to brand the Opposition as obstructionists, in both this and in another place, we have a perfect right to enter our protest against the motion. The whole matter seems tome to rest on a desire, not to hasten public business by arriving at any conclusion with the Premiers, but rather to cause delay by, probably, creating as many complications as they can, in order to prevent this “Senate, or the Parliament as a whole, from proceeding with necessary legislation. In their many proposals, the Government are always indefinite; and their action of a few hours ago is very similar to many actions which have preceded it. They have not told us in so many words that they have no policy, and that it is utterly impossible for them to arrive at anything like unanimity, because of their composition; but, by their actions they have clearly declared the fact to the whole of Australia; and, therefore, they ought to be thinking more about vacating their position than seeking to frustrate the desire of the country for legislation. For that we have been crying out for years past, and even the members of the Government themselves must admit its absolute necessity. The Government, no matter how great the necessity, have shown that they cannot possibly arrive at an understanding amongst themselves; and, therefore, as another honorable senator has pointed out, they are appealing to the Ministers of the various States to assist them to an agreement on matters which ought to have been dealt with long ago. I enter my protest against this wilful waste of time and money, and the undoubted effort that is being made to stifle the expression of public opinion.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 13

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2481

AUDIT BILL

The PRESIDENT reported the receipt of a message intimating that the House of Representatives had agreed to the amendment of the Senate in this Bill.

page 2482

ADJOURNMENT

Federal Capital Site - Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie Railway

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- There is a matter of vital concern to the interests of the Commonwealth to which I think we should devote a few minutes before we adjourn. I refer to the latest development with regard to the settlement of the Federal Capital site question, and what I consider to be the lamentable failure of the Government to take any action to bring about finality. During the last few days I have asked questions with an ardent desire that some progress should be made in that direction. In reply to a question as to whether it was true, as stated in the press, that the Premier of New South Wales had declined to take any action to bring about finality in the matter until the Commonwealth Government took some further action, which he indicated, the Vice-President of the Executive Council was good enough to give all the information at his disposal by at once tabling the correspondence on the matter up to date. It is to that correspondence that I wish now to direct the attention of honorable senators. It discloses the fact that there is a serious hitch in the negotiations, and yet, strange to say, the Government, who profess to be so exceedingly desirous to settle this important question, do not propose to take any action towards that end.

Senator Pulsford:

– They have put £5,000 on the Estimates for the purpose.

Senator GIVENS:

– Enough to build an aboriginals’ camp. It is suggested by an honorable senator behind me that it might be sufficient to put a fence around the Capital Site, but history would have to be repeated, and the Prime Minister would need to follow the example of a Premier of New South Wales and steal the barbed wire necessary for the purpose if the expenditure was to be ‘kept within £5,000. When this Parliament passed an Act determining that the Federal Capital should be located in a certain district, it was expected that after the exact limitations of the site had been defined by competent officers the next step would be taken by the Government of New South Wales with a view to the surrender of the territory required. We find that the Premier of that State refuses to take that step. I have no desire to unduly delay honorable senators, butI wish to direct their attention to Premier Wade’s letter. I need not occupy time in reading the letter from the Prime Minister, which immediately precedes it in the correspondence which has been tabled.

Senator Pulsford:

– It is alreadyin print and on record.

Senator GIVENS:

- Senator Pulsford apparently thinks he knows everything, but as a matter of fact this correspondence is not in print, and I intend that some of it shall be printed. Premier Wade’s letter will indicate sufficiently the nature of the letter from the Prime Minister to which it is a reply. It is as follows : -

Premier’s Office,

Sydney, 5th August, 1909.

Sir,

In connexion with your letter of the 20th ult., with which you forwarded two sets of papers and plans, which were presented to the Federal. Parliament recently referring to the proposed1 Federal Territory and Seat of Government in the district of Yass-Canberra, I note that you state (paragraph 4) that you will be pleased if I now take steps under section111 of the Constitution Act to pass the State Act for surrender. This conveys to my mind that you are of opinion that it is incumbent upon this State to take the next practical step towards final determination of the Seat of Government. I fear, however, in the absence of further action by the Commonwealth, the stage has not yet been reached when it is practicable for this State to take the course you indicate.

In order to explain the attitude I take up, it is necessary to refer to the section of the Constitution dealing with the Seat of Government. Section 125 is as follows : - “ The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth and shall be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth, and if New South Wales be an original State, shall be in that State, and be distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney….. “

In the first place, it became necessary to understand the correct meaning to be attached to the word “determined.” Generally speaking, it appears to be clear (1), that the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament; and (2), that the Seat of Government shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth. Strictly, therefore, after territory has been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, the Seat of Government is then determined ; and perhaps technically the word “determined” applies to the last Act of the Commonwealth Parliament whereby under the Constitution a Seat of Government isestablished.

There are, however, before that final stage is reached, certain preliminary steps which necessarily must be taken and which have been followed hitherto, by the Commonwealth. In the first place, the Commonwealth Parliament has thought fit to declare by an Act of Par- liament, that the Seat of Government shall be in the district of Yass-Canberra. Whether this Act is to be regarded as a mere statutory expression of opinion by the Commonwealth as to the general locality within which the Capital shall be established, or whether it is to be deemed a determination that - the Seat of Government shall not be outside the district of Yass-Canberra, does not seem to be material. To my mind, it is not a determination within the meaning of section 125.

Section 3 of the Act No. 24 of 1908 states - “ It is hereby determined that the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be in the district of Yass-Canberra in the State of New South Wales,” but by virtue of section 125, the Seat of Government is not to be determined until territory has been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth. These conditions have not yet been fulfilled, and I assume I have your concurrence with the statement that the Act of 1908 was merely a registration, in solemn form, of the opinion of the Commonwealth Parliament as to the general locality within which should be established the Seat of Government.

Subsequently, and in pursuance of this lastmentioned Act, inspections and surveys have been made of the whole district, a specific area defined by metes and bounds has been reported upon by officials, and within that area a special Board has selected the most eligible site for the location of the city itself. These reports have been presented to Parliament, but whether they will be indorsed by members cannot be known until the House has been asked to express an opinion thereon. I submit, with all deference, that the course to be now followed is for the Federal Parliament to further declare that this territory recommended by the officials shall or shall not be adopted as the specific area within which the Seat of Government shall be determined.

When that stage has been reached, and this or any other territory has been approved of, it will be competent for this State to grant or surrender Crown lands which are within the boundaries of the area so approved of by the Commonwealth Parliament. If the State omits to voluntarily take this action, section 125 empowers the Commonwealth, for the purpose of accomplishing its object, to acquire territorywithin those boundaries. Thus the Commonwealth is completely protected. When the exact area has been defined by metes and bounds and adopted by the Parliament, the Constitution provides them with all necessary machinery for becoming possessed of the territory within those boundaries.

On the other hand, the State at present is in a most anomalous position. The procedure indicated by the Constitution is for the State to surrender by virtue of section111 all lands which are Crown lands. The Constitution further provides (section111) that, on surrender, such part of the State becomes subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. The State thus is irrevocably divested of proprietorial and territorial rights in respect of lands so surrendered, and the Constitution contemplates that that land must be within boundaries which have been determined by the Parliament to be the territory within which shall be established the Seat of Government.

Assuming that this State surrenders all Crown lands within the proposed territory, as indi cated in the maps accompanying your letter, is itnot competent for the Commonwealth Parliament to decline to adopt this proposed area as Federal territory, for the purposes of the Seat of Government? Or why should not Crown lands in the Yass-Canberia district, but outside the boundaries of Mr. Scrivener’s proposed territory, be surrendered? How can the State Parliament be asked to part with State property as Federal territory when no assurance can be given that it will become part of the Federal territory ? The Commonwealth has expressed a general opinion with regard to the YassCanberra district, but I have no knowledge that they are prepared to declare as Federal territory the precise area suggested by Mr. Scrivener rather than any other area in the district of Yass-Canberra.

For these reasons I am of opinion that the appropriate procedure is for the Parliament of the Commonwealth to first declare, by metes and bounds, the precise locality of the territory within which shall be determined the Seat of Government.

Whilst I venture to say that I have laid down the correct position, let me add (so anxious is the Government of this State to expedite the settlement of the Capital question) that if you are of opinion that the Crown lands of the State should be surrendered before Parliament settles the metes and bounds of the territory, I would ask you to help me by stating whether you propose to ask Parliament to adopt the whole area specified by Mr. Scrivener, or, in fact, what area do you propose to submit to Parliament for approval ? By thus fixing the external boundaries the State can then locate the Crown lands which may be the subject of surrender. If you adopt either of the alternatives above outlined, this Government will be able to make a substantial advance of a practical nature.

I have not entered upon the other matters mentioned in your letter, as they are dependent on the location of the Federal territory, and to deal with matters of this character in detail is scarcely appropriate until the larger question I have raised has been determined.

I shall be glad to be favored with your view at your early convenience.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your most obedient servant, (Sgd.) C. G. Wade.

The Honorable

The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne.

We have not been furnished with the Prime Minister’s reply to that letter. The Commonwealth has been established now for eight and a half years, and it was contemplated by the Constitution, as adopted by the people, that the Federal Parliament and Government should be housed in its own territory within a reasonable time, that’ territory to be situated somewhere in New South Wales, but not within a hundred miles of Sydney. To-day, owing to difficulties placed in the way of a settlement by New South Wales, and perhaps through want of earnestness on the part of successive

Commonwealth Governments, the question is as far from settlement as ever. Last year we passed an Act definitely fixing the site in the Yass-Canberra district. One would naturally suppose that after the exact boundaries had been defined by officers appointed for the purpose, the State of New South Wales, in whose interests and at whose instigation the Yass-Canberra site was chosen, would have seized every opportunity of facilitating our acquirement of the territory and the settlement of the question by this Parliament. Instead of that, Mr. Premier Wade appears to throw every difficulty in the way of a settlement. The Prime Minister’s letter, to which Mr. Wade’s letter was a reply, asked for a surrender of the area defined by the officers within the Yass-Canberra district as a site for the Federal Capital. Instead of showing any eagerness to cede the necessary territory for the site, which was chosen largely to please New South Wales, Mr. Wade puts obstacles in the way. There seems to be a sort of haggling and chaffering as to which authority is to take the next step. Mr. Wade says it is necessary for this Parliament to pass a further Act confirming the previous one, and defining the territory by metes and bounds, before he will proceed an inch further. It is a pity that he cannot be called to order for his tedious repetition of that phrase. In view of these difficulties, and the fact that we are getting well into the session, it. is lamentable that the Government should make no proposal for settling this important question. If Mr. Wade will not grant us the necessary territory in the Yass-Canberra district, let us look out for some other site, but first let us be loyal to the Constitution. The question is of the utmost importance, and has been too long haggled over. A strong Fusion Government has been called into being, and has loudly professed itself powerful enough to take an independent course of action, and settle all these questions without any reliance upon casual support from other quarters. Yet in this case they display a most lamentable weakness. Do the Government propose, in view of Mr. Wade’s letter, to ask this Parliament to take some steps, or will they ask it to insist on the New South Wales Parliament taking action?

Senator GIVENS:

– It is possible for this Parliament to do something. Does the Vice-President of the Executive Council regard Mr. Wade’s statement of the position as correct? If so, do the Government propose to ask this Parliament to take the next step? Provision for a Federal Capital was not placed in the Constitution without good reason. The framers of the Constitution considered it undesirable for the Federal Parliament to be permanently housed in any State capital, and consequently more or less under the dominance of one particular State. They thought it advisable for the Commonwealth Parliament to be housed in an independent capital in its own territory, removed from State influences. This Parliament has been too long housed in Melbourne, and under the dominance of Victorian interests. It would be equally bad for the Federal Parliament to be housed in and under the dominance of Sydney. I, for one, therefore, desire to see this wise provision of the Constitution carried out in its entirety, and the question settled in an earnest way, instead of being haggled over and relegated to the back-ground. I hope that the Vice-President of the Executive Council will bear in mind what I have said, and impress it upon the Government that it is the desire of the Senate to see this important question settled without unnecessary delay.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– There is a matter to which I wished to refer earlier in the day, but which I could not then speak upon. I desire to know from the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether the Government is determined to ignore the feeling of Parliament in regard to the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway ? This matter is of importance - not merely from local considerations, but because of its national bearing. The advisableness of constructing the line was debated in this Chamber on several occasions, and finally an Act was passed, referring to surveyors the duty of exploring the route, and reporting on the possibilities of the country through which it passes, the probable cost of the line, and the desirableness of constructing it. The Government have now received reports concerning the project which, in my opinion, are by no means unfavorable. Indeed, they give supportto many of the arguments which were used by those who favour the construction of the line. A very important member of the Ministry took an active part in another place in the debates on the Survey Bill. At that time, he was not holding the posi- tion of dignity which he now occupies, being merely the representative .of Swan, whereas to-day he is the Treasurer of the Fusion Ministry. Strangely, enough, the man who was professedly the stalwart champion of the project then, speaking of the construction of the line as essential to the fulfilment of the Federal agreement, has, in his Budget speech, made no mention of it. I should like to know whether his fellow Ministers have bound him to silence, and whether the policy of the present Government is the obliteration of all policies and projects previously advocated by those who now compose it. Surely there must be some extraordinary reason for the silence of a mart of the calibre of the Treasurer regarding a matter which he has hitherto spoken of as of extreme importance. If there is no such reason, we must conclude that he, like some others, is of one opinion when a private member, and of another opinion when in power. Parliament authorized the spending of ^20,000 for a survey of the route of the proposed Une. That expenditure was not authorized merely to get rid of the money. If it meant anything, it meant that a survey was to be made to provide reports of which the Government would ultimately make use. But we find now that, not only have they not made use of the reports supplied. to them, but that they apparently have no intention of doing so within the next twelve months. The people of Western Australia hold, on justifiable grounds I think, that it is not likely to become part and parcel nf the Federation until if is connected with the eastern States by a railway, as was intended when the information now before us was asked for. I propose to read n report by Mr. Henry Deane on the survey of the route, in order that the people of Western Australia, generally, may have an idea of what has been done, and what conclusions have been arrived at by the agents of the Federal Government, and thus be able to draw their own conclusions as to the sincerity or otherwise of the Government, and in “particular as to the sincerity or otherwise of Sir John Forrest as a staunch advocate of this project. He is now the Treasurer of a combination which has seen fit to indicate by their action that they have not the remotest intention, for at least twelve months, of taking the slightest note of the work which has been performed by the surveyors. Mr. Henry Deane’s report is dated the 19th July,’ 1909. Ad dressing the Secretary to the Department of Home Affairs, he writes -

Sir,

I have the honour to report for the Honorable the Minister’s information that I have inspected the South Australian portion of the 1 rans-continental Railway Survey.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Does the honorable senator want to get this report into print?

Senator HENDERSON:

– I thought that probably if I read the report the honorable senator would be saved the trouble of reading it for himself. Mr. Deane continues -

I left Melbourne on Monday evening, the 7th June. On Tuesday and Wednesday I went over the plans of the survey with Mr. Moncrieff, Railways Commissioner, formerly EngineerinChief, Mr. Graham Stewart, the present End.neerinChief, and Mr. Furner, the Surveyor in charge of the survey.

On Wednesday evening, in company with Mr. Furner, I embarked on the steamship Australian for Fowler’s Bay. By special arrangements with the Engineer-in-Chief, the steamship-owners had agreed that the steamer should proceed direct to Fowler’s Bay after calling at Streaky Bay and it was anticipated that we should arrive early on Sunday morning, 13th June. Before reaching Streaky Bay, however, the weather, which had been favorable, changed for the worse, and a gale set in. Delay resulted, and it was Monday morning, the 14th, before we landed at Fowler’s Bay. The day was taken up with making final arrangements for the land journey, and a short distance of 7 miles was traversed to Yalata, Station, belonging to Mr, George Murray, with whom the South Australian Government had arranged for the means of conveyance as far as Tarcoola.

The next morning, the 15th, a start was made for the survey line. The party consisted, in addition to Mr. Furner and myself, of Mr. Murray, -an assistant of his, a survey foreman, and a camp cook. Mr. Murray drove a buggy and four, taking Mr. Furner and myself. His assistant drove a second conveyance, carrying the camp equipment and provisions required for this portion of the trip, together with the two men. From Yalata to Colona, a distance of 28’ miles, the Eucla-road was followed, the direction being about north-west. From this point our track led to the north. The survey line is struck at a .point at the eastern end of the Nullarbor Plain, 3 or 4 miles to the south. of Ooldea Well. This point was reached on the 17th June. Here the camels were met- with which were to take us eastward through the sand hills. The distance from Fowler’s Bay to the line near Ooldea is 111 miles.

The next morning, Friday, the18th, I drove a distance of about 4 miles to Ooldea Well, which is 28 feet deep, and contains a good supply of water. This point is in the Sand Hills, near their southern limit. After returning to the. camp, Mr. Murray and his assistantleft with the horses and the second conveyance, leaving me the buggy for the journey through the Sand Hills to Tarcoola.

The arrangements for travelling to Tarcoola were as follows : -100-gallon tanks had been sent out and distributed at intervals of about 20 miles between Ooldea and Tarcoola, the proximity of the rock catchments at Wynbring and Kychering being, however, omitted, as it was anticipated there would be plenty of water there. There were seventeen camels in all - -four to pull the buggy, two riding camels, nine pack camels, and two spare camels.’ A driver was provided for the buggy, and two native blacks looked after the camels generally.

It will be seen from this report that the Government are in possession of the most minute detail as to the work entered upon, and completed by the surveyors. Another paragraph of the report states -

A start was made on the 18th, at 10.35 a.m., and the centre line of railway was followed. There was a narrow clearing, and the stumps were often troublesome. AH along the route good camel feed was available, and as we carried sufficient water for drinking and camp purposes it was immaterial at what spots at night the camps were fixed. Every evening a stop was made, tents were put up, and the camels turned out. An early start was made on the following morning. Wyndbring Rock was reached on the23rd evening, Kychering on the 25th, and Tarcoola on Saturday, 26th. The distance from Ooldea to Tarcoola is 173 miles, and the time taken up nine days, which was good travelling.

There is still another paragraph to which I must direct attention. It reads -

With regard to the survey, I propose to treat with this in more detail in a later report, but I may. say that my observations show that the line, as a whole, has been well selected and that, although when construction is undertaken it may prove desirable to make here and there some modifications in the location, it dors not appear as if there would be any deviation of great importance, and the work may therefore be considered very satisfactory.

All this goes to show that the whole tenor of the report is favorable to the project for which this survey was sanctioned. It is rather strange, therefore, that in the Budget noreference should have been made to the further prosecution of this great national undertaking.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.29 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 August 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19090813_senate_3_51/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate13 August 1909

BUDGET

Senator HENDERSON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator HENDERSON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Findley:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator HENDERSON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Henderson:

HIGH COMMISSIONER

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

QUESTION

LOAN POLICY

Senator GIVENS:QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator MILLEN:

BUDGET

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir” ROBERT BEST:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

AUDIT BILL

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Premiers’ Conference

Senator MILLEN:New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator Givens:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Givens:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Clemons:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator Dobson:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Stewart:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Dobson:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gray:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gray:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gray:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gray:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gray:

Senate
13 August 1909

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland